OfficeJet G55 and OfficeJet 5610 - Integrated print heads. Both are old, but neither are two decades old. And the G55, costing >£400 was not cheap either.
2318 posts • joined 15 Jun 2007
OfficeJet G55 and OfficeJet 5610 - Integrated print heads. Both are old, but neither are two decades old. And the G55, costing >£400 was not cheap either.
All of the Officejets I have access to use integrated print heads with the cartridge. As does a recent Photosmart that I've used. I'm only really using HP SOHO printers, and I guess mine are quite old, so it may be that the higher or more recent model printers don't use integrated print heads.
I think the answer to your question with regard to replaceable print heads revolve around the fact that the product life-cycle is pretty rapid. Once a model is no longer sold, the parts are no longer manufactured. As a result, there are only a finite number of spares around, and if the company have done their R&D correctly, they probably won't keep more parts than they will need for warranty re-manufacture.
Once the product is out of warranty, chances are the parts are in very limited supply, and the marketing model is such that most people won't go to the bother of stripping a printer down to replace the print head, but will just buy a new printer.
There are two different methods of providing ink, typified by HP on the one hand, and the older Epson printers on the other.
HP, along with Canon and also Lexmark before they left the market provide you with a cartridge which includes the print head.Every time you change the cartridge, you also change the print head. This makes the cartridges much more complex (and expensive), but at least should maintain print quality over the lifetime of the printer.
Epson and Brother cartridges are buckets of ink, and if you go back to the late '90s, that's literally all they were. Plastic boxes filled ink, sometimes with foam to control the ink, together with the required holes to let the ink out. More recently, they've had a small amount of electronics in them, supposedly to allow the cartridge to monitor how much ink is left, but actually IMHO to try to make sure that you only use genuine cartridges.
I currently have an Epson R1800 photo printer that takes a T054X cartridges. I have cartridges from other Epson printers. I've recently found that the physical cartridge from another printer designated T06XX (i.e. the next generation of printer) will fit in the R1800, but the electronics prevent the cartridge from being recognised properly. This strikes me as being a blatant artificial control of the post sale ink market.
I kept a Stylus 1160, and before that a Stylus 880 (both models without electronics in the cartridge) going for a many years as my always-on network attached printers, because the ink was (comparatively) just so cheap. The 880 eventually had some print nozzles permanently blocked regardless of how I cleaned it, and the 1160 developed a power supply problem. That's when I picked up the R1800, hoping it to be similar. Unfortunately not.
So it sounds as if Epson are going to go back to their old method of making the printer everything, and the cartridges/ink tanks nothing other than reservoirs for the ink. Great. Just don't push the printer price up too high for artificial reasons.
Maybe El Reg should keep a running downtime count for the Government use of MS Office Online, and use the running total every time they have to carry a story like this!
Population maintenance in developed countries is a problem, especially in the higher demographics. Many high achievers do not procreate sufficiently, possibly leading to a Darwinian decline in the aggregated capability of the population as a whole. Add to this the fact that the right to a found a family is article 16 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereas slobbing out in front of the telly is not listed.
And, <contentious_statement>I think that digging wells for villages in Africa, to increase health and thus reproductive viability of the people there will probably have a greater effect on world population than taking time of to have your 2.4 kids.</contentious_statement>
Be careful what examples you use!
Footnote: For the sake of my down-vote count, I completely believe that keeping people alive in a sustainable manner is better than allowing them to die, however...
There was a mixed bag when it came to software modems. I actually found that I could get mwave modems working relatively well in Thinkpads around the same time as you had trouble. Admittedly at the time, Redhat 7 and 8 (not RHEL) did not have the mwave driver in their repositories, but it was available, and built relatively easily on mainstream Linux distros, and worked quite well.
I did have an HP Riptide sound/modem card combination card that was more troublesome, and I completely gave up on that, both for sound and modem.
I've not tried to get integrated modems in laptops working recently. It's all a bit pointless since 3G dongles and public/guest WiFi are so common.
But rather than bitch and whine now about something that cannot be altered, because time as we know it cannot be reversed, the people wanting to change it should bite the bullet, and actually work to ensure that the correct mix of people are entering professions, whatever they are, today for the next 5/10/20 years, depending on the type of role and level.
