It's a bit short notice for me.
I would have been interested, but I won't get an overnight pass, or authorisation for travel or accommodation from the significant other!
2595 posts • joined 15 Jun 2007
I would have been interested, but I won't get an overnight pass, or authorisation for travel or accommodation from the significant other!
This is for the UK.
- Age of consent and marriage with parents agreement, 16.
- Age at which you are legally allowed to drink, 18 (although there are variations in venues like restaurants where you can drink wine as long as it is served with a meal from a younger age).
And another age related restriction
- Age at which you are allowed to drive, 17 (unless you are a sole carer for a family member, where you can drive at 16).
So you can get married but not be allowed to drive to the Wedding or participate in the Champagne Toast.
Damn. You beat me to it!
Hmm. Things CSVs don't work very well for:
Strings with spaces in
Strings with commas in
Quote characters around or within strings to allow embedded spaces and commas
Embedded quote characters inside quoted strings
Embedded new lines in quoted strings.
These are all things that MS's CSV files contain, and they make reading the file more than a little difficult, as the rules that are used do not appear to be documented.
I know! We need to write a standard for it!
You are reasonably lucky. When agencies first started keyword-scraping from CV's in the 90s, I found myself being offered IMS and MVS roles.
And the reason? I had Amdahl listed on my CV.
Yes. Amdahl mainframes, but running UTS and AT&T R&D UNIX. Not a scrap of any IBM operating systems. Destroyed any trust I might have had in the recruitment sector at the time, although I think the best have improved a bit.
You've actually inadvertently stirred a memory here.
I used to use DEC RSX/11M version 3.2. The supplied editor on that pre-dated EDT, and was called EDI, and was a line editor. If I remember, it was very difficult to use (even though I was a frequent UNIX ed user at the time so I was used to using line editors). Fortunately, due to good binary compatibility, we were able to completely ignore it, because someone sent us EDT binaries from either a RSTS/E or an IAS or RSX/11D installation that worked well enough.
Fortunately, I've never had to work with RPG again. In fact, I do so little programming now other than shell and awk that I have to think hard about writing anything.
I have no problem with using condition flags like RPG and pretty much every assembler I've ever used. But at the time I was being told that RPG was a high level language superior to PL/1 or C, and that is why I made the comparison with such scorn.
I think I still have my RPG II programmers card somewhere which lays out, at the same pitch as an 80 character card, all of the different phase card layouts (Aaaaargh - suddenly remembered about the input exception phase - The Horror!)
That was imposed as much from the physical media being used to contain the program as anything else.
In the 1960's, everyone programmed on punched-card. You absolutely wanted to have card numbers on the card (not labels), and in a standard format, so that when you dropped your 500 card deck and the elastic band broke, you could stuff it through a card-sorter to put them back in sequence. The next column was, as you point out, a comment indicator. The rest of the card image was free-form, although with only 72 characters to play with, you could not really afford to be too generous with the use of spaces.
It was not only Fortran that did this. Pretty much any language from the era did the same, and COBOL and RPG were even more strict about which columns things should be in.
Yes, I had a chuckle. My first job out of University forced me to learn RPG II, after I had been taught PL/1, APL and 6502 assembler (it was a long time ago) and taught myself C.
In my acrimonious exit interview (they did not offer me any pay rise - not even a cost-of-living one after my first year, even though I had become the most effective programmer in RPG in the department measured by speed to completed correctly functioning program, and it was not just me saying that), I likened RPG to a rather restricted assembler language. And in hindsight, I think that I was being generous!
Still, I'm grateful, as I moved on to be a long-term UNIX admin, which is what I am still doing.
Excuse me. What the hell is going on here. How did The Boss get BOFH's account?
Looks like the BOFH's crown is slipping. Will be see another power-grab attempt by the PFY?
I know that systems are complex, and getting ever more so, but when a supposed expert is not able to identify anything about a compromised system, does this not indicate that they are getting too complex? Or maybe that proclaimed experts are not.
I've stared at the list of services and processes that are running on systems, and wondered what they all are. There appears to be nothing other than Google to try to identify the ones with unique names, or what they do, and this is just what you see, without the possibility of the kernel or standard shared libraries being subverted, or hidden loadable modules.
