Posts by Roland6 10721 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2010
No, but a more accurate analogy is to give the house a makeover ie. new paint everywhere, new doors on the kitchen cabinets, and omit to mention the damp (which the new paint hides), the window frames underneath the paint are rotten, the kitchen cabinets are falling apart. All things a good surveyor would uncover and mention in their report and you would find out about if you could be bothered to actually read the report...
>"valid SSL certificates"
There are valid certificates and those which browsers now deem to be valid.
Remember, in todays internet, any certificate with a an expiry date longer than a year is now deemed untrusted/invalid...
So now all those appliances now need regular updates just to keep the certificate 'valid'.(*)
(*) I see Draytek have updated their firmware to auto regenerate the self-signed certificate so that it never actually expires, so avoid this unnecessary annual update.
> but I want to go from 32 to 64GB of RAM, will I end up needing to buy an entire new motherboard, CPU+RAM package
There is paging... yes, 64GB as on-die RAM is going to be slightly faster than 64GB as 32GB on-dia RAM and 32GB off-die RAM (aka RAM disk), but I suspect for most workloads the difference won't be noticeable.
Well that will fall on deaf ears, given the Caltech patents include this clause:
GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS
The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of Grant No. CCR-9804793 awarded by the National Science Foundation.
I therefore suggest an approach that might result in a beneficial outcome, would be to encourage the US government to exercise its right.
Plus, they will have effectively covered all the major WiFi SoC and PC vendors.
Once they have (successfully) sought redress from the US vendors, expect them to approach non-US manufacturers (eg. Lenovo) who sell into the US and/or regions that respect US utility patents.
The only question in my mind is whether Qualcomm and/or other WiFi chipsets also infringe the Caltech patents.
>Where do you draw the line between software and mathematics?
It is (to me) obvious that whilst the formula used to create RA/IRA codes aren't patentable, likewise the method to use LDPC error correction codes. The specific usage and implementation of their application to enhancing the efficacy of 802.11 beamforming is however patentable, because to make it work, you've had to do more than simply transcribe some formula into software functions. A good parallel is Marconi's radio - his inspiration/idea was putting the known components together in just the right way to produce a working radio.
What gets 'fun' is the consideration as to whether a maths library function is or isn't patentable. In some respects, it isn't, but then the implementation of the library function can involve some innovative thinking...
>If as a consumer I take my Beatles music CD and put MP3 downloads of it on my personal web site
That's (music) copyright infringement, not (utility) patent infringement.
The trouble is that it is very easy to determine copyright infringement and for joe public to know that they are infringing ie. it is okay for me to copy my CDs to MP3 for personal usage, but not to publish them on my website.
In contrast, it is practically impossible for joe public to determine (utility) patent infringement. I suspect many practitioners have no idea whether what they implement may or may not infringe some broadly worded utility patent, unless they are using a patent to guide their design. I also suspect that many have used the idea's included in a published article and included them in their designs without worrying about whether the article is describing a patented method/invention.
>Patent litigation should be limited to not go further than the implementer of the product in violation.
The 'net' needs to be drawn much tighter than this. Given the example of the 3D printer used in the linked ipwatchdog article, 'implementer' would still include the consumer end-user who had simply printed out something.
I suspect you have to limit it to commercial entities who engage "persons skilled in the art" covered by the patent and who's job it is to design and implement technologies (and methods) that may infringe the patent.
>.....so how did CalTech find out?
The HP, Dell & MS complaints seem to be identical from a technical viewpoint.
I suspect from the detail they were able to measure the differences and compare, both with the Std. and with other WiFi chipsets. However, they do not reveal any of this, limiting their claim to "On information and belief". Which would seem to imply they couldn't be bothered to take a proper look and thus are taking a punt.
Upon information and belief, the Accused Products comply with the 802.11n,
802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards and the 12 LDPC error correction codes defined in those
standards. In addition, upon information and belief, the Accused Products are implemented in a
manner that not only complies with the 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards, but also
infringesthe ’710 patent. This is because implementations of the 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax
standards that infringe the ’710 patent perform substantially fewer computations, have substantially
more efficient circuitry, use less memory, consume less semiconductor die area, consume less power,
and are otherwise more efficient and cost effective than implementations that do infringe the ’710
patent.
[para 33. of Microsoft complaint]
Putting to one side the question of obviousness [Aside: it is obvious that the approach on which the Std's are based is inefficient, but whether the solution CalTech arrived at is or isn't obvious is open to debate.]
What is interesting here is that effectively CalTech have improved the performance of the Std effectively making their patent 'essential' to anyone who wishes to implement a "more efficient and cost effective " version of the Std. However, they have avoided having their patent classed as "Std essential" and thus are not constrained by FRAND...
A question is if HP/Dell/MS are using the infringing Broadcom WiFi chips, do CalTech get a second bite of the cherry ie. double-dip royalties.
