Re: When I first saw a fridge freezer
The company name has priority, dating from 1948.
777 posts • joined 27 Dec 2008
The company name has priority, dating from 1948.
Quite possibly the latter. With HT the two logical cores are not equal - you have the lead core and the second essentially picks up the slack when the first is stalled so runs for only a small miniority of the time. If the scheduler is not aware of the distinction a process can get sqeezed by consitently being scheduled on the "reserve" core. Parodoxically this is more likely to causes issues systems that are otherwise underutilised - on a system with a lot of load on it processed get put on and pulled off cores frequently enough that everything evens itself out over not too long at all.
HT does not add additional cores, it simply enables a core that is stalled on one task to get on with another while the stall clears. In that sense the entire core is contended. It isn't a clear win but it is to misunderstand the basic principal to complain in essence that a single core doesn't have two FPUs.
And Sun was OK with Google copying the API's. Oracle is hardly in the right for coming along afterward and changing things. This is reminiscent of the company that bought the JPEG patent and tried to bill the world.
I think you mean the GIF patent. JPEG has never been encumbered.
It would be better if they insisted that plugs and sockets were correctly physically fitted and designed to last. Lost 2 laptops due to the pathetic connector falling off the mother board taking half its tracks with it. My nice shiny new mobile phones charger connector (USB) already doesnt change most of the time because the cable is already knackered - after about 10 times of use! My old Nokias still work, still charge with a very simple connector.
The Micro USB standard was expressly designed so that the (cheap) cable would fail before the socket on the (expensive) devices does so this is actually by design. On the other hand, how long the lead lasts seems very much in the hands of the user. I'm now on the third charging cable in my desk at work in the last two years - I've used them all at least every other day without issue. The two replacements that were needed were on the odd occasion they were lent to a colleague. And yes, it was the same colleague in both instances...
Crikey! They saw you coming didn't they. 200 squids and they didn't even change an O-ring and pressure test it (that's all that seal is, seriously).
That isn't the issue here, the issue with resealing is that it needs to be done in a vacuum chamber: it is the pressure difference inside and out that restores the waterproofing. Personally I wouldn't trust a "service" from someone not willing to vouch for the seal afterwards - it isn't difficult but needs the equipment, and if they cut corners there what else have they done.
Not that a watch service should cost anywhere near £200, or need doing anything like annually.
That has *nothing* to do with GPS, a technology that wasn't commercially available until about 2000. I know its hard to remember a time when we didn't have GPS everywhere (even in our pockets) but this tech was non-existent for commercial purposes until the year this patent was published.
Your dates are well off there. I remember seeing GPS units in Maplin when doing my A levels (95-97), they caught my eye not because they were new at that point but because of how cheap they had become, from memory down to around the £100 mark instead of five or six times that.
Sure they weren't linked to large scale mapping in an integrated unit (at best you'd have a map of motorways and major A roads, enough to navigate to the first half of a post code) and selective availability was still in play so you didn't get the full accuracy, but as a tech it was around at least five years earlier than you think.
the whole idea with IDNs is back-asswards, everybody needs to learn Latin script anyway, for languages that use diacritics, loosing them is not a huge problem (and I speak two of them)
I take when you go abroad you simply talk a little bit slower and a little bit louder? The world does not revolve around you and people don't need to learn a foreign alphabet simply because it fits in with your world view.
That reminds me of the director's comment of the end credit over some movie - sorry I forget which now, may have been one of the Alien films.
No animals were harmed in the making of this movie (but hundreds were eaten).
A printer was already mentioned, but a card reader with receipt printer would probably sell
In some respects they are already out there, as a separate unit communicating with your phone via Bluetooth or WiFi. I don't really see what you would get by more tightly integrating it into the phone - it would simply add a hell of a lot of bulk for something that would probably be better integrated as a separate unit in any event. You probably could reduce a card reader/printer down to perhaps half an inch depth at the cost of a standard and proprietrary paper size (something like a Post-It note). Even a small paper roll wold at least double that depth making the combined phone seem very bulky.
