On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:31:15 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
FirstGroup is to take over operating the London Overground rail network >>from next May, replacing the incumbent, Arriva. The group is set to sign an >> initial eight-year contract with a two-year optional extension.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5c44c54e-78f9-434c-bc20-c7379a211477?shareToke
n=9051efe0e184cbd5d3f1bd4eeeacec8a
If only someone would change the ridiculous woke names of the lines while they're at it but I guess thats not going to happen Khunt is still squatting in city hall.
On 11/12/2025 10:03, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:31:15 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
FirstGroup is to take over operating the London Overground rail network >>>from next May, replacing the incumbent, Arriva. The group is set to sign an >>> initial eight-year contract with a two-year optional extension.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5c44c54e-78f9-434c-bc20-c7379a211477?shareToke
n=9051efe0e184cbd5d3f1bd4eeeacec8a
If only someone would change the ridiculous woke names of the lines while
they're at it but I guess thats not going to happen Khunt is still squatting >> in city hall.
Does anyone not working for TfL actually use the woke names?
And why isn't this being nationalised like the rest of our railway?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 11 Dec >>>> 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail Leasing, >>>>> maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for most of its journey
on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to >>>> roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone
like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the
platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads? But not vice
versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to >Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
And if one was to touch in with Oyster at Brentwood, then go direct
to the Shenfield platform where the charter train departs, it'd be a
penalty fare. I have an Oyster Card, but my GF doesn't.
I suspect sherCOd be OK to travel to Shenfield on contactless, but you might >not on Oyster.
In any case, it seems your complaint was completely invalid, as contactless >is available from Brentwood to Shenfield:
And why isn't this being nationalised like the rest of our railway?
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail Leasing,
maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for most of its journey >>>> on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to
roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone
like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the
platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
And if one was to touch in with Oyster at Brentwood, then go direct
to the Shenfield platform where the charter train departs, it'd be a
penalty fare. I have an Oyster Card, but my GF doesn't.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to
roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone
like Trainsplit.
In message <61D_Q.18$QX_1.14@fx14.ams1>, at 17:17:54 on Thu, 11 DecWhat you can tell is not correct. The Oyster card system has the
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 11 >>>>> Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail Leasing, >>>>>> maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for most of its >>>>>> journey
on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to >>>>> roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone >>>>> like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the
platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice
versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to
Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but
not contactless credit cards.
In message <61D_Q.18$QX_1.14@fx14.ams1>, at 17:17:54 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 11 Dec >>>>> 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail Leasing, >>>>>> maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for most of its journey
on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to >>>>> roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone >>>>> like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the
platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads? But not vice
versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to
Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but
not contactless credit cards.
And if one was to touch in with Oyster at Brentwood, then go direct
to the Shenfield platform where the charter train departs, it'd be a
penalty fare. I have an Oyster Card, but my GF doesn't.
I suspect sherCOd be OK to travel to Shenfield on contactless, but you might >> not on Oyster.
In any case, it seems your complaint was completely invalid, as contactless >> is available from Brentwood to Shenfield:
Even if it were available (I dispute that it is), my complaint is mainly that I didn't want to go airside-landside-airside to avoid a penalty,
rather than change trains entire airside.
In message <61D_Q.18$QX_1.14@fx14.ams1>, at 17:17:54 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 11 Dec >>>>> 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail Leasing, >>>>>> maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for most of its >journey
on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to >>>>> roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone >>>>> like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the
platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads? But not vice >>versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to >>Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but
not contactless credit cards.
On 11/12/2025 19:08, Roland Perry wrote:
What you can tell is not correct. The Oyster card system has theSurely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice
versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to
Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but
not contactless credit cards.
limitation that it was designed as a zonal fare system, and only allowed
for 15 zones (16-1, I'm sure with your computational background you >recognise the significance of that number). Beyond the original 6 plus
the 7-9 that covered the top end of the Met, the remainder of the 15
were allocated to specific services: 10 covers C2C to Grays and DC lines
to Watford Junction. 11 covers GN and WA services to Hertford and
Potters Bar. 12 is Elizabeth line out to Shenfield, 13 for Southern
stations between outer London and Gatwick, 14 is Gatwick itself, and 15
is designated for but not used by Elizabeth line stations in the Reading >direction.
On 11/12/2025 19:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <61D_Q.18$QX_1.14@fx14.ams1>, at 17:17:54 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec 2025, >>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, >>>>>>11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail >>>>>>>Leasing, maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for >>>>>>>most of its journey on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a >>>>>>>Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to >>>>>> roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from someone >>>>>> like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the >>>>> platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice
versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to
Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield,
but not contactless credit cards.
What you can tell is not correct.
The Oyster card system has the limitation that it was designed as a
zonal fare system, and only allowed for 15 zones (16-1, I'm sure with
your computational background you recognise the significance of that >number).
Beyond the original 6 plus the 7-9 that covered the top end of the Met,
the remainder of the 15 were allocated to specific services: 10 covers
C2C to Grays and DC lines to Watford Junction. 11 covers GN and WA
services to Hertford and Potters Bar. 12 is Elizabeth line out to
Shenfield,
13 for Southern stations between outer London and Gatwick, 14 is
Gatwick itself, and 15 is designated for but not used by Elizabeth line >stations in the Reading direction.
Everywhere that Oyster covers is also usable with contactless, but
there are places that contactless can be used on that Oyster can not >(because the zones have been exhausted, but contactless is not subject
to that arbitrary limitation). Although on the GE line, contactless
does not extend beyond Shenfield, on the LTS route, the whole line all
the way to Shoeburyness is on the contactless system. There are many
places on various suburban routes where contactless can now be used
that are not usable with Oyster because the zone capacity for oyster is >exhausted.
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield,
but not contactless credit cards.
One would expect it to be the other way around. What has NR got against
bank cards?
And if one was to touch in with Oyster at Brentwood, then go direct
to the Shenfield platform where the charter train departs, it'd be a
penalty fare. I have an Oyster Card, but my GF doesn't.
I suspect sherCOd be OK to travel to Shenfield on contactless, but you might
not on Oyster.
