Ranty McRant Thread 2
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
So, basically, it is far safer to keep a 5G phone in your pocket than an oily rag. (See testicular cancer and dermatitis stats for the trade of garage mechanic.)
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies, running from sub-audio to gamma rays, with radio, microwave, light and x-rays in between. The higher the frequency, the greater amount of energy is present in the wave.
Because of the high bandwidth of 5G, the frequency required to carry it, must also be high - around 6 GHz as I recall. There is some debate about the health risks of being in proximity to high energy electromagnetic waves.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
AFAIK there are two frequency bands used for 5G, a chunk below 6GHz (which is usually in the 3.5GHz range) and then stuff up above 24GHz (so-called "millimetre band"). It isn't just "higher=bad", though, a typical microwave oven uses a frequency of only 2.45GHz--the actual transmission power has to be taken into consideration here.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
"Lack of humans and/or intelligence by companies" is best to sum this up.
My Gran died last year, in dealing with her estate the usual sorts of bills and stuff arise. That's no biggy. However, her Electricity provider went bust and so the "debt" has been passed onto whatever company reclaims bust companies stuff. Forgot the name for it... anyhew, they don't do electricity or have people used to dealing with that stuff. As far as they know, they ask the meter reading and collect the money. That's it.
Anyhew, submit meter readings for electricity - there's 2 meters, one is working/connected the other is not connected and hasn't moved for 30 years or something. For some reason they chose to ignore that and just made up numbers for the non working meter reading... and sent the bill.
The bill is for £30,000 of electricity use in 3 months. Despite years of near constant usage, they suddenly (without batting an eye or raising an eyebrow) believe a dead person is using 3 months of electricity EVERY SINGLE DAY over a 3 month period.
It's been ongoing now to resolve for 4 months. It's just insane... (and no, there's absolutely no way it's legit, they're just *that* retarded). I mean... just look at the numbers and surely think "wait, what?" ... but nope.
My Gran died last year, in dealing with her estate the usual sorts of bills and stuff arise. That's no biggy. However, her Electricity provider went bust and so the "debt" has been passed onto whatever company reclaims bust companies stuff. Forgot the name for it... anyhew, they don't do electricity or have people used to dealing with that stuff. As far as they know, they ask the meter reading and collect the money. That's it.
Anyhew, submit meter readings for electricity - there's 2 meters, one is working/connected the other is not connected and hasn't moved for 30 years or something. For some reason they chose to ignore that and just made up numbers for the non working meter reading... and sent the bill.
The bill is for £30,000 of electricity use in 3 months. Despite years of near constant usage, they suddenly (without batting an eye or raising an eyebrow) believe a dead person is using 3 months of electricity EVERY SINGLE DAY over a 3 month period.
It's been ongoing now to resolve for 4 months. It's just insane... (and no, there's absolutely no way it's legit, they're just *that* retarded). I mean... just look at the numbers and surely think "wait, what?" ... but nope.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
@ Chips: That's a case of a collection agency trying it on while hoping that there is uncontested non-probate estate and that any executors don't have legal advice. I would either let the estate's solicitor deal with it (at a cost) or refer it to Citizen's Advice Bureau (or equivalent). Meanwhile, write to the director or whatever of the collection agency explaining the facts in simple terms and mention that if it is not resolved sensibly within 14 days, your next letters will be to the ombudsman and the local press. Keep hard copies of all correspondence.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
- BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
- the lunacy of corporate oligarchy:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... rk-669-sex
- megalomania running riot..
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... rk-669-sex
- megalomania running riot..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
- red assassin
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
Fairly regularly, I drive about an hour along a fairly standard A road (for the non-Brits, it's a moderately bendy road with one lane in each direction and no central barrier, with a standard speed limit of 60mph). Along this road, there are a couple of places where there are speed cameras. Most of the time I'll be in a group of cars, with a typical average speed anywhere between say 45 and 60mph. You'll note that this entire range falls below the speed limit. And yet, every time when we come to a speed camera, one of the cars in the group in front of me will brake sharply, causing every car behind them to also have to brake. I don't understand the reasoning here. Do they not know the speed limit? Do they not know what speed they're travelling at? Do they not understand how speed cameras work? Are they just so used to speeding they brake on reflex every time they see a speed camera? Depending on road conditions and how sharply they brake this is anywhere between annoying and inefficient and actively dangerous, and yet every time...
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
Re: speed camera braking. I don't condone or approve of it but I think I know what is probably going on.
Typical and normally law-abiding/safe drivers thinking about other things can currently be driving pretty much on autopilot and so not really noticing mundane things like speed limit and other road signs, and especially not the near-ubiquitous speed cameras may operate in this area warning signs. Therefore, when they see ahead something more threatening such as a speed camera box, speed hatching in the road, cameras on gantries, bridges and overpasses, a parked police/highways camera van, a parked or oncoming police car or an officer in a yellow vest by the road aiming something, they just go into 'OMG, I didn't notice the speed limit here!' mode and brake just in case before working out the reality of it (or even looking in the driving mirror).
Probably even more silly are drivers who brake hard just as they go past camera pylons on average speed check routes.
