[OT] Oh No! Got Broadband....



dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>>In which case, Wendling might be in range after all... are you <= 10Km
>
>>from Dereham Helen?
>
> Wendling has no Broadband - we've been trying for *ages*, but the Wendling
> exchange is tiny.
>

Wendling 29/06/2005
(activation date from the BT website which ties in with the launch of
the current extended reach trial)

Tony
 
>Wendling 29/06/2005
>(activation date from the BT website which ties in with the launch of
>the current extended reach trial)
>
>Tony

OOOOOOHHH!!!

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
On 25 Sep 2004 15:30:20 GMT someone who may be
[email protected]omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
this:-

>>Wendling 29/06/2005
>>(activation date from the BT website which ties in with the launch of
>>the current extended reach trial)
>
>OOOOOOHHH!!!

To add to what Tony said,
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/availability/btprereg.asp allows one a
view of the BT information and the site has useful news about what
is happening.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
In news:[email protected],
Tony Raven <[email protected]> typed:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Andy Leighton <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Where is the 1200/75 modem for Prestel et al?
>>> Where is the 300 baud modem?
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Seemed perfectly good in 1987.
>
> As Bill Gates said "680k (memory) should be enough for anyone"

I think he thought x86es would be enough for anyone, and they've proved to
be so far. The 68ks went out in the early 90s though, replaced by the PPCs.

In my youth, I couldn't imagine ever using 4GB of memory. Now, I've got
databases 3GB large on my hard drive, and I find things are getting very
unresponsive once I've got over 1.8GB of memory allocated, despite the fact
that most of it is safely swapped out and not needed.

I think I'll be out of the business before 64 bits is too few, though

A
 
Ambrose Nankivell [email protected] opined the following...
> I think I'll be out of the business before 64 bits is too few, though

I'm sure that someone once tried to work out whether it was possible to
fill a 64-bit address space and concluded that there aren't enough
particles in the universe to make the memory.

I fully expect to be corrected by a visitor from uk.rec.physics.memory!
;-)

Jon
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

> I'm sure that someone once tried to work out whether it was possible to
> fill a 64-bit address space and concluded that there aren't enough
> particles in the universe to make the memory.

A few minutes with a calculator suggests that's probably dubious (or
else I've screwed up). 18446744073709551616 bytes, or 17179869184 Gb,
or (approximately) 143 million 120Gb disks. I'm sure there are enough
particles in the universe to make 143 million 120Gb disks, and while
it's possible that memory might take up a little more space (and be
substantially more expensive) for the same capacity, I still don't
think it's completely infeasible. Dunno where you'd plug it all in,
though.

This second paragraph is where I make the reference to the size of
Wales that's traditional in these comparisons.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:17:53 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>This second paragraph is where I make the reference to the size of
>Wales that's traditional in these comparisons.

And how do you get two whales in a Mini?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Just zips Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:17:53 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>This second paragraph is where I make the reference to the size of
>>Wales that's traditional in these comparisons.
>
>
> And how do you get two whales in a Mini?
>

Turn left at Stafford. Boom boom

Tony
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:12:31 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> And how do you get two whales in a Mini?
>Turn left at Stafford. Boom boom

And how do you know when there's an elephant in your fridge?

[cont: uk.rec.sheds]

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Daniel Barlow [email protected] opined the following...
> A few minutes with a calculator suggests that's probably dubious (or
> else I've screwed up). 18446744073709551616 bytes, or 17179869184 Gb,

Almost. It's actually 184467440373709551616 addressable locations. Given
that all current processors are 32bit (Alright, not all, but the ones in
home PCs are!) the number of bytes would be 32 times higher, and with a
64 bit architecture, it would make sense to be able to store 64 bit
chunks...

> or (approximately) 143 million 120Gb disks. I'm sure there are enough
> particles in the universe to make 143 million 120Gb disks,

.... so (based on 64bit throughout) it would actually be 9,152 million
(9.152 billion?) 120Gb disks.

The estimated current population of the world is 6.4 billion, so that'd
be half as many disks again as there are people in the world.

Still sounds possible though. I wasn't sure and couldn't be bothered to
do the maths, thanks for forcing me out of my laziness! :)

> This second paragraph is where I make the reference to the size of
> Wales that's traditional in these comparisons.

"A piece of Uranium this big <Makes small circle with thumb and
forefinger> could destroy an area the size of Wales. The question
remains... what are we waiting for?"