In any case, would you really want to hand over your own phone to customers dozens of times a day if there is not good reason to?
OK, so I get that the report is a new regurgitation of old new, but the actual headline items are hardly news are they? This has been known about for decades, but the BBC and El Reg as going on as if this is some startling new discovery.
I seem to recall MS Word did that once - going from 4.x to 6.0 just to beat WordPerfect which was at 5.1 at the time.
The reason given at the time was to sync up the version numbers between the DOS, Windows and Mac versions. The jump was most noticeable on the Windows version which went straight from v2 to v6.
I don't have a precise WordPerfect version history but I suspect WP would have been up to v6 by 1993 when Word 6.0 was released - I know I have a copy of PerfectOffice v3.0 with WP 6.1 here from 1994 and that was a major change to v6.0 which I only used a couple of times - the entire UI has been redesigned to get the PerfectOffice apps working consistently despite their independent origins.
Well, was he being disrespectful? Was he sitting in a corner muttering about how the ITU should be doing this and that these people were all a bunch of self-serving amateurs? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that he went there on a mission with an empire-building agenda.
Why must that be the case? An agenda, yes but a desire to see a "good" outcome in a closely related area does not equate to empire building and many bodies will positively embrace such external expertise, awarding observer or interested party status specifically to ensure that input is captured.
A lower level more everyday example: a few months ago I redesigned one of our processes at work because of externally imposed change. I spent perhaps six weeks working out how the new process would work, putting the supporting infrastructure in place and documenting how the new process would work in both a new standard operating procedure and some more informal guidance notes.
I then handed over those documents to Learning and Development so they could put together a training package. I did see and approve their training materials in advance but I still gatecrashed the first couple of training sessions. Not because I am power mad and want to train my own processes - they're welcome to it and I respect their expertise in delivering training - but I wanted to be sure the process was being taught accurately.
The girl from L&D was grateful I'd taken the time to attend: for a start, she herself was reassured. When the staff experienced with the old process asked about certain exceptional cases I was there to refer to and explain where in the process they get addressed or why they simply didn't arise in the new process. Hardly surprising, L&D can hardly be expected to be expert in every process and time served staff will know more than them.
So two different teams cooperated, not as some kind of power grab or to exert dominance over one another. Our interests were one and the same, if the change had gone tits up we'd both come out of it looking like muppets.
The odd numbered versions for IP standards are the experimental or working drafts. So IPv4 was preceeded by someone playing around in a standard called IPv3, IPv6 had IPv5 before it and IPv7 was being kicked about years ago as far as I know.
Nope. IPv4 was the first release, the name is a retronym coming from the 'type of packet' field to allow multi-protocol links atop DLLs that don't provide an equivalent capability natively (ISTR HDLC is one but don't quote me on that). The first IP got assigned a code of 4, by the time its successor arrived 5 had been allocated so it got 6. The 'version' numbers simply reflect those codings.
Actually, you have that a bit backwards. The site is NOT entering the EU. People are using the Internet to leave the EU and enter into wherever that site is hosted, and the site's legal compliance begins and ends with the jurisdiction where it is hosted.
If that is genuinely the case then GDPR would not apply. However in that case the motivation for tracking also disappears: if you as a US based website want to serve me an ad for some random coffee shop in Tennessee when I am in Europe I have no problems with that. On the other hand, why would they want to pay for that if they knew I would in all probability never be within 500 miles of the shop? They wouldn't, so you contract your advertising out to e.g. Google who in turn find an advertiser would will pay, most likely, one in Europe.
If you employ contractors and subcontractors in performance of a contract you have with me you are responsible for their acts as if they were your own. If they do business in Europe directly then by extension so are you: that's the price you pay for taking their schilling. This is all established contract law.
I have very limited sympathy for the howls of anguish coming from the States in any case given the "imaginative" jurisdiction often used over there. There are too many to list but one that comes to mind was that the US claim jurisdiction over any transaction priced in dollars: a British oil company can sell to a French petrochemical company and the bill eventually settled in pounds or euros without so much as an electron crossing the Pond. The US reserve the "right" to stick their oar in.
