1349 posts • joined 4 Jul 2009
Re: Does it despense vast amounts of bog rool??
It doesn't make enough beer of any type to require vast amounts of bog roll. Back in my student days, I'd brew up a bin-sized (40-60L) amount in a similar time period, and it would be more fun than just inserting a pod and pushing a button.
The only plus point I can see is that it self-cleans. Sterilising brewing equipment was a bit of a pain in the arse.
It will flop, as have revious iterations of the same idea.
Why millions of Brits' mobile phones were knackered on Thursday: An expired Ericsson software certificate
Re: Boo hoo
I think you've mis-understood the article:
The couple were eventually able to make contact via wi-fi and the emergency 999 number.
Reads like "she collapsed, and tried to ring partner. Call failed, so dialled 999 successfully - presumably this either got routed via another network, or bypassed the bit of s/w that was down. If the latter, then this implies that the s/w had something to do with user authentication, which is not a part of an emergency call setup. Then perhaps Skyped her partner successfully.
All networks *have* to service received emergency calls without doing any user/equipment authentication - indeed phones without SIMs in can make such calls.
Still a pretty shitty thing to have happened.
Re: More detail
More to the point is why the fsck the s/w doesn't present a big flashing dialog stating "Certificate about to expire for <SOFTWARE_COMPONENT>, please renew or lose all packet data connectivity for your subscribers on <EXPIRY DATE>" every time anyone logs in to the management s/w when such a scenario becomes likely (e.g. for the last month). This should be a basic part of any s/w licensing feature.
There's a bunch of them out there, at different prices. E.g.:
EURECOM's ExpressMIMO2 PCIe card requiring a PC with a free 8/16-way PCIe
slot. With an appropriate adaptor the card can function in a 1-way PCIe slot
or ExpressCard slot in a laptop.
NI/Ettus USRP B200/B210 USB3 radio card requring a PC with a free USB3 port. Plus the NXXX series radios (bit more powerful)
BladeRF over USB3 port.
LimeSDR over USB3 port.
Re: Form an orderly queue
> if it's just "under" your desk
yup - there's two, mounted in their little boxes, stuffed into a cardboard box with a big pile of cables. Tried to make a little LTE network for the office, using custom programmed SIMs and OpenAirInterface (which includes RAN and Core elements). Could get it to work, but needed GPS antennas to lock the timing sufficiently well. Nice little project. Needed reasonably powerful laptops to drive the radios, though. CN could be run in its entirety off a small laptop - didn't have many SIMs live, so not too much of a hit there. Even managed to get some licensed spectrum to use so that real mobiles could work.
Re: Form an orderly queue
The extra hardware is off the shelf software defined radios that have an amount of FPGA's and take a stock image for 3GPP implementations. I have a couple under my desk at work - these ones. It's not too hard, although I'm not sure a pi had the cpu grunt necessary to power one as lots of fft's are involved with the s/w I used.
Re: It's Just Retarded!
Huawei are desperate to be a bigger player in western infrastructure and have been playing at it for quite a while. They successfully crippled Motorola's wireless infrastructure business - creeping in from the core outwards.
Surprised they're still allowed as a RAN vendor, but not a core vendor. Wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to develop a compromised/backdoored RAN entity (whatever it might look like) for 5G - particularly as the authentication systems are now knowingly compromised, so a RAN based attack is possible.
Saying that, from a purely capitalist perspective, being blocked from the core isn't likely to be that much of a blow to Huawei - all the money is in the RAN and the s/w upgrades needed for it. They're quite good at giving away RAN kit at cost (or lower), only to EOL s/w quickly, which then needs expensive upgrades (or at least that's my recollection from 10 years ago!)
Re: Regional variations
> Built a new house on established plot. Telco wanted 4000AUD to dig a new cable across the road to my kerb. I said f'dat, bought a 4G modem and never looked back.
