Re: Tokamak and Stellerator
"I read what I mean not what I wrote."
We all do.
40432 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"an arguably impossibly ambitious goal of breaking ground on a utility-scale fusion power plant in 2026"
Not at all impossibly ambitious. They can break ground. All that means is they dig a few trenches, even pour sume concrete into them. It doesn't mean they build anything operational on them.
"We want people to be able to ask questions as they would in everyday life; for example: 'I've just had a baby, do you know what help I can get?' Responses would combine material from multiple departments including HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Education into "a single, simple conversational answer."
Simpler, less new shiny, of course, but probably better, to have a single, well written, information page bringing all that information together, linked from wherever someone might look including the sites of those departments and NHS.
I suppose it's the "less new shiny" that's the killer. If it's AI it must be better, mustn't it?
Mustn't it?
"The first WSIS process saw participating nations pledge “to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge."
That's just getting the necessary PR speak out of the way.
"It also saw participating nations agree to the multi-stakeholder internet governance arrangements that persist to this day, and which sees organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society (ISOC), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) each play a role."
This is the meat of it: the realisation that if the politicians try to take over they'll find they're holding nothing because the engineers will go away and create something new to replace it, probably taking the chance to clean up on a few issues of the sort that led to the IPv4/IPv6 situation.
Why was he unsuccessful as a PM? Because Blair stood aside at exactly the moment the full effect of his financial policies were due to hit.
What were those policies?
1. Charge current expenditure to the future. e.g. start taxing dividends on investments in pensions. That killed the final salary pensions. OK for those of us already in a scheme but not for our children.
2. Have interest rates target 2% inflation on an index that excluded housing costs. The result was that cheap money went into house price inflation and cheap loans secured against house values. 125% mortgages? That brought about the credit crunch. It painted future chancellors into a corner as any correction would have wiped out those with over-priced houses and those whose savings had been loaned on them. All in the name of a low headline interest rate.
Arguably the after-effects are still with us. I haven't seen anyone successfully pick up the pieces. No wonder he was followed by austerity.
A successful chancellor? I don't think so.
"Another one who has never had a proper job."
Unlike the current one who's had lots of proper jobs - some of them even existed.
Chancellors have a habit of being unsuccessful but if you want to find a really unsuccessful one then you have to go back a bit further to Gordon Brown.
"objecting to the new masts and then complain online about how bad the mobile phone network is"
There's a conflict between providing a mobile voice coverage and going to shorter and shorter ranges to provide more digital bells and whistles.
It's worth remembering that it's voice coverage that provides for calls for help in possible life and death situations.
"He took issue with the fact that the TCN was referred to essentially as a backdoor for government snooping, describing the nomenclature as crude and erroneous." But effective.
"lawful access can be achieved in a way that strikes a balance between maintaining strong encryption and ensuring law enforcement and the government can protect the public from terrorism, serious crime, and hostile state activity." How?
All those in favour of this have to do to persuade us is to produce a proof of concept that withstands expert scrutiny. Failure to even attempt this speaks volumes.
Meeting regulatory requirements is a cost of doing business, not some sort of cross-subsidy. There were - probably stall are - rules about BT not subsidising one sort of business from another. It was attempts to get into non-regulated areas that started BT manglement on their loss-making international ventures in the 90s.
"Rural. Its different from Urban. One having a sparser population than the other. As a result there is often an infrastructure difference. You feeling ok today?"
I'm feeling fine living as I do in a rural location. We have neighbours on both sides of the road back down to the pub, church and cricket field and there are houses strung along the road with very few gaps all the way back to the exchange. Off the lane there's an estate with 48 houses and a smaller one with a few retirement flats. A couple of hundred metres up the road is are three more houses and another cluster a hundred or so metres further up. That may be sparse by urban standards, it's not isolated. You need to get out more.
Fair enough we do have good connections on this side of the valley. It's not clear why the other side isn't as well served - except for the fibre that was laid for the mobile mast.
"Compare that to ass end of nowhere which is out of the way of existing infrastructure"
Why the Americanism? And why the assumption that rural properties are particularly remote or isolated?
There is the little matter of universal provision to remember. I see that, like Openreach, you don't remember.
There are not locations "out of the way of the existing infrastructure". They are on it. Some of that infrastructure was installed in the days of aluminium conductors which doesn't help. They have been left with either long ADSL connections or else equally bad, long connections to FTTC access. Meanwhile those with short FTTC runs are being offered FTTP while those with a mile or so long zig-zagged overhead cables to the same cabinet, get nothing.
It's definitely a case of those that have shall be given more and those that have not shall have the little they have taken away from them as a VOIP replacement for analogue is likely to be problematic.
BT inherited an obligation from its nationalised existence. It is not meeting it.
Sometimes buildings are managed through agents. For the agent there is a cost: doing something. They'd rather collect their cut for doing nothing.
Our first flat was an attic flat with a dormer window that let in showers of water onto our dining table when it rained. It took a lot of haranguing to get it fixed although the leak must have been causing deterioration to the structure of the building. They were also uninterested in a crack opening up where the back staircase seemed to be falling away from the main building.
"Modern conflict no longer rewards the side with the most data, It rewards the side with the ability to connect it, understand it and act on it first."
That connecting and understanding thing - the word is "information". It was always information that mattered but data can be measured in Tb so you can always claim to have lots of that, even if you've got no information from it.
"But then again, it's the scenario you didn't think about (and there's always one) that's going to get you."
Quite. NextCloud drive died a little way from completing a sync to number 2 laptop when number 1 was away fro repair. It had temporarily become a SPoF. So the new NC server (might as well replace it with a newer Pi) has mirrored drives.
"yes, but you’re not an average user"
"Average" is a misleading word. If you're thinking of "mode" rather than "mean" you might find your "average" user doesn't have a lot of paid-for account-locked content. They may have their own material but then, the situation with that might depend on the nature of the device. For the "average" PC user it might well be local-first but any backup might be what they didn't manage to fight off Microsoft snaffling to One\Drive.
It seems that all too often it's just a matter of what the user chooses - or, rather, fails to choose - as their SPoF.