I'm not trying to pick on Windows here, because most Linux distributions are no better, but often in the list of running processes you see multiple things of the same name (can't give an example at the moment, don't have a Windows system running close to me!) I have no inkling of where on the filesystem the process was loaded from, or what it is associated with. I'm sure there are tools, which can dig this information out about a process on all OSs, but they are not always generally known about, much less shipped with the OS.
I doubt that anything can change at this point, I just wish we hadn't got here!
Edit. Hmm. Really should do research before posting. I should use tasklist on a standard XP system. Will have to give it a go when my wife next complains about her system being slow.
I'd be surprised if they were Walkers. Back in 1973, the major brands in the UK were Smiths and Golden Wonder and Tudor.
If I remember correctly, Walkers crisps (which appear to actually be another brand of the same company that produced Smiths crisps) started appearing nationwide around 1978/79, and caused much confusion because prior to Walkers, everybody had Salt and Vinegar crisps in blue bags and Cheese and Onion in green.
Interestingly, Golden Wonder are back in the shops, still with the old colours for the flavours.
Whilst I don't disagree with your statement, I feel I must point out that as more people use things like Netflix et. al. this will result in more than one streamed feed into a household.
If the ultimate goal is to get TV services off of satellite and dedicated cable, then your average house may end up with three of four streamed services happening at the same time.
I somewhat hesitate to bring up my own household, because it is currently atypical (7 adults in the same house, all with their own media consumption devices), but even now, I can have a Sky download, a Netflix session, iPlayer/4oD/ITVPlayer/5 On demand sessions on connected BluRay devices or game consoles, and a NowTV session running live sport running similtaneously, together with gaming and YouTube. So you are not considering ~4Mb/s, it is multiples of this, and will become more if 4K TV over the Internet happens.
And I believe over time that other households will grow to resemble mine more.
Your point about 1Gb/s Ethernet cards is valid, but if the access box has 4 Ethernet ports, it could handle 4x1Gb/s. You are just thinking too small!
I would love to live in an area where I can get in excess of 10Mb/s. My exchange is not even on the list to be upgraded to fibre, and there is no cable TV provision either. It's just plain old ADSL 2+ annex M for me which has only ever delivered a maximum of 12Mb/s, and since a micro-filter failure is only showing a connected speed of 9782 Kb/s. As a result, when the scenario I paint above happens, I get some real arguments about who is hogging the bandwidth. Fortunately, my Smoothwall firewall tells me!
You have a point, but the issue is identifying the kids who have a genuine interest. It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. unless you get them to try it, many kids won't know that they can do it, so given the choice won't select it as an area of study.
The main aim of teaching something like BASIC was to find out, using a language that is simple enough so that it can be grasped quite quickly who can de-construct a problem and work out how to get the computer to solve it. Once someone can do this, they can progress to something more complicated.
Trying to teach any sort of programming is difficult today. 30 years ago, writing Animal, Vegetable or Mineral or Mastermind was a real achievement, but could be done using something like BASIC on your average home PC after some hours of study. People doing it could be proud, and show of their skills.
Now, you need to be able to do something really flashy with fancy graphics and moving images for anybody to feel like they've achieved anything worthwhile. The step from writing loops with text output to a FPS is so vast, that most kids, who have the attention span of a goldfish, can never make it, and will give up before they've even started.
I would like to go back to using a simple language like BASIC, for all it's shortcomings, to teach. Get the kids to learn what an integer or string text variable is before trying to teach complex data objects with attached methods. How in hell are they supposed to know how a method is applied to a complex object, if they don't even know that a name in the program represents a quantity/number/string etc. And that is what you get if you try to teach using Java or Python as a first language.
I admit that it is difficult to get them to see that what they are doing is worthwhile, but the old adage of "Don't run before you can walk" appears to be appropriate here!
That's not the way I read it, but I see my error now that it has been pointed out by several people.
It was not helped in that I was interrupted while I was writing the comment, and did not read comments posted earlier in time but after the comment I was replying to.
No, it's not, but it depends entirely on the amount of flash memory and the flash controller in the device (and the version of Android). And 'memory fragmentation' is a bit of a misnomer, because it's really a result of flash controllers only being able to mark a 256K (typical) block of memory as available for re-use once all of the 4K (typical) pages have been removed. Eventually all of the blocks are in use, even though there may be a lot of free space as far as the filesystem is concerned. This leads to a lot of on-the-fly housekeeping to make space available again. Google TRIM or fstrim if you want to find out more about the problem.