Like many things, to achieve a particular goal, it is always necessary to make adequate preparations.
Now encourage a diverse set of people to start at the bottom, and then wait 5/10/20 years for them to gain the correct qualifications and experience, and hope they stay the course.
I really get fed up when activists of all sorts don't take the training/experience lead time into account when considering diversity. They absolutely need to look at the bottom of the stack, and be prepared to wait sufficient time for people to mature, rather than assuming it can be fixed just using quotas.
Actually, Currys were just fulfilling their legal obligations. When buying TV receiving equipment, by law they have to gather and pass on identity information to the TV Licensing authority.
If you pay by card, they will normally just pass enough information from that so that identity can be obtained from the bank. Alternatively, if you use a store loyalty card, that will suffice too.
I once bought a TV aerial amplifier from Tesco, wanting to pay cash, and having just lost my keyring clubcard. They refused to sell it to me without me providing my name and address. They did not even relent when I pointed out that it was not technically capable of receiving a TV signal, and that where it was going was not my house (I was getting it for my parents).
I know for a fact that they use Tesco clubcard information, because our card has a typo in the name on the card that we've never corrected. And after buying a TV, we got a nasty-o-gram from the license enforcers claiming that they could not identify a valid TV license under the name and address that the clubcard was registered to. I did nothing, waiting to see whether someone would actually spot that garthercole and gathercole actually only differed by one letter, and at some point they must have, because there was never any follow-up. It's a bit of a shame. I would have loved to have seen that go to court to watch it be thrown out.
What really annoyed me was when another shop asked me for the same information for exactly that purpose when I bought a simple DVD player! That really took the piss.
I believe I've heard that deliberately giving false information when buying TV receiving equipment in the UK can be deemed as fraud.
Edit: Hmm. Others beat me to this while I was typing it up. Must remember to be less verbose.
If you thing that all that is required to create an HPC is to bolt many utility systems together, the you really don't understand the problem. There is a diminishing return as you spread some workloads across more and more cores, even though this is what they are forced to do nowadays because they've pushed single core performance pretty much to their economic limits.
I was following the porting of the UM weather model onto the Power 7 processor in p7 775 systems, and I can say without any hesitation that there was a turning point where adding more processors made the model run slower, and the drop in performance was very rapid.
Understanding why this is the case can be a challenge, and one that cannot be generalised or codified such that it can be addressed by current software development tools. There may become a time when this is possible, but the cost of doing this has not been justified, and may never be worth the effort. It may be that it will never be worth the man-effort to do it, so we may have to hope that initiatives such as cognitive computing are able to deliver.
There's been a problem with computing for the last five decades or so. The rate of performance increase has been such that software engineering has never needed to keep up. In fact, the creation of software has been allowed to become spectacularly lazy in the assumption that the machines will just be fast enough to cope with inefficient software. This can be seen in the stupid memory footprint and significantly poor performance of much of the desktop tools that are used today.
The only places where the efficient running of code has been important is in embedded controllers, and ... HPC. So maybe rather than producing even more software engineering, software houses should go back to more simple engineering techniques, more like HPC than vice-versa.
Your extension of the car analogy is interesting. It's very strange that it needed a serious push from regulation before much of this increase in engineering effort was justified. And with the increased engineering comes the cost of the magic monks in blue overalls is getting higher per visit, such that it won't be long before it is cheaper to scrap a vehicle than to repair it relatively early in it's life. But in spite of this increased engineering, there's still justification for Bugatti Vayrons and F1 cars, and the skilled drivers to get the absolute best out of them. Just as there will be a requirement for real HPC systems, with manually tweaked code.
BTW, there is a whole sector of commodity HPC systems, bought in fixed configurations, with canned application development tool-sets the like of which, ironically, are used by F1 teams! They're just not the headline systems that are in the news, the top 10% as you put it.
Unfortunately, there is relatively little commonality between HPC systems from different vendors, and as with most large problems, it's the interconnect between the individual system images in the clusters that is most important, and different vendors quite jealously guard their specific implementation to maximise the value of their investment.