Re: UI/UX issues: Apple mouse and Windows 'focus'
There was much debate back in the 1980's and early 90's (Windows 3) around how these basic features should work and which was 'normal'.
It irritates me that after Win3 MS locked the window furniture into the layout we still see today in W10 21H2. Being lefthanded, I found it useful when using a lefthanded mouse to have the top right buttons on the top left and the vertical scroll bar also on the left. Also there really is no reason why I should be limited to only having tabs across the top of a window, I should be able to have them at the side or at the bottom.
From memory the SunView system made the window the mouse was hovering over the focus, however you had to click on it to bring it to the front. This assisted cut-and-paste operations, but could lead to problems with people who didn't practise good mouse control - who could find themselves typing in the wrong window.
I get the strong impression that UI/UX design based on cognitive research was largely dead in the early 2000s, certainly, MS ceased any real science-based UI/UX innovation when they reset (aka killed) Windows Longhorn in 2004 and commenced work on Vista.
But as you point out, what is intuitive on a mobile can be very different from a mouse and desktop.
>Build 6 different experience designs?
Don't see the problem, yes there is a cost to it, however, we managed it back in the 70's thru to 90's using more limited toolsets than are available today... Suggest if modern developers can't handle itthen it speaks volumes about their coding abilities...
Now whether it is cost-effective and who is willing to pay that is a different question and yes downward pressure on costs means companies will want to build once for all platforms, but then expect to get the daftness of TIFKAM across all devices.
>"Summary: the idea is that if each phase can supply (up to) 100A to your house, if all three are made available your house can then consume the equivalent of 300A"
There is also this reason:
Under Engineering Recommendation G83, single phase connections currently restricts domestic export to 3.68kW AC of solar PV per phase on their rooftops, without seeking DNO permission.
[https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/rea_calls_for_three_phase_connections_for_all_new_homes_to_unlock_solar_dep]
Which effectively places a limit on the amount of electricity a householder can export to the grid. Which in turn basically means a 4kW solar panel system (circa 28m2) is the largest that can be installed before additional works become necessary.
Which would seem to suggest that some would like to put larger solar arrays on roofs (owned and operated by the DNO - given it is WPD & REA proposing the change).
>"...changing that to 3x60A would still give a useful uplift in capacity"
That could work, the simplest solution would be to put say the shower and cooker on different phases, which given these already have dedicated circuits shouldn't be too difficult. Leaving only the car charging port to straddle all phases.
But as you note upgrading the infrastructure and the retro fit is the difficult part and would probably make the cost of universal fibre look cheap. Personally, I think there is more mileage in domestic level storage etc. which requires not infrastructure upgrade and would potentially significantly reduce the power I need to draw from the grid - which ultimately means less revenue and profit to the DNO's et al...
>Western Power Distribution is promoting Superfast Electricity which basically means installing three phase supplies domestically.
I was under the impression that the UK domestic mains distribution was already three phase, with each house only being connected to a single phase. So not so sure about the benefits of going from three neighbours being on different phases to three neighbours all using the same three phases. Personally, I would have thought the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.
There isn't a single standard for UK domestic properties, so need to check your installation. It was a problem in the mid 80's when people started fitting electric showers, cowboys would fit and run, because at the time many houses only had 60A supplies, with the shower requiring an upgrade to 80A, which in turn often meant new tails and consumer fusebox (hence why in many older properties you will see two consumer fuse boxes: the first one is for the new power-hungry circuit(s) and the second the original box serving the normal room lighting and power circuits..
> most of the day we get 248V although currently that's down to 239V
I was looking up UK mains voltage yesterday, it was harmonized back in 2003 to 230V, however the tolerances were changed (widened) and so the actual rate stayed much the same - which is exactly what you've seen.
It amused me to think of some UKIP'er giving a return to 'traditional' UK 240V mains as a benefit of BREXIT...
It means the carrier fibre won't be limited in the way FTTC was. When we upgraded a client site to fibre last year, we had a choice of a wide selection of speeds, however, once signed up we received an SFP module for the specific speed combination requested. So if we decide to upgrade, I expect they will simply send out a new SFP module and increase the monthly invoice.
"I'm pretty sure it was one member, one vote originally, and one of the previous big controversies was changing the voting system to favour large resellers."
Well in the Articles of Association dated 1996 - currently available from NominetUK, the only avenue for a modified voting system seems to be via the 'poll' vote. It seems votes are on "a show of hands" and only going to poll if there is a majority show of hands for a poll vote...
Clause 5.3 of the AoA looks as if it might be useful in bringing the EGM to an early close if things aren't going the chair's way...
Clause 11 looks useful, if you can arrange for relevant board members to be absent...
But the most interesting is it seems the "rigged" voting system can only apply if there is a majority show of hands in the hall for a 'poll', otherwise the motion is passed on a simple show of hands.