In any case, it seems your complaint was completely invalid, as contactless >>> is available from Brentwood to Shenfield:
Even if it were available (I dispute that it is), my complaint is mainly
that I didn't want to go airside-landside-airside to avoid a penalty,
rather than change trains entire airside.
Your complaint, which you snipped, was, rCLUnless you travel Brentwood to >Shenfield, when Cubic can't be arsed to roll out contactless, and you have
to buy a paper ticket from someone like TrainsplitrCY. As I said, that >complaint was completely invalid.
In message <10hgtvo$2s4t8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:36 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
[Oyster cards]
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I
can't
imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on
the
card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
It's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also that
the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds, rather than
in a back-office overnight.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:01:22 +0100
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 11/12/2025 19:08, Roland Perry wrote:
What you can tell is not correct. The Oyster card system has theSurely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice >>>> versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to >>>> Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but >>> not contactless credit cards.
limitation that it was designed as a zonal fare system, and only allowed
for 15 zones (16-1, I'm sure with your computational background you
recognise the significance of that number). Beyond the original 6 plus
the 7-9 that covered the top end of the Met, the remainder of the 15
were allocated to specific services: 10 covers C2C to Grays and DC lines
to Watford Junction. 11 covers GN and WA services to Hertford and
Potters Bar. 12 is Elizabeth line out to Shenfield, 13 for Southern
stations between outer London and Gatwick, 14 is Gatwick itself, and 15
is designated for but not used by Elizabeth line stations in the Reading
direction.
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
FirstGroup is to take over operating the London Overground rail network
from next May, replacing the incumbent, Arriva. The group is set to sign an >initial eight-year contract with a two-year optional extension.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5c44c54e-78f9-434c-bc20-c7379a211477?shareToken=9051efe0e184cbd5d3f1bd4eeeacec8a
In message <10hf7ui$2el0s$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:01:22 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Bob <nospam@gmail.com> remarked:
On 11/12/2025 19:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <61D_Q.18$QX_1.14@fx14.ams1>, at 17:17:54 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ISz_Q.12$_TB2.1@fx09.ams1>, at 13:42:00 on Thu, 11 Dec
2025,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <Z_y_Q.2155$2BF4.1990@fx15.ams1>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, >>>>>>> 11-a Dec
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So, when you take a Liz train, itrCOll be owned by 345 Rail
Leasing,-a maintained by Alstom, operated by GTS, and running for >>>>>>>> most of its-a journey-a on NR tracks. Your fare goes to TfL, via a >>>>>>>> Cubic payment system.
Unless you travel Brentwood to Shenfield, when Cubic can't be
arsed to
roll out contactless, and you have to buy a paper ticket from
someone
like Trainsplit.
Are there no contactless gates at those stations?
Or is your complaint that there arenrCOt contactless pads on all the >>>>>> platforms?
They have Oyster for all "airside", but not contactless credit card.
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice >>>> versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to >>>> Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
-aAs far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield,
but-a not contactless credit cards.
What you can tell is not correct.
There's so much misinformation and obfuscation online. Not least when
people post here.
The Oyster card system has the limitation that it was designed as a
zonal fare system, and only allowed for 15 zones (16-1, I'm sure with
your computational background you recognise the significance of that
number).
I have long recognised that significance, and hence expressed scepticism that outposts like Shenfield could ever be Oyster-ised.
But infamously wonky AI says today: "Yes, you absolutely can use your
Oyster Card... for PAYG travel as far as Shenfield, but you must
remember to tap in and tap out..."
I demand my money back! (Actually, some people *do* pay for AI products, they aren't all free of charge).
Beyond the original 6 plus the 7-9 that covered the top end of the
Met, the remainder of the 15 were allocated to specific services: 10
covers C2C to Grays and DC lines to Watford Junction. 11 covers GN and
WA services to Hertford and Potters Bar. 12 is Elizabeth line out to
Shenfield,
Hold on! Surely you just said Oyster **DIDN'T* work to Shenfield??
viz: "What you can tell is not correct."
13 for Southern stations between outer London and Gatwick, 14 is
Gatwick itself, and 15 is designated for but not used by Elizabeth
line stations in the Reading direction.
Everywhere that Oyster covers is also usable with contactless, but
there are places that contactless can be used on that Oyster can not
(because the zones have been exhausted, but contactless is not subject
to that arbitrary limitation). Although on the GE line, contactless
does not extend beyond Shenfield, on the LTS route, the whole line all
the way to Shoeburyness is on the contactless system. There are many
places on various suburban routes where contactless can now be used
that are not usable with Oyster because the zone capacity for oyster
is exhausted.
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original
proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
On 12/12/2025 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hgtvo$2s4t8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:36 on Fri, 12
Dec 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
[Oyster cards]
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I >>>can't imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so >>>tight on the card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
It's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also
that the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds,
rather than in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would be >ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall everyone's >Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares change.) The card
just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it boarded in and its
current balance (and possibly the zone of any pink readers it touched
along the way), the gate then consults the fare table and then updates
the balance on the card. Once that transaction is confirmed, the gate opens.
I doubt memory was the factor which dictated 4 bits. More likely, they--
were concerned with the NFC communication protocol; in an ideal world,
you want to be able to read and update the card balance and the journey >details in a single atomic transaction - if you have to split up the >read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more >complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between
two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare
Classic is only 16 bytes.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:01:22 +0100
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 11/12/2025 19:08, Roland Perry wrote:
Surely contactless can be used on all Oyster touchpads?-a But not vice >>>>> versa, of course. For example, IrCOm not sure if Oyster can be used to >>>>> Shenfield, as itrCOs outside Z1-9..
As far as I can tell, you *can* use Oyster all the way to Shenfield, but >>>> not contactless credit cards.
What you can tell is not correct. The Oyster card system has the
limitation that it was designed as a zonal fare system, and only allowed >>> for 15 zones (16-1, I'm sure with your computational background you
recognise the significance of that number). Beyond the original 6 plus
the 7-9 that covered the top end of the Met, the remainder of the 15
were allocated to specific services: 10 covers C2C to Grays and DC lines >>> to Watford Junction. 11 covers GN and WA services to Hertford and
Potters Bar. 12 is Elizabeth line out to Shenfield, 13 for Southern
stations between outer London and Gatwick, 14 is Gatwick itself, and 15
is designated for but not used by Elizabeth line stations in the Reading >>> direction.