In the UK, at least, when you build a new home BT Openreach *have* to subsidise your copper connection up to £3,000, so all you then pay is their "new connection fee" of <£200 (I don't know what it is, as when I attempted this, BTOpenreach couldn't pull it's finger out despite 3 months+ notice and 2 missed appointments, so I got FTTP from another supplier instead)
> the s/w I use to create the values in the VAT return boxes is my brain :)
As long as your brain can issue JSON with the correct formatting, after correctly passing an OAUTH authentication transaction, correctly setting the flags in the subsequent REST queries, you're good to go, then.
The Flat Rate Scheme still requires a VAT return to be submitted - so yes, you will be affected. All that's different is that the value you send for Box 1 is your flat rate percentage times your revenue, rather than the VAT you've charges, and the box for VAT on purchases is zero (*)
The s/w you use will still need to send the values for the 9 boxes (some may be calculated from the others), it's just that your calculations on what to put in the boxes are different to those not on the FRS.
(*) - something like that, anyway, I've jumped off the FRS as it was no longer worth doing for me (and I think there was some new regulation that made it a pain, but I can't remember what. Anyway, IANAAccountant
I saw it a few weeks ago and despaired at the thought of having to spend cash on s/w to fill in the 7 boxes (mostly zero) of the VAT return. Some googling has found some Excel bridging s/w, but I've not tested them, and am not looking forward to the inevitable cluster-fuck of the first return after this.
HMRC are currently forcing everyone to have some 3rd party solution to submit their VAT returns - pain in the arse. They should publish their own (for small businesses, at least, like their PAYE tools), as well as the API details.
Allegedly all in the name of making things simpler for small businesses - blech
I'm interested in a PS4 Pro, but not in a hurry to get it so I installed an "Amazon price tracker doodad" into Chrome (Keepa, FWIW). Current price of the latest model (without the noisy fan that bugs people, apparently), bundled with Red Dead Redemption 2 is £384 - £400. Coincidentally it rose to that price 4 days ago after having languished at £350 for a month.
> whether Three have also lifted their restriction on using a phone SIM in a mobile broadband only devices.
err, if you have a SIM only contract, I'm sure you can sue them into oblivion(*) if they don't let you put it into a device of your choosing. I admit they can tell by querying the IMEI returned via the authentication and encryption routines, but you do at least still have the option of setting your phone to be the "broadband device" by turning on the mobile hotspot function (admitedly probably with limited range in comparison with a proper router). But equally, from your link:
> Since we opened our investigation in March 2018, Three has confirmed that it has already:
> withdrawn restrictions on the use of handset SIMs in dongles and mifis
(*) YMMV, IANAL
> 20GB/month? For £20/mo? Seriously? That's better than or equivalent to landline? Even 100GB/mo?
Go check the price plans - Three has a SIM only deal for £27 with unlimited data, which includes tethering (aka personal hotspot)
I'm not shilling for Three, I'm with EE at the mo - but with those prices one has to start thinking about switching
> Interesting. Do you have any idea how many discrete beams can be created and/or how big an area they cover?
How much money do you have? Current stuff I'm aware of supports 16. In terms of Fixed Wireless, these would pretty much get nailed in place, and they may well not be just for an individual's use, and so resources can be shared with others in the footprint of the beam. For comparison, an LTE site would typically be sectorised into 3x120degrees. If a 16 beam antenna were used, then this would probably be 48 beams. As for area, make them narrower and they get longer. Make them fatter and they get shorter. They probably can do the same range as current 4G sites with a narrow beam width.
Re: potential to make cable and DSL as antiquated and pointless
> 5G is just Mobile Wireless. Fixed Wireless can deliver up to 16x performance but is MORE expensive than Fibre unless it's Rural 20km Line Of Sight. Fixed Wireless needs rooftop aerials and LOS to get the performance. Mobile, NO MATTER WHAT xG, is limited to roughly 0.8GHz to 2.3GHz frequencies (Physics).
If the antennas on the base stations were the regular omni/sectorised ones, I might agree with you, however with highly directional beam steering to fixed sites, there is much more antenna gain, leading to an increased range. Also, perhaps people will install rooftop aerials too - seems simpler than running fibre to the premises if there's no existing connection.