For a device with small (4GB or less) of built-in flash, the time it takes to get to the point where it slows to a crawl because of this 'memory fragmentation' can be as little as a week or so (depending on what the device is being used for). Devices with more memory take much longer, and some devices may not show it until they are a year or more old.
Unfortunately, the way I read this is that all of my current android devices (including a phone that is still in warranty but unlikely to be updated because the ISP will not re-package the manufacturers more recent releases) will become unable to connect to the Play store when they bring this in. Most builders of these devices lose interest in packaging new releases of Android once they stop selling the device. This includes big names like Samsung, LG, HTC and even Google themselves, once they deem a device too old to take a new release.
This means that my perfectly usable 9.7" tablet running 4.0.4 is extremely likely to become less usable. Looks like I will have to play around with CyanogenMod after all.
It covers 8.5 acres of floor space!
One of the pictures NASA have in their gallery shows a modern airship totally dwarfed inside either Hanger 2 or 3, and these are smaller than Hanger 1.
When the BBC were touting Project Canvas, they wanted to fix the UI so that it would appear the same on all devices. The device manufacturers, understandably, kicked back, as it did not allow them to differentiate their offerings.
This meant that there were fewer people prepared to make YouView boxes, with the result that those you could buy were expensive. And because they were more expensive, it allowed the ISPs to offer them as part of their package as a benefit that people could not get anywhere else at a reasonable price.
What is needed is a style guide that mandates some of the UI, but allows manufacturers the ability to add some function to differentiate the product. This may encourage cheaper systems. A sub-£100 internet enabled freeview catch-up box would be very attractive to me, but I'm not paying £200 or switching my ISP. If I can buy a Blu-Ray player with internet connectivity for £70, adding a freeview tuner, replacing the Blu-Ray drive with a 120GB disk and modifying the firmware would put it somewhere close to the £100 mark.
I doubt this is that the BBC et.al. have in mind, though.
Mine is a retail license. I did say.
I have a machine that I purchased 12 years ago, and it's still running XP!
Let me check. It's the same machine, although I've had to replace the motherboard/processor/memory twice, the disk more than once, the graphics card and the power supply. I also replaced the DVD drive with a DVD/CD combo.
It's still the same machine because the case, floppy disk drive and CD burner are original. I think it has one of the original keyboards attached to it at the moment as well!
In case you ask, it is running a retail copy of XP home, which allows me to change the machine as much as I like!
In reality, most machines purchased in the last 8 years will probably have been skipped a long time ago, because very few people are prepared to do the hardware surgery necessary to keep older systems capable of running XP with SP3 installed.
So we're really not talking about systems as old as 13 years, we're talking about machines that could be less than 5. And some businesses with volume licenses may well have still been building XP systems more recently than this.
My last 'work' laptop was delivered to me new in 2010 with an XP build. It's just been replaced, and I opted to have Linux on it. Yaaaay. I am now officially a Microsoft free worker, having a work Linux desktop and laptop (it's complex, I work for a vendor at an end-customer site), and use Linux exclusively at home.
This representative may have been a bit hypocritical. That does not mean they all are.
If you are talking about Mark Harper, then he resigned as a minister, not as an MP. And the statement from Downing Street says "there was no suggestion the 43-year-old Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean had knowingly employed an illegal immigrant". It looks like he was shown the required documents at the time (2007), but did not follow up by checking that the cleaner had an indefinite right to stay, and eventually ended up working beyond what her visa allowed. So she was a legal immigrant who overstayed her visa. Not the same thing as employing an illegal immigrant.
When he found out, he resigned on principal, not because he had to. He is exactly the type of MP I would want!
By saying that it is pointless to even try to engage, you are descending into apathy, unless you are advocating direct action, which may see you branded as a terrorist yourself, depending on the scale of your action.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill.
That's really a low blow. For all the hassle they get, the constant travelling, the long debates that run into the evening/night, and the exposure they have to their constituents and their problems, most MPs are not in it for the money, and many of them care passionately about their constituents.
I don't know whether you follow your MP, but if you did, you would probably be surprised by how many days they don't get back home in the evening, or how readily they are prepared to talk to any of their constituents.
