A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Samsung TV's "bricked"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 26th 17, 11:30 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 588
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:


De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961 the
railways were losing 300,000 a day.


That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares on
oversubscribed routes.


In some fantasy world, maybe.


much of what was "saved" by Beeching for the railways simply increased
costs for someone else. At a factory in Edinburgh, where I was working as
a student, received 2 coal wagons a day from a train that dropped off
similar loads at other premises. The branch line was closed. That one
factory needed 20 lorry loads a day. The wear and tear on the roads must
have been enormous.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #32  
Old August 26th 17, 12:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,164
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:


De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961
the railways were losing 300,000 a day.


That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares
on oversubscribed routes.


In some fantasy world, maybe.


In the real world - if Beeching hadn't ensured it wouldn't happen by
destroying the infrastructure rather than developing it. His assumptions
and figures have repeatedly since been shown to be based on short-sighted
wilful ignorance. And reality has since shown this as the demand for rail
transport has risen.

But as already explained, it suited the road transport lobby (which paid
the Tory party) and people like Marples who made loadsa money out of
pushing traffic onto the new roads that got built. Although IIRC Marples
main path for this was via flogging materials like the vast amount of
concrete required.

But as usual for Tories, once they smashed things up, re-establishing what
was discarded ends up being very costly... and if done, often another
revenue stream for their pals.

It would have made some sense to close down some mixed freight services.
And various other changes and investments. But a lot of Beeching was
social/economic vandalism which we ended up paying more for in other ways
he could ignore. Neatly dressed up, of course.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #33  
Old August 26th 17, 03:16 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,180
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 26/08/2017 11:34, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:


De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961 the
railways were losing £300,000 a day.


That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares on
oversubscribed routes.


In some fantasy world, maybe.

I was looking at an alternative brief where the profitable lines were
able to subsidise the unprofitable ones rather than Beeching's remit to
look at each line in isolation. It was "British Rail" and not separate
companies, and Marlpes could have treated it as such if he wasn't
looking at his own company's business opportunities if the competition
was crippled.

We now have the dearest rail journeys in Europe despite all Beeching's
cuts of the unprofitable lines, and people grumble but still pay, so it
wasn't that much of a fantasy suggestion. If we were not paying
millions each year to shareholders of the franchises, money would go a
lot further.

Jim

  #34  
Old August 26th 17, 03:16 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Vir Campestris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

(Top for Brian)

I'd hope the the truck behind would be telling the one in front "I can't
stop, ease off the brakes".

Besides if you're 10ft apart and the one in front brakes hard the impact
velocity would be pretty low. There isn't the space to build up a speed
difference. It's the guy in front of the platoon who'd suffer. Or worse,
the one between two of them...

Andy
On 26/08/2017 11:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
That has been sorted out. the loading has to be done carefully and some
figures fed in before they start apparently, so the most difficult vehicle
is catered for. I'm more concerned with windage, shedding of loads and blow
outs myself.


Can you imagine the chaos if the front vehicle collided with something and
it disabled the link. all driving that close probably every other driver in
the other trucks would be killled outright before they have time to say
****.
Brian

please! "Indy Jess John" wrote in
message ...
The report on the TV tonight indicated that the wifi link was concerned
with controlling the speed and distance from the vehicle in front, and the
driver operated the steering wheel.

That suggests that the economies are all down to reduced wind resistance
due to the fast computer reaction time allowing the convoy to drive closer
than humans could. That concept would fall flat if the one at the back
was heavier than the one ahead and therefore could not match the braking
distance of the one in front in the event of an emergency stop.

Jim


  #35  
Old August 26th 17, 06:04 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"



"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2017 18:15, Andy Burns wrote:
Davey wrote:

I had thought that, the Australians have them and call them Road
Trains. Like you, I cannot see any advantage of the proposed system
over the one already tried and tested.


I wouldn't expect the fuel savings to be /that/ much for a convoy of
three.

The drivers will get used to just sitting there, doing nothing, and have
difficulty remaining alert enough to take over at a moment's notice when
a MegaBus overtakes and interferes with the convoy's WiFi hotspot.



The report on the TV tonight indicated that the wifi link was concerned
with controlling the speed and distance from the vehicle in front, and the
driver operated the steering wheel.

That suggests that the economies are all down to reduced wind resistance
due to the fast computer reaction time allowing the convoy to drive closer
than humans could.


Loadsa humans drive that close - that's how you spot the stupid one's.

  #36  
Old August 26th 17, 08:10 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,829
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 26/08/2017 19:04, Ian Field wrote:

Loadsa humans drive that close - that's how you spot the stupid one's.


I also spot them by their misuse of apostrophes.

Bill
  #37  
Old August 26th 17, 10:52 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,757
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

Yes indeed, the single point of failure is another common one. The BA
computer crash proved how a simple outage could affect everything.
I mean if it happens to me only myself is affected, but companies need to
look at this a little more diligently.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-08-26, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Ian Field"
wrote in :

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - but sooner or later the encoding will
be changed and you'll have to risk a firmware update.


Given that nowadays televisions are connected to the net, security
updates are a good idea and the fact that they do them means they are
offering a good service.

It happened some years back with Setpal firmware Freeview boxes - dunno
about generally, but mine couldn't be flashed and was scrap.