Unlike general purpose servers, there are a lot of tricks that go into HPC servers to make them as fast as they can be. Beside the interconnect, there's different ways of packaging multiple processors in as smaller power and space footprint as possible, and once you start putting so many processors into single system images, especially if they are heterogeneous processors (think hybrid or CPU/GPU processors), the way that the memory is laid out and accessed becomes very important. All of this can affect the way that the code has to be written. This is even though there are relatively efficient abstraction layers such as MPI, OpenMP and MPIch
This means that in order to get the absolute maximum utilisation, there is a long period of tuning when porting code from one to another, For example, the installation of the Cray XC40s that are currently replacing the IBM P7 775s at UKMO is a project that is running for over a year, from purchasing decision to final switchover, and much of that is taken up with the porting and resultant checking of the models between the systems.
I suppose that normal commercial systems vs. HPC systems is a bit like the difference between a Ford Transit and a Formula 1 car. You definitely want to invest in making the F1 car as fast as possible.
Any programme that will result in a consistent, efficient programming model that abstracts the system specifics to allow increased portability of code would be very welcome by pretty much everybody in the field.
Quotes from the T's&C's
"...to us and the Event Provider(s) ..."
"...actions inside and outside the venue..."
"...regardless of whether before, during or after play or performance..."
"...for any purpose ... any medium or context now known or hereafter developed"
"...without further authorization..."
OK. Reading this completely literally, this means that you've given the organisers and Police a blanket authorisation to record you for ever, and use that data for whatever they want, and this covers any image data that they already held before the event as well.
Anybody else a little bit worried by this? I would hope that it is so broad that it could be challenged, but unless it is deemed unfair by a court, it could have long-reaching effects on the attendees future rights.
My goodness. Two pints by volume of sweets for 50p. I'm not sure sweets have been that cheep since decimalization. Is Cameron old enough to remember decimalization? Probably not, he was only 4 and a half at the time.
Oh. You meant 4 ounces. That would be a quarter, not a quart! About 113g.
As the bill payer in my household, I'm waiting for the invite to turn the block on, and have been for a while.
I've not seen it, and I can still get to porn if I want, so I must assume that it's not in place.
I was always sceptical about this process. I suppose it's possible that one of the other members of the household may have seen and accepted it, but it was supposed to be such that only the person whose name the account was in is able to complete the form.
Does anybody on Orange/EE as an ISP have experience of how it was supposed to work?
...that the Internet is trans-national, and as much as he would like to, he can't penalise a company outside of the UK.
All he can do is to try to get the UK ISPs to block access to offending sites, but as we've seen from TPB, that's like playing whack-a-mole.
I can sympathise with trying to keep certain content away from vulnerable people, but that doesn't mean that I can see a way of doing it without breaking the Internet!
No. How many times do we have to point this out.
ARM design the ISA and the cores for the chips, and then licenses these out to the actual chip makers.
If ARM actually made all the processors, they would be one of the biggest companies in the semiconductor manufacturing sector.
After all, you have to provide light in the first place. Just make it infra-red, and it will cook the pork much more efficiently without turning it into micro lasers.
The lesson that they've (whoever is suggesting such things) really not learned is that "de-identified patient level data" is not de-identified enough.
They way they look at it is that once it is de-identified, that it's not usable to track individuals. Until they realise that it's still possible to tie the data to an individual by synthesis with other data sources, we will get this happening over and over again.
If I put this story together with others that have been in the news, this is someone in government trying to more accurately estimate how much missed appointments cost the NHS, in order to try to work out a policy to minimise the 'loss'. I'm not really fussed about this type of exercise, except to point out that it's a futile operation, because the results would be meaningless.
There's some naieve politicians who believe that a missed appointment is wasted time, and thus money. In reality, it's not, because of the way that pretty much all NHS appointment systems take missed appointments into account by over-booking the system. If you're unlucky enough to be in the system on a day when people don't miss their appointments, especially if you've got one late in the session, then you'll find that your appointment time is wildly optimistic, and you end up being seen hours later than your due time as the surgery or clinic overruns it's opening hours to see all of the patients that have been booked in. It's no wonder that many GPs and specialists complain about over-work.
