Re: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...
"a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack first appeared in NT 3.5"
16449 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Honestly, a couple of weeks of setup and testing, and then 20-minute rebuild times across any number of devices you like."
The sad thing is that these instructions are passed on as a recommended SOP without any sense that this should not be an acceptable state of affairs.
By the time most readers get round to reading this article the article reporting the fact that the HoC has passed the snooper's charter will have slid off the end of News Bytes where it was posted. I don't know why this stupid appendage was added to el Reg. I suppose it might be a useful means of keeping PR companies happy by posting their press releases without interfering with the main work of the site but better judgement is needed to ensure real news doesn't go down this fast track to oblivion.
"it has the potential to be a bit of a local envoriomental disaster area"
You didn't bother to quote what you were referring to but your "it" seems to be the Severn barrage. You're wrong, it wouldn't be just a local environmental disaster. The role of the Severn estuary in feeding migrating birds would make it a disaster on a continental scale..
now years ago.
The reason why we've been unnecessarily shoving valuable fossil hydrocarbons up power station chimneys for most of my adult life has been down to self-styled environmentalists objecting to nuclear power. We've missed out on decades of the investment needed to develop a mature technology with maximal safety and minimal environmental impact. When all else fails we'll end up with a desperate dash in which cost and any other concerns are disregarded because it's all been left too late.
"environmental impacts on wildlife"
ISTR reading about tests at Strangford quite some time ago which concluded that this wasn't really a problem. It's a good test site given that there's the QUB marine station immediately adjacent, that the turbines occupied a reasonable percentage of the opening and that the tidal flows are very strong with the entire tidal volume of the Lough rushing in and out through a very narrow opening.
"Just wondered why it's not even mentioned in the piece."
I think it's much less developed. It's a more hostile environment to place free-standing turbines. If you've got a bit of land in an exposed situation you could plant readily available wind turbines there and collect a nice subsidy for delivering an erratic supply of power. Submerged turbines in tidal races are only just getting towards production. The alternative of building tidal reservoirs is apt to cause real environmental problems because promising sites tend to be wild-life friendly places, something the pseudo-environmentalists are apt to overlook.
The other explanation might be that wind turbines and solar are easy to see so the p-es are reminded what they're getting for
their our money.
"Personally, I thought it was the looms they destroyed, and I suspect most other people do too. If the author had said "cropping frames" instead of "looms", I would have been lost and possibly even forced to read in to the link..."
It's a significant difference.
Textile production in the West Riding had been based on the domestic system where spinning and weaving had been carried out by what were essentially family businesses with finishing processes carried out by specialists (one of these processes, fulling, had long been mechanised). Spinning seems to have been the choke point in this process.
In the late C18th new water powered machinery became available for spinning which in turn allowed weaving to become a full-time occupation. There was a gradual move to the factory system. Productivity and employment were rising. Manual cloth dressing would have become the choke point had this not been mechanised by cropping frames.
Without updating this step in the whole production system then at best the industry and the consequent employment would have had its growth limited; at worst, an more probably, it would have gone elsewhere. In short the few Luddites, who had been an elite, were endangering the employment of the many.
I'm not sure that this accords with what the
rant opinion piece was getting at because AFAICS the "scold in San Fransisco" is closer to the cloth dresser than those who object.
"it's off to the House of Lords next"
Then, assuming it gets Royal Assent, it'll be off the ECHR which also can't be scheduled yet. After that, in the absence of an unlikely outbreak of sanity in Whitehall, we go for another iteration of the loop.
Or, in event of a Brexit, the City will start screaming and lobbying as they realise that they can't meet EU requirements about personal data transfer.
ALM, DevOps - it all smacks of consultancies who seem to have had no previous experience of real life in IT.
Assuming the project isn't a death march and doesn't get canned after go-live initial development takes a reasonably short period compared with the time spent in production. During production it gets maintained as requirements change and get added to, and maybe well-hidden bugs become apparent. Hence my contention that development is the process of launching a software system into the maintenance cycle.
Periodically this normality is apparently rediscovered by people who appear to think they've made an astounding discovery and it's given a new name. The cynical*, of course, might think that they secretly knew about it all the time but just want to hang a few new tools, courses, consultancy jobs etc. round it. They're not really as deeply ignorant as they appear, they're just selling to PHBs who don't know any better.
*Cynical - moi?
"They won't have the money to sue anyway"
If we're just talking about comms costs, bill them, 30 days to pay, then go to the small claims court. However much money MS's lawyers charge is of no relevance. Get a judgement & if they don't pay send the bailiffs into the local office to seize goods to the value.
" how do you handle THAT kind of opponent without losing yourself in paranoia?"
The first requirement is to realise that you have that kind of opponent.
Then you design the system to be secure rather than designing the system and trying to bolt security on afterwards.
"the Dutch people alone were given the vote in a referendum on future EU membership of the Eukraine"
I think this is the problem with the EU. There have been several updates to the treaty arrangements. Presentation for popular voting on these has been sporadic. When the Irish voted against the Lisbon treaty they were told to vote again until they came up with the right answer.
Each of the treaties should have required approval by an EU-side vote. That would have limited the politicians and officials to options which could command majorities, it would have encouraged them to keep in touch with the populus to determine what would and wouldn't fly and to explain what and why they were presenting for approval. For the officials requiring informed consent might have been a useful discipline.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019