Explain that to me BEFORE I explain why Europe has the right to regulate how Europe has the right to regulate how entities actively trading in and with a physical presence in Europe, directly or otherwise, and making money from and in Europe from EU citizens fall within the jurisdiction of EU law.
Say, 8 beams located around the edge of a recessed dish?
Which would only serve to lose that nicely collimated light lasers give you. It's easy enough to ray trace this: have a number of lasers pass through the focal point of a parabolic mirror and they all head off in the same direction in a reasonably confined area.
However that assumes the laser beam has infinitely small width. In practice laser beams have very definite width. Last time I looked into this the best possible was military secret but the educated references I consulted suggested that in the 10-20KW range a one inch beam may be possible. Even if the centreline of such a beam passed exactly through the focal point the edges of the beam are not. As a result they are reflected off axis and the beam diverges.
In any event, this is purely going to collimate the light (i.e. direct it into a beam) rather that make it coherent. That is another kettle of fish entirely. Even getting a number of lasers working at exactly the same frequency (not almost the same or even almost exactly the same) would seem challenging enough to me. Aligning the peaks and troughs of the beams with all the practical difficulties that entails (convection currents etc) and you are looking at some pretty sophisticated adaptive optics.
So once again the people actually working a multimillion pound project know better than an El Reg commentard without even a back-of-an-envelope idea. Who knew that could happen?
Honestly, though... if someone sells a 100Gb 4G SIM on pay-monthly that allows tethering for that full amount... someone shout, because I haven't found one.
I haven't looked at the entire market but I'd be very surprised if you can't do that: I was looking at Smarty the other day (rejected when I saw they were on Three) and I could get 100Gb for £130/month. Not all inclusive, i.e. you'd need plenty of top up data, but so what, the option is there.
If, on the other hand that is a bit rich for you consider your requirements. 100Gb data is a huge amount for mobile: don't forget we are talking about a finite and shared resource. Bandwidth you use is bandwidth unavailable to another subscriber.
The attitude reminds me of the other classes of self-obsessed broadband needers - the ones demanding FTTP for themselves and to hell with the problems of e.g. cabinet placement. "Me want faster broadband. So what if we need to effectively brick up my neighbour's front window for me to get it."
It doesn't work like that. Like it or not the operators are not being unrealistic when they look at the impact of such demands on their network and other subscribers and saying "Actually, we'd really rather not have you on our network."
So yes, the options are there if there is a real need for them. However in nine times out of ten when I see "needs" like this it isn't road warriors touring the country and with business-critical needs for bandwidth. Rather it is someone cheap enough they don't want to pay for home broadband on top. The technology simply isn't there: the unreasonable element is your demands rather than the operators.
Can't help but be reminded of HHGTTG.
Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?
Or anything at all to do with GDPR...
That's just an opinion piece that borders on wishful thinking. I want to see chapter and verse of law.
Read the bloody regulations yourself then: it's not as if it isn't publicly available. The poster you originally responded to stated GDPR say this and you demanded a citation despite that in itself being one. Now the ICO counts as 'opinion' despite them being one party responsible for enforcing it.
It's clear enough that your opinion is worth fuck all, your IQ is clearly way too low for you have anything meaningful to contribute and are far happier spouting meaningless tripe than even stopping to read the very references you demand.
This is law and not subject to alternative facts if you happen not to like it. Yes, you can ignore it if you like but if it comes back to bitch slap you then you only have yourself to blame.
Or you could use Cisco's patch from 2017, which it seems a remarkable number of people did not deploy!
Yes, this has nothing at all to do with limiting the availability of even security patches to those willing to be gouged for a support contract.
Why is a crimper being used to illustrate a disconnection? It what you use to make them instead.
No, I recognise that exact facial expression - it's the "How fast can I locate a window showing something innocent that covers the whole screen" look.
Where DNSCrypt and DNSSEC become useful is:
1) It’s encrypted! Ordinary DNS is not.