Agreed that LOS helps a lot, but it isn't the only option. Again, with a highly directional steered beam, there is lots of opportunity to exploit beam reflections to maintain a decent signal without LOS. This would be particularly applicable in urban environments with all that nice shiny glass to reflect signals off of.
Not entirely sure why you're limiting mobiles to 2.3GHz when there are already 2.6GHz deployments in the UK (Vodafone & EE, for example). 3.5GHz isn't that big a leap up, particularly when you're looking at fixed wireless devices, rather than phones. Sure, with a traditional masthead antenna that is not very directional, these would have limited range, and building penetration probably sucks, but that's not what these base stations are deployed for. You might be interested to note that 3GPP defines a few LTE bands in the 5GHz range (bands 46 and 47), even if I can't find anyone using them (probably for obvious reasons with current 4G equipment).
> The 5G is an excuse for Infrastructure companies to sell upgrades
Not sure I disagree with you here :) I'm sure there are lots of ways these new providers can screw-up or screw-over the punters, and I'd like to be damned sure I'm going to have a decent connection speed before changing to such a provision, but then I'm already on FTTP
> Any success actually getting 20Gb down in a month, or even hahahaha 100Gb?
I've not tried, more than happy with a 1GB allowance considering most of the time I'm in range of 100mbps fibre-powered wifi.
I can understand how folks in little coverage can get frustrated, but I guess I'm fortunate in that the times I have clicked on a YouTube video while out and about I've not had any trouble. But for sure, fixing not-spots should be a priority
> Radio waves have limited bandwidth and unless you use beam shaping that bandwidth is shared by the entire catchment area. I can't find any information on what bandwidth is available from a single 5G mast but I'd guess it's a few Gb/s at most. Say it's 5Gb/s. Now put that transmitter in a town so that it covers 5,000 properties. That's a paltry 1Mb/s per property.
It isn't shared, 5G uses a lot of beam steering - see here for what looks like a prototype, but lots of work is being done on this now.
Naturally it won't be able to always have the situation where each user gets their own full capacity beam, but it'll be a lot better than sharing the bandwidth.
Re: Points to consider
> It may be possible to achieve 20,30 or 40Mb/s over 5G. But it that for all users covered by that cell at once, or just one lucky punter?
For everyone (*). The whole "massive MIMO" thing effectively means that each user has their own dedicated cell. Funky things go on at the lower protocol layers that steer the beams to each user, and this is only really limited by the antenna complexity installed. This is also why the 3.5GHz radios, operating at the same power, will have approximately the same coverage - they are more tightly focussed. Fixed wireless replacement services will also have the advantage in that the "mobile" being targetted by the beam steering is actually a house, and therefore not normally that mobile, so once you have a lock, you don't need to do much more steering (except when leaves grow on trees to interfere, and what not).
LTE systems (and UMTS, and even GSM), operate in a different manner in that the spectrum is not focussed on a user, but broadcast more widely for everyone to share - hence while an LTE cell can offer 150mbps (for example), the rates experienced will be load dependent.
(*) Up to a limit, YMMV
> If this costs more than a fixed line internet then they can, as far as I am concerned, forget it.
Given that the article mentions:
For example, there's no need for £240-a-year line rental. Overall Ovum estimates it's almost 50 per cent cheaper to deploy.
One would expect it to be roughly on a par with current fixed line costs (once everything settles down, at least - early adopters liable to be gouged). For example, swapping your current land line for a £20/mo LTE contract can currently get you a usage of 20GB/mo with EE, or even up to 100GB with Three. So get a SIM only contract and a SIM enabled router, preferably one that will take an external antenna. If you live in a decently covered area (YMMV), then you can already lose the BT copper connection.
It's not automation, is just curve fitting. All an AI does is fit a curve to data points, and you kinda hope that the surface you end up with interpolates well for any other data you want to throw at it.
It suffers from the same problems as other curve fitting techniques with the added bonus that plotting and interpreting the surface you've ended up with is fiendishly tricky.