Unfortunately, this exercise is unlikely to increase capacity, but may ultimately be used to generate revenue through 'missed appointment' fees if the bean-counters believe that the value generated from these fees would exceed the cost of administering and collecting them.
The sooner the politicians and the civil servants that advise them are given some real training in Data Protection and IT in general, the better IMHO.
It's all relative, and electronic watches can have all of these features without becoming complex. They're commodity items now. Standard quartz movement plus one chip, a display and a battery in a case. Not complex in this day and age. Most mechanical watches are far more complex than any with a quartz movement, and designer analogue watches, while beautiful to look at, are often so stylized to be deliberately complex, for no real benefit in function.
I wonder how many of the readers here have Breitling, Tag Heuer, Rolex or other luxury or artisan watches that make my 12 year old £40 Sekonda or my £25 Zeon tech backup look positively ordinary!
I said relatively.
It's a dual digital/analogue watch, so the 'extras' are not so special for a digital watch. It looks like an analogue watch with a simple digital display (6 characters plus a couple of indicators) set as the face.
Complex is an Apple Watch or an Android, or something with lots of dials, big obtrusive buttons, more than two timezones or multiple timers/alarms, or pulse/blood pressure monitors.
Yours is a very simple one. Only to be more simple if it doesn't even have a sweep second hand.
This question seems seriously out of character for you, Jake.
Normally, you come across as a very conservative, relatively backward-looking person, so as a result, it's quite a surprise to read it, unless you've either dropped out to the extent of living by the sun, or have a pocket watch!
Even though I carry my phone around with me, having a watch (a relatively simple one, time, date, chronograph, alarm and dual time zones) allows me to read the time with a relatively simple and consistent twist of the wrist, any time, day or night (I very rarely take my watch off except to make sure I don't scratch the wife when, oh - you know. This means that it's not been taken off for a while!)
If I had to rely on other devices around me, I would have to first of all remember where the closest clock is where I happen to be or get my phone out of it's belt holster and unlock it, and then hope that the home screen is showing, and has the correct time, as it comes on showing the time that it was locked, and then updates about a second later. I run with the status bars hidden on my computer screen (It's only 64 pixels of vertical space, but I want to use it for content), so I don't even see that unless I move the mouse.
And on top of that, I've been wearing a watch since I was about 10, so it's perfectly natural to me, and it would take some time to adapt to not wearing one.
Surely, you mean 'cheaper' one.
Even that's not cheap.
I know about that, but it was very little about "web sites" (as stated in the original article), and more about gopher, archie and email, often down to individual's email addresses.
At the time, my major go-to was one of the sunsite ftp and gopher mirrors. I would say that what is now called the Internet started with Altavista, Excite, Infoseek et. al.
There was only a very short period of time (18 months or so) between the launch of NCSA/Mosaic (1993 on UNIX and Amiga), and thus the web proper not the Internet, and the founding of the Altavista search engine (1995). And during this time, public use of the Internet was almost non-existent, and I very much doubt other services were popular enough to merit a generally available book. And DNS operated, so you often had a starting point for looking for something.
Windows did not get Spyglass Mosaic until 1995.
So where is the gap?
If you are talking before the use of HTML, then there were lists of Archie and Gopher sites, but they were really just paper copies of the services own indexes.
I'm interested in which side of the pond you are, and whether you are truly self employed.
In the UK, and you really are self employed, or a 'sole trader', then you won't have filed a company tax return, as you don't run a company. You will have filed a personal tax form which includes justifiable expenses. I don't know about the US or other countries.
If you run your own limited company, although lots of financial institutions like to treat you as if you are, you're not actually self-employed according to HMRC. You are actually employed by a company that you own. Not the same thing at all, especially when it comes to liability for tax.
For the UK, the rules are outlined here.
The taxes that companies pay are taxes on profits and certain types of transaction, and profits stay in the company, they're not paid out as salary, wages or justifiable expenses, at least not in the year that they're declared. A company may have revenue measured in millions, but may end up paying no corporation tax because all those millions are paid out in wages, materials, and other business costs.
Indeed, many small companies pay pretty much no corporation tax, as their purpose for trading is to provide the owners a living, so they're arranged that all profit that comes in over non-wage costs gets paid out with the appropriate level of tax. The purpose of running it as a limited company is to provide isolation between the business and the individual, as most people do not want to lose their house if some financial problem hits their company.