Neither is DNSSEC. You would have known that even if you read the article. DNSCrypt is but is nonstandard and brings massive performance costs, both through TCP dependency and the default/recommended non-caching client-side trim which is frankly retarded to the point it itself makes me suspicious: why does my DNS provider need to see evidence of every single connection to every single site?
2) It stops your ISP from auto logging your web usage and selling it to advertisers.
To some extent with multihomed sites and assuming deep packet inspection (DPI) is not in use. If either of those assumptions break down the assertion is meaningless. It is anyway strictly speaking since a DNS request is not evidence of specifically web traffic.
3) It prevents man in the middle attacks and cross site forgeries. If you cannot break the encryption then you cannot inject code - currently there is nothing to stop this with ordinary DNS.
You do understand what DNS actually does, don't you? It does absolutely nothing to protect a connection once established. With DNSCrypt you are still vulnerable to MITM because of the way it gets the address in the first place, the only difference is you have moved the weak point.
4) It stops ISP’s from injecting code - such as advertising and tracking (particularly mobile).
Done via DPI, it doesn't work on a DNS level for reasons I can't be arsed explaining on my phone keyboard.
5) Cisco / OpenDNS actively block bad web sites at source and will not resolve them preventing malware attacks. Isn’t it far more useful to prevent malware at the source ...
Right, so you clearly don't understand even the role of DNS. The baddies can still contact YOU and you can respond without a DNS request. You can still contact them via IP address: the really dodgy sites tend to be linked to in that very manner.
If you want to describe yourself as a "privacy nut" and proffer advice it would help to understand even the basics of computer networking.
This ensures that, among other things, if the retailer that sold you the goods no longer exists, you can simply deal with the manufacturer (or local distributor) of the goods.
No. Your contract is with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any warranty offered by the manufacturer continues to exist but that is separate to your statutory rights.
OTOH once a company is in administration any subsequent transactions are underwritten by the administrator. You have reasonable legal protection now buying from Maplin: enhanced customer-service terms such as buyer's remorse provisions may well no longer apply but your statutory rights are watertight. Oddly enough, now they are in administration they'll have no problems getting credit insurance as a consequence.
The difficulty arises for a transaction that occurred before administration but there is an issue to be addressed afterwards: in that case all bets are off.
I nominate the boing. The average rate you'd pound this at --->
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go for "C", a molten core.
"Gaseous" in this context is to be read as a supercritical fluid so the distinction between gas and liquid is not relevant.
On the other hand if there is any rocky component to the planet (it would appear inevitable in my view considering how much it must have swallowed up) the core must be solid. Even Earth's inner core is solid on account of the huge pressures involved and those inside Jupiter are far, far higher.
You would expect it to show you just your own hidden files? But you might be surprised by what is also there when you filter out the obvious (1st grep looks for the double-dot parent style of name, 2nd grep should ignore your own files, but of course it is not just your hidden file it is matching either!).
I wouldn't be surprised. That is how wildcards are supposed to work. There is a specific safeguard on deleting
.., i.e. within
rm rather than the globbing mechanism.
You must also be aware that if the matching pattern/regex includes '..' it will go UP a level and then down from there!
No, it is specifically prohibited to delete . or .. and has been since at least the first version of POSIX.
Although I did once hose a SCO OpenServer 5 system where a bug meant it didn't guard .. . I wasn't very impressed by this, particularly when it emerged that SCO were aware of the bug, had fixed it in the latest version, but never thought fit to release a patch or even a warning for the earlier versions.
And yes this was the "old" SCO, not the new SCO with the dubious legal claims.
I tend to agree, some of these "researchers" seem more interested in publicity than anything else. Giving a bug a non-descriptive but media friendly name is a first indication, a logo is even worse.
Here, I simply can't imagine the kind of feedback supposedly given coming from the likes of Microsoft. I can easily imagine feedback from a lone open source developer along the lines of "bigger, that'll be a nightmare to fix" but comments about the "difficulty" of the fix from an organisation the size of MS and established bug and security teams... I think not.
No-one asked Capita to do anything with this paperwork, no-one paid Capita to do anything with this paperwork, so Capita didn't do anything with it.