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original >>proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
I'm not familiar with Shenfield (never exited, only passed through).
Can one simply touch out there and not go through the gate, remaining >"airside" for the next train?
On 11/12/2025 11:21, Certes wrote:
And why isn't this being nationalised like the rest of our railway?
Because it wasn't a DfT franchise: see also LizLine, Merseyrail,
ScotRail and TfW.
FirstGroup is to take over operating the London Overground rail network
from next May, replacing the incumbent, Arriva. The group is set to sign an >initial eight-year contract with a two-year optional extension.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5c44c54e-78f9-434c-bc20-c7379a211477?shareToken=9051efe0e184cbd5d3f1bd4eeeacec8a
In message <10hh5a0$2uaad$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:32 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
On 12/12/2025 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hgtvo$2s4t8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:36 on Fri, 12
Dec-a 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
-a[Oyster cards]
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I
can't-a imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so >>>> tight on-a the-a card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
-aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also
that-a the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds,
rather than-a in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would be
ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall
everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares
change.)-a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it
boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone of any pink
readers it touched along the way), the gate then consults the fare
table and then updates the balance on the card.-a Once that transaction
is confirmed, the gate opens.
That's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have that 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't online.
I doubt memory was the factor which dictated 4 bits.-a More likely,
they were concerned with the NFC communication protocol; in an ideal
world, you want to be able to read and update the card balance and the
journey details in a single atomic transaction - if you have to split
up the read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much
more complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed
between two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a
MiFare Classic is only 16 bytes.
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. >>>>>I can'ta imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory
was so tight ona thea card that they'd have to divvy up individual
aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also >>>>thata the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds, >>>>rather thana in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would
be ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall >>>everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares
change.)a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it >>>boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone of any pink >>>readers it touched along the way), the gate then consults the fare
table and then updates the balance on the card.a Once that
transaction is confirmed, the gate opens.
That's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have
that 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't
online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in >gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store
more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
In message <10hhs5g$3ab7o$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:58:40 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. >>>>>> I-a can't-a imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory >>>>>> was so-a tight on-a the-a card that they'd have to divvy up individual >>>-aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also >>>>> that-a the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds,
rather than-a in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would
be-a ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall
everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares
change.)-a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it
boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone of any
pink readers it touched along the way), the gate then consults the
fare table and then updates the balance on the card.-a Once that
transaction-a is confirmed, the gate opens.
-aThat's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have
that-a 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't
online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in
gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store
more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
There's some sort of time-warp force field which infests a lot of the traffic here in uk.r
Oyster was rolled out in 2003, 22 years ago. Based on technology dating
back to 1994.
Back then (either 1994 or 2003, take your pick) nothing was measured in gigabytes, and no TfL gates had connectivity.
In message <10hhavh$30162$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:21 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original
proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
I'm not familiar with Shenfield (never exited, only passed through).
Can one simply touch out there and not go through the gate, remaining
"airside" for the next train?
I suppose you could do that, but it would still require an excursion
to wherever those gates were, some distance (both vertically and horizontally) from the platform.
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original
proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10hhavh$30162$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:21 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original
proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
I'm not familiar with Shenfield (never exited, only passed through).
Can one simply touch out there and not go through the gate, remaining
"airside" for the next train?
I suppose you could do that, but it would still require an excursion
to wherever those gates were, some distance (both vertically and
horizontally) from the platform.
Presumably you changed platform to catch the charter train? If so, you >werenrCOt far from the barriers, and itrCOs a step-free station.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
All very interesting, but has nothing to do with my original
proposition, which was I didn't want to have to [remember to]
touch-out at Shenfield, then find an operative to let me back in
with my charter ticket (which didn't even have a barcode on it).
So did you inform whoever you bought the ticket from of the constraint of
not touching out at Shenfield, and so they correctly informed you that the >only way to achieve what you wanted was to buy a paper ticket?
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be >>>>>>>enough. Ia can'ta imagine even back when oyster was designed >>>>>>>that memory was soa tight ona thea card that they'd have to
aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful >>>>>>also thata the lookup has to take place on the card, in >>>>>>milliseconds, rather thana in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that
would bea ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't >>>>>recall everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the >>>>>fares change.)a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which >>>>>zone it boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone >>>>>of any pink readers it touched along the way), the gate then >>>>>consults the fare table and then updates the balance on the card.a >>>>>Once that transactiona is confirmed, the gate opens.
aThat's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have >>>>thata 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't >>>>online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in
gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store
more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
There's some sort of time-warp force field which infests a lot of
the traffic here in uk.r
Oyster was rolled out in 2003, 22 years ago. Based on technology
dating back to 1994.
Back then (either 1994 or 2003, take your pick) nothing was measured
in gigabytes, and no TfL gates had connectivity.
If it's really not been upgraded in 20 years, megabytes then.
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more >complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between
two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare
Classic is only 16 bytes.
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8 bits >wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of Captain >DelticrCOs
engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
On 12/12/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hh5a0$2uaad$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:32 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
On 12/12/2025 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hgtvo$2s4t8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:36 on Fri, 12
Dec-a 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
-a[Oyster cards]
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I >>>>> can't-a imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so >>>>> tight on-a the-a card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
-aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful also
that-a the lookup has to take place on the card, in milliseconds,
rather than-a in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would be
ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall
everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares
change.)-a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it
boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone of any pink
readers it touched along the way), the gate then consults the fare
table and then updates the balance on the card.-a Once that transaction >>> is confirmed, the gate opens.
That's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have that
16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in >gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store
more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:28:32 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more >>complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between
two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare >>Classic is only 16 bytes.
Seems a bit parsimonious even for 1990s tech. Still, I'd love to know how >much data is being exchanged with Apple Pay or Google Whatever at the gates >because it still takes about 3 times longer to open that when using an oyster >or bank card.
In message <10hjc0t$3srhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:25 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:28:32 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more >>>complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between >>>two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare >>>Classic is only 16 bytes.
