FM is simple, but who cares when you can have a DSP for a few cents these days? FM isn't robust, just drive in a built-up area and the multipath interference kills reception on a regular basis. FM isn't effective, it's a horrible waste of precious bandwidth.
But yes, even as lousy as FM is, DAB barely beats it.
DAB is around 30% efficient in transmission, whereas FM is about 90%.
Please define "efficiency in transmission".
DAB is already transmitted at far greater power than FM, yet we still have trouble with reception on receivers.
You really need some documentation for that statement. In Denmark the important FM transmitters are 60kW (a few are 100kW), whereas the main DAB transmitters are 2kW. Coverage is only marginally worse with DAB.
It's a technology that needs to die before it really takes off.
I don't disagree, but don't make it worse than it actually is. FM is obsolete even as an analog technology (radio amateurs can do better quality in less bandwidth even without going digital). Let us just hope that we replace FM with something sane.
It's the perfect example of a poor technical solution to an imaginary problem.
The lack of radio bandwidth isn't an imaginary problem. In fact, there is a chance that the scarcity of FM channels will affect the next election in Denmark, because politicians have decided to rearrange channel allocations and that has been angering some people.
The stupid thing is that DVB-T (which Freeview uses) is perfectly capable of transmitting audio at somewhat better spectrum utilization than DAB. Now they want everyone to switch to DAB+, when there are perfectly good DVB networks ALREADY OPERATING in most of Europe.
The only non-DVB-T digital radio standard worth considering is DRM+, because that makes local radio stations possible. DAB can't really broadcast a station to less than a few million people. Technically, DRM+ is probably the best digital radio standard, but it has a problem with market penetration and that may kill it. Local radio might be better served over the Internet these days anyway. DAB and DAB+ have no reason to exist and just need to die.
NTP works fine without central servers, by the way. You just sync between machines on your site, which solves 99% of the problems you wanted time sync for in the first place.
Only if you don't really care about time in the first place. NTP is likely to go on a wild goose chase once in a while and then reset time to recover.
You can't realistically put a GPS receiver into every server; you'd be lucky if the top server managed to get any signal and the rest sure won't. Antenna cabling would be impossible with 40+ servers per rack.
If you need more than fractional second timing for syncing a process or physical events, you don't try to coordinate timing over a communications medium without guaranteed latency (like ethernet). This can be seen in certain types of linux superclusters that abandon ethernet and its descendents in favor of synchronous communications.
Why would you go for a expensive synchronous networking when ethernet works perfectly well, given non-broken software?
NTP is unreliable even on good networks and hopeless on even mildly bad networks. NTP's time synchronization can't be relied on to be better than 1ms, nowhere near the precision of an actual atomic clock.
I've found holes in a couple of products, not produced by Microsoft though. It is REALLY frustrating to mention a hole to a vendor and then being ignored at first, then have your motives questioned, and then see the company ignore the issue for ages.
Today I would most likely not mention a security bug to anyone unless it's in free software. If I had previously established that the vendor was responsive to non-security bug reports or I have access to paid support, I'd probably give it a shot, but other than that it's best to just shut up. It won't seriously affect me anyway, I don't depend on non-free software.
I don't believe you. Well I do believe that it happened, but I don't believe in the implication that the US blocked encrypted connections. There would have been WAY more than one report of this.
My personal hope is that P vs NP will turn out to require a new axiom, a bit like Euclid's fifth postulate. Reversing Euclid's fifth postulate lead to a new understanding of the universe. The same could happen with P=NP, at least within the realm of computing.
The vast majority of SSL sites I visit have the wrong domain on their (usually self-signed) certificates. Most of the large mailing list archives get it wrong. Of course I don't really care about the security of my connection to such a site, but my experience certainly matches the study.
Ideally, certificates could be signed millions of times. (With a system for requesting a particular signature and the signatures kept off the site of course, so you don't have to download several megabytes just to connect to a site). Then you could sign the certificate with weak trust the first time you visited a site, and once you've done business (or whatever the site is) with them for a while, add more trust. If you go to a new site, you can hope someone you trust has been to it before so their signature is on the site. Or you can choose to trust Verisign, of course, and if someone gets a fake certificate the browser can complain that the keys changed and that it's only signed by Verisign. Hopefully someone will notice the substitution unlike today where you get no hint at all that something is wrong.
Everyone does that. To get the protection originally intended by SSL, you need to buy "extended validation" certificates. Good luck getting your customers to notice that the green bar is gone and replaced by a normal lock symbol because someone bought a fake certificate for your site...
Soon someone will sell "extended validation" without doing the extended validation, and then they'll invent "super authentication securely verified" certificates, with a special price for you my friend...
the reason 5 years is a bad idea is, because the bits can get guessed (brute force). This usually takes a lot of time, but it doesn't have to be and you should use a new one pretty much every year.