To be fair that isn't strictly true. I know this contract well, Capita are contractually not allowed to forward it to the intended recipient under NHS England Information Governance regulations. The change in procedure actually slightly predates Capita's involvement.
The fault here is squarely with the sending practices, hospitals and other healthcare providers. If Capita are receiving thousands of clinical notes a month that is thousands of data breaches occuring every month in the wider NHS sending confidential data to the wrong destination.
In this respect at least Capita are blameless. From my experience dealing with admin staff at care providers I can't say I'm surprised: many seem to have an inflated sense of their own importance and such niceties as following the correct procedure or obeying laws and regulations are entirely optional if you utter the words "clinical need".
The risk will depend on the actual chemical compounds that the lithium and oxygen are part of, you can't just make a statement based on the elements (otherwise who would have salt at the dinner table - a tasty mix of poisonous gas and explosive metal eh?)
Of course you can. This is literally school level chemistry: you do remember that table listing metals by reactivity don't you?
Oh, of course you don't. If you did you'd also recall that the more reactive the elements, the more stable the compound. You obviously skipped class the day displacement reactions were covered.
Although to be equally fair, the OP would also have recalled that for metals reactivity increases as you go down the periodic table.
If memory serves Tanenbaum was himself quoting an old adage, certainly variations on the theme have floated around for decades. About 20-25 years ago I was involved with SCO quite heavily. Admittedly that itself probably doesn't predate his reference but the quote used in the SCO community was "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a motorcycle courier with a DAT tape".
You did get push back of course even among sysadmins. I do recall a post on one of the newsgroups to the effect of "What's the best way to transfer 1.5Gb of data across town each day?" When he got the standard answer he responded "I was looking for serious suggestions".
Remember, this was twenty years ago. When it was pointed out a T1 connection would easily run to five figures annually he went oddly quiet.
I know it's meant to help any alien civ that finds it learn about us humans and all that. But how would such a record actually be played? I mean, if it was a "typical" LP, the receiving civ has to understand how mechanics, electrics and sound well enough to build a record player, and if they understand all that, they surely know enough about electricity and magnetism to know that there is a boatload of radio signal noise coming from a small blue dot over yonder? Those signals would have arrived well before the Voyager probe showed up.
There are instructions for decoding the record on the case, although expecting an alien race to be able to decipher them struck me as ambitious at best.
As for radio emissions I suspect you are thinking in terms of the wrong timescale: there is a small radioactive sample on board to allow the probe's age to be determined from its decay. It is designed to be readable for billions of years. I doubt we'll still be around, yet alone transmitting radio.
Reaction wheels and gyros only work to alter the orientation of a spacecraft while they are spinning. Slow them down to a stop to save electricity and wear and tear on the bearing etc. and the spacecraft settles back into its original orientation.
Reaction wheels will set a fixed orientation: assuming the probe is in a stable orientation spin up the wheels and the probe will begin rotating in response. Stop the wheels and that reaction is reversed stopping the rotation, in general in a new orientation.
What reaction wheels can't do in a sustainable manner is compensate for an externally induced pre-existing rotation, in the long term inevitable even in deep space, especially when slingshotting around. To correct that you need to eject mass, i.e. thrusters.
Have they done a Intel and changed the mnemonics for some reason? or were they expecting to find the CPU had been upgraded in the meantime
Why don't they just say the assembler was not what their programmers were used to but the process of getting back to fundamentals was a rewarding challenge for them.
There is a awful lot to a complete assembly language than the bare instruction set: red tape directives, psuedoinstructions, how variables are referenced (and possibly typed), macros, even fundamentals such as comments and default (or even acceptable) bases.
None of these affect the CPU in the slightest but make a big difference to how assembly programming feels. Older niche architectures typically had very bare bones assemblers. Nowadays even an experimental research architecture can easily have a full featured assembler in a couple of hours using a assembler development kit, so yes I certainly recognise the outdated label.
But if you are doing this you are presumably running an internal DNS which will generally recognise itself as authoritative for the domain without reference to the root servers. Alternatives such as the hosts file will equally take precedence.