Seems a bit parsimonious even for 1990s tech. Still, I'd love to know how >>much data is being exchanged with Apple Pay or Google Whatever at the gates >>because it still takes about 3 times longer to open that when using an oyster >>or bank card.
That's because the Oyster card was optimised for "no need to break
stride" operation. Hence the relatively small amount of data exchange it >could support.
Using a phone as a contactless payment method is probably exchanging >megabytes, and not just to the gate, but a back office on another
continent.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 19:58:40 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 12/12/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hh5a0$2uaad$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:32 on Fri, 12
Dec 2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
On 12/12/2025 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hgtvo$2s4t8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:36 on Fri, 12 >>>>>Deca 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
a[Oyster cards]
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be >>>>>>enough. I can'ta imagine even back when oyster was designed that >>>>>>memory was so tight ona thea card that they'd have to divvy up
aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful
also thata the lookup has to take place on the card, in >>>>>milliseconds, rather thana in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that would >>>>be ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't recall >>>>everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the fares >>>>change.)a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which zone it >>>>boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone of any
pink readers it touched along the way), the gate then consults the >>>>fare table and then updates the balance on the card.a Once that >>>>transaction is confirmed, the gate opens.
That's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have >>>that 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't >>>online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in >>gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store >>more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
Quite clearly the gates communicate with the mother ship on at least a
daily basis otherwise how would TfL be able to charge bank cards and
send a blocked cards list to the gate.
It makes sense that the fare table is uploaded on a regular basis.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled: >><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >>> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >>> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8 bits >>wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of Captain >>DelticrCOs
engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using >raw IP numbers. Fine with ip4, not so much with ip6 especially with its
hex notation. I think its safe to say that ~10^39 possible addresses when >there are only ~10^18 grains of sand on all the earths beaches is overkill to >the extreme even when taking block allocation into account. 2^64 would have >been enough and far easier to work with.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:55:01 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hjc0t$3srhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:25 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:28:32 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more
complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between >>>> two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare
Classic is only 16 bytes.
Seems a bit parsimonious even for 1990s tech. Still, I'd love to know how >>> much data is being exchanged with Apple Pay or Google Whatever at the gates >>> because it still takes about 3 times longer to open that when using an oyster
or bank card.
That's because the Oyster card was optimised for "no need to break
stride" operation. Hence the relatively small amount of data exchange it
could support.
Using a phone as a contactless payment method is probably exchanging
megabytes, and not just to the gate, but a back office on another
continent.
I can't bothered to look up NFC data rates, but I doubt it goes up to multiple
megabytes per second.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:55:01 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hjc0t$3srhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:25 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:28:32 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more
complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between >>>>> two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare >>>>> Classic is only 16 bytes.
Seems a bit parsimonious even for 1990s tech. Still, I'd love to know how >>>> much data is being exchanged with Apple Pay or Google Whatever at the gates
because it still takes about 3 times longer to open that when using an oyster
or bank card.
That's because the Oyster card was optimised for "no need to break
stride" operation. Hence the relatively small amount of data exchange it >>> could support.
Using a phone as a contactless payment method is probably exchanging
megabytes, and not just to the gate, but a back office on another
continent.
I can't bothered to look up NFC data rates, but I doubt it goes up to multiple
megabytes per second.
424 kbits/sec max.
In message <10hi3c8$3ciug$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:01:44 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be
enough.-a I-a can't-a imagine even back when oyster was designed >>>>>>>> that memory-a was so-a tight on-a the-a card that they'd have to
-aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful >>>>>>> also-a that-a the lookup has to take place on the card, in
milliseconds,-a rather than-a in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that
would-a be-a ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't >>>>>> recall-a everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the >>>>>> fares-a change.)-a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which >>>>>> zone it-a boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the zone >>>>>> of any-a pink readers it touched along the way), the gate then
consults the-a fare table and then updates the balance on the card. >>>>>> Once that-a transaction-a is confirmed, the gate opens.
-aThat's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to have >>>>> that-a 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they aren't
online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in
gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store >>>> more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
-aThere's some sort of time-warp force field which infests a lot of
the-a traffic here in uk.r
-aOyster was rolled out in 2003, 22 years ago. Based on technology
dating-a back to 1994.
-aBack then (either 1994 or 2003, take your pick) nothing was measured
in-a gigabytes, and no TfL gates had connectivity.
If it's really not been upgraded in 20 years, megabytes then.
"It" being umpty-tens-of-millions of cards in peoples' wallets, fallen
down the back of the sofa etc etc.
In message <10hjcb7$3t0ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:55 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled: >>><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >>>> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >>>> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8 bits >>>wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of Captain >>>DelticrCOs
engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >>to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using >>raw IP numbers. Fine with ip4, not so much with ip6 especially with its
hex notation. I think its safe to say that ~10^39 possible addresses when >>there are only ~10^18 grains of sand on all the earths beaches is overkill to >>the extreme even when taking block allocation into account. 2^64 would have >>been enough and far easier to work with.
That scaling decision was taken a very long time ago, and you have >spectacularly missed the boat when it comes to getting your opinion
noted.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:55:01 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hjc0t$3srhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:25 on Sat, 13 Dec >>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:28:32 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
read/write over multiple blocks everything suddenly gets much more >>>>>> complicated (transactional consistency if the card is removed between >>>>>> two writes, etc.) as well as slower - and a single block on a MiFare >>>>>> Classic is only 16 bytes.
Seems a bit parsimonious even for 1990s tech. Still, I'd love to >>>>>know how much data is being exchanged with Apple Pay or Google >>>>>Whatever at the gates because it still takes about 3 times longer >>>>>to open that when using an oyster or bank card.
That's because the Oyster card was optimised for "no need to break
stride" operation. Hence the relatively small amount of data exchange it >>>> could support.
Using a phone as a contactless payment method is probably exchanging
megabytes, and not just to the gate, but a back office on another
continent.
I can't bothered to look up NFC data rates, but I doubt it goes up
to multiple megabytes per second.
424 kbits/sec max.
So taking overheads into account thatrCOs very roughly 40 KB/sec, or 25 >seconds per megabyte.