Typical and normally law-abiding/safe drivers thinking about other things can currently be driving pretty much on autopilot and so not really noticing mundane things like speed limit and other road signs, and especially not the near-ubiquitous speed cameras may operate in this area warning signs. Therefore, when they see ahead something more threatening such as a speed camera box, speed hatching in the road, cameras on gantries, bridges and overpasses, a parked police/highways camera van, a parked or oncoming police car or an officer in a yellow vest by the road aiming something, they just go into 'OMG, I didn't notice the speed limit here!' mode and brake just in case before working out the reality of it (or even looking in the driving mirror).
Probably even more silly are drivers who brake hard just as they go past camera pylons on average speed check routes.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
Same happens whenever they see a Police car, or flashing blue lights of any type... slam the anchors on.
- BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
- serious matters..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... production
- doom and gloom
- the end is nigh..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... production
- doom and gloom
- the end is nigh..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
Windows 10 Update(s). Windows appears to have failed to update about 48 times. Indeed, it seems to fail on both systems I have (PC, Laptop). Some error about .net version 3.5 - which I thought was a relic from 2007 and I have nothing to do with, so unsure why an MS update is failing due to an MS product.
Anyone else getting this? I mean 48 updates which include "critical security..." and I'm only aware of failing as I finally thought "it's doing an update again? It's the wrong time for a monthly... oh look at all these failures in the Updater".
Anyone else getting this? I mean 48 updates which include "critical security..." and I'm only aware of failing as I finally thought "it's doing an update again? It's the wrong time for a monthly... oh look at all these failures in the Updater".
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
May 14, 2019—KB4495620 Cumulative Update for .NET Framework 3.5 and 4.8 for Windows 10, version 1903
If that is your recent update, then you can see it is for 2 versions of .NET Framework. Mine installed OK first time. I do recall though that these are sensitive updates because of the way they have to replace existing code seamlessly and hence are easily disturbed or discontinued by any issues that they find in code delivery or in that to be replaced.
There are MS update issue pages associated with every specific update and it may be worth browsing the appropriate one(s). These also give information on how to install the complete latest framework version from scratch if necessary.
If that is your recent update, then you can see it is for 2 versions of .NET Framework. Mine installed OK first time. I do recall though that these are sensitive updates because of the way they have to replace existing code seamlessly and hence are easily disturbed or discontinued by any issues that they find in code delivery or in that to be replaced.
There are MS update issue pages associated with every specific update and it may be worth browsing the appropriate one(s). These also give information on how to install the complete latest framework version from scratch if necessary.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
They do, but each time it's using their updates... they don't just supply a cab file or something.
I've tried the .net framework repair tool (failed), i've tried installing .net again (it fails), i've tried removing (fails). Uninstalled anti virus to be sure as well.
May try rolling back updates and starting again at this rate.
Laptop, however, is currently seeming to succeed with the update - so it'd appear to be having more luck
Why does it still need .net Framework 3.5 ... and it's fine to try installing again and again - but after that many there comes a time when it should be "Hi, this needs intervention".
I've tried the .net framework repair tool (failed), i've tried installing .net again (it fails), i've tried removing (fails). Uninstalled anti virus to be sure as well.
May try rolling back updates and starting again at this rate.
Laptop, however, is currently seeming to succeed with the update - so it'd appear to be having more luck
Why does it still need .net Framework 3.5 ... and it's fine to try installing again and again - but after that many there comes a time when it should be "Hi, this needs intervention".
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
It (meaning Windows) probably doesn't still need that version of the framework. You might have programs installed on it that need that version, though--the way Microsoft fixed the old issue of "DLL hell" (e.g. you have a program installed that works with a certain version of a system DLL, but not the one you happen to have installed) was by making programs advertise what version of the .NET Framework they use, and having all those separate versions still installed. You can still install version 1.0 of the framework if you have a program that still needs it.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
It's windows update that needs it; i don't... and windows update can't install it. That's why it's so irritating. It's a "Service on demand" - select it, installs, deselect, uninstalls. Shows selected. De-select, can't uninstall it says... it's not installed. But can't then install it if selecting it either - gives this error message that if you follow, recommends a load of stuff... none of which works.
However, am downloading 3.5 to see whether just a plain old fashioned install works. It is, after all, for Windows XP and before
Turns out that won't work either.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/hel ... 0x800f0907
However, am downloading 3.5 to see whether just a plain old fashioned install works. It is, after all, for Windows XP and before
Turns out that won't work either.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/hel ... 0x800f0907
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
@ Chips: As a long shot, run sfc /scannow and see if it throws up any errors that it can fix. Then try Windows Update again.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
Re: Ranty McRant Thread 2
I tried that, it won't run either Error message isn't resolved with recommendations for that one either.
It really does seem borked in some way. Also can't right click properties on anything either, and no fix for that too. Anti vir scans and others are all fine and dandy, so guessing something got corrupted and it just can't sort itself out.
Will try reinstall tomorrow. Backed up files to the spare drive this evening.
It really does seem borked in some way. Also can't right click properties on anything either, and no fix for that too. Anti vir scans and others are all fine and dandy, so guessing something got corrupted and it just can't sort itself out.
Will try reinstall tomorrow. Backed up files to the spare drive this evening.