Well I'm shocked
Increasing the percentage shown on a sensitivity slider increases the sensitivity... well spin my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska,whoda thunk it?
418 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
Like it. A wonderfully simple idea that looks like it could scale to cover vast areas whilst being lighter than existing solutions and using a lot less power.
Sure, it's a variant on the mechanical flip-pixel displays but without all that bulkiness. Well done indeed.
Unintended flipping due to breezes might be an issue but could be engineered around; encase the screens (or subsections of very large screens) comes to mind. All in all a very clever solution.
Then I looked at his website... sigh... hoping for some more detail about the magnetic control processes, but no...
Besides opening up new aesthetic possibilities, this technology is radical in two engineering respects - it does not use conventional electromagnets to move the pixels, and it achieves complex pixel movements without a complex control system. In other words - it shouldn't work, but careful co-evolution of the hardware components and the control software has created a surprisingly elegant and effective design (patent pending).
In other words - it shouldn't work
Argh!! Hates that.
What? You designed it to do something else and this was an entirely unexpected result? Bollocks!
Of course it should work! It's what you made it to do.
The fact you do it with a slimmed out electromagnetic process - that at a wild guess varies the attraction and repulsion laterally across each pixel with respect to the backing to flip it then stick it back down - is a neat discovery, but don't play us for morons by saying it shouldn't work.
Pot meets kettle, discusses lack of brightness difference...
BT tries to move into a market that where Sky, and to a lesser extent Virgin, have operated for many more years, and then complains that guess what? The company that's been there longest has dominant share.
Sadly this seems to be the default position. Rather than, oh I don't know, compete, try to manipulate the regulator to damage the competition.
I'm assuming you mean when parked, not whilst driving...
Pull one of many fuses for the fuel pump, fuel injection, engine management, or ignition systems. any of these will stop the motor.
Do not cover the air intake. You won't lose a hand but you will get a poor air/fuel mix in the cylinders that could lead to all sort of expensive damage, for instance to your catalyst. They don't like fuel contamination.
Holding programmers accountable for bad code is what is required.
Respectfully disagree. Furthermore I respectfully suggest you know nothing about development processes or the differences between unit, regression and product testing.
now is the time to put an end to dangerous, deadly and unacceptably poor programming code and it's implementation
You really don't have a clue do you. This is almost never the case in safety critical systems. A failure to understand the process leaves you blaming the wrong people.
Applying a proper, rigorous and thorough testing program is the solution. Ensuring that any issues flagged up are taken seriously rather than swept under the carpet because another iteration of the development cycle costs another couple of million.
Making the programmers accountable is not the answer. Programmers should never be responsible for product testing and QA, for the simple reason they are programmers not testers. They know the code they have written and subconsciously avoid doing stupid or unexpected things with it. This has the natural effect of missing bugs.
Programmers do perform unit and regression tests on their code. But these can only be expected to perform within the scope of specifications the programmers have been given.
Bugs don't just arise from programming mistakes, and the ones that do are quickly weeded out in the unit and regression testing phases. In critical applications bugs tend to occur due to poorly specified requirements or operating conditions outside of anticipated ranges. This is not a failure of the programmers. This is a failure of specification, of understanding the original problem.
And these aren't actually bugs, these are failures to properly define the problem at the outset. It is the responsibility of requirements analysers and product specification engineers and their management to ensure all aspects are adequately specified before coding starts.
It is the responsibility of programmers to adhere to the specifications they are given, and of development managers to ensure this happens.
It is the responsibility of product testing to ensure that firstly the product meets the original specifications, and secondly to ensure that it doesn't royally fuck up when pushed beyond the original specifications.
Depending on the severity of problems found at this time, it is up to project stakeholders to decide what further action is needed. They will make a risk assessment and can choose to iterate the specification, programming and testing cycle again, or release the product as is.
None of this is the responsibility of the programmers.
Ultimately responsibility falls on the upper management layers of the company as a whole for failing to ensure they have delivered a safe, secure and working product. They are the ones whose job is supposed to be to make sure, really sure, that everything has been done correctly.
You are of course free to buy an older car without all the computery gubbins. No-one is stopping you.
These things may appear to be pointless excesses, but there's a solid reason behind each choice. As the extra complexity is generally more expensive, and manufacturers want to be able to sell their cars, they don't just add this stuff on a whim.
Just because you don't see the benefit doesn't mean there isn't one.
