Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: FP? (Score 1) 942

by magamiako1 (#48037579) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures
You have to be going about 10km/h over before anyone would pull you over (from my experiences and communications with locals).

They have signs on QEW that say 50km/h over = license revoked and car towed. They don't play around.

For us Americans, that's about 30 miles per hour over the speed limit. It'd be like doing 85 in a 55, 100 in a 70, etc.

Comment: Re: FP? (Score 1, Interesting) 942

by magamiako1 (#48036079) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures
I am surprised this is a thing. I cross into Canada regularly at both Fort Erie and 87/A-15 and it's funny to watch.

In Ontario, the signs say 100km/h = 60mph. This isn't quite true but it's a good safe number if you want to prevent speeding.

In Quebec, their signs say 100km/h != 60mph.

It's much closer to about 64mph. Bust people end up speeding anyway.

Comment: Re:Document formats... (Score 2) 579

by magamiako1 (#47699825) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft
Starting with Microsoft Office 2007, the Office Open XML file formats have become the default[3] target file format of Microsoft Office.[4][5] Microsoft Office 2010 provides read support for ECMA-376, read/write support for ISO/IEC 29500 Transitional, and read support for ISO/IEC 29500 Strict.[6] Microsoft Office 2013 additionally supports both reading and writing of ISO/IEC 29500 Strict

Not to be confused with Open Office XML or Microsoft Office XML formats.

I didn't say Microsoft supported ALL standards, just that they support *some* standards.

Comment: Document formats... (Score 1) 579

by magamiako1 (#47699505) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft
What are you talking about?<br><br><br><br><br><br>Microsoft supports an open document standard, standardized by the ISO, with Office and has for some time, though admittedly not "Strict" support until Office 2013.

Comment: Re:Dead as a profit source for Symantec, well, ... (Score 1, Informative) 331

by magamiako1 (#47688933) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Dead Is Antivirus, Exactly?
We use McAfee at work. With proper coaxing, it works pretty well and is unobtrusive--but it actually requires becoming familiar with the product and its features. It took a lot of trial and error.

One quick way you can help reduce A/V hit on a system is to remove zip file scanning during on-access scans and on-demand scans. Also, setting a file scan time limit can limit the amount of time the AV spends on one particular type of file.

Other antivirus solutions handle this a bit better, but McAfee is workable with the proper implementation.

Comment: Re:Comcast engineer here (Score 1) 224

by magamiako1 (#47636719) Attached to: The Hidden Cost of Your New Xfinity Router
AAAAAAND furthermore, in a purely technical sense IPv6 should be faster than IPv4 connectivity when it comes to routing.

Current IPv4 implementations actually do two state table tracking. Both the NAT table and the firewall's state table. In a dual stack, native configuration; only the firewall state table is required for IPv6 traffic alone; with no NAT table required. Or, in some cases, minimal NAT tables for specific devices when you wish to deploy IPv6 only and are supporting legacy devices that do not support it.

So, in theory, routing performance should be edged up a bit in IPv6 land. Also including the fact that hosts are now doing traffic fragmentation and the router's only involvement in fragmentation is sending an ICMP response (PACKET-TOO-BIG) rather than queuing and fragmenting traffic itself. Router performance should ultimately go up by quite a bit.

If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary. -- Samuel Clemens