Archive for the ‘Technical’ Category

TapWordPress update 2.3.3

6 Feb 2008 23:20 by Rick

This came out yesterday as an emergency patch for a vulnerability. I wouldn’t normally write about it here but, for some reason, they didn’t publish the list of changed files. So here they are:—

xmlrpc.php
wp-content\plugins\akismet.php
wp-admin\install-helper.php
wp-includes\version.php
wp-includes\gettext.php
wp-includes\pluggable.php

It is the first one that is important.

TapAnti-social Wi-Fi

24 Jan 2008 13:33 by Rick

Wi-Fi is governed by the IEEE 802.11 standards set. The best known of these are 802.11b with a maximum raw speed of 11 Mbps and 802.11g allowing a maximum of 54 Mbps both with a nominal indoor range of 38m.

The frequency range (2.400–2.485 GHz) is divided into 13 x 22 MHz channels but spaced only 5 MHz apart and attenuating to -30dB at their edges. Regulations only permit the first 11 to be used in the Americas and some European countries e.g. France and Spain, are even more restrictive, but most allow all 13.

Interference causing reduced throughput can be minimised by carefully choosing which channels to use, avoiding clashes with neighbouring networks and also outside interference from other users of the frequency band such as Bluetooth, cordless phones, microwave ovens and remote controls.

A consequence of the oversize bands compared to their separation is that neighbouring networks have to be 4 or 5 channels apart to avoid interfering with each other. For example, Channel 6 covers 2426–2448 MHz to -30dB which just touches the edges of Channel 2 which reaches up to 2428 MHz and Channel 10 which reaches down to 2446 MHz. With only 11 channels available, these limitations mean that in practice only channels 1, 6 and 11 are usable with a little adjustment available to avoid other strong broadcasters (though it would require specialised equipment or a lot of trial and error to achieve that).

In theory, in the UK, four useful bands could be achieved—1, 5, 9 and 13— but in practice too many people know about the US limitation and (some equipment comes preset) to get this to work without mutual local agreement. One of my devices only allows 1, 6 or 11 to be set in any case. As wireless networks get more popular, finding a free channel to use gets more difficult but, unless you are working in a very dense environment, it should still be possible to find a working combination.

There is a proposed new standard, 802.11n, which has not yet received approval (and won’t until at least the end of this year), and offers a raw speed of 248Mbps+ and a 70m indoor range. It achieves this by using a facility called Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) which uses multiple aerials and a wider 40MHz bandwidth (channel bonding). This effectively uses most of the 2.4 GHz band in one fell swoop, blotting out everything else within range.

In theory, the channel bonding is optional and the standard requires the stations to detect activity on neighbouring frequencies and to moderate its use accordingly but new “pre standard” devices (called pre-N, draft-N, Extreme, RangeMax, Turbo, Super-g etc.) have appeared (technical article) and been heavily marketed for a couple of years which don’t necessarily conform to all (or any) of the features. For example, the draft standard allows for the use of the 5GHz frequency band, but in order to retain downward compatibility with b and g type devices, most of the equipment produced does not use it unless specially configured (if at all). They also tend to come pre-configured for maximum speed and the onus is on the user to change that, which is unlikely because that is why they paid for it in the first place. In many cases, users of this equipment have only one item (usually the router) to this standard with the remainder operating at the g level so the benefit is lost anyway. Devices from different manufacturers frequently do not interoperate, certainly not to their full specification.

But for must domestic purposes, why would you need this speed. The original type b system exceeds the speed of most broadband connections. If you have a local server or communicate locally between machines then the speed of the g system may be useful but for any bulk data transfer, like a backup for instance, it would be much better performed using a wired connection.

Note: The raw speed figures quoted for wireless transmission are absolutely worthless. Realistic figures, but under ideal conditions, are 6 Mbps for b, 23 Mbps for g and 90 Mbps for n.

TapDoubtful Which? Recommendation

23 Jan 2008 14:25 by Rick

The Feb 2008 issue of Which? Magazine (page 64) has a recommendation for the Sava Plug which, it is claimed, can “reduce the power a freezer uses by around 25 per cent and a fridge freezer by about 7 per cent”

This is a letter I sent to the magazine today:—

Dear Which,

I am surprised to see (Feb 2008, p64) that you recommend the Sava Plug. I have seen no independent technical review which justifies its claims. The company are cagey about how it actually works but it can be inferred that it does some Power Factor correction. This is an industrial technique which adjusts the apparent power usage (VA) to match the real power (Watts) by correcting the phase of the load. This is effective when the load is heavily inductive such as large electric motors. This is a good reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Factor_Correction

There are two problems with this in a domestic situation which make it near useless. First, the inductive load of a freezer or fridge is small compared to industrial use so little savings will be made. Secondly, and most importantly, domestic customers, unlike industrial users, are billed in KW Hours anyway so no correction of the power factor is going to make the slightest difference to them.

Yours faithfully

TapEmpty property

22 Jan 2008 22:20 by Rick

This is more of a problem in an area with a lot of holiday homes but The St. Ivean points out that you only have to look for the houses with a Yellow Pages standing by the front door to find one where you won’t be disturbed breaking in.

TapDonor card

16 Jan 2008 09:37 by Rick

For longer than I can remember, I have carried a Donor Card in my wallet—I have just looked and mine is dated 17 Apr 1986. They were easy to get and quite high profile; on the counter in doctor’s surgeries, dentist’s, blood donor sessions, even non medical places like pubs, newsagents etc. sometimes had them.