A computer system to turn the ignition off when a barrela nd key works with no less benefit.
The intention is to improve security.
Simple barrel and key is open to hotwiring, it's just a switch that in some cases can carry a very high current - so is also a potential fire hazard if there's a wiring fault.
The electronic barrel has a transponder that reads a code from your key. That code is passed to the car's security module which decides if that key is allowed to start the car. That is why keys have to be coded to cars. Accessory positions 1 and 2 may still be simple switches, or they may also be enabled by the security module.
Secondary benefits are automated start/stop, and remote start.
Attaching to a laptop to bring wipers to the middle so you can change the blades, as the blades hide under the bonet when you turn them/the car off.
Design aesthetics and aerodynamics are probable reasons here. Manufacturers seeking that fractional improvement in drag reduction will conceal the wipers as this helps smooth airflow over the car.
As for being hidden under the bonnet, just open the bonnet when the blades need changing. This is normal practice on modern cars. I've never seen one that needs something plugged into the diagnostic port to change the wiper blades.
computers and electronics are great, but do we really need one to do simple mundane tasks which REALLY don't need making super complicated?! It's all about robbing the customer blind
I'd say it's more feeling the need to add automated and "intelligent" features as an attempt to differentiate in a competitive market, with a nod to making things more complicated than the average owner can handle so will maybe return to the dealer.
EU directives mean that servicing and repairs can be carried out at any VAT registered garage without affecting the manufacturer warranty, so you are free to take your car to just about any garage you want.
You need to connect your car to my gizmo mate to find out why your car is in limp mode. It'll give me an error code whih i can look up to tell me. Oh btw it costs £60 jto do that; just to tell you what's wrong.'
Sure, dealers like to scam you by charging half hour or hour labour just to plug in a computer that gives the result in 30 seconds. Know scam that is easily avoided.
You can buy yourself a £20 code reader and look up the fault yourself, then research the problem yourself and decide if you can fix it.
And you are still free to take your car anywhere to get repaired. Doesn't have to be the dealer. And dealers are often franchises so even if you do go to a dealer, the manufacturer doesn't see a penny of that. Dealer buys cars from manufacturer, parts sometimes from the manufacturer. That's the end of the relationship. Manufacturer does not benefit from service and repair jobs.
What's the alternative? Cars that tell you nothing about the problem so you pay out for hours and hours of diagnostic labour charge just to find the fault, then you still have to pay for the fix as well?
Going into limp mode is usually better than the car simply dying on you and refusing to start. you can at least get home or to a garage instead of being stuck at the roadside.
^^^^ exactly this ^^^^
There are enough terrible drivers around as it is, and they drive manually every day.
Will there be some mandated annual retest of drivers with automatically piloted vehicles to ensure they can safely take over if and when needed? Or will they just be left to go "Oh FUCK!!!" and hit some innocent bystander because they forgot what to do?
Whilst the mechanics of driving are not so easily forgotten, the skill, the reaction times, the ability to predict what other drivers are likely to do, not panicking when the slightest unexpected thing happens, even just the feel of the pedals under your feet so you aren't stalling the motor each time you take your foot off the clutch or pressing the brake so hard you face-plant the steering wheel - these are things that require constant practice to maintain.
There are other questions too, like: will it be legal to "drive" (ok this is the wrong word - be in the driver's seat of?) a piloted car without a licence if it were to only shut down and park itself in the event of a data connection failure? Since the occupant isn't actually driving and cannot if the car won't let him/her, does this mean we could legitimately see kids behind the wheel of daddy's prized motor?
He is also accused of overruling an IT procurement decision in favour of a bid from an acquaintance, despite cheaper bids being on the table.
Not making a judgement about whether or not the deal was... questionable... but the cheapest bid is not always the best one. The sensible choice looks at the value of each bid, and the cheapest bid rarely offers the best overall value.
The guy seems bent as a nine-bob note, and given his position of power there's a good chance he is, but overriding the cheaper bid isn't necessarily dodgy and the fact it went to an acquaintance may be irrelevant.
“Particularly in technology we want to recruit people who we wouldn’t normally recruit – specky, geeky kids hacking in their bedroom,” he said. The philosophy is fresh thinking and ideas will flow from diversity and cause disruptive change for the Bank.
Why, because all your staff are handsome, strapping and athletic? Not the best way to attract the kind of people you obviously need, resorting to passive-aggressively offensive stereotyping of your target employees.