What financially savvy companies try to do is to make sure that the operating profit gets extracted from the company to the owners or shareholders with as little tax due as possible. The borderline between what's allowed and not is like a battlefield, with the front lines moving all the time. And the accountants and Revenue are the generals that get to control the battle!
Sky control it for their satellite service by making all of the boxes require a card, and then charge you ~£11 per month on top of your basic subscripting per additional STB.
You also have the problem of long runs of pretty fussy co-ax cable to the satellite dish (you can't just split it because of the signal polarisation), and the requirement to have a quad- or octo- LNB.
So no. They've not controlled it. They've made it a revenue earning opportunity, like they always do.
It all comes down to money. During the switch to Digital Terrestrial, TV consumers were being effectively told that they had to spend money in order to continue watching TV. This was never popular, but it was convenient that it coincided with adoption of flat-panel TVs that softened the blow by giving consumers larger screens and space in their homes back as part of the 'deal'.
It would have been possible to publish requirements that mandated more functional and thus more expensive devices, but if the minimum cost STB device was £70-100 rather than the £20-30 (or even cheaper for the supermarket specials) that it was, imagine what the backlash would have been.
I remember at the time I ended up buying freeview STBs for 8 TVs in the house (it's a big house with TVs in most of the bedrooms) and ended up paying a couple of hundred quid for the privilege. I would not have been happy if it had cost me £500 instead, just for the privilege of being able to use the TVs I already owned.
Of course, I don't think that any of the first set of adapters I bought are still functional (catastrophic capacitor breakdown took most of them out - with the exception of the very oldest - about 12 years old, which was still working a few months ago)
These old adapters have mainly now been replaced, along with the TVs they used to drive with TVs that receive freeview anyway. If I had to go through the whole exercise for 7 TVs (one bedroom is no longer being used as a bedroom), I would be pretty unhappy.
I'm getting pretty fed up of everybody, from the technology companies through government and down to people I know who seem to assume that everybody will be replacing tech on a 3 year cycle. It just does not fit in to many, many peoples lifestyles to replace all their tech over such a short time span! As a result, road-maps for at least the next 10 years are required to allow the public to decide whether to spend little and often or a lot, but less frequently.
Because Microsoft don't make them for Linux!
From other things, well, maybe.
In my experience, apart from some kernel stubs for exporting a minimal API to the adapter, most of the code to drive the adapters is in the X Server modules, and thus run in user-space, not kernel space. You're mostly isolated by KMS in kernels from about 2.8.
I was assuming that the type of problem I was addressing was one where someone ran a normal 'apply some security fixes' upgrade, which as a result broke support for the adapter they had. With most distro's, this will not introduce a new kernel, and regressing to a driver in the same version will most likely work.
But you are right. I should have said "Another possible solution, assuming that the interfaces haven't changed.....".
I was mostly thinking about distro's like Ubuntu and Fedora. All bets are off if you do a dist-upgrade. I have encountered that sort of problem with a Ubuntu 10.02 to 12.02 upgrade on a machine with an embedded Nvidia 7100 display adapter (I don't need significant 3-D capability on this system), where I got absolutely no graphical display (text mode only) at all until I worked out what had happened. And then I moved the disk into a new system with an 8800, and things got quite crazy again for a short while until I realised that I had frozen the Nvidia packages to get the 7100 working! And don't mention cheap ATI 9250 cards! I really want to forget those completely.
I'm really not looking forward to Mir and Wayland, because I mostly understand how this works with X11. More to learn and more to get wrong, and probably whole generations of older graphics cards that will not work at all, no matter what you do.
Ubuntu is sometimes it's own worst enemy.
It's actually very good at telling you that there are proprietary binary drivers available for your video card, and telling you what you need to do to enable the non-free repository and switching to the driver.
Unfortunately, it's not very good at telling you that the new binary driver you've just installed as part of the update has dropped support for your graphics card. The result, you put the update on, reboot the system, and hey presto, you're back in un-accelerated 640x480 16 colour world, or if you're very lucky 800x600 VESA mode, whichever is the lowest common denominator. But you should get some sign of the screen working, even if it's just text-mode.
