i-patch - the security software supplier
I'd have thought i-patch would be the perfect trademark for a piracy website...
Thank you, the one with the cutlass in the pocket...
3265 posts • joined 19 May 2010
"It's hard to tell what actually caused the issue, but HP believes it was environmental – that the power supplies or the servers were stored in an area of high humidity, water, etc."
From what the article suggests, the servers were in racks in a data-centre, not on the floor in a cellar. Are Parisian data-centres really likely to be any more wet or humid than any other data-centre??
"One is Internet Explorer. Though IE has been losing market share, the browser is good business for Bing. Analysis by comScore shows that Microsoft sites get a higher share of searches from IE compared to Chrome and Firefox, while Google gets it's lowest per centage of searches from the Microsoft browser."
I don't think these statistics support an interpretation that there is an informed choice - such that users of IE "prefer" Bing or users of Firefox / Chrome "prefer" Google.
Is this not just a consequence of the overwhelming majority of clueless users sticking with the default start pages their browser comes with? So IE has BIng as it's default, Firefox and Chrome have Google, when first installed.
Dear sir / madam, I wish to purchase your vessel the HMS Ark Royal, to use for home defence and the projection of force abroad, for a small island off the coast of Europe which currently has no naval air presence.
I understand that you may also have some suitable VTOL / STOL aircraft going cheap?
Although i know it's the standard image used for "nookeler disaster (TM)" I think, on this occasion, the use of the mushroom cloud image to illustrate this story in your highlighted headlines banner (or whatever you call it) at the top of the page, is a bit insensitive, given Japan's previous historical association with things nuclear.
I would be inclined to think that this study proves that the average student's reading and comprehension skills are of a low standard, and that they are unable to draw their own conclusions from a balanced report, rather than that there is anything wrong with balanced neutral journalism.
Yes I agree, there are lots of other ways that people drive dangerously, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore speeding. Indeed, there is a case surely to have the neighbourhood watch types report drivers for these other offences too.
In answer to your question "Is the safer driver the one who occasionally hits 35 in a 30 limit or the one who drives as 20 because they are concentrating on something else?" then I would say they are equally as dangerous, for different reasons.
Why is there this perception in the UK that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, where you want, and exceeding the speed limit is OK, and therefore that anyone who tries to enforce the speed limit is wrong?
The argument against fixed speed cameras has always been that they are purely used as income generation. Well, with the majority of these schemes, it is not about income, it's about getting people to drive safely, as it should be.
I think these schemes are a good idea, and I don't see why they would lead to "village feuds" either, if you live in a village or small town it is unlikely you would speed through it anyway. Peer pressure to get people to slow down seems to me to be a much better idea than blanket fines.
...And yet in my own experience, we have had terrible reliability problems using WD drives (MTBF < 2 years), and no problems at all using Deskstar / Travelstar, in a range of desktop and laptop applications, so from my perspective, I hope they don't lower the standards currently held by Hitachi drives, to those of the Western Digital range, as I won't be a happy bunny.
VHF radio uses radio frequencies which are much much longer wavelength than those used by mobile phones - and therefore behave differently when a big bag of water gets in the way.
However, you can still upset the antenna matching even at VHF wavelengths if you grab it in the wrong place.
The other thing to bear in mind is that a radio receiver is not as sensitive to a miss-matched antenna as a radio transmitter is, a receiver will continue to function quite well or even improve slightly, whereas a transmitter will lose lots of effective power - or in extreme cases fry itself - when attached to a badly miss-matched antenna.
As a mobile phone needs both a transmitter and receiver to function, it is the transmitter bit that suffers.
If the software uses real-time mapping for ambulance dispatch - so they know from GPS signals where the ambulances are in relation to the jobs, then the system pretty much has to talk to the internet, and probably uses one of the available APIs like Goggle or Bong to get the map data.
Can't see them re-inventing the wheel by writing their own mapping stuff from scratch.
"The company has unveiled a service that lets people tweet via a voice connection. Anyone can tweet simply by leaving a voice mail at one of these international numbers: +16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855. No internet connection is required, and the service will automatically add the hash tag "#egypt"."
That's a very good idea, now, how do we let people in Egypt know about it?
well, they can see it on the Interweb... ah... no... maybe not then...
Or I can ring someone... beeeeep... beeeeep... beeeeep...
A DDOS attack doesn't just impact the intended site, though, but others on the same subnet, or hosted in the same place. You effectively saturate the available bandwidth, so it's more like going to a street and connecting a hosepipe to the mains water supply, and turning it on full. Non of the houses in the street would be able to get any water - or only at much reduced flow.
You beat me to it - I was going to say exactly the same: the obvious reason is that the infected machines are not turned on.
Certainly from our own access stats over the holiday period, there has been a marked drop in traffic to a lot of our commercial sites, so it looks like people have not using the T'interweb as much this Christmas.
I am not an "economic rationalist" by any means - in fact I am actively against those who profess the "Greed is good, and sod you" attitude.
I agree entirely with you that AIrports, like electricity, gas, water, sewerage and communications are part of the essential infrastructure needed for an economically advanced country to function.
Oh, and I would add Healthcare in there as well, which you missed.
The point I am trying to make is that we cannot expect any organisation to suddenly have the resources to deal with an unprecedented amount of snow - and it is unprecedented, where I live in the north midlands of England, we have had more snow (two foot deep where it lies - not drifts), and consistently lower temperatures, than we have experienced for over 40 years. This morning, the outside temperature is -9C, and the sun is shining. Overnight, we have had temperatures of as low as -18C. We haven't had one day, in the last three weeks, where the outside temperature has risen above freezing (0C).
In conditions like these, all the normal methods that this country uses to deal with the average temperatures and snowfall we expect each year are completely inadequate. You can't use salt to clear the ice, because the temperatures are so low. We don't know how to deal with these sorts of weather conditions, and we don't have the equipment in place.
You cannot realistically expect any company, or local authority, to put in place sufficient equipment and manpower to cater for a circumstance that may only happen once in a lifetime.
This is not "economic rationalisation" it is "common sense". a trait which seems sadly lacking in most people nowadays.
You are typical of the unrealistic whingers who piss me off.
You yourself say "The last weather that equalled this recent weather disturbance was 20 years ago, according to the Met Office", but then you go on to say "Airports such as Toronto or Montreal are used to dealing with metres of snow. Until recently, Montreal airport had more snow clearing equipment than the City of Montreal."
You totally miss the point. Toronto or Montreal know that they can expect similar levels of snow each year, and therefore it makes economic sense to keep a massive fleet of snow-clearance equipment.
Heathrow have sufficient levels of equipment and expertise to deal with the normal expected snowfall for Britain, but this is, of course not sufficient to deal with the unprecedented level of snowfall, and low temperatures, that Britain is currently experiencing.
It would make no economic sense, and they would be roundly criticised by all, if Heathrow and other UK airports maintained a sufficiently large pool of equipment to deal with Toronto-like levels of snowfall, when Britain doesn't normally get more than an inch or two each year.
Of course, if Meteorologists can reliably predict that we will in future get these levels of snowfall, and the temperatures to match, then Airports, Local Authorities etc will have to consider purchasing more equipment, as well as changing how we deal with snow and ice on runways and roads. (there is no point gritting, for example, if mean temperatures never exceed -2C, as the grit won't have any effect.)
For heavens sake stop blaming people, and companies, for an act of weather!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019