Today they are saying that there are nowhere near enough donors and perhaps we should change over to an opt-out system where permission to donate is assumed unless you have made a declaration that you do not want to. I don’t disagree with the idea but in passing I picked up another clue—the NHS Organ Donor Register. I had never heard of it! Is it now true that it is no longer good enough to carry a card but you have to be signed up to some online database? I don’t think I like that idea*. Perhaps that is why the number of available donors is so low.

* I have had a look at the registration web site and, despite the announcement that it uses Digi-Sign and so is secure, that is an illusion. The information required is Name, DOB and Address. This is fairly public information; anyone could fill this in. DOB is a bit harder to obtain, but is not fully private.

TapOpen or not?

15 Jan 2008 14:21 by Rick

There is a big debate going on at the moment prompted by an article by Bruce Schneier in which he explains why he leaves his home Wi-Fi network unsecured i.e. no password, no encryption. He discusses the risks and benefits and comes to the conclusion that, for him, the latter outweigh the former. Note that he is not saying it is for everyone.

The key points in the debate centre around

  • How much you trust your neighbours not to flood your bandwidth.
  • The terms of service from your ISP, if you are bothered about that.
  • The responsibility you have for what travels over your link—e.g. illegal/unsavoury material.
  • Reducing your protection from hackers—this is why it is not for everyone.

I still don’t know which way to turn—which means I secure it for the time being.

TapAll about Magic Nodes

11 Jan 2008 12:41 by Rick

Having got involved in discussions on the forum, I found that the Magic Nodes script for Media Monkey had advanced considerably since the last documentation was written. With little time to spare and without English as his first language, the author was unable to do this. So, rather than just gripe, I have put together a manual for Magic Nodes for MediaMonkey3 with the approval and being proof-read by Zvazdan, the author of the script.

At the moment it is in PDF format (but this may change) and documents the script at release 1.6.2.1. It will be updated in-situ and revisions will be announced on the forum thread.

TapMedia Monkey 3 and Magic Nodes

9 Jan 2008 10:24 by Rick

Just two days after posting about my use of Media Monkey and Magic Nodes they finally released the long awaited Media Monkey 3 (what were they doing releasing software on Christmas Day!) This changes a few things—all for the better as it is now a much improved product.

The old Magic Nodes, which was well out of support anyway, has been replaced by an unofficial version (currently v1.6.2) by a new author. There have been a lot of enhancements and improvements and is being actively maintained. Remember to shut down Media Monkey and remove the Magic Nodes script before installing the new versions.

Media Monkey itself now does a lot of things natively that scripts used to be needed for, including some that Magic Nodes did. For instance, there is now an Album Artist node which is close enough to the one I created such that I don’t think mine is necessary any more. There is also a Composer node but that doesn’t filter for Classical Genres so the original needs to be retained but slightly altered for the new Magic Nodes syntax. First remove the standard Composer node from display (using right click –> Options –> Choose Tree Node and then create this one.

Composer|icon:top level|child of:artist|filter:genre in ('classical', 'opera', 'operetta')\<composer>\<album with album artist>

The Encoding magic node can be retained as before

Encoding|icon:bottom level|child of:year|show tracks:no\<format>\<VBR>\<bitrate>

There are a lot of other fancy things that can be tailored but, so far, this is enough for me.

N.B. I have noted that with the “Choose Tree Node” menu you can move nodes up and down the list, overriding the “child of:” value in Magic Nodes, but you do still need it to get the node into the library section in the first place.

TapWhy was Clarkson wrong?

7 Jan 2008 16:01 by Rick

I didn’t see it at the time, but apparently Jeremy Clarkson published his own bank account details in a newspaper article to demonstrate that the loss of the Benefits database was not a big deal. Now he finds that someone has diverted £500 of his money to charity.

In principle, I think he was right, but I wouldn’t have done it. If any money is removed from your account without your permission it is the bank’s fault unless (maybe) you were negligent. The account number and sort codes, your name and address are not secret information. You require more information than that to withdraw or transfer money, but a lot of bank transactions still rely on unreliable signatures and I wouldn’t trust their diligence to check all that carefully.

They say that “The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.” That is utter rubbish They may not be able to find out who because they probably don’t know who, if it was done by a forged signature, but any clues they do have are criminal evidence and not subject to data protection from the relevant authorities. I think they perhaps mean that they can’t tell Jeremy. I suspect that in this case, he will not be pressing for an investigation, but normally you should.

The flaw seems to be that some Direct Debit forms do not require a signature and the banks allow this. That is not banking, that is a welfare agency and they should be liable. I have never trusted the Direct Debit system, but I hadn’t realised that it was that bad.

It would have been even funnier if the donation was made to Friends of the Earth 🙂

TapGoogle, We’re Sorry

4 Jan 2008 13:16 by Rick

In the office today we had a spate of the Google “We’re Sorry” screen. We have no idea why but it was coming up on quite innocent single word searches. I had a search around and found a few pages of explanation but I think they have made a few mistakes with the error page. First of all, it doesn’t look like a Google page—the font for the logo is wrong—all the Google error pages are like this. Secondly, it is directing you to a less than perfect source of anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Although it is C|Net, there are some very dodgy downloads in there. But most of all, there is no clearly explained reason why the message appears. Admittedly it is better than earlier versions when it told you point-blank that you were infected but a list of possible reasons would be useful.

When it comes to the Captcha needed to continue working, I can’t read many of them.

^ Top