If a device can brick itself, the logic of the update process is badly
designed. It should never be in a non-recoverable state even if things
go horribly wrong, and that can be avoided if the update process is
well thought out.


The software in these things is written as quickly as possible by the
cheapest (least experienced) developers who can be found. Recovering
from failed updates is one of the first things to be cut from the spec
since it's never going to be needed, right? I've actually had my manager
say to me, and I'm quoting, that "Something that is no problem is no
problem" when I pointed out a potential problem with the systems at work.
I ****ed myself laughing when it subsequently happened, hundreds of
systems failed and it took a day to recover. That's the kind of attitude
you're fighting against.


--
Today is Pungenday, the 19th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.



  #38  
Old August 27th 17, 09:25 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,164
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

In article , Indy Jess John
wrote:
I was looking at an alternative brief where the profitable lines were
able to subsidise the unprofitable ones rather than Beeching's remit to
look at each line in isolation. It was "British Rail" and not separate
companies, and Marlpes could have treated it as such if he wasn't
looking at his own company's business opportunities if the competition
was crippled.



Yes. The analogy I've tended to use is a medic who decides the best way to
treat a patient is to give them something that kills off their capillaries
because "Each capillary only conveys a trivial amount of blood, so they
aren't worth the effort of being maintained by the body. Only the large
blood vessels need preserving as they efficently carry most blood."

In reality closing many branch lines removed passengers and freight from
the main lines - having an impact on *their* cost-effectiveness. As well as
shoving up costs elsewhere in the economy.

Other countries around the world have far better (generally state run) rail
systems and think were were mad.

Now add in all the added madness of the present balkanized 'franchise'
system we have that is propped up by hidden subsidies, etc, and this
compounds the way Britain is run to suit the few. Examples of "off the
books, out of sight" thinking.

If anyone wants to know more and can't find any of the old textbooks, etc,
on this, go and trawl a few decades of Private Eye. They've documented it
over the decades.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #39  
Old August 27th 17, 10:32 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 432
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 26/08/2017 13:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:

De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961
the railways were losing £300,000 a day.

That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares
on oversubscribed routes.


In some fantasy world, maybe.


In the real world - if Beeching hadn't ensured it wouldn't happen by
destroying the infrastructure rather than developing it. His assumptions
and figures have repeatedly since been shown to be based on short-sighted
wilful ignorance. And reality has since shown this as the demand for rail
transport has risen.


But as already explained, it suited the road transport lobby (which paid
the Tory party) and people like Marples who made loadsa money out of
pushing traffic onto the new roads that got built. Although IIRC Marples
main path for this was via flogging materials like the vast amount of
concrete required.

But as usual for Tories, once they smashed things up, re-establishing what
was discarded ends up being very costly... and if done, often another
revenue stream for their pals.


It would have made some sense to close down some mixed freight services.
And various other changes and investments. But a lot of Beeching was
social/economic vandalism which we ended up paying more for in other ways
he could ignore. Neatly dressed up, of course.


Beeching's report was flawed in some respect by modern standards. But
things were different then. Eg cost-benefit analysis hadn't spread to
public sector policy evaluation so externalities such as extra road
traffic deaths/injuries weren't taken into account. But there are a few
other facts I'd think important. Eg that Labour was in power from 1964
to 1970, had promised to stop the cuts in their election manifesto, and
didn't. (Goodness, I wonder if that was corruption?) And that Beeching
did not recommend selling off the land of closed lines; that was BR's
decision.

But I can see that it's all of a piece with the way the Tories arranged
for England not to win the FIFA world cup after 1966 - and Scotland
never. And destroyed not just British coal mining industry but the
French as well.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #40  
Old August 27th 17, 11:36 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Terry Casey[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 738
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

In article ffa06ec2-8817-54ac-292f-1f82b72e5b26
@hotmail.com, says...

On 26/08/2017 13:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:

De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961
the railways were losing 300,000 a day.

That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares
on oversubscribed routes.


In some fantasy world, maybe.


In the real world - if Beeching hadn't ensured it wouldn't happen by
destroying the infrastructure rather than developing it. His assumptions
and figures have repeatedly since been shown to be based on short-sighted
wilful ignorance. And reality has since shown this as the demand for rail
transport has risen.


But as already explained, it suited the road transport lobby (which paid
the Tory party) and people like Marples who made loadsa money out of
pushing traffic onto the new roads that got built. Although IIRC Marples
main path for this was via flogging materials like the vast amount of
concrete required.

But as usual for Tories, once they smashed things up, re-establishing what
was discarded ends up being very costly... and if done, often another
revenue stream for their pals.


It would have made some sense to close down some mixed freight services.
And various other changes and investments. But a lot of Beeching was
social/economic vandalism which we ended up paying more for in other ways
he could ignore. Neatly dressed up, of course.


Beeching's report was flawed in some respect by modern standards. But
things were different then. Eg cost-benefit analysis hadn't spread to
public sector policy evaluation so externalities such as extra road
traffic deaths/injuries weren't taken into account. But there are a few
other facts I'd think important. Eg that Labour was in power from 1964
to 1970, had promised to stop the cuts in their election manifesto, and
didn't. (Goodness, I wonder if that was corruption?) And that Beeching
did not recommend selling off the land of closed lines; that was BR's
decision.


I think you will find that MORE lines were closed by Labour
than the Tories.

--

Terry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.