Martin

Aye, see The Machine SID Duplication Myth. mb

Interesting! Two blokes who appear to have combed their hair after putting on a pair of headphones, even though they are on the radio mb p.s. Seems like a good film

FF works for me - i just allow vimeo.com in NoScript but i think you also need to allow vimeo.com cookies! mb

But that is on revenues of $86B, so their actual percentage profit is less than, say, Tesco (5.6% versus 5.9%) - and supermaket margins are very small! mb

Funny you should say that. See the video here! mb

Oops, it appears that i did not explain myself clearly, so let me try again... The government were keen to prove that speed cameras work, but this is difficult to do (especially as many people think that they don't work). There was already a general trend of a reduction in the number of fatalities each year, most likely due to improved car safety - but they needed more. Thus they set up speed camera trials in six force areas (Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Thames Valley), but for some strange reason most of these areas had a higher than normal number of fatalities in the year before the trial started. Hence my first graph, which shows (on the vertical axis) the number of fatalities across all six trial force areas by year, thus... http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_six.gif Compare that with the combined fatalities across England (i mistakenly called it "average" in my earlier post, when it should have read "actual"). The vertical axis is also number of fatalities, but it has bigger numbers because it includes more force areas (hence "The scales are wildly different" because there are more deaths, but we are looking at the trend, so that shouldn't matter)... http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_england.gif Note the downward trend (unlike in the carefully selected trial areas), and a lack of a sudden increase in the year before the trial started. Now there is a statistical phenomenon called "regression to the mean" or "return to the mean", which i will leave to you to research on the Interwebs, but in layman's language it goes something like this... Should a rare event like a coach full of pensioners crashing over a cliff occur, the chances of a similar accident happening the next year is even rarer. So by picking areas which have had unusually high road deaths one year, then the chances are that the following year there will be less. This is "almost guaranteed" to happen. Of course the government didn't know with 100% accuracy that it would happen, but statistically it almost certainly would. Indeed, you can bet that if a second coach was to crash in the "trial", they would ignore it as being untypical data The desired effect was achieved, deaths did fall in the year that cameras were trialled, and thus continued the automated persecution of drivers Note: For convenience, i have simply taken the graphs from the ABD website, so feel free to visit there as well as Safespeed for lots of other info. mb

Little-Miss, Can you confirm the three IP addresses that i mentioned in #25? If the Toshiba is being given the IP address of your DHCP server to boot from (which you hinted at earlier) it sounds like your DHCP configuration is setup incorrectly. mb

It sounds as if your (failing) laptop is being sent different information from the DHCP server to that for the working clients. Can you PXE-boot the Tosh and note all IP addresses that appear in the preboot screen - there should be three. Press the key to, er, pause things. After the DHCP twirly propeller completes, it should show a "Client IP" and a "DHCP IP" (or similar wording). I expect the "DHCP IP" will be the **.***.***.55 one for your DC? There should then be a third "Server IP" address which is where it is trying to PXE-boot from, which should be your Ghost server but will probably be your DC because you have Option 60 set. If that is the case, and other clients can PXE-boot OK, then there probably is something in your DHCP configuration that is specific to the failing Tosh. Also, double-check that there are no rogue DHCP or PXE servers on the network. mb

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects004.gif image copyright © 2003 www.safespeed.org.uk Precisely! mb

If your DHCP has Option 60 set to "PXEClient", when a computer tries to PXE-Boot the DHCP Server will reply with an IP address (for the client) and the client will then try to go back to the DHCP server to (try too) load the PXE image (Ghost). Yup, and this is probably because Option 60 has been set (for this client). If you remove Option 60 the Ghost server should hopefully respond to the client, but you need to understand why Option 60 was set in the first place - because it could break something else The wierd this is that your workstation does not appear to be getting an Option 60 - so could it be in a different DHCP scope? mb

I know that, you know that, the council knows that - but they didn't install any such signs, and as a consequence lots of people got points and a penalty because they were unaware of the new limit!! I also think that it should be mandatory to put a speed limit sign on the back of every speed camera, so that you can be absolutely sure what the limit is. mb