Rather than constantly being in hotels, they are allowed to have an expensed second residence. If their permanent residence is in their home constituency, then this second residence will be in London or the home counties. If they have been parachuted into a constituency, then it may be there (although I would like all MPs to actually live in their constituency).
Because they are often out of their constituency, they are normally allowed to run an expensed office with some staff there. Often, MPs top-up the running of their constituency office out of their own pocket, or have family members working for more hours than they are paid.
And like almost any other employed person, they are allowed to claim justifiable travel expenses and ad-hock accommodation costs when away from any of their residences.
So yes, they do claim high expenses, because they do things that need paying for. And, yes, sometimes the rules have been abused. But probably not too much now (cases in the media nowadays are mostly historical).
They do not join Parliament to make money, at least not while they are an MP. Mostly people do it because they want to make a difference, and precious few manage this against the political machine. If they get well known, they may make money afterwards by taking directorships or on the public speaking circuit, but I suspect that many MPs after they leave office either move into local government, find normal jobs or retire. Only a few make the really big bucks. Most just grow grey and disillusioned.
In my experience, change control is never applied to requirements. It would be good if it could, but generally, it's not, especially on something with a duration measured in a few weeks.
I can sympathise, but some of the problem is the carrier.
I had a Sony Xperia Neo on a contract from Orange in the UK. It was running 2.3.4.
Sony published a ICS upgrade for the phone, but Orange did not bother to repackage it. One thing that the carriers don't tell you is not only is your phone locked to their network unless you unlock it, but often the phone you have is actually a service provider specific model (check the last few digits of the long model name, and look it up), and cannot take the generic updates for the model.
This effectively means that the same phone may have later updates that you can't use.
I know I could have put Cyanogenmod on the phone, but why should I risk the functioning of the phone merely because the service provider chooses not to publish a usable and available update.
When I got my newer phone, I passed the Neo to my daughter who stuck her Orange pre-pay SIM in and is very happy, even though it is running Gingerbread. Her (and my previous) previous phone (a Samsung Galaxy Apollo running 2.2) was passed down to my youngest child, who uses it with an 8GB micro-SD card as a music player and FM radio.
I think that phone service providers should be forced by law to offer to revert a phone to phone vendor generic software once they decided to stop passing on updates from the phone manufacturer.
While I agree with what you said, I think you missed what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that industry should skill up their coders so that they were capable of writing the efficient code. This would be of benefit to many of us older people, as we came from such an environment.
Education does as industry wants. If there was a serious need to have people trained in writing assembler, within 5 years, the education system would be falling over itself with suitable courses (it takes that long to develop a syllabus and get it accepted). Vocational training could be even quicker as long as there were the trainers able to teach (although this is debatable).
The only reason that Java, C#, .Net and Python are the programming languages of choice in education is that they think this is what industry needs!
There is another alternative to building bigger and bigger data centres.
Rather than look at the power footprint of the hardware, why not start looking at the power footprint of the software?
Looking at what people are doing on systems nowadays, how much more productive are people with, say, office productivity suites today versus what they had 15 or 20 years ago when systems were a fraction of the computing and consumed power (you only have to look at a 15 year old PC, and spot that the power supply could only supply around 100W. Look at a modern PC, and you will find that 300-500W power supplies are the norm now.)
I know that there are new applications that people use that do need high footprint software (anything to do with high quality media is a prime example), but for many tasks, both on a commercial and a personal basis, modern software is big, bloated, and power hungry.
The power economies available from ARM and Intel Haswell show that there are considerable economies in power, but this has largely been soaked up by software with higher requirements. Reducing the memory footprint and CPU cycles required to run the systems mean that each system will be able to run more work in the same power budget.
I'm not saying that all workloads can have their power significantly reduced, (Big Data and HPC workloads will always be memory and/or processor intensive), but much of VDI and running simple data processing workloads, and running web sites are hugely inefficient because of the way they have evolved and the tools used to write them.
So my view is dump the RAD tools and languages that require 10s of megabytes to run "Hello, World.", and move back to the development of light-weight applications on stripped down OSs, coded by skilled coders who are tasked with writing efficient code, and then run more work on systems with the existing power foorprint.
