Posts by Yes Me 1694 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
And you can plug an RJ11 into an RJ45. I've used domestic telephone setups where all the sockets were RJ45 and all the plugs were RJ11. (Not in the UK.) It works fine. What doesn't work, of course, is plugging an RJ11 uttering telephony signals into an RJ45 wired for Ethernet. But the exec in question did not actually force a round peg into a square hole.
I tried this:
Me: Please count from 1 to 1000
ChatGPT:
Certainly! Here's the count from 1 to 1000:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
[...and so on to]
998, 999, 1000.
But I lacked the cojones to ask for a million, since I don't want to be blacklisted.
Moved into a house (in Switzerland, many years ago) which had a nice built-in wooden unit for stereo and TV. Installed stereo, looked for power socket. Unswitched live socket at the bottom of the unit, too far to reach. Fortunately, extension cord already plugged in, left by previous owner. How kind, I thought. Extension cord had a (Swiss) 3-pin plug at each end. Lived to tell the tale.
"Wireless LAN equipment with public network IP address allocation function". It all depends how you interpret "public network IP address". I suspect it is intended to mean what we call "global IP address" (as opposed to private addresses like 192.168.178.1 or fd63:45eb:ab41:0:6a25:e384:2468:54b9). Maybe someone with better knowledge of Chinese than Google Translate can help us out. If I'm right, every home gateway is affected.
"When IPv6 was first introduced, we were assured that the address space was so big that no-one would ever find us. "
No, privacy was hardly an issue on the horizon when IPv6 was first introduced. It's really quite recently that temporary addresses were added to the mix, and that interface identifiers were recommended to be pseudo-random. (Not that address-based privacy is very important - most privacy issues arise at higher layers of the stack.)
"Water is kind, unless it shorts something fragile it will get better."
Then (are you listening, James Dyson?) why does a teeny drop of water completely bugger an expensive cordless vacuum cleaner? So they have to replace the electronics module and blame the user for daring to have a drop of water on the kitchen floor?
Ah, fragile, I see.
FORTRAN or C? And no update to the graphics API?
Since LEP was physically dismantled to make way for LHC, the hardware side has definitely been replaced. (Unless of course it was actually monitoring the Booster, the PS or the SPS.)
Anyway that was but yesterday, LEP started up as recently as 1989.
LEP was an interesting machine, because it proved that answer was 3 (not 42).
5G is just another transmission technology. Its success or failure is indeed nothing to do with net neutrality. The controversy in the United States of Advertising is about freedom to brainwash the population, and it's no surprise that the advertising industry and its friends are lobbying to avoid any kind of consumer-protection rules, and it's no surprise that their lackeys in Congress are going along.
More power to the FCC, say I.
"Without his efforts to formalize and promote Free Software, there would be no Open Source world today."
Honestly I think that is untrue. He was the figurehead of the free aspect, but open source was coming anyway, just with less annoying licences than the GPL. I don't see any reason why Linux would not have succeeded with a BSD-style llicence, for example.
Actually, the "shares" given to Huawei employees are not voting shares. But then, when did you last hear of (say) Cisco disobeying a strong request from (say) the NSA because of shareholder objections? None of this is about government control; it's all about companies with powerful lobbyists in Washington DC hating that Huawei products are cheaper.
Open - yes.
Lightweight - not really. It takes a lot of work to get rough consensus on a draft (most drafts fail).
Fast - not really. It typically takes several years for a large piece of work to get through the process from a first draft to an RFC.
(And worldwide meetings: the next IETF meeting is in Prague. The following one is in Brisbane.)
As for the specific issue of idnits, I don't think it's any more picky than other standards organisations or technical publishers. But writing a draft is probably the wrong place to start - writing a rough proposal as email to the relevant IETF working group is generally recommended as the zero'th step. See https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/#wgbof
It's hard to tell whether "Justhefacts" is speaking from personal knowledge and experience or whether they are just regurgitating something from a Johnsonian or Faragist echo chamber. But either way, they are wrong (and I feel that "he is wrong" would be a fair guess at their gender, women aren't that unequivocal.)
Clearly though, "Justhefacts" doesn't understand how international scientific collaboration works and of what timescales apply. A lot of research, by the way, doesn't get spectacular results - that's why it's called "research". And in case you didn't know, Alain Aspect's famous experiment was only done because of John Stewart Bell's theoretical work done at CERN, another (non-EU) European collaboration. That's how science gets done - international collaboration.
Yes. The Grauniad says "The failure of the air traffic control system, run by private company Nats, has been blamed on a single corrupted flight plan entered by an unnamed airline, according to reports."
Whether it was Excel, CSV or a 1960s-era punched card image I cannot guess, but rejecting gobbledygook in the input has been a principle of programming since, oh, 1948.