Recommend those attending read these documents as they are going to have to use all the procedural devices available to steer the EGM to a successful YES outcome, as you can expect the Chairman of the Board and the Board to being doing similar to get the result they desperately want.
> Caused by the Soviet leader being unhappy that the US president could nuke his holiday resort and wanting to be in a position to return the favour.
Yes, exactly, the Soviets didn't strut around, they acted (by despatching missiles to Cuba) and left it up to the West to respond...
>Small scale deployment of chemical warfare agent against a specific target in the UK
Once again, no strutting, action was taken in the UK by Russians with links to the government, leaving the UK to respond...
I could add to this list:
Pearl Harbour... Japan didn't warn the US it was going to attack, it just did it.
I'm not arguing here that the MAD deterrence hasn't worked and won't continue to work, just that the evidence is: it is unlikely that you will get any real advanced warning (ie. threats being made), before your adversary has acted.
>So what would your solution be to the situation whereby the UK was threatened with being attacked by biological attack?
Where have you been?
Remember the Cuban missle crisis, Novichok?
If things get to that stage, expect players to act and deny, rather than strut their stuff.
> the new administration would have access to the records and accounts. In full detail. Original documents.
Assuming they don't do an Enron and work the shredders overtime.
I assume PublicBenefit.UK are ready to move into Nominet's offices immediately after the EGM and secure the premises and their contents...
>If you get in an Uber and the driver is paid less than minimum wage you are just socialising your costs onto everyone else through universal credit, housing support etc.
Well...
It could be said that Uber's current business model is to socialise their investors monies through massive fare subsidies...
Interestingly, now Uber are going to have to pay their drivers more, the busines case for driverless taxi's has just been given a boost, so expect more investors queuing up to socialise their monies by investing in Uber... However, once Uber has the monopoly it so desperately desires, expect a rude awakening...
>we've now had 12 different companies file claim for the audio in a silent YouTube video.
There have been multiple copyright claims for white noise as well https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42580523
And media companies claiming copyright of stuff that in't theirs:
https://petapixel.com/2016/02/20/how-i-turned-a-bs-youtube-copyright-claim-back-on-the-real-infringer/
It seems YouTube encourages these fraudulent claims because they simply automatically redirect any revenue to whomever submitted the claim without any further checking. I wonder whether there any similar benefits on Facebook or Twitter. However, I wonder how long it will be before the scam artists spot this money making opportunity.
It clearly shows that the bot is doing much more than simply scanning the text of tweets.
I wonder if Adobe now consider the WinWorldPC website as dodgy because they host the installer and don't redirect users to Adobe for the download.
Mikko, should use his position to challenge Tweeter on the DCMA notice, so that more can be discovered, because it does seem that someone on Adobe's behalf are overstepping the mark and potentially using DCMA takedown notices for anti-competitive reasons in the guise of copyright protection.
>And conveniently, makes it very hard to boot anything other than MacOS
That is only because Apple don't publish the platform specifications (or can you point us at the relevant documentation?), just, like Android mobile phone makers make it very hard to install and boot anything other than their variant of Android...
>Haven't you just illustrated my point
No - Apple have never shipped anything other than proprietary hardware with their proprietary OS already installed and have never provided any way to use that hardware other than via their proprietary OS.
In my book, Microsoft could have made the Surface, like the Xbox, proprietary, since they build and ship that hardware with their proprietary OS pre-installed.
However, much will depend on what MS decide to do with Windows on ARM - will they contribute an open ARM systems platform to the community, like IBM did with the PC or keep it proprietary and licence it to OEMs. It will be interesting to see if MS decide to stop supporting the IBM PC platform...
>If any other corporation other that Apple did something similar the Linux community would be up in arms and full of conspiracy theories.
...
Honestly, the double standard beggars belief!
No double standards, the Apple platform has always been totally proprietary: they have always built Apple hardware to run Apple software.
Microsoft never owned the IBM PC platform and neither do they now, so there was, quite rightly, an outcry when MS with UEFI tried to make it proprietary and prevent it from running anything other than Windows.
You'll find that the vendors of proprietary hardware also don't publish information necessary to facilitate a port of a third-party OS to their Unix platforms and yes the replacement model may have a totally different architecture, yet still run Unix - just not the binaries that came with the old model.
>Because it is so difficult / expensive to sack a dysfunctional employee in the UK,
That's because manglement tend to go about things in a dumb way.
Seen this in the last year, HR told the manglement how to get rid of certain dysfunctional employees, manglement procastinated - didn't want confrontation etc., end result manglement did it their way and cost the company lots and risked being taken to tribunal...
>the only way we are going to become more competitive internationally
Well, I liked an example my brother in Oz gave me, it showed how even if the workforce at his company was paid zero, they still wouldn't be internationally competitive - basically the message back to manglement was: invest in automating your production line or you don't have a business.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
