Re: Free ride available
He can make broom-broom noises all the way.
That's fine by me. I'm wishing Mr Musk well and hoping for a clean sweep.
5088 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Aug 2009
And the huge number of poor bairns being pushed along in a pram with only the back of a phone to focus on. Sad.
Yeah. I don't have kids and have never wanted them. The best thing I can say about kids is that they eventually become taxpayers and some will even pay enough tax to help fund my retirement. But I find the sight of someone pushing a pram with one hand while the other holds their phone to the head disturbing. I feel sorry for the poor kid and wonder a)do they feel neglected? b)if so what impact is that going to have on their personality?
What is the kid learning from a parent that would rather talk to someone over a telephone than the child alongside them?
Easy to say, very hard to to do, and even harder to obtain results - especially since usually most "successful" people around are exactly narcissistic jerks - in any field, including philosophical arts.
And perhaps that's why they exist. If we eradicated that particular personality 'feature' from our species maybe on average people would be less successful.
K-9 does an OK job, once you go to the device settings menu and put it on the list of apps that shouldn't be bothered by this "doze" mode.
Not for me. It was okay for a while in conjunction with an app called 'Disable Doze' but every couple of days it would give up and stop noticing emails. My current setup is working somewhat better and at least my battery life is decent again.
I definitely don't enjoy performing edge-of-the-seat pucker-factor-eleven acrobatics just so I can keep doing exactly what I used to do, only imperceptibly differently and with one more sword hanging precariously above my head.
As another poster wrote I'm referring to the difference between POP3 and IMAP. With POP you have to restore data to regain access to old emails. With IMAP you don't have to do anything other than enter your server credentials.
I still use Thunderturd and POP3 via my own domain. Tried Gmail but it was a pain in the arse.
I use a combination these days. Android seems determined to Doze no matter what I do and IMAP just isn't Doze compatible. I managed to get it working most of the time but never completely reliably. And when IMAP timed out that was it until I manually restart it. My attempts didn't really work and my phone barely lasted two days between charges.
I now have my mail server set up to treat my GMail account as an assistant that gets copies of all my emails and have stopped my phone trying to keep up to date with my server. GMail still isn't always instant but at least it eventually notices new emails regardless of how long it's been Dozing.
And now that I'm allowing Doze to do what it wants my battery only drops .5% an hour and easily lasts five days (currently on day four with 62% charge left).
So sadly Google wins that battle. But the war is not over, yet :)
My phone is a Samsung S7 Edge.
TheBat! is still being developed. Things were a bit quiet last year but in the last two months there have been three updates. Sadly their IMAP engine has a bug that means it occasionally refuses to pull the body down and they've investigated and said they can't fix it. But other than that it works well and it's what I eventually settled on after many years of trying alternatives.
"Ultrafast is the collective name for fibre technologies that enable connection speeds of over 100Mbps.
We’re piloting and delivering Ultrafast in two ways;"
And the article goes on to talk about up to 330Mb/s and up to 1Gb/s. In any case this whole 'super, 'ultra', 'hyper' stuff is just marketing idiocy with very little agreement from anyone what any of the terms mean.
The cost of FTTPoD is going to change significantly this month. It doesn't look like it'll save much money but is supposed to make it a lot more attractive for groups of people to order together (or for a CP to order for multiple people in the same area) to spread the cost.
Now imagine if they'd been rolling out FTTP for the last 10 years like they should have been.
Indeed. Those of you still not on FTTC would probably still be on analogue modem. It's very unlikely that BT could have afforded to roll out FTTP and xDSL at the same time. So the choice is you either wait twenty years while FTTP is rolled out or (as they have done) accept that the upgrade will require multiple steps with most people seeing a significant improvement every five or six years.
Nobody because the legal right will include some kind of provider cost cap. You'll have the legal right to ask for broadband and the provider will have the legal right to ask you to chip in.
If you choose not to pay £10k in excess construction charges the law will consider that you have made your choice and there is no case to answer.
