Posts by Charles 9

Re: Fit for purpose?

And IF one is offered, which may not be possible if all the manufacturers refuse as a bloc.

And if NO ONE agrees, meaning the contract goes unfulfilled and machines start needing to be replaced? Remember there are very few manufacturers of this specialized and very expensive medical equipment. It's a seller's market. They can probably afford to wait it out while customers from other countries ring in.

Re: Eternity

Except we're only human. You expect perfection out of us, and not even the military and airline industries are spotless.

But what happens WHEN (not IF) a security update breaks your machine? Get pwned or get bricked?

If he was so ticked, why does he stick with Windows. Almost sounds masochistic.

Unless EVERYONE is using it, leaving you in a bind.

Re: I blame the management....

More like you COULDN'T pay the water bill because the captive market jacked up the price beyond affordability. And water is scarce where you are so only experts know where to look: making them unavoidably expensive and risky to go it alone.

Re: Permanent Storage

"My issue is that there isn't anything permanent to store data (write once, no degradation)"

Because you're chasing unicorns. NOTHING lasts for extremely long periods, especially if abused. Even stone can suffer erosion or crack to an earthquake, and diamonds are actually UNstable over geologic time (graphite is carbon's most stable form at STP). The best you can do is buy some time, the price rises with the length, and there are no real guarantees.

And over geologic time? The Kansas song "Dust in the Wind" springs to mind.

Re: Never mind blind tests...

"The only way I can get the best out of music these days is like that bloke in the Pratchett quote up there ^ somewhere..."

So you know, that "bloke" was Ankh-Morpork's Patrician. A bit of an oddity in terms of tastes, but undoubtedly the most canny potentate on practically all of the Disc.

Anyway, a deaf test would defeat the purpose. The idea is to blind you so you don't know what you're hearing (or tasting in the case of a taste test). I suppose you could use a deaf test when you're trying to compare two things by eye so you don't pick up on subtle audio clues.

Re: Shame

"Well, you'd think so. But while manufacturers like it when they don't have to pay licensing fees for patents, they like it even more when they have an excuse to move customers on to a new format and sell us new kit to play it on."

I wouldn't worry too much about. Without patent encumbrance, hobbyists can now legally link MP3 libraries into their tools and provide converters and the like for you to use. And since FLAC is an both lossless and open, you should always have some safe refuge.

Me? I use both. I use FLAC for gapless recordings because they're sample-exact (the next-best option would be Ogg Vorbis since it at least records the sample length) and use 320kpbs MP3 for general music as an effective compromise (they're smaller than the FLACs and under normal—read rather noisy—conditions I can't tell what I'm missing).

Re: "Not until they invent planes that you only fuel up once and never pay for fuel again."

Also, easy to envision lower running costs (no food, water, or sleep needed) and potentially reduced risks (no risk of them showing up DRUNK or otherwise stressed out).

Re: and it's not going to get any better ...

But you said, "DECENT," which to my ears means something out of a Votrax chip. By GOOD, I'm referring to speech playback that actually sounds darn close to coming out of an actual person. The difference between the built-in TTS and the cloud TTS is like night and day and will remain that way for a while yet. Just compare by trying the system in Airplane Mode so it can't access the cloud.

Re: No Skins please.

"You mean they'd then have to compete on actual FEATURES."

Except the Feature War's pretty much hit a stalemate. As much as you like the features you've mentioned, you've been outvoted by the bling-lovers who will outpay you for less features, meaning you're out of luck. Anyway, all the manufacturers have pretty much hit the peak of what they can pack into their phones while keeping them slim (remember, in the REAL phone world, slim sells). You've seen one phone, you've pretty much seen them all, so the war moves to the software front. Sad, but true.

Re: @Charles 9

Work on using ARM processors in servers is actually providing inroads into a common enumerated bus for ARM-based systems (look up SBSA or Server Base System Architecture).

As for trying to force cutthroat SoC manufacturers to comply, it'd be easier for Google to do what Apple did and take out their own ARM license and roll their own silicon. The likes of Qualcomm, Rockchip, and Mediatek get enough business from other sources that, if push came to shove, they could simply walk away.

Re: and it's not going to get any better ...

Because you DON'T want to hear the voice reply that comes out when the device is left to its own resources. Good text-to-speech still requires cloud levels of resources.

Does the phrase ACPI ring a bell? The point is, PC architecture is based on enumerated buses because they wanted a unified front end. When a PC boots, it queries the common points via ACPI that tell it what's where. And BTW, you know what's one reason why support for modern graphics cards in Linux is hit or miss? Because AMD and nVidia will ONLY provide their cutting-edge drivers as blobs, fearing Giving Information To The Enemy.

