Re: The thing that they do
And if they want to use Linux and sell to HPC uses that rely on Linux they have to abide by the GPL, etc.
Or tell the HPC crowd to use Windows, and see how well that sells.
4261 posts • joined 15 Mar 2007
And it also hands all of your intellectual property discussions to an overseas company beholden to the USA gov laws, and allows them to dick around with the UI and T&Cs as they please.
What, you can just change supplier? Er. going back to your own system won't be possible as that boat long will have since sailed and if you look at moving to, say, Google, you find they are worse.
I remember being in the "top deck" on a Japan Air 747 flight to Tokyo in the late 80s - I think they put all of the English speakers up there at that time as I was not flying business class!
But in recent years I loath flying and it is practically my last-resort means of transport.
While it seems like a liability in some cases (i.e. you can remove the directory entry of an in-use file) it also is the reason that UNIX like systems can do updates with far less reboots and trouble compared to Windows (that will not all this on an in-use file).
The typical approach in UNIX is you write out the new files to something like 'foo.tmp', sync the file system so it if fully committed to disk, then rename 'foo.tmp' to 'foo' which is an atomic operation (and works in the same way that removing a in-use file works - on the directory mapping to inode, not on the actual file contents). Thus any process will only ever see the old file (via an already-open handle) or new file but even if a system crash occurs around that time, never an in-modification file.
Of course any running process using the old 'foo' won't be updated but many processes and background daemons can simply be restarted (or are short lived) and the new version is now in use without disrupting anything else.
Doing the kernel is trickier as it has to be rebooted for a new kernel image, but some Linux distros support in-use kernel patching by other means.
Zoom seems to work, but it needs the crap of a exe running on your Windows box, otherwise painless. Security doubtful, owned by Chinese.
MS teams is crap, while it offers a web browser mode it only works with Chrome (Edge does not count as another browser, it is Chrome). How come a company the size of MS can't make a system that actually works on many browsers like, say, Zoho can? Security maybe better, but USA jurisdiction.
Maybe they will fix the dog-turd sucking that is Webex now they are forced to use it for themselves?
You know make it properly cross-platform, make it "just work" using any of the major web browsers, make it do all of the checks needed before the fsking start of the meeting so you don't have to install some new crap plug-in that needs admin privileges that you don't necessarily have for your work laptop during the first 10 minutes, etc, etc.
The UK domestic supply is typically 100A max at 230V which is 23kW. Many homes have 80A or 63A fuses instead.
Most of the supply grid was built on the assumption that no domestic customer can draw full power for more than a short time, and usually not all at the same time. Rewiring and upgrading transformers on that is going to cost a lot!
I think the limitation is on the use of the 400kW power amplifier, not the antenna. If it were me, I would be afraid of an accidental misconfiguration or oscillating amplifier pumping out the full 400kW at low elevation even when the modem was supposedly configured for 20kW or less.
Very approximately, the power density from that antenna if you are behind the feed is never much more than around 104 W/m^2 which is high, but only about twice the generally regarded safe limit for human exposure at S-band of around 50 W/m^2 (compared to about 1kW/m^2 for full sunlight). Basically the 400kW from the feed is spread over the 70m diameter antenna's 3848m^2 area moderately evenly, then reflected back towards the satellite.
But that sort of power density will extend a long way out, and is very much higher than would be considered a normal test for any aircraft electronics system!
The '43' antenna in Australia is special in that is has an optional 400kW S-band high power amplifier, instead of the usual 20kW. A note from the manual (70-m Subnet Telecommunications Interfaces) states:
400kW Power Amplifier
2110 to 2118 MHz Only available at DSS-43. Cannot be used above 100 kW without special airspace coordination. No operation below 17 degrees elevation is allowed, no matter what the power is.
It is uncommon to see general HPA efficiencies above around 40% so they are looking at around 1MW of AC input power just for that amplifier when in use. The smaller 34m dish could be used, in theory, but they would need about 1.6MW of RF power, so around 4MW input AC to run it. And of course the RF route would have to survive 1.6MW without anything flashing over!
There was a big difference though, in the early days (probably up to the 70s) it was financially infeasible to tap everyone's communications so the spooks had to be selective (i.e. thousands of target, not billions) in what they looked for and recorded, and at that point a judge's warrant was perfectly in keeping with doing so.
Today the technology to hoover up all information and cross-reference it in a database, along with voice-to-text conversion, means the only practical thing standing between governments (and large corporations) and their desire for a panopticon on the population is end-to-end (i.e. per device) encryption.
A total 10 year program cost of $150B is less than the USA spends on cosmetics in 4 years. Based on $189.90 per person per year, and presumably they are using 'per person' for adults (about 75% of the 327M today) we get around $46.6B per year. From:
That such levels of stupidity and incompetence can be displayed by a supposedly trained pilot is difficult to comprehend
I suspect if you were on a night flight, tired, and then faced with the prospect of a terminal dive you might find it harder than you expect to fully recall your training.
That is not to absolve him for the failing, just to point out that trained wet-ware is not infallible either.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020