On 13/12/2025 07:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10hi3c8$3ciug$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:01:44 on Fri, 12
Dec 2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be >>>>>>>>>enough.a Ia can'ta imagine even back when oyster was designed >>>>>>>>>that memorya was soa tight ona thea card that they'd have to
aIt's not the 16 zones, but the 16x16 table for fares, mindful >>>>>>>>alsoa thata the lookup has to take place on the card, in >>>>>>>>milliseconds,a rather thana in a back-office overnight.
The Oyster card does not need to contain the fare table, that >>>>>>>woulda bea ridiculous (and is obviously false because they don't >>>>>>>recalla everyone's Oyster cards for reprogramming every time the >>>>>>>faresa change.)a The card just needs to tell the exit gate which >>>>>>>zone ita boarded in and its current balance (and possibly the >>>>>>>zone of anya pink readers it touched along the way), the gate >>>>>>>then consults thea fare table and then updates the balance on >>>>>>>the card. Once thata transactiona is confirmed, the gate opens.
aThat's an alternative narrative, but requires every *gate* to >>>>>>have thata 16x16 fares table, updated individually because they >>>>>>aren't online.
In a world where memory and transmissions are typically measured in
gigabytes, I find it hard to believe that gates can't receive and store >>>>> more than 256 values (of unknown size, but probably a few bytes).
aThere's some sort of time-warp force field which infests a lot of >>>>thea traffic here in uk.r
aOyster was rolled out in 2003, 22 years ago. Based on technology >>>>datinga back to 1994.
aBack then (either 1994 or 2003, take your pick) nothing was
measured ina gigabytes, and no TfL gates had connectivity.
If it's really not been upgraded in 20 years, megabytes then.
"It" being umpty-tens-of-millions of cards in peoples' wallets,
fallen down the back of the sofa etc etc.
"It" being the gate which has to store a relatively small data table.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:59:43 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hjcb7$3t0ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:55 on Sat, 13 Dec >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled: >>>><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't
imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the
card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>>>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>>>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8
bits wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of >>>>Captain DelticrCOs engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >>>to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using
raw IP numbers. Fine with ip4, not so much with ip6 especially with its >>>hex notation. I think its safe to say that ~10^39 possible addresses when >>>there are only ~10^18 grains of sand on all the earths beaches is overkill to
the extreme even when taking block allocation into account. 2^64 would have >>>been enough and far easier to work with.
That scaling decision was taken a very long time ago, and you have >>spectacularly missed the boat when it comes to getting your opinion
noted.
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as >you are these days.
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as >>you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed,
it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of >practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
In message <10hket5$bnqt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
So taking overheads into account thatrCOs very roughly 40 KB/sec, or 25 >>seconds per megabyte.
I'm genuinely surprised the technology is that slow. But that
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as >>>you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed,
it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of >>practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 09:56:21 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hket5$bnqt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sat, 13 Dec >>2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
So taking overheads into account thatrCOs very roughly 40 KB/sec, or 25 >>>seconds per megabyte.
I'm genuinely surprised the technology is that slow. But that
Why? It was designed as a very low power and hence low speed protocol. Its >probably already being pushed beyond what its designers originally intended. >For another example of this see bluetooth.
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed, >>>it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only* >>>opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of >>>practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in the
late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
In message <10hml90$8c57$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:31:44 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 09:56:21 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hket5$bnqt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sat, 13 Dec >>>2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
So taking overheads into account thatrCOs very roughly 40 KB/sec, or 25 >>>>seconds per megabyte.
I'm genuinely surprised the technology is that slow. But that
Why? It was designed as a very low power and hence low speed protocol. Its >>probably already being pushed beyond what its designers originally intended. >>For another example of this see bluetooth.
Bluetooth started at about 1 megabit, but has been enhanced to 24 (with
new hardware). The first wifi I had (1999) was only 2 megabit, now it's
well into gigabits with the correct hardware. I think the fastest I've >clocked at home with rather old laptops is about 200 megabits.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 17:16:05 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14
Dec 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of >>>>>touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is
proposed, it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The >>>>*only* opportunity to express an opinion that will make the
slightest bit of practical difference is before it's finalised. In
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>>ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in
the late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
You and the real world really did part company a long long time ago.
In message <10honbg$b4ts$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:19:28 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 17:16:05 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 >>>>>Dec 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of >>>>>>touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is >>>>>proposed, it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The >>>>>*only* opportunity to express an opinion that will make the >>>>>slightest bit of practical difference is before it's finalised. In
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>>>ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in
the late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
You and the real world really did part company a long long time ago.
A fairly predictable comment from someone who wouldn't know the real
world if it bit him on the arse. Keep it up, it's a highlight of my day
to see you making even more of a fool of yourself.
You and the real world really did part company a long long time ago.
A fairly predictable comment from someone who wouldn't know the real
world if it bit him on the arse. Keep it up, it's a highlight of my
day to see you making even more of a fool of yourself.
There must be unicorns and moonbeams all around Ely these days.
In message <10hpc1e$20v1r$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:12:30 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
You and the real world really did part company a long long time ago.
A fairly predictable comment from someone who wouldn't know the real >>>world if it bit him on the arse. Keep it up, it's a highlight of my
day to see you making even more of a fool of yourself.
There must be unicorns and moonbeams all around Ely these days.
I don't know, because I live somewhere else now.
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed,
it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of
practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins
ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in the
late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >>> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >>> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and
destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >> ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8 bits
wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of Captain
DelticrCOs
engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using
raw IP numbers. Fine with ip4, not so much with ip6 especially with its
hex notation. I think its safe to say that ~10^39 possible addresses when there are only ~10^18 grains of sand on all the earths beaches is overkill to the extreme even when taking block allocation into account. 2^64 would have been enough and far easier to work with.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed, >>>> it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of >>>> practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>> ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in the
late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
Actually attendance at meetings was a very small part of the work that was done - attendance was actually downplayed by the IETF. The majority of the discussion was, and was always intended to be, on mailing lists. That actually made it much easier to engage.
Sam
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out
of touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed,
it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of
practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>> ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in the
late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
Actually attendance at meetings was a very small part of the work that was >done
- attendance was actually downplayed by the IETF. The majority of the >discussion was, and was always intended to be, on mailing lists. That >actually made it much easier to engage.