Any how many of those 95% have actually decided to have it? ~20%, IIRC.
No, it's higher than that. I think it's approaching 40% now. The problem with the original roll-out is that it targeted areas that were most valuable which is/was exactly what all CPs do. As a result those areas already had a lot of choice so take-up was relatively low. Now that BDUK has extended the reach into the less valuable areas take up rates are improving. Last I heard they were over 34% and heading toward 40%.
Was it a good use of taxpayer money? Dunno. Taxpayer money being usefully used is a pretty rare thing anyway. I think I'd be happy to say that it was one of the better things that's been done with it. On the other hand it took a long time to get started whereas the BT+EU endeavour in Cornwall went much more smoothly and I believe was ahead of schedule.
Can’t talk to bombs, can’t properly use decades-old missiles
Britain’s 14 F-35Bs are all thought to be running Block 3F software of various sub-versions. Yet the all-singing, all-dancing jet still can’t talk to its guided air-to-ground bombs properly, even with the latest patches installed.
Talking to a bomb is only the first step. Convincing it to do what you want can be harder.
Agreed completely. If no-one in the history of humankind had ever paid up kidnapping, extortion and blackmail would be of purely academic curiosity. Not only are those paying up rewarding criminals for their actions they are also encouraging them to go for another victim.
Criminals only do it because it's profitable.
Unfortunately I would imagine that if you're a victim that's easier said than done :-/
STD Free? Whoah, the lack of a hyphen there is worrying. Are you asking me whether I am free of infection or offering to give me a sexually transmitted disease free of charge?
Maybe they are offering you a free telephone call.
Cancelling something is how they advertise the good stuff to non-mainstream audiences.
Can I drop in a mention of Better off Ted and Dead Like Me at this point?
Both sorely missed - and US comedy that I like is rare as hens teeth :-/
Perhaps you can enlighten us why it would've been too tricky to figure out the flags enough to realize where this "jump by return" was going.
The problem as I remember was that the instruction appeared to be part of a state engine. I doubt I'd have called it that back then but that fits my adult memory of it. I think I found two maybe three branches that kept coming back to this block of code which performed several calculations against the accumulator and then the PUSH/RET. So the target address was the result of a serious of calculations and the flags thereof where the values being used depended to some extent on where the CPU had come from.
I should also point out that debugging machine code on a microcomputer was not an easy task. There was no protection mechanisms because the CPU just didn't provide them. This meant it was quite easy for clever code to crash the debugger. Indeed some code seemed designed to do exactly that - although mainly that was around the custom loading code as an attempt to thwart pirates. I remember for instance code that used LDIR to overwrite the stack. I remember code that used the interrupts to jump to somewhere that the debugger was using. There weren't many debuggers available for the Sinclair Spectrum so the game developers knew the choices available and their weaknesses. Without virtual memory they and the game had to share the same address space and although mine could be told to relocate itself on loading it couldn't do it on the fly. And most games were tight fit in memory anyway so even getting the debugger to run the game code was difficult.
So most likely I was just looking at the dissassembly listing. Figuring out the various possible flags from an assembly listing isn't easy. Not when you know the code is being called from several places.
Personally, I'm going to stick to my old faithful Z80
Speaking of Z80s and retpoline..
Way back in the mists of time I used to reverse engineer games to get myself infinite lives and occasionally a mention in a magazine tips section. I remember one time being thwarted by this gem:
PUSH AF
RET
That was one of those 'Put the debugger down and slowly walk away' moments :)
So it only impacts processes that do a lot of disk and network I/O?
Bugger server problems. That's gonna take a bite out of my productivity - Visual Studio isn't exactly greased lightning at the best of times :-/
I wonder if it can be mitigated by marking folders as compressed(*)? NTFS compression doesn't require much CPU so perhaps the time lost there can be offset by less time spent context switching in and out of the Kernel. That used to be the case with slower hard disk drives in computers with good CPUs.
And I think that if you copy a compressed file between Windows computers where both copies are going to end up compressed it is transferred in its compressed state thereby saving time spent on the NIC.