So yes, the fault lies squarely with Chrome for simply assuming a Google entity.
The job interview point is valid and I have used a similar technique in the past: ask about an area of current controversy and their opinion. Generally I have no interest in the actual opinion, rather it is the arguments used to support it: uninformed opinion and solid technical reasoning are easily separated.
However in this case the issue is indeed one of basic comprehension: the article makes clear the intended servers ARE indeed being reached, they simply are not configured for HTTPS which Google insist on out of nothing more than self interest. That's the point you failed to pick up on, and where this latest Google diktat falls apart.
Or 0.025% if you really can count, although traipsing out annual revenues and comparing them to quarterly profits like that is pretty much guaranteed to create confusion.
A bazillion of "cores" takes megawatts to run because each of them is incomparably more complex (and more active) than a neuron. Do neurons go "ping" billions of times per second? No? Well then.
Well done on completely mission the very point he was making. Of course neurons don't operate at those kind of speeds, the whole point is that throughput is achieved via parallelism instead of one big core running at unimaginable speed. His observation was that this isn't what happens, so why are we proceeding on that basis?
Furber is far smarter in this area than you or I will ever be. You do not arrive at some profound insight by calling him a dick, taking a tiny line of argument he uses, and then developing that line in the same way he himself proceeds.
Wouldn't the mere fact that there is at least *some* atmosphere on the Mars-side of your suit/vehicle/etc, compared with the vacuum encountered on the Moon or in orbit, make the design of said suits/vehicles a bit easier thanks to them not needing to cope with such a steep pressure differential?
The Martian atmospheric pressure is roughly 1% that of Earth, or perhaps 3% of that of a reduced pressure space vehicle. Personally I would not be remotely comfortable in a vehicle so marginal in design that the difference makes any difference whatsoever.
On the other hand that thin atmosphere is still enough to need a heat shield, but not so great you can land on a sensibly sized parachute. The atmosphere is also held in place by considerably stronger gravity, all things that make getting there in the first place considerably more difficult.
Not so: days are endless and nights are endless, it just depends of where on the moon you are. [search for "moon tidal lock" on your favorite google ;)]
Err, no. The moon is tidally locked with respect to the Earth, not the Sun. You only need to look at the moon over the course of a few nights to see that specific points of the surface alternate between day and night as the phase changes.
Or are you the only person in the entire universe who hasn't twigged that Henry is R2 in drag?
No, that would be Hetty, the one in pink. I've always been curious about her...
Actually the public has an inalienable (if not legal) right to know everything that any publicly influential entity is up to, whether it's government funded or not.
Bollocks, and it's precisely that sort of ill considered reaction that can easily mask any more reasonable proposal. An individual IS an "entity" so think about the implications: if I start a local campaign to save a library from closure should I sacrifice my privacy? Should you, when you report that dangerous pothole at the end of the road?
If you think this is fair or reasonable you are wrong. If you think demanding this is somehow an "inalienable" right you are wrong and wrong. If you don't this is exactly what you are demanding you are wrong, wrong and wrong.
No, it sits directly on top of bare IP.
The TCP-IP context derives from the use of literal "pings" in ASDIC/SONAR in underwater warfare.
Ping is ICMP, not TCP...
...and still no mention of El Reg's claim to be doing exactly this on 1 April. Should have got that patent after all.
Supposedly the CS department at the Uni of Manchester (first purpose built CS dept in the country) was built with that in mind, simply recirculating the heat from the machine room. I can confirm while there in the mid nineties there appeared to be no functional heating to speak of - the implicit assumption was that computers would remain largely valve based.
75MHz is still a line of sight frequency
Sure, which is why your FM radio doesn't work with a brick wall between you and the transmitter. Admitted, the FM band starts 13MHz higher and thus even less likely to get through solid objects but it's why you can never ever get a radio signal indoors.
My taxi company don't need no app to track me. I always ring up in person but I noticed from the call logs on my phone the other day the average call duration is nine seconds. The conversation proceeds at normal pace, just so much context is implied by routine I need only say how long it is before I want picking up from the pub.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018