One of the not-so PC jokes I remember from school. The beauty being that
it can be adapted to fit any country you dislike (Or fancy ridiculing).

Jon
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

> Daniel Barlow [email protected] opined the following...
>> A few minutes with a calculator suggests that's probably dubious (or
>> else I've screwed up). 18446744073709551616 bytes, or 17179869184 Gb,
>
> Almost. It's actually 184467440373709551616 addressable locations. Given
> that all current processors are 32bit (Alright, not all, but the ones in
> home PCs are!) the number of bytes would be 32 times higher, and with a
> 64 bit architecture, it would make sense to be able to store 64 bit
> chunks...

That sounds wrong to me. Each addressable location can have a byte
(or an octet, to be exact) stored in it. This is true on 32 bit
computers; it's true on 64 bit computers (at least, on the Alpha and
x86-64 systems I have used) as well. If you ask for the 64 bit word
at address n, you'll get some combination of the 8 8-bit values at n,
n+1 ... n+7.

I believe there are (perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "were") some
machines using larger sizes for their addressable units. If you get a
Symbolics, for example, I believe it's normal there to talk about "8
megawords of RAM", but I don't know if they could address smaller
bytes directly as well. Someone who knows - I've never actually used
one - can probably expand on that. Simon?


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
 
Daniel Barlow [email protected] opined the following...
> That sounds wrong to me. Each addressable location can have a byte
> (or an octet, to be exact) stored in it. This is true on 32 bit
> computers; it's true on 64 bit computers (at least, on the Alpha and
> x86-64 systems I have used) as well. If you ask for the 64 bit word
> at address n, you'll get some combination of the 8 8-bit values at n,
> n+1 ... n+7.

Not always. Memory is available in many word lengths and there are
complications of addressing if you use one-byte wide words. If I want to
obtain two consecutive 64bit words, I'd have to add 8 to the memory
location instead of one. Makes the increment operation much more
complex. The TI DSPs I've coded for address memory in various sizes and
just use a wider bus. If you store an 8 bit value in memory you just use
a portion of a 32 bit word.

Given that making SIMMs 32bit wide involved pairing them I'd say that
the same is true for the x86 architecture (It's not yet been long enough
since I wrote x86 assembler and I have no intention of looking at it
again!).

> I believe there are (perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "were") some
> machines using larger sizes for their addressable units. If you get a
> Symbolics, for example, I believe it's normal there to talk about "8
> megawords of RAM", but I don't know if they could address smaller
> bytes directly as well. Someone who knows - I've never actually used
> one - can probably expand on that. Simon?

Addressing a smaller space with larger words does not decrease the
capacity. 1 MB is 1 MB whether it's addressed by bit, or by 64 bit word.
PIC microcontrollers have unusually sized program memory as they use a
12 / 14 bit word.

This of course doesn't change the amount of memory that can exist in the
universe but does change how wide your bus can get before it becomes an
issue!

Jon
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:27:08 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe there are (perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "were") some
> machines using larger sizes for their addressable units. If you get a
> Symbolics, for example, I believe it's normal there to talk about "8
> megawords of RAM", but I don't know if they could address smaller
> bytes directly as well. Someone who knows - I've never actually used
> one - can probably expand on that. Simon?

Microchip microcontrollers ('PICS') are 8-bit CMOS microcontrollers
that use larger-than-8 program words (though they use 8 bit data in
RAM and EEPROM). The 16 series use 14-bit program words, and the data
sheets typically refer to (eg) "program memory (words):1024, data
memory (bytes):224", or "memory: program 1024x14, data 224x8"

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

> Daniel Barlow [email protected] opined the following...
>> That sounds wrong to me. Each addressable location can have a byte
>> (or an octet, to be exact) stored in it. This is true on 32 bit
>> computers; it's true on 64 bit computers (at least, on the Alpha and
>> x86-64 systems I have used) as well. If you ask for the 64 bit word
>> at address n, you'll get some combination of the 8 8-bit values at n,
>> n+1 ... n+7.
>
> Not always. Memory is available in many word lengths and there are
> complications of addressing if you use one-byte wide words. If I want to
> obtain two consecutive 64bit words, I'd have to add 8 to the memory
> location instead of one. Makes the increment operation much more

I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes.

Adding 8 instead of 1 is, indeed, exactly what you do when you're
writing for an x86-64 or an Alpha, or I suspect most general-purpose
CPUs (there's a reason C has a sizeof operator, after all). Try
disassembling an array access. Regardless of the bus width, the load
and store instructions on these machines expect addresses measured in
octets, which means the maximum memory they can address is 2^(width of
a register) octets.