The solution is to remove the nvidia or ATI fglx drivers, and install either the nv or nouveau driver for nvidia cards or the radeon driver for ATI cards. Nouveau and radion both provide some 3D function, although it's likely to not be as good as the binary driver (but still perfectly adequate for 2D work and even things like Google Earth).
Another solution is to work out which the last binary driver supported your card, and back-level the package to that, or even add the repository for the earlier release and back level, and then freeze those packages. But this later option can sometimes lead to strange booting effects, especially if the KMS support for the cards has changed.
BTW, a fresh install would probably just work.
But what are you counting as an obscure peripheral?
I've had problems with a Pinnacle PCI video capture card, but to be fair, there was no post XP drivers for that anyway.
And a slide scanner. Ditto, no XP drivers, and Linux support patchy, but I can run XP in VirtualBox to access it over USB.
I did also have some problems with a broadcom wireless chipset from around 2001, but it would not work with WPA in XP, even using the available Windows drivers.
But graphic cards? The open source nvidia and ati drivers work well (at least for 2D) with most old hardware, in fact much better than the legacy Windows ones once the proprietary windows ones have dropped all support. And the open source 3D support is getting better all the time, and for reasonably current hardware the binary non-free drivers actually work very well. There was some criticism of multi-head support, but it does work, although maybe not as easily as Windows, and again, it's getting better all the time.
Similarly sound, network, wireless, USB devices. I have far more problems with Windows drivers rebuilding older machines than I do for Linux.
Generally for older hardware, if someone wrote a Linux driver for it at some time in the past, it's still there and probably still in the repositories and the module stubs are still in the kernel, unlike Windows, where the old drivers more often than not will not work at all.
One word of caution for people with older Celeron, some Atom and some Mobile Pentium processors (like the Banias Pentium M that was put in many laptops in the early noughties) that either do not support PAE (Pentium Address Extension) or report it wrongly. Modern Linux distro's often do not come with kernels that support these systems. It is sometimes possible to work around this, but generally it's not worth the effort.
IBM, having dropped the IH systems, and having sold off the iDataplex and NextScale systems, and there being no obvious successor to BlueGene/Q appear to have lost interest in HPC.
I know that there are supposed Power 9 hybrid systems in the pipeline for Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore in 2017, but at this time, these both look like vapour-ware, there being only limited details of either the Power9 processor or the Volta GPU. As we found out with Blue Waters, such projects don't always deliver.
Both the Top500 and the article are incorrect about IBM's market share. It's actually less than stated, as the ECMWF P7 775s at 108 and 109 are no longer there (and were actually turned off for the last time something like a year ago), and before the November list, the UKMO systems at 140 and 169 will also be decommissioned. This will drop IBM down the list still further, with no obvious real big systems in the pipeline for the next year or more to push them up the list!
For me, it will be a sad day when the UKMO P7 775 systems are turned off, because it also means that I will be looking for a new assignment.
I don't think IT is as lucrative as IT (used to be) any more. Blame commoditisation, which incidentally also feeds security issues. Obscurity is not a substitute for security, but it does help!
Come on. How simple are you?
If Trevor were to write about this stuff, two things would happen.
1. He'd get sued for breach of contract (the NDA is a contract).
2. He's get excluded from this sort of information in the future.
In fact, he's probably on shaky ground even admitting that he's subject to an NDA, if they're worded like any of the ones I've been subject to in the past.
So if he did, he would be shooting himself in the feet, both of them.
"Flash was first..."
First, unless you count RealPlayer, or possibly xanim.
This does not sound too dissimilar to the layer 2 heuristic bridges that I was using 20 years ago to bridge geographically separated networks over slower WAN technologies with some degree of optimisation. Of course the scope is different, but the concepts look very much the same.
Yes, of course the picture is still important, but if it was just the picture and manual appraisal, they would probably be less strict about the expression, background, glasses etc, as the officers would probably prefer to have pictures that resembled you as you normally look, much as they used to do before biometric passports came alone.