Russian computer failure on ISS is nothing to worry about – they're just going to turn it off and on again
Re: Polygraph Accuracy
I doubt the aim of this is to actually improve anything, merely to add to the layers of control.
AI based polygraphs are going to be no better than a regular polygraph, and just adds to the theatre of security being put in place because we have to "think of the (illegal) immigrants", now that we're pulling up the European drawbridge and going all isolationist.
We can't be British (aka English) if we let Johnny & Jane Foreigner in to dilute our National Integrity(TM)
It's aimed at commercial developers, so suspect single sites will either not benefit as much, if at all.
Rather oddly, I built my house and attempted to get BTOR to install. Nearest pole in the neighbours front garden, although terminator on the next pole down the track. Had the order all prepped 3 months in advance (it was for copper), appointment made, and naturally it was a no-show. Rang to complain and they cancelled the order and said "we're only installing fibre to that postcode", even though the fibre area was on a different exchange, and the one I was to be connected to wasn't even "superfast".
At times, BTOR can't even wipe its own arse
Re: No need for ducting
IIRC, BTOR were installing fibre-cored copper on new builds - although I can't find the link ot the product now.
All developments *should* install decent amounts of ducting as art of the groundworks as that is obviously the cheapest time to do it. Unfortunately there is no value add to the price of the house in doing so, so developers don't bother.
Until the govmt regulate new-builds to support fibre easier, this will continue to be the case.
We asked 100 people to name a backdoored router. You said 'EE's 4GEE HH70'. Our survey says... Top answer!
> To be fair to EE, they don't actually make the thing
To be fair to EE, they (should have) wrote the requirements for the thing and sent it out to manufacturers RFx teams, who wrote compliance statements against each line item and then a £ amount at the bottom of the report. One of the requirements should have been to do this properly, but I guess they either didn't think this was important to be mandatory, or they didn't think of it.
Should a robo-car run over a kid or a grandad? Healthy or ill person? Let's get millions of folks to decide for AI...
I suspect agile methodologies on a completely new hadware design don't quite cut the mustard - it's quite difficult and expensive to iterate forwards.
In which case, the next step once "development" has been completed is testing. I suspect they're going to be quite careful of putting this into the field until rigorous testing has been completed - they don't want to get burnt (literally and metaphorically) as they did before with the Note 7, particularly as this is likely to be part of a flagship product
AI clinician trained to save humans from sepsis – and, er, let's just say you should stick to your human doctor
> Potentially very useful, if the computer is able to record all the same relevant factors that a doctor considers, and it might be able to identify other factors that the doctors weren't aware of; but it isn't in any way intelligent.
Well, the article says there are 48 variables they think influence the result, and they have a data set of 17k samples. This data set needs to get partitioned into training and validation sets (80:20 is usually good), so you've actually got 13,600 training points. No description as to the coverage of the 48-dimensional space (although perhaps some of these dimensions are correlated, which can lead to a feature reduction), but I'd contend that this is not enough training data to get a decent result anyway.
In other words, more study/funding is needed. The best conclusion a research paper can reach :)
Re: Employee poaching?
> Some companies regard the knowledge and experience you gain whilst working for that company as the property of that company. Say you know nothing about radio physics and a company hires you and trains you to develop radio devices, everything you learn about radio physics is that companies property and you cannot use it at any other company in the future.
Hmm - learning laws of nature and other public pieces of information? Probably not, although you should not be able to take course materials with you when you leave.
Learning proprietary methods/designs/algorithms developed for your employers products - well, they might be in your head, but it's protected information that you shouldn't have a right to disseminate.
After that, it's a tricky minefield. You may be asked to develop a competing product, in which case you may make design decisions that are influenced by the design work you did at a previous employer - perhaps without doing the work that justifies that decision (e.g. here are 2 ways of doing something, but I know from previous work that the first one is not very accurate, or costs a boat load). That seems like a murky area.
Saying that, the case as it stands should be simple to resolve by examining the legality of the clauses in the contract, and the dates on the patent filings.
But Huawei have lots of form for nicking IPR (not that that gives a free pass for nicking their IPR)