Government “identity assurance” programme Verify contains "severe privacy and security problems" including a major architecture flaw that could lead to "mass surveillance" – according to an academic paper.
That's not a bug. That's a feature. A very much intended, planned and designed feature.
Danezis questioned the reason behind why the system was designed with a single point of failure, but said no explanation has been provided.
The reason is simple. It is entirely deliberate. No way they're going to change it though, or admit it even could be a design flaw. The best you'll get is a canned statement about how it has been designed to be entirely secure with end-to-end encryption, and there's been no evidence of any compromise, intrusion or security breach in the system since it began operations.
Interestingly, the American version of an identity system, the Federal Cloud Credential Exchange, shares similar design flaws, according to the paper. But Danezis said there is no evidence the systems have been deliberately designed in this way by intelligence agencies.
Of course there's no evidence. This common "flaw" is a deliberate feature allowing spooks to compromise the system at will and will have been planned to leave no trace. Hard to imagine it isn't being abused in exactly this way, given the Fed's thirst for privacy invasion and mass data collection.
It's a big expensive plane that needs a lot of fuel, lot of crew and support both in the air and on the ground, and a metric fuck ton of maintenance per flight hour.
I know Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source, but it gives it pretty good rundown of costs.
Scroll down to Program costs and procurement, last paragraph.
Fair point, my last sentence perhaps wasn't worded as clearly as it should have been.
Obviously you can't create hydrogen-1 via nuclear fusion. I should have said there would be no Population IV stars because the necessary elements for Population III already existed immediately after the big bang. Thus no need to synthesise hydrogen, or fuse hydrogen into helium.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theorises that hydrogen, helium, some deuterium, less helium 3, and a relatively tiny amount of lithium formed immediately after the big bang itself, along with unstable isotopes tritium and beryllium that decayed to more stable variants of helium and lithium.
As hydrogen and helium already present form the Population III stars, there's no need for Population IV stars to create them via fusion.
Idiots listen to idiots. Always have, always will.
There's gonna be a ton of people stupid enough, paranoid enough, or otherwise religiously/politically enraged to pay attention to this prat.
Is he going to retract this when he finds his shoe down the back of the shoe rack or under the dog bed? Fuck no. After all, the only thing worse than looking like a twat, is looking like a twat twice.
So get a 2009 model. They're around the £15k mark at the moment. Or the rarer 2012 and later E3 models which run at around £30k and are slightly better equipped. Nearly as much fun for a lot less outlay.
0-60 in 4.9 instead of 4.2, but realistically you're never going to be able to put the power down without spinning the wheels to see 4.2...
With the change send it to Walkinshaw or Monkfish and ask them for cams/headers/OTRCAI and a remap, or a charger in whatever size takes your fancy.
...never let it near a Vauxhall dealership.
There are specialists who know these cars backwards and inside out, and will treat them with the respect they deserve. Most of the staff own these or similarly powered cars themselves, and have no need to be a twat in them, unlike your local grease monkey who's never so much as seen a V8 motor let alone worked on one.
Find a specialist that knows the engine, you'll have a much better experience.
Well said. You'll have to pry my VXR8 keys from my cold dead hand. There's no way in hell I'd go back to pathetically - dangerously - underpowered "eco" cars of any kind. If you want to be eco, don't have a car. Anyone who claims to be eco-friendly yet drives a car of any sort is a hypocrite, in my personal and humble opinion.
YMMV. Especially in a 6.2L V8 :D
This sounds like the Chevy SS - a Holden Commodore with a Corvette V8. It isn't supercharged, so it only has 415 HP.
You obviously don't have a clue what you're on about.
These have supercharged LSA 6.2L motors chucking out around 576bhp.
The original E1 VXR8 came with a LS2 6.0L motor that produced around 415bhp.
The later E1 VXR8 and E3 VXR8 GTS both came with LS3 6.2L motors producing 431bhp.
Later E1 models also came in supercharged Bathurst and Bathurst S specification, both styles converted from N/A to blown by Walkinshaw Performance at the behest of Vauxhall. The difference between the two is size of the charger.
The issue is how do we sensitively attune to issues around patient data confidentiality.
I must be missing something. What "issue"? This is private, personal medical data. There is no issue. It must be kept private, within the NHS only.
Not the NHS and carefully chosen affiliates.
Not sold to any old mucker with a wad of cash that comes asking.