The problem with automated, robotic law enforcement is that the primary objective becomes the enforcement of "the law". It is irrelevant whether contravening "the law" is potentially harming anyone, or damaging the environment etc. - you broke "the law" and you will be punished. There is no Policeman to explain what you did wrong at the time, to educate you, to make you think about your actions - nope, just a bill a couple of weeks later! And as enforcing "the law" may not actually provide any real benefits (see my earlier post), there is a tendency to tighten up "the law" to give the impression that it is a good thing - irrespective of the facts. Let me give you an example of "the law" being abused from only yesterday. I was driving up the M40 at a similar speed to all the other traffic. As we approached the M42 intersection the (now extended) ATM had been activated at 16:30 on a quiet motorway on a sunny Saturday afternoon. The mandatory speed limit had been reduced to 40mph across all four lanes on the approach to the M42 slip-road and continued up that slip-road. After having to brake to slow down in time (these limits are enforced by speed cameras), in the two-lane section of the slip-road the limit in the left-hand lane then reduced to TWENTY MILES PER HOUR - on a nearly deserted motorway FFS!!!! I pulled into lane 2 after a range rover overtook me (so that i could continue at a still unreasonable 40mph) - i normally try to keep left, but not in this situation. Shortly after a car undertook me in lane 1 at i estimate 60mph - in other words over three times that allowed by "the law" - even though both the 20mph and 40mph restrictions were utterly ridiculous!! After 3 or 4 gantries with 20mph and 40mph limits there was actually an info-sign saying "obstruction" - in other words, potentially useful information and not just a number in a lolly, so why could this not have been displayed much earlier?? Oh, and was there any obstruction of any kind worth justifying a 20mph speed limit on an almost deserted motorway? No there wasn't!! I also disagree with your comment to IanT "As it is, the roads (generally) have clearly signed speed limits". Part of implementing the "scam" is to obfuscate and hide the actual limits! The stretch of road that i mentioned earlier enters the Birmingham area as Chester Road. It is dead straight (although slightly undulating), is almost two lanes wide in each direction, has central islands and turning refuges, and most houses, shops etc. are behind by parallel "access roads" - so the original 40mph limit was perfectly reasonable. However a couple of years ago the council decided to reduce the speed limit t0 30mph, and this they did by simply removing the 40mph "repeaters" and taking down the 40mph entry signs on the side roads. As the road has a system of streetlights, "the law" says that they cannot install 30mph repeaters, but neither did they install any other signs saying "new speed limit in force". Of course all the (many) GATSOs were re-calibrated to the lower limit to enforce "the law". A couple of weeks later, hundreds of motorists received "bills" through their letterboxes, including many locals and residents of that road. Sure, technically they had broken "the law", but they were more than a bit unhappy The more technology is introduced, the more that "the law" will be abused by the authorities mb

There is a technique used to help justify the installation of speed cameras call "return to the mean" (RTTM). When the original "Hypothecation Trials" were conducted in 1999/2000, almost all of the forces involved in the pilot scheme had an unusually large number of fatalities in the year before speed cameras were installed. Thus there would be an almost guaranteed drop in fatalities the following year which would conveniently be attributed to those cameras. Look at the combined fatality statistics in all six trial areas in the lead up to the pilot... http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_six.gif and compare this to the England national average... http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_england.gif ...so of course fatalities are going to fall in the year that speed cameras are installed - but nothing to do with the cameras themselves!!! Similar lies were made in London to justify speed cameras, saying that fatalities dropped from 276 in 1997 down to 226 in 1998. Strange that there were only 214 fatalities in 1995, and even stranger that they were back up to 264 in 1999!! In addition, other measures are often put in place at the same time as installing cameras. Near to me is a road that had a higher than average number of accidents - but these were typically the result of people being hit whilst turning right off the main road and due to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. The limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, many gallons of paint were applied to the road and keep left bollards were installed (including creating right-turn refuges) as well as the installation of speed cameras. Right-turners were now much safer, and you can no longer overtake - but guess which item got the credit for a reduction in accidents Oh, and to look at things in a different way, i am sure that the Daily Mail haters will cringe when they read Town that scrapped 'motorist tax' speed cameras sees no increase in accidents. Yup, i agree with IanT - speed cameras are a money-making scam!!! mb