Sam
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I'd love to meet the developer who thought 4 bits would be enough. I can't >>>> imagine even back when oyster was designed that memory was so tight on the >>>> card that they'd have to divvy up individual bytes.
When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and
destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>> ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.
There are, of course, only 4 bits for the IP version field; and 8
bits wasnrCOt enough for the set of Z80 opcodes. IrCOm reminded of >>>Captain DelticrCOs engineering adage: rCLToo much is almost enoughrCY.
I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16
bytes seems to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part
of their job is using raw IP numbers. Fine with ip4, not so much with
ip6 especially with its hex notation. I think its safe to say that
~10^39 possible addresses when there are only ~10^18 grains of sand
on all the earths beaches is overkill to the extreme even when taking >>block allocation into account. 2^64 would have been enough and far
easier to work with.
Coming late with my response here, but IrCOm tempted to agree with you in >some aspects. It was clear that 128 bits was way overkill for expanding
the pool of required addresses,
but there were lots of proposals for doing
more interesting things with the address structure than simple >network-subnet-host addressing, and thatrCOs what won the day.
Not many of them turned out to be useful in practice, though IrCOve not kept >up with IPv6 deployment for a couple of years now. One example is the idea >of separating location from identity, the 8+8 proposals, where 64 bits are >used to define where a device is and the other 64 bits to identify it. At >face value this looks like the current SLAAC arrangement where the least >significant 64 bits are composed from the MAC address or at random, but the >suggestions are more complex than that.
There were also ideas of embedding cryptographic tokens into addresses for >security purposes, and many, many discussions about where to place subnet >allocation boundaries - with so many bits available it just wasnrCOt obvious >at all.
IrCOm not sure about the idea that addresses need to be memorable, and I >really think that if a network admin doesnrCOt understand hex they really >need to get some reeducation pronto!
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:IPv6 works just fine. My ISP runs it and provides me with a subnet. My home router does all the necessary firewalling and my LAN runs with that subnet without any intervention from me. ThererCOs really no need to worry about the long style of the addresses. As long as you know your machine names you
In message <10hml02$8blr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:58 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:52:52 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10hluhk$scj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:48 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Its a very common opinion. Not that you'd know that being as out of touch as
you are these days.
Spectacularly missing the point! When a change like IPv6 is proposed, >>>>> it's debated amongst the gurus and a decision made. The *only*
opportunity to express an opinion that will make the slightest bit of >>>>> practical difference is before it's finalised. In this case 1998.
IP6 was chucked over the fence before the vast majority of network admins >>>> ever had a chance to use it and actually give an opinion.
Of course they couldn't use it before it was defined.
But they all had the opportunity to attend IETF and RIR meetings in the >>> late 90's to learn about it and give their input.
Actually attendance at meetings was a very small part of the work that was >> done - attendance was actually downplayed by the IETF. The majority of the >> discussion was, and was always intended to be, on mailing lists. That
actually made it much easier to engage.
Sam
can access them by name. MDNS does a lot of the heavy lifting. No messing with NAT, no messing with protocols to make VOIP work behind NAT etc etc.
For the home user it really is plug and play. For the larger commercial
site you need someone who understands configuring complex routers, VLANs, security appliances etc etc. If they can get their head around all of that then the extra length of an IPv6 address is trivial.
Not many of them turned out to be useful in practice, though IrCOve not kept >up with IPv6 deployment for a couple of years now. One example is the idea >of separating location from identity, the 8+8 proposals, where 64 bits are >used to define where a device is and the other 64 bits to identify it. At >face value this looks like the current SLAAC arrangement where the least >significant 64 bits are composed from the MAC address or at random, but the >suggestions are more complex than that.
There were also ideas of embedding cryptographic tokens into addresses for >security purposes, and many, many discussions about where to place subnet >allocation boundaries - with so many bits available it just wasnrCOt obvious >at all.
IrCOm not sure about the idea that addresses need to be memorable, and I >really think that if a network admin doesnrCOt understand hex they really >need to get some reeducation pronto!
In message <10j3ioc$2mmvr$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:24:44 on Wed, 31 Dec
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked: >><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
IrCOm not sure about the idea that addresses need to be memorable, and I >>really think that if a network admin doesnrCOt understand hex they really >>need to get some reeducation pronto!
People used to tell me that there was no such thing as a vanity IP
address, then Google obtained 8.8.8.8 for their DNS service.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 20:47:35 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j3ioc$2mmvr$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:24:44 on Wed, 31 Dec >>2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked: >>><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
IrCOm not sure about the idea that addresses need to be memorable, and I >>>really think that if a network admin doesnrCOt understand hex they really >>>need to get some reeducation pronto!
People used to tell me that there was no such thing as a vanity IP >>address, then Google obtained 8.8.8.8 for their DNS service.
Vanity? No idea if 8 is a meaningful number for google but it makes it
easy to remember.
In message <10j5elj$3chs3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:15 on Thu, 1 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 20:47:35 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j3ioc$2mmvr$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:24:44 on Wed, 31 Dec >>>2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked: >>>><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
IrCOm not sure about the idea that addresses need to be memorable, and I >>>>really think that if a network admin doesnrCOt understand hex they really >>>>need to get some reeducation pronto!
People used to tell me that there was no such thing as a vanity IP >>>address, then Google obtained 8.8.8.8 for their DNS service.
Vanity? No idea if 8 is a meaningful number for google but it makes it >>easy to remember.
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is regarded as
a vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline numbers.
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is regarded
as
Google is american.
a vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline numbers.
So 10.0.0.1 is a vanity number too?
In message <10j85qk$2g7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:44 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is regarded
as
Google is american.
So what?
a vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline numbers.
So 10.0.0.1 is a vanity number too?
Inadvertently, perhaps. I'd have to ask the people who allocated that
number range.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:33:59 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j85qk$2g7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:44 on Fri, 2 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is
regarded as
Google is american.
So what?
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
a vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline numbers.
So 10.0.0.1 is a vanity number too?
Inadvertently, perhaps. I'd have to ask the people who allocated that >>number range.
You can't "inadvertently" have a vanity anything. Its a concious choice.
In other words no, its not.
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:33:59 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j85qk$2g7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:44 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is
regarded as
Google is american.