Not passed to insurance companies.
Not innumerable other questionable practices that I can't think of right now.
If an individual's records are pertinent to some private pharma's reseach, private pharma must seek permission to use that data from the individual concerned, via the NHS so the individual can remain anonymous at all times unless they agree. There can be no direct communication between pharma and individuals until consent has been granted.
And, if said individual consents, that information must be given freely, never sold. In fact, it should be illegal to sell it. And the recipient must be legally bound to keep that information private, not sell it on. This needs to be backed with threat of serious prison time. At least try to take steps to remove any incentive to be a twat.
I am not against the centralisation of patient medical data. It seems a no brainer, that you can find yourself in any hospital in the UK and that hospital has instant access to your medical history, treatments, investigations, test results, medications, allergies and so on.
But it is not a cash cow that can be used as some kind of prop for NHS funding.
If we'd invested the hundreds of billions currently wasted on green energy projects on the space programme instead, we'd perhaps be on our way to having lunar colonies making interesting things, including science and lunarcrete sections for a Mars vehicle. It's not like there's any shortage of resources in our solar system.
Better yet, if we'd invested those hundreds of billions in Gen4+ nuclear plant, we'd now have genuine energy independence, zero carbon emission electricity production that we could flog to anyone and everyone in UK for a flat rate £30 a month. Forget meters and meter readings. Any surplus sell it to France. No wait, they don't need it because they already have a massive nuclear build-out. Germany then. Oh, the irony.
Once we have these clean, cheap unrelenting energy source, everyone has more money, and more energy to devote to other problems. Like investing in a proper space program to get our colonising arses off this rock.
Thought the trick was to work smarter, not harder...
Ah wait, we're talking lawyers... working hard for the sake of it keeps the billable hours up. Working smart gets the job done in half the time, and that's a problem they don't want.
Pretty simple really... MS owns Windows and PC manufacturers don't modify it. Sure, they may install bloatware and crapware when they build a PC, but they cannot modify the underlying operating system. This means MS can freely update the OS at any time without (generally) obliterating whatever the PC manufacturer has installed.
Android phone manufacturers are free to modify the operating system to add their own bloat/crapware and other "features" that you can't remove without rooting and reinstalling a clean OS.
Because of this direct change, Google cannot simply release an update an have it install on your phone. Chances are a lot of things will break.
Instead, your phone manufacturer gets the updates from Google and decides if they can be arsed to go through the modification, testing and deployment hassle all over again with the new version.
How much they can be arsed depends on the age and probably cost of your phone i.e. newer flagships are more likely to get an upgrade, older/landfill can forget it.
The simple answer is Google should make it a condition of using Android that manufacturers cannot modify it, at least not in any way that prevents Google applying OTA upgrades directly.
There's probably a dozen or more contractual and incentive-based reasons that will never happen.
Does ApplePay only allow purchased items to be shipped to a registered address a la PayPal? Or can they go to any address?
For the former, it'd be mildly irritating that a load of stuff turned up on your doorstep when you didn't buy it, but at least you could return it. So not such a big deal.
If the latter, and any delivery address can be specified without supplementary checks then sure, this is potentially a big problem.
Glad it's not just me wondering why they aren't parking it Europa orbit. Pity. They could obviously do a lot more science from there than on a measly 16 flybys.
Since it's not planned to last indefinitely I wonder if some kind of budget constraint meant they didn't send it with enough fuel and thrusters to do a proper job.
Sound like accelerated planned obsolescence. No need to worry about your non-removable battery dying, your circuit boards will biodegrade long before that happens. What controls when this stuff begins to degrade?
And microchips are generally a very small part of most electronic systems, so while they go green and eat themselves the rest of a product by volume - say >>99% - still needs to be recycled the old fashioned way. What's next? Go back to making everything out of wood?
Dunno about anyone else, but I like my electronics to last, not start biodegrading after a couple of weeks/months/years. When - if - they do eventually die I take them to be recycled. What happens beyond that point is out of my control.
Build stuff to last, make sure it can be properly recycled when it does eventually pop its clogs. Being biodegradable is fine for shopping bags. Please please please don't apply it to electronics.
The mission would send a solar-powered spacecraft into a long, looping orbit around the gas giant Jupiter...
At that distance the solar panels are going to have to be truly gargantuan to provide a decent amount of power to keep everything from freezing and run all the sciencey stuff.