Phones don't have that same commonality. Instead, everything's memory-mapped and not by any common standard. Unlike in the PC world, that settled on the peace treaty and accepted the open standard of a common bus, ARM SoC makers are competing cutthroat for each other's business which relies on complete control. That's why you can't do something like a Linux Live CD that can work in most PC configurations out of the box. No, each image you build for an ARM system only works with that specific design.

"It wouldn't be that hard if the manufacturers supplied the drivers and Google did the OS."

That's part of the problem. Those drivers to them are trade secrets, potential Information For The Enemy, which is why they're ONLY provided as blobs.

PS. To add to what Malcolm said, Microsoft was actually closer to Apple than it was to Google in terms of hardware control. They dictated terms and laid down minimum hardware specifications, thus allowing them more control over the environment.

Re: No reasonable person can ever know if I have permission

Attach a permissions clause to the EXIF?

Re: What about abuse of fair use?

So what happens when an American abuses content from Doctor Who, an English work, while on vacation somewhere that doesn't respect either country's copyrights (like Kuwait, NOT signatory to the Berne Convention)?

And if it's proven that the way Facebook designed its business model makes the whole thing part and parcel, meaning there IS no third option?

Re: Takedown doesn't work

"Not before asserting one single copyright takedown claim in error results in many years of prison sentence for the claimant and years of barring from making any further claims for his business."

No, because it could've been an HONEST mistake. Say it LOOKs infringing but it turns out it's not because it's not the original content but, say, cosplayers in masks acting out.

The REAL real problem is that tracking copyright use is not a black-and-white issue but an infinitely-shifting murk of gray that differs from instance to instance.

"I'd like to see a chromecast like device that plugs into the back of the monitor and allows this functionality wirelessly - much easier to chuck in a pocket/bottom of a bag as you leave the house - Still need a Bluetooth Kb and mouse though I suppose."

Miracast receivers come close. They're about puck-shaped and you just need to set up a local hotspot, through the phone if need be.

I'm not so worried about the cockpit window as they're designed to contain large pressure differential and so (like with the passenger windows) are thick and well-mounted. It would likely take explosives to do it and there's no guarantee the blast will significantly breach the window. The MythBusters found that out busting the Explosive Decompression myth. Even dazzling would be difficult for two reasons: (1) to hit both pilot and copilot at once, it would have to match speed with it: tricky once it's aloft, and (2) if it tries to avoid this by adhering, it can only get one or the other, allowing the undazzled pilot to take steps. No, the most vulnerable part of a jet remains the engines while for a helicopter, it's the rotors (the smaller, the more vulnerable).

It doesn't take a bird the size of a goose to tear up an airline engine, not to mention some of them have metallic components, and don't forget helicopters are much more delicate, especially those with tail rotors.

Re: Also, what about emergency aircraft?

But that assumes all drone have (a) positive control and (b) enough sensory awareness to know when other craft and/or obstacles are nearby. At this point, NEITHER are assured. And unlike with vehicles, drones don't have meatbags INSIDE them which automatically make them more wary about collisions.

Unless the third party tricks you into giving MORE access than it needs. In today's world, you MUST work on the assumption the user is stupider and more gullible than you think.

Re: The Greatest Fraud of All

Hyper encryption? You mean "perpetual encryption"? Sounds about as plausible as a perpetual motion machine. After all, how do you encrypt something such that it continually updates itself even if it's frozen in time? Sorry, but my BS sense is off the charts with your talk, especially since no web searching whatsoever (not even privacy-hardered searches or using darknets) has uncovered any kind of independent verification of your techniques.

Face facts. EVERYTHING made by man can be UNmade. Not even the one-time pad is bulletproof (that's why I mentioned the wrench, as evoked by the famous xkcd comic #538). How do you beat "Rubber-Hose Cryptanalysis" other than being a masochist or a wimp?

Re: Hang on a minute... @Ledswinger

"They can, and they do, when it suits them."

Name one (that was grossly and provably unpopular) that didn't get them voted out in the next election.

Re: the wrong question

"Are we really such sheeple that we will never join forces to demand higher standards of software quality? Not statutory patching, but software that isn’t fundamentally broken when delivered."

YES!

The government doesn't like smart people because smart people come to realize they really don't need the government that much.

Seriously? According to your own numbers, it crossed the line 5 times over.

24 x 100TB = 2400 TB = 2.4 PB

2.4 PB x 21 units = 50.4 PB raw (or about 100 PB with about 2:1 compression).

Now it makes more sense. Short by a factor of 10-20.