That is ridiculous. If you're afraid of brute force, use longer keys.
As it is, people use the same private/public key pair for the next CSR anyway, so expiry doesn't protect you from brute force anyway.
(as BP did by passing the risks of DWH onto everyone else who was dependent on the Gulf to make a living).
It is entirely possible (perhaps not likely, but possible) that BP can't pay and goes bankrupt.
Imagine that there are a bunch of companies producing the same product. Half of them produce it safely, the other half have a 10% risk each year causing an environmental disaster costing a fortune in excess of their assets, but the production price is halved. In that case the unsafe ones are going to outcompete the safe ones, leaving only the unsafe ones (which are regularly replaced as disasters strike, but shareholders get their dividends each year for the ones which survive).
Market economics don't prevent environmental disasters even when environmental costs are entirely and fairly paid by the polluter. The only market economy remedy is requiring all companies to take out insurance for the very worst theoretical environmental disaster they could possibly cause.
There are other remedies for this problem which don't rely on market mechanisms, of course. Including the current one of letting society pay when companies can't...
It seems like the other oil companies are eager to join BP in the public relations garbage can. We have seen no other companies step up and say they will review their own safety procedures, despite lots of evidence that the others are almost as bad -- or worse and luckier, who knows since inspections are obviously not finding what there is to find?
I think your mistake is expecting how many homes can be wind-powered. It is pitifully small.
I certainly hope you are wrong. I'd be disappointed if Denmark is at less than 50% electricity from wind power in 2025. Admittedly some of it will have to be stored as hydro power in Norway and Sweden, which will be quite good business for those countries.
Meanwhile, partially as a result of various breakthroughs in solar cell technology, solar cell prices are finally dropping despite unprecedented demand.
Slashdot Mirror
FM is simple, but who cares when you can have a DSP for a few cents these days? FM isn't robust, just drive in a built-up area and the multipath interference kills reception on a regular basis. FM isn't effective, it's a horrible waste of precious bandwidth.
But yes, even as lousy as FM is, DAB barely beats it.
DAB is around 30% efficient in transmission, whereas FM is about 90%.
Please define "efficiency in transmission".
DAB is already transmitted at far greater power than FM, yet we still have trouble with reception on receivers.
You really need some documentation for that statement. In Denmark the important FM transmitters are 60kW (a few are 100kW), whereas the main DAB transmitters are 2kW. Coverage is only marginally worse with DAB.
It's a technology that needs to die before it really takes off.
I don't disagree, but don't make it worse than it actually is. FM is obsolete even as an analog technology (radio amateurs can do better quality in less bandwidth even without going digital). Let us just hope that we replace FM with something sane.
It's the perfect example of a poor technical solution to an imaginary problem.
The lack of radio bandwidth isn't an imaginary problem. In fact, there is a chance that the scarcity of FM channels will affect the next election in Denmark, because politicians have decided to rearrange channel allocations and that has been angering some people.
The solutions are DVB-T, DRM+, and the Internet.
The stupid thing is that DVB-T (which Freeview uses) is perfectly capable of transmitting audio at somewhat better spectrum utilization than DAB. Now they want everyone to switch to DAB+, when there are perfectly good DVB networks ALREADY OPERATING in most of Europe.
The only non-DVB-T digital radio standard worth considering is DRM+, because that makes local radio stations possible. DAB can't really broadcast a station to less than a few million people. Technically, DRM+ is probably the best digital radio standard, but it has a problem with market penetration and that may kill it. Local radio might be better served over the Internet these days anyway. DAB and DAB+ have no reason to exist and just need to die.
And also that FM is more tolerant of bad reception.
If DAB was blasted out at typical FM powers, you wouldn't have bad reception. Not that I'm in any way supporting DAB, but FM is just obsolete.
Right, so your problem isn't that Obama is a dictator. Your problem is that YOU aren't the dictator.
How many Americans back and support milking BP for everything they have? 90%?
That's all well and good, but it gets time to one server. Now what to do about the other 40 servers in the rack?
And don't say NTPd, because that will not get you anywhere close to microsecond accuracy. If it doesn't lose sync completely for no reason.
Chrony is somewhat better, but it's still stuck with the NTP protocol.
NTP works fine without central servers, by the way. You just sync between machines on your site, which solves 99% of the problems you wanted time sync for in the first place.
Only if you don't really care about time in the first place. NTP is likely to go on a wild goose chase once in a while and then reset time to recover.
You can't realistically put a GPS receiver into every server; you'd be lucky if the top server managed to get any signal and the rest sure won't. Antenna cabling would be impossible with 40+ servers per rack.