The cost balance will move from quick to develop but expensive to run, to expensive to develop but cheaper to run, but that equation will shift as power gets more expensive. It will have to happen eventually once computers reach the limit of what can be achieved in the available power budget, but why not start now before the crisis hits us?
That device creates a semi-focused EM pulse that would knock out all of the cars (and pretty much any sensitive electronics as well) within a certain area, probably including the police vehicle itself. It's a very blunt weapon. Would be good on a battlefield (which is where it would be effective is used by a non-technologically augmented infantry soldier, especially against smart soldiers and exoskeletons).
I would love to see the compensation claim against the police from a couple of hundred drivers for their cars, in-car entertainment systems, phones, watches, and a myriad of other devices, especially if the device was operated in a built-up area.
Automatic transmissions are still the exception in most of Europe.
I have a compromised right arm. I'm not disabled, but the biceps take no part in moving my lower arm since I ruptured the tendons at the lower end (in case you are wondering, this is not any reflection of the NHS that it was not fixed, there were practical reasons why I did not have it done, including the risk of nerve damage to my right hand and calcification of the elbow).
As a result, I generally have cars with power assisted steering now. I can drive a car without, but driving a car designed to have power assistance without the power is completely different from driving one designed without it. I had a Rover SD1, and even with the car moving, the wheel took two hands to turn if the engine was not running (once, after a breakdown, I was towed using a solid-bar that required me to steer and to some extent brake, but there was no power assistance for either - it was not pleasant). I think I could have driven it if the engine ran but the steering pump was not working , but it would have been difficult.
Similarly, if the brake servo craps out on you while you are driving, don't expect the car to have the same stopping distance that it has with it running. The power assistance is there for a reason.
I agree with your statement about cars having to be drivable without any power assistance, but that does not make any statement about how comparatively safe they are in that condition.
I believe that it's a generational thing.
When I went to University in the late 1970's (when computers were still seen as rooms filled with metal cabinets and blinking lights), not only was Computer Science a rising subject, but it attracted bright people.
I will admit that at the time, it was regarded as a very niche subject, having just about broken free of being a sub-genre of Mathematics, and the people were, how can I put it, um, different, or maybe eclectic, but some of the brightest people I have known were working with computers.
It needed a new and different mind-set that required you to look at problems in unusual and in some cases completely bizarre ways (the canned solutions had not been developed yet). You needed to be a little weird to be attracted to the subject, and there was no promise of high salaries. It suited future geeks like me.
I was lucky enough to have the right skills at the right time, and I rode the wave through the '80s and '90s, being one of the people who advanced rapidly because there was a skill vacuum which led to salaries and responsibilities rising faster than my peers in other jobs. At this time, the high wages and apparent skill shortages meant that Computer Science and related disciplines looked very attractive to new students, which led to a mushrooming of the number and type of courses and students studying them.
But it also led to people to come to the subject as a way of earning a living, rather than because they were really interested in it. A true Computer Scientist will think about computers outside of work. Someone using the discipline to earn a living will normally switch off as soon as they leave work. There are too many people for whom computing only as a job, and this damages the field as a whole.
There has also been a backlash. Many people outside of IT do not understand why there is a legacy of relatively high remuneration. It is still the case that skilled computing jobs can command high salaries, and this is often resented by other people. Many organisations are attempting to align their IT staff down to clerical grades, not understanding that this will prevent them from recruiting the best and brightest. It also makes older people like me very jaded, because I see the lower levels of the profession full of grunts who do not, and in many cases, cannot fathom what it is they are doing beyond following procedures. This reinforces the belief that all jobs in IT are over-paid.
I believe that the same thing has happened in Climate Research, but instead of it having taken 40 years, it's happened in about a 15. The older people who really know what it's all about are leaving the high profile Climate Science roles, and their place is being taken by people who see the subject as en-vogue and sexy, but do not bring the required levels of in-depth knowledge. The big difference is that it is not money, but reputation and influence that is driving the desire to join the field. And instead of being over-paid, the current crop are seen as having too much influence.
You're one of the people who removed the wire clips from the Centronics-type SCSI-1 connectors (they weren't Centronics connectors, that was for parallel printers), aren't you?
With those buggers clipped in, it was often impossible to get the cables out, especially if there was no space on either side of the plug to unclip them!