Maybe. Might make for an interesting study.
(*)Though I think that SQL Server at least won't let you compress a database file.
Have had current (both were a Jazz) for almost a year and it's 1000 times better. (Roughly speaking).
You must have missed the early versions then and bought from a dealer that updated the software. For the first eight months of my Jazz(*) ownership I had to put up with the infotainment unit often crashing on startup and then taking a couple of minutes to reboot. Just what you expect after spending £17k on a car - no audio for the first couple of minutes of driving :-/
I even resorted to getting an illicit(ish) image from the XDA forum because my dealer couldn't update the firmware for me. Amusingly (not really) it eventually turned out that an OTA fix for the infotainment application in August 2016 finally solved the issue. Good to know - my car's infotainment unit can be crashed by the top level code :-/
The technical side of owning a modern car :-/
(*)It affected all 2015+ models in Honda's range.
In the last 18 months, I haven't found a single hotel, museum, or train station in my Citroens "POI" database. Which is also very patchy when it comes to speed limits.
My Honda reads them as it drives past them. Does a fairly good job of it as well. But it's not perfect. On the A55 heading east past Halkyn it reads the limits from the road running alongside. Apparently there's a few places that happens and if you have (daft idea) enabled the speed limiter function it will indeed apply the brakes for you. Not very clever since that road has a 40mph limit and the A55 is 70mph :-/
Theres only 1 bit of electronic trickery I would liek in a car - automatically keeping the clock accurate.
Honda already - sorta - has that. The infotainment unit is built on Android(*) and if connected to a Bluetooth device like a phone it will correct its clock. Sorta. What it won't do (which pisses me off a lot) is automatically handle DST switching. There's an option to tell it what timezone you're in so why the *bleep* doesn't it handle DST?
Mind you it's not the only stupid bit of engineering it suffers from. I've mentioned before that when you turn the engine on you get a message on the screen asking you to click [Ok] to confirm that you accept liability if something goes wrong. If you ignore the message the screen goes black. Unfortunately that's almost the only place the time is shown. It can also be shown in the driver's information display if you turn cruise control off but most people are happy just to disable CC rather than actually turn it off. To compound the idiocy the time will actually still be visible on the screen..but only just. In its normal position (top right) just dimly visible.
If it at least left the time at normal brightness it would be helpful. Or even better instead of blanking the screen replace it with a full size digital clock. But apparently whoever implemented Honda's current infotainment unit was a pillock. I think I read somewhere they got Pioneer to do it :-/
(*) v4.1 I think. Maybe 4.4. Either way not too clever for a vehicle that first went on sale in 2016 :-/
Trouble is you're being realistic. I've long noticed that in almost any discussion that revolves around 'The Internet' realism is rarely given much credence. It's as if people think that because it's 'virtual' real world rules and limitations don't apply.
You want a 1Gb/s data connection to every home?
Typical internet oriented response: No problem. Just drop some cable into the ground and connect it up. It'll take a couple of years and the rental will be £5 a month.
Real world response: We'll have to decide what kind of cable is needed, where to run it, how it should be connected up. Then we'll need to plan the work and get agreements from affected parties. Then we can draw up a schedule to make best use of our resources. Then we're going to need to train up some more workers and provide them with tools. It'll take at least a decade and the rental will be £30 a month.
Further changes to Openreach, perhaps yes, but you're not going to find many industry pundits that think going back to the GPO would be a good idea. Nor indeed many people over the age of 40. The GPO employed some clever people who came up with some good kit. But the government was unwilling to provide the funds needed to effectively exploit that kit and the result was not good.
It shocks, saddens and amazes me that anyone who has heard of the GPO (or indeed any other large organisation owned by the government) thinks that it would be a good idea to hand back control of the UK's telecommunications network. The BT group has its faults but the end-user experience is way better than what the GPO managed.
Satellite broadband is now very reliable and available up to around 30Mbps - why can't that be used more prevalently; other than the obvious problems when the weather is anything but sunny or marginally cloudy?