It's true, I don't travel that much. Do the immigration officers ask you to take off hats, glasses and comb back your hair so that they can make an accurate appraisal of whether you resemble the picture? If not, then the picture is of limited use.
But conversely, if you travel to a country that does have the equipment, the biometric data will probably be read off the passport and recorded in a database that LEOs have access to, so that if you are picked up dead, or infringing the law, they can make a more positive identification of you. Biometric data is less than perfect, but the basic map of the face can give useful information, and it is much more accurate if the face is not obstructed and in the same orientation as the picture.
BTW. If your wife's passport is a non-biometric one (and I'm making a big assumption that it's a UK passport), it is probably close to needing to be renewed.
The reason for the strict instructions is not to generate a picture from which a person can identify you, it's so that the computer generated hash of the salient features of your face can be encoded into the biometric data stored on the passport (things like the ratio of the gap between the eyes and the length of the nose).
Glasses, the direction you're looking, tilting the head, obstructive hair, and even the change in shape of the muscles in the face if smiling and the background can all make a significant difference to the hash.
And again, it's not about people looking at the photo, it's about you being positively identified by machine. It's much more difficult to fool a machine (with the right data) than it is a person.
(Supreme Headquarters Alien Defence Organisation)
They used to have clean up missions (1.05 - Conflict)
And I think Thunderbird Three was recently seen cleaning up space junk!
... But that was to Button Moon, in the Blanket Sky!
I suppose that the theme was composed by an ex. Dr Who, and Trillian from HHGTTG TV show (and also the voice of Grandma in 2015 Thunderbirds). Maybe that gives it some authenticity!
Surely the Clangers would be the people(?) to call.
Their music boat with Tiny or Small piloting would be just the ticket.
The Space Chicken might be useful too for the smaller items.
You've just outlined pretty much all of the consumer benefits (you missed out remote meter readings).
You've not seen what the downsides are, of remote control of your power system, of remote hacking, which may allow other people to determine whether the house is empty, and even turn off your power if the meter is one that does this. If it's not one of those, it will need replacing again before the program is complete.
Also, from what I've read, you've also pretty much locked yourself into a single supplier, because they use different and incompatible metering technology. If you wanted to change to a supplier that used a different meter technology, then you may have to pay an additional meter installation charge.
You could have achieved much of the same benefit for electricity (sans remote meter reading) with one of any number of clamp-on external measurement systems (OK, they're less accurate, but still can demonstrate power use in real time) without any of the downsides.
I listened to the Radio 4 Today program this morning, and Roger Witcombe, chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (a government institution), who was a guest on the discussion about energy companies and overcharging, mentioned smart meters as an aid to choosing supplier, but in such an apologetic tone of voice that it seemed to me that he was echoing an official line while not really being supportive of the devices himself!
If you're also using your service provider's backup solution, unless you've got your backups stored to physical media outside of your service provider, even if they have separate tape copies, the physical media probably belongs to your service provider or upstream provider, and will be a tangible asset (and thus liable to lien).
This will be true unless you've got an ironclad contract that states the media reverts to your ownership in the case of your service provider entering insolvency, If you don't, you'll probably also lose access to your physical backups as well, and possibly any archival copies kept for regulatory compliance.
I'm sorry. You've done it now. I can't resist.....
"... Late, as in the late Dent, Arther Dent. It's a sort of threat, you see..."
Remember that Pluto is in it's own orbit, and moving quite fast (4.67 Km/s), so late as in crossing Pluto's orbit after it has passed by. 20 seconds would have increased the closest distance, but probably not by much compared to the 7,750 miles distance.
But the answer is in the quoted article from NASA. "...[JHAPL] says without the adjustment, New Horizons would have arrived 20 seconds late and 114 miles (184 kilometers) off-target from the spot where it will measure the properties of Pluto’s atmosphere. Those measurements depend on radio signals being sent from Earth to New Horizons at precise times as the spacecraft flies through the shadows of Pluto and Pluto’s largest moon, Charon."
So yes, late.
I'm not going to quibble. I appreciate all of your points, and I sympathise with the people who are caught in this trap.
I was just objecting to the use of the term "tax".