...so i take it that you wouldn't object if they (legally) reduced all (private vehicle) speed limits to 5mph (after all, if it saves just one 'ickle life!)??? You have had your obligatory Sunday morning archery practice haven't you mb

Option 60 normally means "go back to the DHCP server to get the image to boot from", which is what your laptop is trying to do (and thus getting no response). So we need to find out why your workstation is finding the correct PXE server! When you are PXE-booting, try pressing the key just before the system boots and check the address of the DHCP server and the boot server in the preboot screen. Compare these for the laptop and workstation and make sure that they are both getting DHCP addresses from the same server. If they are, then it has to be some DHCP setting that needs tweaking. mb

Oh, and what is your PXE/imaging server? Does it have a maximum number of clients licence or maintain a list of known clients? mb

The PXE packet (from the laptop) is broadcast over the network and any DHCP server can respond. The DHCP "Offer" can include information about where the PXE server is (via for example Option 60 and Option 43). The client will then try to boot from the specified server. If the DHCP server doesn't tell the client where to go, any PXE-server can reply to the original PXE request directly. Assuming that you only have one DHCP server, can you check which Options are set? mb

Have you tried the working workstation and the Toshiba laptop on the same physical bit of network cable? Do you have MAC address specific settings or options enabled in DHCP? Can you check if the Tosh NIC is actually working (activity light, ping from the laptop etc.)? mb

...and don't get me started on cycle lanes Britain's barmiest bike lane that is WIDER than the car lane http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-1267554-093A055F000005DC-179_636x477.jpg mb

...of how not to build a motorway!!! It should have been a true "orbital", only connecting other motorways, so that through traffic could avoid local traffic. But no, the stupid planners put junctions at just about every village it passed, so that local commuters join the motorway, immediately swing across all 3, 4, 5 or 6 lanes to be in the "fast" lane and then swing all the way back again at the last second at the next junction to get off. For much of the time, lanes 1,2 (and 3 and 4) are empty - we need proper traffic police educating the motorway morons, not cameras enforcing lower speed limits! mb

It seems that my figures above are somewhat out of date, and according to Transport Watch, rail is actually subsidised by 19p per passenger mile. Thus Sarconia's (private) public transport journey is subsidised by £14.85 making a full cost of £34.05 - far more than by car. Indeed it is more than the amount the taxman would let yoiu claim at 40p per mile!! Also, consider that motorists are taxed at around 50 billion pounds per year, of which only a fraction (i believe 7 billion) is actually invested in the roads - the rest helping subsidise (private) public transport that is still more expensive than cars. To put that 50 billion into perspective, it could fund an entirely new motorway the equivalent of the M6 Toll (29 miles long) every single week of the year, every year - and it would all be paid for, so no tolls required. Think about it, a brand new three lane London to Birmingham motorway in about a month! That sounds a lot more attractive than stealing the hard shoulder and fitting SPECS enforced mandatory reduced speed limits after inflicting years of contrafow and roadwords (again with camera enforced limits)!! mb

we must not forget the subsidies that we pay the private public tranport companies. A quick search and Hansard (albeit several years out of date) comes up with 4 pence per rail passenger mile and 12 pence per bus passenger mile (London bus figures). So that is another £3.60 to add to the (private) public transport costs, and the car is back into the (value) lead again mb

Checkout FlightRadar24 in particular for the effect of the current volcanic ash cloud - impressive stuff!! mb

Some more (European) ones at... RadarVirtual Flightradar24 or if you are into ships (worldwide!)... MarineTraffic mb

I daren't join the group, because no matter how hard i concentrate my fingers always seem to introduce some mistakes. However, i submit the enclosed "Teabonics" link containing images of some rather interesting examples of "the English language as it is spoke by some Merkins" Enjoy, mb