Since we aren't assembling stuff in orbit yet, that means making them foldable to fit in the launcher fairing, and adds to the complexity, weight etc. Sure we've done it before but each moving part is added risk of mission failure. Not like we can just pop up there with a space helmet and a rocket pack and fix it.
Nuke power is always the better option. We use if for the deeper-space probes. More warmth, greater energy budget for the size of the probe. I know there's a need to radiate waste heat which requires radiators, but I can't imagine they'd have to be as big as the area of solar panels needed to generate the same power.
No more concerns about freezing every time the probe goes being Jupiter and can't see the sun.
But no, whopping great solar panels or a tiny power budget always seems to win.
Provide the police and intelligence agencies with the tools to keep you and your family safe.
By doing what they say, when they say it? My family is safe enough without this "feature" thankyouverymuch. No amount of snooping on everyone's comms is going to improve that.
Intelligence agencies have already proven they can't (or won't...) act on the information they do have. For fuck's sake don't give them more.
The amount of tarmac used to create just the UK road network - how big a pile would that that be, and would it be enough to fill in all the potholes?
Well, yeah... even if potholes made up 100% of the UK road surface - and they pretty much do round my way - by very definition potholes volume must be less-than-or-equal-to road volume.
Assuming you are generalising about use of tarmac of course, since roads aren't just made of tarmac and potholes can penetrate the substrate.
Icon = pedantic git
Nor actually "rare". Relatively abundant, just not usually concentrated like other ores...
and many other sources...
To play devil's advocate for a sec...
To be honest, you shove on a MP3, WMA or M4R file into the ringtones folder (either via the file browser, OneDrive, plug it into a PC and use Windows Explorer etc.), then the ringtone is in your list.
Given the maturity of most smartphone OS this "copy it to the ringtones folder" should not be a necessary step.
If Android (don't know about iOS so can't and won't make assumptions of it) can list all a user's music files without having to first assign them to specific folders, and allow selection of any one of those tunes to be either a ringtone for a specific contact or a general ringtone, why can't WinPhone do that?
Why should users have to put a file into a specific folder before it can be used as a ringtone?
Note that I am not saying this is complicated or difficult, just that to do it, you have to know this is a required step. On other OS it is not necessary, suggesting other OS have matured further.
User-friendliness and OS maturity are about making things easier for the user, allowing them to find what they are looking for faster, and use what they find for common tasks as efficiently as possible.
If WinPhone still needs users to put specific files in specific folders to perform common tasks, whereas other OS do not impose that requirement, that cannot help the perception WinPhone still has some growing up to do.
Yeah but he's not a scientist, so he won't follow scientific method.
As a creationist he will do exactly what you say it sounds like he's doing - looking for evidence that supports his idea. Anything that doesn't support it will be ignored. There will be no possibility of him being wrong because he will only find evidence that supports his view.
He's already proven this in saying existing scientifically established views cannot be correct because the authors of those views were not present at the time applicable to their theories.
Therefore, there's no point in peer review of his "paper", as any contradictions raised will be discarded.
Creationism and science are polar opposites. Amazing how these nutjobs have the stones to call themselves scientists.
Maybe security should be designed, not into the IoT thingamabobs, but into the router/switch/hardware that talks to them. Let me clarify : a light bulb may be able to talk over the Internet, but only if there is hardware from an ISP connecting the household to the Internet. Yes, I know about the WiFi Ethernet attempts. One thing at a time.
If IoT can only work with a hardware portal to the Internet, then it is those things that can handle the security.
No no no no no no no no no no no no no! NO!!
Might as well not bother. We all know full well how (in)secure most routers are, and that only seems to be getting worse not better.
The only way to do security is design it in from the ground up. That requires protocols for shared interaction, time taken to research, develop and do things properly. Dare I say it even committees and working groups (argh!).
But no, have to rush to market with some pointless IoT-connected leaf mulcher just to beat the other guy who is also making a pointless IoT-connected leaf mulcher. Security by assumption someone else will deal with it higher up the chain is not security.
You might be happy enough for anyone to be able to turn on your lights and sky-rocket your electricity bill because you were reliant on your router to not let them into your IoT network. I doubt many other people would be so pleased.
...it's put next to the wrong piece of cutlery on the table. Never again will we have to suffer the insult the main course fork being placed on the outside of the appetiser fork. Thank our stars those days are finally behind us.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019