I would actually rather prefer to have a more realistic balance between living costs and wages such that things like housing benefit and other subsidised housing (yes, I'm including council houses and housing associations) were only needed by a much smaller number of really needy households, rather than those who just can't afford to live where they do, whatever the reason why.
For what it's worth, and for reasons beyond most of these people's control, they are forced to rely on the state and it's devolved institutions for support far more than is healthy for the nation's finances. I wonder if enforcing the living wage and reducing benefit paid, and then carefully change the tax and/or NI on companies by an appropriate amount to shift the money away from benefits and on to a more income and tax basis would be a reasonable first step? Possibly Tim Worstal cold crunch the numbers and comment?
I appreciate what you are saying about buy-to-let, but the right-to-buy, which is what caused the public housing to be sold off was intended to benefit the original purchaser. Some of them will have bought and then sold, making significant profit for the people taking advantage of the right, but when they sold, it would be at the market rate. The b-t-l landlords would have paid market rates, and the only benefit thy has was that the houses were available at all. But the house transferred to private when the original purchasers bought, not when they were sold on.
What has helped the b-t-l purchasers most is the mortgage guarantee and incentive packages that were introduced to try to support the first time buyer market, and thus the whole of the housing ladder. These were not sufficiently guarded to prevent b-t-l landlords from using the schemes. Other than that, it's the relentless rise of house prices that allows a landlord to borrow against their existing portfolio to fund purchases, and then rely on the price rises to provide them a capital gain so they can either borrow more, or sell in the future and make a profit far higher than commercial interest rates.
There's lots wrong with the economy, much more than the loss of public housing.
Gawd. I'm going senile. Read Queue as Cue!
Can we have a bit more than 10 minutes as an editing period, please?
I still run a lot of stuff over X both at home and at work (obviously through SSH X forwarding).
My primary go-to system is a Thinkpad T43, 2.0GHz Dothan Mobile Pentium with 2GB memory running Ubuntu Trusty Tahr and Gnome-flashback. It runs very well as an X server connected to other systems, both more and less powerful.
What kills X is the appalling way that some applications, particularly Java ones, are implemented. Too many client applications render the screen locally, doing thing like all of the font handling locally, and then sending the rendered screen to the server.
Now I know that this is the only way that a client application can guarantee that certain fonts are available, and rendered as they expect, but it's seriously ugly in use, and it breaks the ethos of X11, where very efficient network primitive operations are sent across the network rather than the screen bitmaps.
Certain things, like video, are clearly not suited to X, but properly written X applications can be exceptionally snappy.
I think back over 20 years to running IBM X-Station 130s in a live operation (actually the IBM UK AIX Support Centre) from RS/6000 320H servers, about 10 X-Stations per server, over 16Mb/s Token Ring, and it was not X that slowed things down, it was the processing power and memory on the servers running the clients (isn't the X computing model confusing sometimes!). At the time, this was a very realistic proposition, and I'm sure that the increase in processing power and network speed could make thin-clients technically feasible again, but there is no cost benefit any more.
With the rising popularity of delivering apps. through HTML, I can see future thin clients being <£100 android tablets with keyboards (and maybe mice), possibly built into desks rather than sitting on them!
A stick like this could be useful in a scenario like this, but once you take into account the cost of whatever you are displaying it on, and the keyboard and mouse, the tablet option I described above looks much more attractive. The real benefit of these systems would be in a household that does not want to have a desktop PC, but may occasionally want more than can be done on a tablet.
I have a first generation Acer Aspire One (1.6GHz Atom N270, 1GB RAM and 8GB flash) which sounds like it's similar spec, and I have Trusty Tahr on it, and I still use it for basic web browsing, and playing some media.
I use gnome-flashback, partly because I prefer the interface, and partly because Unity is painful with slow graphics and only 600 vertical pixels. The other drawback is the SSD is seriously slow, possibly because it does not support TRIM.
The biggest problem is keeping enough of the filesystem free during updates. The update tool leaves a trail of downloaded deb files after they've been installed, and never cleans up old kernels.
If I did not make serious effort to clean up after every update, it would have run out of space ages ago. I hope that the version installed on this stick has been tweaked to do some of this automatically.
fwiw, ubuntu-tweak and computer-janitor are seriously useful for keeping this cruft down.