If you need more than fractional second timing for syncing a process or physical events, you don't try to coordinate timing over a communications medium without guaranteed latency (like ethernet). This can be seen in certain types of linux superclusters that abandon ethernet and its descendents in favor of synchronous communications.
Why would you go for a expensive synchronous networking when ethernet works perfectly well, given non-broken software?
NTP is unreliable even on good networks and hopeless on even mildly bad networks. NTP's time synchronization can't be relied on to be better than 1ms, nowhere near the precision of an actual atomic clock.
RADclock can do much better.
I've found holes in a couple of products, not produced by Microsoft though. It is REALLY frustrating to mention a hole to a vendor and then being ignored at first, then have your motives questioned, and then see the company ignore the issue for ages.
Today I would most likely not mention a security bug to anyone unless it's in free software. If I had previously established that the vendor was responsive to non-security bug reports or I have access to paid support, I'd probably give it a shot, but other than that it's best to just shut up. It won't seriously affect me anyway, I don't depend on non-free software.
I don't believe you. Well I do believe that it happened, but I don't believe in the implication that the US blocked encrypted connections. There would have been WAY more than one report of this.
My personal hope is that P vs NP will turn out to require a new axiom, a bit like Euclid's fifth postulate. Reversing Euclid's fifth postulate lead to a new understanding of the universe. The same could happen with P=NP, at least within the realm of computing.
The vast majority of SSL sites I visit have the wrong domain on their (usually self-signed) certificates. Most of the large mailing list archives get it wrong. Of course I don't really care about the security of my connection to such a site, but my experience certainly matches the study.
As for the name-based virtual domains issue, that has been solved for years. See e.g. SSL-enabled Name-based Apache Virtual Hosts with mod_gnutls. Sad that very few sites use it though.
Ideally, certificates could be signed millions of times. (With a system for requesting a particular signature and the signatures kept off the site of course, so you don't have to download several megabytes just to connect to a site). Then you could sign the certificate with weak trust the first time you visited a site, and once you've done business (or whatever the site is) with them for a while, add more trust. If you go to a new site, you can hope someone you trust has been to it before so their signature is on the site. Or you can choose to trust Verisign, of course, and if someone gets a fake certificate the browser can complain that the keys changed and that it's only signed by Verisign. Hopefully someone will notice the substitution unlike today where you get no hint at all that something is wrong.
Try kismet. It even has a GUI.
Everyone does that. To get the protection originally intended by SSL, you need to buy "extended validation" certificates. Good luck getting your customers to notice that the green bar is gone and replaced by a normal lock symbol because someone bought a fake certificate for your site...
Soon someone will sell "extended validation" without doing the extended validation, and then they'll invent "super authentication securely verified" certificates, with a special price for you my friend...
the reason 5 years is a bad idea is, because the bits can get guessed (brute force). This usually takes a lot of time, but it doesn't have to be and you should use a new one pretty much every year.
That is ridiculous. If you're afraid of brute force, use longer keys.
As it is, people use the same private/public key pair for the next CSR anyway, so expiry doesn't protect you from brute force anyway.
I can by electricity generated by coal, oil and gas between $1-2 dollars per Kwh
Which dollars? If that's USD, then get off the grid now! For 1USD/kWh you can buy solar panels + batteries, no problem.
(as BP did by passing the risks of DWH onto everyone else who was dependent on the Gulf to make a living).
It is entirely possible (perhaps not likely, but possible) that BP can't pay and goes bankrupt.
Imagine that there are a bunch of companies producing the same product. Half of them produce it safely, the other half have a 10% risk each year causing an environmental disaster costing a fortune in excess of their assets, but the production price is halved. In that case the unsafe ones are going to outcompete the safe ones, leaving only the unsafe ones (which are regularly replaced as disasters strike, but shareholders get their dividends each year for the ones which survive).
Market economics don't prevent environmental disasters even when environmental costs are entirely and fairly paid by the polluter. The only market economy remedy is requiring all companies to take out insurance for the very worst theoretical environmental disaster they could possibly cause.
There are other remedies for this problem which don't rely on market mechanisms, of course. Including the current one of letting society pay when companies can't...
It seems like the other oil companies are eager to join BP in the public relations garbage can. We have seen no other companies step up and say they will review their own safety procedures, despite lots of evidence that the others are almost as bad -- or worse and luckier, who knows since inspections are obviously not finding what there is to find?
I think your mistake is expecting how many homes can be wind-powered. It is pitifully small.
I certainly hope you are wrong. I'd be disappointed if Denmark is at less than 50% electricity from wind power in 2025. Admittedly some of it will have to be stored as hydro power in Norway and Sweden, which will be quite good business for those countries.
Meanwhile, partially as a result of various breakthroughs in solar cell technology, solar cell prices are finally dropping despite unprecedented demand.