The reports state that about 7,500 people worldwide are being transferred to Lenovo. Obviously, some of these people will be involved in manufacturing and sales, but there is plenty of scope for the x86 iDataPlex and NeXtScale engineers and architects to be among them.
"Two-thirds of homes already have a satellite or cable box through which they could pay the BBC sub."
OK, that covers 1 of the 8 televisions in my house. Do the other 7 become useless? The people who come up with this guff assume that there is only one TV in the house. I wish they'd leave the 1970's and move into the 1980's, when more than one TV per house became common.
Oh, maybe they assume that they are all modern TV's, and have CAM modules?
Well, it's possible that the ones in my house with Freeview built in may have them, I've never needed to check the LCD TV's I bought the kids. By there are at least three in the house that use external STBs that definitely don't.
If you go down to Tesco and buy one of their £17 STBs for Freeview, they definitely don't. And I suspect that a significant part of the older members of the population, plus a huge number of older TV's that have been re-purposed to entertain the kids or sit in the kitchen will have a cheap STB rather than something that can use a CAM.
So. Are we all going to get some financial support to replace all this with new kit?
And how are you going to make broadcast radio conditional? A lot of radio listening is done in the car or on mobile battery-powered radios that already exist?
The CHRP platform formed the basis of all RS/6000, pSeries and Power systems from the second generation 43P (the 7043 models, not the original 7248 which was a PReP model) right up to the current day.
Although modern Power systems use PCIe rather than PCI or PCI-X, they are still under the covers CHRP platforms, although they are not categorised as such any more, because it is not important. I'm sure CHRP has evolved, but it is still CHRP.
If I look at one of the Power7 systems running AIX that I help look after, I can see "devices.chrp.base.rte" along with 25 other support packages that mention chrp.And I can tell that this is not for legacy systems, because amongst them is "devices.chrp.IBM.HFI.rte", which is the support package for the HFI interconnect that does not appear on any other IBM Power server than the 9125-F2C Power 775 HPC system.
So CHRP is alive and well, but only in IBM supplied systems.
It is possible that the Power8 systems will not be CHRP, because the fundamental GX++ Power bus is no longer used as the primary system bus, and has been replaced by the PCI Express 3.0 based Coherent Attached Processor Interface (CAPI). Whether CHRP will be extended to include CAPI or replaced, I do not know.
If they turn out to be a real bust, and don't get customer engagement, IBM is going to be looking very much weaker with a significantly reduced hardware portfolio.
I wonder when they are going to drop the "Machines" part of "International Business Machines" because they no longer make enough hardware.
Strange you mentioned printers. Remember that Lexmark used to be IBM's small and medium end printer business before it was spun off.
What amazed me at the time was that IBM spun off Lexmark, and then almost immediately introduced new ranges of laser printers that directly competed with the Lexmark product range!
Ditto Palm devices.
You've forgotten to take into account the hosting costs, which include space, power and bandwidth costs, and may also include a rental on the hardware for their servers and rental of an office space.
They also appear to host developer events, which are unlikely to be free to arrange.
Taking this into account, I do wonder how they managed to clock up a $20,000 power bill. How many servers are they running?
Mind you, the picture at the foot of their home page makes it look like their test servers are in someone's garage!
While your history is correct, it seems a bit random except that it mentions both IBM and Fujitsu.
In reality, Amdahl ceased to exist in the 1990's when it was fully subsumed into Fujitsu, and which coincided with Fujitsu effectively exiting the Plug-Compatible Mainframe market when they did not develop a zSeries compatible system.
I keep coming across ex-Amdahl (and ICL) employees in the UK who wound up in Fujitsu's services arm working on whatever they can to stay employed until retirement.
What is more interesting is whether the Flex and NeXtScale lines will go as well, because that will impact IBM's presence in the midrange AIX IBM i, and HPC markets, leaving it in the mainframe and niche server market place. What else does STG actually sell apart from consultancy, and my presumption is that it tended to be sold as a hardware/software/consultancy package a lot of the time. My guess is that it will quietly disappear, with the remaining work split between the Software and GTS divisions.
Yes, I was wondering where the consumer representation was on this advisory board.
The only people on it are those who are likely to financially gain, and not those who will lose.