I wouldn't be surprised if DSPs were different, but I know nothing
about DSPs.

ObBike: err. dunno. Office shower is on the blink, which makes
commuting impractical, and free time has been spent gathering a small
collection of skating injuries. Maybe I'll get more bike time now the
weather is getting worse and skating becomes impractical.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:25:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:12:31 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> And how do you get two whales in a Mini?
>>Turn left at Stafford. Boom boom
>
>And how do you know when there's an elephant in your fridge?
>

Footprints in the butter.

How do you know when there's an elephant in your bead?

- Pyjamas with a big "E" on the pocket.
 
On 27/9/04 1:14 am, in article [email protected],
"Vic." <[email protected]> wrote:


> How do you know when there's an elephant in your bead?

> - Pyjamas with a big "E" on the pocket.

Surely something to do with being unable to thread it (cue newsreader flame
war).

<much snippage and reference to previous jokes>

Q: How can you tell if there are four elephants in your fridge?

A: There is a mini parked outside.

...d
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:57:12 +0100, "DG" <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>Been through it all -
>
>9.6 Kb/s modem - very, very, very sloooooooooow, but got there - eventually
>
>28 Kb/s modem - very slooooow
>
>Upgraded to 33 Kb/s modem - sloooow
>
>Next 64 Kb/s ISDN - better, with almost instant connection
>
>512 Kb/s ADSL - nice - never looked back
>
>1 Mb/s ADSL - on order and expected any day. Can't wait.
>


I'm similiar, but my first modem was either 1.2kbaud, or 2.4kbaud (I
just finally threw it out a couple of months ago, so can't check)

When I finally got a 56kbps modem, I never got better than a
mid-thiries kbps connection - the near-Victorian copper cables that BT
still use in these parts foiled the modem utterly.

I now connect via cable company (brand new copper originally, now via
their coaxial broadband)

>The faster the connection, the less time in front of the PC, just waiting.
>That means more time for the bike?

Not until I get a faster PC...


....
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:04:27 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote (more or less):

>"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>In news:[email protected],
>>Andy Leighton <[email protected]> typed:
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:57:12 +0100, DG <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Been through it all -
>
>>>> 9.6 Kb/s modem - very, very, very sloooooooooow, but got there -
>>>> eventually 28 Kb/s modem - very slooooow
>>>> Upgraded to 33 Kb/s modem - sloooow
>
>>> Where is the 1200/75 modem for Prestel et al?
>>> Where is the 300 baud modem?
>
>>> 9.6 Kb/sec was sheer luxury - but you try and tell the young people
>>> today that ...
>
>>Do you know how long this 328MB download's going to take at 20KB/s? 4 hours,
>>I tell you.
>
>>We did have Prestel when I were a lad, though. We used it for online
>>shopping about 4 or 5 times. Quite exciting.
>
>>I had a 9.6K modem with AOL 2.5. It was by far the cheapest way to get
>>internet connectivity at home back in 1996 at #4 a month plus per minute
>>charges plus phone call.
>
>>Those were the days...
>
>It's like roads. Built more of them and more people spend more time
>faffing about on them. Why do we need so much computer comms speed?
>Largely to carry spam, ****, advertising animations, absurdly otiose
>text graphics because the maketing dept didn't think the available
>fonts quite carried the commercial message with enough oomph, viruses,
>trojans, spambots, and Microsh**t software "updates".
>
>According to my local cable engineer, almost all the bandwidth on my
>own local cable connection consists of viruses vainly hammering on the
>doors of my firewall. He says the biggest speed improvement broadband
>has brought is that your computer can now become infected in several
>seconds, e.g., the several seconds between your rebooted computer
>connecting to the cable modem, and your security programs loading up
>and closing the doors.

Makes you wonder why they can't be set up to close the stable doors
/before/ the horse has bolted. Of course, most of us use Microsoft
OSs...


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
iv got to tell you guys my secret
Replies
0
Views
284
UK and Europe
[email protected]
S
M
Got heavy duty corner steadies?......
Replies
1
Views
492
UK and Europe
harry hotfoot
H
D
She's got the idea
Replies
1
Views
295
UK and Europe
Mark
M
R
Wiggle - anyone got a telno for them?
Replies
32
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Dave
D
M
Got a New Station Hack Today
Replies
5
Views
360
UK and Europe
Dave
D
Top Bottom Back