..and the contention which requires high prices and low usage allowances.
..and the latency which renders it useless for gaming and pretty crap for VoIP.
Infrastructure should be owned by the state, including railway lines, telephone lines, gas pipes, water pipes, etc.
Like it was in the 70s you mean? Railways and telephony didn't fair too well under that arrangement. Successive governments ran both into the ground (cutting entire swathes away in the railway's case), putting the minimum funding in and allowing the service of both to deteriorate. And how about the UK's road network. That's always a very good analogy for explaining computer network problems to people. Do you want our telecoms network to be managed the same way?
It never ceases to amaze and even sadden me how many people think that 'the state' is good at operate large, expensive and complicated operations. Are they just young and naive? Don't they notice what a bog hole all governments have made over the decades of running those kinds of things? And..the internet. Really? After RIPA you want to actually hand the network over to the government? Good God.
Is it right to make a dominant provider more dominant by tying rural locations down to one supplier?
This proposed legislation doesn't actually do that. The legislation is only defining the USO framework, not who should provide it. Of course BT are certain to put their hat into the ring (or might be forced to) but in theory at least any CP could choose become a provider if they wanted to. Don't all rush at once :-/
So much misunderstanding caused by an omission by El Reg. What is missing from the article (as of lunch time Wednesday) is that Openreach will only be expected to pay up to a certain amount. Same as is already the case for voice lines. If the cost goes above that amount the customer has to pay.
So the cost to Openreach depends what is picked as the standard cost. For voice lines this is currently around £4,000. I assume it'll be a bit higher for data lines but there is going to be a cap of some kind. Hard to connect customers are going to have to reach into their own pockets to make up the difference.
Just ignore it, say they're working as hard as they possibly can, and swallow any fines that arrive?
No. As I pointed out in my earlier reply - this is not forcing BT to install a decent connection everywhere. It is only preventing them refusing point blank. If it goes through it just means they have to give a price.
So instead of "No, don't want to" they can just say "Sure. That's going to cost £30,000 but don't worry we cover the first £4,000". Please make your cheque payable to...
As much as I would want this to go through - It's very likely to get pushed back upon on the grounds that it's fundamentally impossible without billions in investment.
Maybe, maybe not. El Reg has neglected to mention is that there is a cost threshold. Above this amount, the customer has to chip in. The only cost to the taxpayer or other CPs will be whatever the basic cost is. The same scheme has been in place for voice lines for a long time. Openreach swallow the first £4k then the customer pays the rest (called excess construction charges).
So the only difference is that when you demand high speed internet instead of being able to say 'No, sod off!' Openreach will have to say 'Certainly, that'll be £20,000 please'.
What's going to matter is the base charge. I haven't seen any indication yet of what that's going to be. £4k is probably too low (leaving too much to the customer) but as you say, make it a reasonable amount and it becomes a burden on the CP.
Hmm I question how the study as described could be sure it was excluding other risk factors. I shared my house with a budgerigar for nearly ten years. I have a lot of electrical equipment including a WAP downstairs that he spent almost his entire life within four metres of. He used to like perching on an ornament near my TV and hifi stack(*)
So he spent almost his entire life surrounded by various forms of non-ionising radiation yet still made it to a pretty respectable 10 years old. Of course he was a dozy idiot but I think that's pretty normal :)
(*)I consider one of my greatest lifetime achievements to be training him not to sit on the TV. His toilet habits were not the best and budgie poo is a bad thing whether it falls on the screen or through the vents.
Not sure what you mean by 'oversubscription' but if you're referring to contention that will happen just as much, maybe more so, with FTTP. The higher the end-user bandwidth the harder it is for the CP to provide it. And with FTTP being very expensive to roll-out the more likely it is that the CP will opt for a higher contention ratio.
Of course only getting 75% of 1Gb/s at peak is still a lot better than 95% of 70Mb/s..
But contention is here to stay for residential internet. It's the only way it will ever be financially viable. We have to share bandwidth to keep the costs down.