So what?
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but there
are people out there who realise that The Internet is a worldwide
network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's special about 8".
a vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline
numbers.
So 10.0.0.1 is a vanity number too?
Inadvertently, perhaps. I'd have to ask the people who allocated that
number range.
You can't "inadvertently" have a vanity anything. Its a concious choice.
It's entirely possible, the whole car vanity plate thing arose because
some people were issued at random with a plate that they said "Oh!
that's my initials [or whatever], I think I'll keep it".
In other words no, its not.
We don't know whether it was effectively a random choice, or someone
thought it would be more memorable the way it is.
192.168.*.* isn't memorable, for example. Whereas 555, the USA code for directory enquiries, is.
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but there
are people out there who realise that The Internet is a worldwide
network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's special about
8".
You can't "inadvertently" have a vanity anything. Its a concious choice.
It's entirely possible, the whole car vanity plate thing arose because
some people were issued at random with a plate that they said "Oh!
that's my initials [or whatever], I think I'll keep it".
In other words no, its not.
We don't know whether it was effectively a random choice, or someone
thought it would be more memorable the way it is.
On 02/01/2026 18:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:33:59 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j85qk$2g7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:44 on Fri, 2
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
8 is a lucky number in China. Also any 'memorable' number is >>>>>>regarded as
Google is american.
So what?
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but
there are people out there who realise that The Internet is a
worldwide network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's >>special about 8".
It's entirely possible, the whole car vanity plate thing arosea vanity one, just like vehicle numberplates and taxi landline >>>>>>numbers.
So 10.0.0.1 is a vanity number too?
Inadvertently, perhaps. I'd have to ask the people who allocated
that number range.
You can't "inadvertently" have a vanity anything. Its a concious choice.
because some people were issued at random with a plate that they said >>"Oh! that's my initials [or whatever], I think I'll keep it".
In other words no, its not.
We don't know whether it was effectively a random choice, or someone >>thought it would be more memorable the way it is.
192.168.*.* isn't memorable, for example. Whereas 555, the USA code
for directory enquiries, is.
Not all that memorable, as the USA code for directory enquiries is 411.
555-nnnn is rarely assigned but recommended for use in fictional works.
Of course, 192 was for many years the UK code for directory enquiries.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 18:17:36 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but there
are people out there who realise that The Internet is a worldwide
network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's special about
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china for a DNS server IP?
Take your time.
You can't "inadvertently" have a vanity anything. Its a concious choice.
It's entirely possible, the whole car vanity plate thing arose because >>some people were issued at random with a plate that they said "Oh!
that's my initials [or whatever], I think I'll keep it".
And thats not a concious choice?
In other words no, its not.
We don't know whether it was effectively a random choice, or someone >>thought it would be more memorable the way it is.
Of course its more memorable, that doesn't have anything to do with vanity.
In message <10jaqi6$2jors$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:54 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 18:17:36 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2 Jan >>>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but there >>>are people out there who realise that The Internet is a worldwide >>>network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's special about
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china for a DNS server IP?
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
Of course its more memorable, that doesn't have anything to do with vanity.
Except of course, in common parlance for such things "memorable" =
"vanity".
I have a memorable car registration (to avoid having to recall a random >jumble of letters and numbers that changes every few years), but it's
still colloquially known as a 'vanity plate'.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jaqi6$2jors$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:20:54 on Sat, 3 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 18:17:36 +0000They don't. You have repeated your category error.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10j8r3a$2h4ge$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:46 on Fri, 2
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china?
I know you are an isolationist, Little Britain and all that, but
there are people out there who realise that The Internet is a >>>>worldwide network. But that wasn't the question, which was "what's >>>>special about
Why would americans care about lucky numbers in china for a DNS server IP? >>
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. Glad we >finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Of course its more memorable, that doesn't have anything to do with vanity. >>Except of course, in common parlance for such things "memorable" = >>"vanity".
On what planet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity
"Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or
attractiveness compared to others"
I have a memorable car registration (to avoid having to recall a
random jumble of letters and numbers that changes every few years),
but it's still colloquially known as a 'vanity plate'.
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. Glad we >>finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >special about the number 8, and I told you.
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. Glad we >>>finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>>special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then >asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what
was special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you
then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was >>memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings in a >specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity >>plates".
Some do some don't.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>>> special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address
chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then
asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings in a specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
Some do some don't.
In message <10jd9sr$1sctp$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:51 on Sun, 4 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan >>>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what >>>>>was special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>>chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you
then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was >>>memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings in a >>specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
Which particular word did you have in mind? A red herring of course,
while you wriggle and squirm to try to cover up your catastrophic
category error.
Some do some don't.
Sufficient do, for it to be the main colloquial name.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 09:42:19 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jd9sr$1sctp$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:51 on Sun, 4 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what >>>>>>was special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>>>chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you >>>>then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was >>>>memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings in a >>>specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
Which particular word did you have in mind? A red herring of course,
while you wriggle and squirm to try to cover up your catastrophic
category error.
You're the one who babbled about 8 being special in china
Do explain what that has to do with 8.8.8.8 being a memorable or even a >vanity address.
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. Glad we >>>> finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was
special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address
chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
So what?
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people
also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own person.
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people
also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own person.
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer the numbers
and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to them >for various reasons.
They are regarded as Vanity plates by some who think they are a bit
pretentious and a means of showing off. Actual Vanity plates are more >likely to be for show offs ,they are not interested in the number as
such and wonrCOt bother to transfer it but will use fancy and illegal >fonts,size and positions to make their statement.
As suppliers can not supply them legally as registration plates for on
road use they declare that they are for use at places like a car show
so have the moniker Show Plates. Obviously there can be some crossover >between types.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. Glad we >>>>> finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>>> special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address
chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then
asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
So what?
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people
also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own person.
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer the numbers
and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to them for various reasons.
They are regarded as Vanity plates by some who think they are a bit pretentious and a means of showing off. Actual Vanity plates are more likely to be for show offs ,they are not interested in the number as such
and wonrCOt bother to transfer it but will use fancy and illegal fonts,size and positions
to make their statement. As suppliers can not supply them legally as registration plates for on road use they declare that they are for use at places like a car show so have the moniker Show Plates.