My household has Sky on one telly, and limited IPTV on two others (through consoles and BluRay players), and the other 5 rely on terrestrial TV.
Living in the sticks, where LTE and Fibre services have not yet reached, and where broadband is currently limited to ADSL 2+ Annex M, and even 3G and DAB services are very patchy, it is unlikely that IPTV for the whole household is realistic.
I believe that was just an example.
An encrypted file may not sound like white noise. The encryption method may introduce patterns, and may not generate a white noise type distribution. I'm sure I could come up with some (admittedly poor, but I only spent 10 seconds on it) method of using integer encoding of an exponential of the bytes in a data stream to generate significantly non-random files.
And how do you 'play' a data file? All audio data has to be encoded in some form or other, even it is successive 8-bit sampled voltage values from a microphone.
Have you ever played around with SoX, and got the encoding wrong. Sometimes not even music sounds like music. Try playing an MP3 as a raw WAV.
The assumption in this sub-thread is that you can recognise that some file or device is actually encrypted. In reality, a file of seemingly jumbled data without a recognisable format could be anything. There does not have to be any implicit recognisable format in a data file. Some files contain headers or some fingerprint that point to the format file the file for convenience, but that is by convention, not any fundamental property of the data.
As long as you know how to process the data (be it background noise from the LHC, some new audio or video encoding, or a valuable secret), there is no need to put hints into the file to help other people. All that is needed is that you and anybody else using the data knows how to process it. It then becomes a matter of inspired guess work with some maths and statistics for anybody else to access the data.
For some background in arbitrary pre-shared secret codes, look back at this previous story. Follow up stories suggested that the message was read only when the pre-shared secret was identified.
in reality, there is no practical difference between encoding and encrypting. Encrypting just has a more complex encoding method.
If you think about it in a lexical manner, en-coding means applying a code to a data set, and at a fundamental level, a code and a crypt (as in encrypt, not that room under a church) are different names for the same thing.
Now sit back and wait for someone to offer a reason why a code and a crypt are different.
That's a very interesting question that I've wanted answering for a while.
If a file is of a format that the investigating authorities don't recognise, how do you prove to their satisfaction that it is not some new form of encryption that they don't know about?
Suspect: "Officer, I was investigating patterns in files of captured entropy data for use in random number generators"
Police: "Don't believe you, sonny. Tell us how to decrypt it, or go to jail!"
"If you know someone struggling with XP on an aged box, do 'em a favour and help them"
I always do, although it puts pressure on my free time. Mind you, in the Unity world, with Ubuntu getting rapidly more resource hungry, I'm having difficulty working out what is now a suitable distro to recommend. Currently, I'm suggesting Mint Debian with Mate, but that is now too large to fit on the smaller netbooks.
I don't want to go down to the lowest levels of Puppy and CrunchBang, even though these may be suitable for the lower-spec machines. I'd like something with regular updates, but not as heavy as the newer Ubuntu releases.
Maybe I ought to look again at Lubuntu or Xubuntu but even these are getting significantly bigger in their later releases because of the underlying code base. I must admit that I've lost faith in Canonical keeping Ubuntu as a mainstream Linux distribution as opposed to a boutique OS based on Linux.
Linux Mint or Win7 was not the choice I was setting. You are lucky enough to be able to afford a Win7 system for her, which makes it a style/fashion choice, unless there are Windows only packages that she needs to run (as opposed to being what she is used to).
If that was not an option, what would she and you have done? You didn't answer that question.
Would Win7 have been important enough to you (collectively) to drop a rent or mortgage payment, or not eat for a month? That is the question.
... that many home users will not/cannot replace what they perceive as perfectly usable system, merely because the OS is out of support.
The only thing that will make then do anything at all is if their critical websites, like their banking, shopping and on-line media sites stop working because they cannot update their browser. As long as updated versions of Firefox or Chrome are available, then they will stay on XP regardless of other problems.
For many, many people, £300 (or more if they have more than one to replace, like kids systems) for a new computer is enough of a hurdle for them to take the risk. After all, what would you do if you could not afford a new system, and had the choice of either stopping using computers completely, or continuing with XP with a higher risk of being exploited. This is what a lot of people miss, especially in the IT sellers and even on this site (where may of us probably have above average incomes).