So, you're running a highly successful manufacturing company and some big bully tries to cut off your supply of important components. So, you set up factories to supply such components. So, the big bully acts all surprised and shocked. Just what is the news here?
As we've known for some years, the strategic impact of ObamaTrumpBiden's trade war against China will be to greatly strengthen China's high-tech industries. This is evidence that it's already happening.
"Internet governance" is an oxymoron, so I never worry too much about this stuff (and never have done since the so-called "Internet Governance Forum" annointed itself.)
However, please note that ICANN doesn't have a stranglehold on the Internet. It's managed to extract large rents from idiots who believe that top level domain names matter, and I agree that this is morally no better than crypto-currency or non-fungible tokens, but the Internet is doing just fine anyway, thank you.
It's also a long time since the Internet was "US-centric at a goverance level". I'd say that notion is at least 20 years out of date.
Now, about "The technical community is not part of civil society and it has never been". That is indeed untrue. As long ago as the ludicrous WSIS meetings ("World Summit on the Information Society") and the preparation for them, the only seating for members of the technical community was in the area labelled "Civil Society". I know because I had to sit there (in big conference rooms in Geneva). In that sense, the ICANN etc. statement is factually untrue, and has been since the WSIS wallahs invented their curious "stakeholder" concept.
Fortunately for all, the actual technology of the Internet has been largely unaffected by all the silly talk under the "governance" banner.
I really wonder how big Professor Ryan Abbott's fee was for expressing his very useful opinion (useful to the plaintiff, that is). He's quite a character.
"Germany is determined to remove any systems from its telecoms networks that might pose a security threat"
They might as well just shut everything down, then. This discrimination against one company that has no worse security than the others is basically just toadying to the USA. I thought Germany had got over that.
Downvote because
"We'll need dual stack for the next decade(s)"
is oversimplification. We'll need coexistence for the next decade(s). Apps will need a dual-stack API, ditto. But read up on "IPv6-mostly" and you'll see that dual stack on the wire can start to go away now.
There's a write-up.
Way before 1996, people at CERN referred to a network called "Jumbo Jet on line" (mag tapes by air freight were very competitive with the early Internet). Andy Tanenbaum was often at CERN so he could have learned about it there.
On site, they used "bicycle on line" (mag tapes could cross the site on the back of a bike quicker than the bits could cross the site network).
"I expect having established the business model for IPv4 they will simply transfer it to IPv6, as most people won’t understand.."
They can't do that, for various reasons. IPv6 is the best way to defeat these scumbags.
We're 44.76% of the way there according to Google's latest data.
"The original bus network continues to run rings around all its rivals"
Well, cute, especially for those of us who also remember token buses and token rings. But of course (as I'm sure Geoff's blog points out), today's "Ethernet" bears almost no technical resemblance to the Boggs & Metcalf Ethernet, or even the original "yellow cable" DIX Ethernet, except the frame format. Oh, and the name hasn't changed. That which we call an Ethernet by any other name would smell quite different.
I'd add "Computer Networks and their Protocols" by Donald Davies, Derek Barber, W.L. Price and C.M. Solomonides, Wiley, 1979, for an even earlier tome by one of the inventors of packet switching and his colleagues at NPL.
I was in meetings with Derek Barber in the 1980s, and he was always pretty reluctant to accept that TCP/IP had "won" the protocol wars.
(Lots to enjoy at https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Donald_Davies_%26_Derek_Barber )
And any history of networking in the UK must pay respect to Peter Kirstein, who brought the ARPANET to London in 1973.
Don't be absurd. Richard Nixon started things off by talking to the Chinese and encouraging trade and cultural exchanges. US (and other Western) industry simply followed his lead. So what if there was a bit of IP leakage? Did we ever pay royalties to the Chinese for inventing gunpowder and printing? This is how human economic development has always worked: copying and improving on somebody else's inventions. Patents and copyrights are a modern invention, and if you're an open source software user you already know that they are mainly a tool to make the rich richer. Who can blame China for sidestepping that?
"thanks to CCP subsidies"Please provide evidence for that. And of course, we note the whiny use of "CCP" when you mean "government". Also please demonstrate that Ericsson and Nokia never got their own government subsidies.
I truly don't understand why the EU would believe the totally unsubstantiated claims about Huawei or ZTE equipment having better back doors than the Western kit.
Yes. The entire attack on Huawei is and always has been pure protectionism, in which for some reason organisations like the NSA and GCHQ have allowed themselves to be enrolled. All countries doing this should be the subject of complaints at the WTO - this is a direct assault on free trade by the countries that claim to be the strongest defenders of free trade. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