Obviously there can be some crossover between types.
On 05/01/2026 08:46, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan >>>>> 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. >>>>>> Glad we
finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>>>> special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>> chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then
asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
So what?
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people
also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own person. >>>
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer-a the numbers >> and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to
them
for various reasons.
-a They are regarded as Vanity plates by some who think they are a bit
pretentious and a means of showing off.-a-a Actual Vanity plates are more
likely to be for show offs ,they are not interested in the number as such
and wonrCOt bother to transfer it but will use fancy and illegal fonts,size >> and positions
to make their statement.-a As suppliers can not supply them legally as
registration plates for on road use they declare that they-a are for
use at
places like a car show so have the moniker Show Plates.
Obviously there can be some crossover between types.
The NPR software for our car park has been updated.-a It can recognise
some illegal number plates and does not open the barrier/gates.
This is on the basis the car may not be road legal by-a way-a of modification and not insured.
On 05/01/2026 10:06, Coffee wrote:
On 05/01/2026 08:46, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan >>>>>> 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. >>>>>>> Glad we
finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what >>>>>> was
special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver
address
chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then >>>> asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
So what?
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people >>>> also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own
person.
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer-a the
numbers
and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment
to them
for various reasons.
-a They are regarded as Vanity plates by some who think they are a bit
pretentious and a means of showing off.-a-a Actual Vanity plates are more >>> likely to be for show offs ,they are not interested in the number as
such
and wonrCOt bother to transfer it but will use fancy and illegal
fonts,size
and positions
to make their statement.-a As suppliers can not supply them legally as
registration plates for on road use they declare that they-a are for
use at
places like a car show so have the moniker Show Plates.
Obviously there can be some crossover between types.
The NPR software for our car park has been updated.-a It can recognise
some illegal number plates and does not open the barrier/gates.
This is on the basis the car may not be road legal by-a way-a of
modification and not insured.
That sounds like a scam.-a Is it really legal for a private car park
operator to requisition a vehicle, presumably charging a hefty fee for
its ongoing storage, because they think it may not be road legal?
Those vigilantes may be heading for a costly court case.
In message <10je1rv$24a87$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:43:59 on Sun, 4 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 09:42:19 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jd9sr$1sctp$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:51 on Sun, 4 Jan >>>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 >>>>>Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what >>>>>>>was special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>>>>chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you >>>>>then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was >>>>>memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings in a >>>>specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
Which particular word did you have in mind? A red herring of course, >>>while you wriggle and squirm to try to cover up your catastrophic >>>category error.
You're the one who babbled about 8 being special in china
No I didn't, I merely *answered* your question which was "why is 8
regared as special".
The Olympic committee should create a combined sport of hair splitting and >goalpost moving just for you.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 18:11:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10je1rv$24a87$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:43:59 on Sun, 4 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 09:42:19 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jd9sr$1sctp$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:51 on Sun, 4
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 17:52:51 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 >>>>>> Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked >>>>>>>> what was special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver >>>>>>> address
chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you >>>>>> then asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was >>>>>> memorable).
Ah, Roland debating mode #7 - pretend words had different meanings
in a
specific context in order to save face. Nice try.
Which particular word did you have in mind? A red herring of course,
while you wriggle and squirm to try to cover up your catastrophic
category error.
You're the one who babbled about 8 being special in china
No I didn't, I merely *answered* your question which was "why is 8
regared as special".
The Olympic committee should create a combined sport of hair splitting and goalpost moving just for you.
On 05/01/2026 10:06, Coffee wrote:
On 05/01/2026 08:46, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10jbfkj$2kjqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:35 on Sat, 3 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 15:47:03 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10jbbmc$1aq1o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:13:16 on Sat, 3 Jan >>>>>> 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:45:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
They don't. You have repeated your category error.
So its not a vanity number then and has nothing to do with china. >>>>>>> Glad we
finally cleared that up after your usual swerving.
Sorry, but you are the one doing the swerving here. You asked what was >>>>>> special about the number 8, and I told you.
Yes, and that had precisely nothing to do with the DNS resolver address >>>>> chosen by google as you have now admitted.
Completely wrong. They chose 8.8.8.8 because it was memorable, you then >>>> asked what was special about 8 (not why I thought 8.8.8.8 was
memorable).
Colloquially its known as a personal plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
Game, Set, and Match, I think!
https://dvlaregistrations.dvla.gov.uk/
So what?
They call them "Personalised Plates", the public calls them "Vanity
plates".
In fact the DVLA has dumbed it down (no surprise there), because people >>>> also buy memorable plates which are nothing to do with their own person. >>>>
There are quite a lot in my former home town, where the three letters
are "ELY" for example.
Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfera the numbers >>> and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to
them
for various reasons.
a They are regarded as Vanity plates by some who think they are a bit
pretentious and a means of showing off.aa Actual Vanity plates are more
likely to be for show offs ,they are not interested in the number as such >>> and wonAt bother to transfer it but will use fancy and illegal fonts,size >>> and positions
to make their statement.a As suppliers can not supply them legally as
registration plates for on road use they declare that theya are for
use at
places like a car show so have the moniker Show Plates.
Obviously there can be some crossover between types.
The NPR software for our car park has been updated.a It can recognise
some illegal number plates and does not open the barrier/gates.
This is on the basis the car may not be road legal bya waya of
modification and not insured.
That sounds like a scam. Is it really legal for a private car park
operator to requisition a vehicle, presumably charging a hefty fee for
its ongoing storage, because they think it may not be road legal?
Those vigilantes may be heading for a costly court case.
The NPR software for our car park has been updated.a It can recognise
some illegal number plates and does not open the barrier/gates.
This is on the basis the car may not be road legal bya waya of
modification and not insured.
That sounds like a scam. Is it really legal for a private car park >>operator to requisition a vehicle, presumably charging a hefty fee for
its ongoing storage,
because they think it may not be road legal?On what grounds? Like e.g. a pub landlord, they can refuse entry to
Those vigilantes may be heading for a costly court case.
anybody they like as long as it doesn't breach any duty/obligation or
break discrimination laws.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 23:25:29 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,852 |
| Posted today: | 1 |