When the browsers on XP can no longer hack it, there may really be a real opportunity for Linux to extend the life of otherwise potentially useless Windows XP systems. What we need is someone like Which! or other consumer related publications to publish a review of a suitable distro for 2GHz P4/early Core2 grade systems with modest memory and graphics capability as an alternative to sending a computer to the dump. I think that there would be some people who would consider this when given it as an alternative, especially if it is a relatively painless install, aimed at novice level technical experience (yes, it can be done).
I think that the corporates who are/were expecting the end of XP support to be a lever for more PC sales will be disappointed in the home market.
To tell you the truth, I absolutely hate browsers on different devices automatically syncing up. I have different browsing habits at work than I do at home, and can't stand it when my tablet or phone decides it wants to open the dozen or so tabs that I last used at work, especially when some of them are behind login pages, and thus will fail to load.
I mean, I would actually like to go back to the days when I opened the browser, it actually went to my home page, and stayed there until I went somewhere else. Anything I'm interested in, I'll bookmark, and open when I want.
One thing that worries me is that syncing across browsers also means that something is linking the different devices up without my involvement. Mozilla/Firefox must be doing some serious profiling to work out that my Linux desktop at work is somehow linked to my personal phone, but it does.
It's scary when I look up a route in Google Maps, and then have Navigation on my phone pick it up. Convenient, maybe, but I would prefer to have the control over that level of integration myself.
I know that if I dig through the settings enough, and regularly clear the cookies, I can probably get what I want, but the defaults currently do not suite me. Maybe there should be some privacy profile that gets filled in the first time you use a particular browser.
It's probably a generational thing. I don't want my life plastered across the Internet, because I grew up expecting a degree of anonymity in life, whereas more recent generations appear to not value that at all, and often court the whole world to know where they are and what they are doing.
OK. Lets assume that you can compromise the X server by adding this compromised font to a user writeable directory, and forcing a font rehash.
To do this you need to run commands as that user anyway! Again, if I can do that as a user with some privilege, I can by-pass the X server exploit because I'm already running commands as the user!
Please keep up.
Actually I can think of a way of doing this without needing to run commands as the user, but I would need a valid copy of the xauth magic cookie. But if you've got a copy of the magic cookie, you can do all of the key stroke and screen capture you talk about anyway, so again the exploit is superfluous.
Yes, it's terrible. Back before the Morris worm, nobody thought to code anything with the level of code care that we now do, because nobody thought that it was possible to do these things because they'd never been done before. I'm sure that there were huge numbers of buffer over-run and similar exploits scattered around every single OS around at that time.
Every aspect of computing, be it OS design or the primitive networking that was available back then must be looked as being primitive by today's standards.
As always, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.
It's interesting that the arbitrary code execution buffer overrun problems only work if the compiler stores localised variables on the stack, the stack grows downwards rather than upwards, and there are no stack frame barriers imposed by the OS or language runtime. It also helps in the actual potential stack-smashing arbitrary code execution exploit if the calling-conventions and layout of the stack frames and return addresses (which is architecture and OS dependent) are known about in advance.
This means that gcc compiled binaries running on Intel platforms using the conventional Linux calling conventions can be easily targeted, but otherwise you need to know the target before you start. Of course, corrupting the stack will have unpredictable results regardless of the architecture, but most of these will be denial-of-service type problems, rather than arbitrary code execution. Still a concern, but rather less so,
"Without educational licensing, yeah, I'd question it greatly."
And there you have it in a nutshell. Microsoft using their OS and software licensed at a loss in order to reinforce their market dominance.
If it were anything other than something reducing Government costs, this would be branded as an illegal subsidy by anti-competition bodies.
To be fair, they weren't the only people doing this. Part of the design of the BBC micro was that almost everything you needed could be installed in the BEEB itself, including the power supply, so all you needed was a bare drive (Viglen used TEAC drives, or at least mine was, a ribbon cable with the right connectors for the data, a four wire cable with the correct connectors for power, and something to put it in.
I had one of the 'luxury' drives that was 80 tracks, double sided, and even had the switch to double-step the head motor so that it could read 40 track disks!
When I looked, I could not understand how Viglen managed to make a profit on these devices, because the bare drives were no cheaper at retail prices than the cased ones.
Another thing. Viglen was not an Alan Sugar brand back then. He bought it in 1994.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017