=== Lcawte is now known as Lcawte|Away [02:46] If I wanna plug an american device in the UK do I just need something like this? http://bit.ly/Oxw7iV or do I need something special re voltage? [02:46] depends on the voltage the device is rated for [02:47] I see, so always check the voltage, it needs to do 240? [02:47] pretty much [02:47] if it is 110v then don't plug it in [02:47] righto :) [05:30] Azelphur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmcZIU8U8Nc [05:31] MartijnVdS: lol [05:31] MartijnVdS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBMD485iG9g is good too :P [05:45] Azelphur: Generally speaking, .us electrical standard is 120VAC [05:48] Azelphur: The item you linked to has no 'specs' section or any indication it does any kind of electrical adaptation other than the physical plug [06:05] Azelphur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbB-mICjkQM ? [06:51] mornin [07:17] morning lovelies [07:24] morning [07:24] * czajkowski hugs christel [07:28] hello lovely <3 [07:28] * christel hugs czajkowski [07:34] morning! [07:34] hiya MartijnVdS \o/ [07:35] * MartijnVdS wonders how many more holes the upstairs (downstairs?) neighbor can drill before the building collapses [07:36] haha [07:38] guten morgen [07:38] hoi jacobw [07:38] wie gehts? [07:39] ich bin eine waschmaschine! [07:39] er, i mean good morning jacobw :) [07:39] christel: Oh, je hovercraft zit vol met paling? [07:39] das ist seltsam [07:40] good morning christel :) [07:41] jij bent een paling! [07:41] :o [07:41] ben? bent? i have no idea! [07:41] jij bent = OK [07:41] * christel hugs MartijnVdS and jacobw [07:41] woop [07:41] :) [07:41] my dutch skills are clearly second to none :D [07:41] (ahem) [07:49] US has more medals than China now [07:52] so.. less detectable dope? [07:52] [07:52] hahaha [07:52] <3 [07:53] * christel toodles off to the west country [07:53] \o [08:15] * jacobw decides what to do today [09:00] jacobw: "not much"? :) [09:02] * jacobw decides what to do tomorrow instead [09:05] good morning everyone. [09:10] hey brobostigon [09:10] hey jacobw [09:10] how are you now? [09:11] jacobw: on the mend, certainly with my eczema. my throat still feels pretty bad, and my nose is somewhat less runny. and you? [09:16] morning [09:16] morning Pendulum [09:19] anyone up to anything exciting this weekend? [09:22] good :) [09:23] i'm glad your eczema, the weather must be difficult [09:23] jacobw: it was worse, when it was hotter and more humid. [09:24] jacobw: now that it is cooling, it is helping. === Lcawte|Away is now known as Lcawte [10:33] arghhh, they have ditched click again, for sports. :( [10:33] click? [10:34] bbc click, the bbc's IT prog. [10:34] normally broadcast on saturday 11:30am, bbc news 24. [10:34] brobostigon: not permanently, I hope [10:34] BBC Click: the Firefly of tech news...? [10:34] the bbc even trweeted that click would be on at this time. [10:35] dwatkins: i hope not, either, yes. [10:35] brobostigon: is it any good? [10:35] usually tech shows on tv are a bit dull [10:35] mattt: yes. [10:36] afk, shopping :( [10:36] * mattt weeps [10:36] click is not very good [10:36] the news is typically a two weeks old [10:36] well, depends, some can be good, some less so. [10:36] and it's presented in the style of one of those late 90s internet shows [10:37] like "check out the cool websites we found this week" style [10:37] thats 2 minutes, right at the end. [10:38] the whole show is presented in the same manner [10:38] Yeah, the Guardian tech podcast is better than BBC Click!. [10:39] http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lxvzj/Click_04_08_2012/ [10:39] yo can watch it online [10:39] I just think it's good that the BBC is doing something in terms of tech news, even if it's not particularly good. Long gone are the days of Tomorrow's World etc., sadly. [10:39] ali1234: yes, i know i can, it just annoys me, when they change things around, for things that are less than interesting. [10:39] 20 seconds in and i'm already rolling my eyes [10:39] Perhaps they'll do a 21st century version of Micro Live when the Raspbery Pi becomes popular... ;) [10:40] dwatkins: that's basically what click is [10:40] except with less technical content [10:40] yeah, that's the trouble, it's too simplified. [10:40] I guess they have to pander to the less technical audience. [10:41] We techies can go listen to network security podcasts if we feel like it, I suppose. [10:41] oh boy, a piece about "tech overload" [10:41] NO, I DON'T USE ANY OF THOSE WEBSITES [10:42] AARGHARGHAGR [10:42] *turns off click* [10:42] She's addicted. [10:42] ali1234: do you happen to enjoy amateur drama? [10:43] i don't think so [10:43] It's exactly the same as it's been for years - people get addicted to gossip or money-off coupons. The difference is now it's possible to do it all in your pyjamas. [10:43] ali1234: it was a joke, the way you said it, was dramatic. [10:44] haha, they interviewed someone in thick-rimmed glasses [10:44] sterotype #32767 [10:44] multitasking makes you terrible at everything. [10:46] someone needs to do a story about how everyone is using facebook and twitter and youtube and discovering that other people are jerks, and then blaming it on the internet, not realising that the internet was a much more easy going place before these websites existed [10:46] people weren't jerks initially? [10:47] yes, but initially there was no facebook for them to be jerks on [10:47] true, I guess that blackboard cartoon is probably the case for a lot of people, too [10:47] the one about anonymity leading to idiocy [10:47] that's not even it [10:47] oh? [10:47] idiocy leads to idiocy [10:47] heh [10:48] sure people used to troll on usenet but at least it was amusing [10:48] compare usenet trolling to youtube arguments [10:48] yeah, I assume that's the sheer number of people using the internet now leading to large numbers of idiotic noise and very little signal. [10:48] right [10:48] I turn off most youtube comments. [10:49] but this is always presented journalistically as "oh look how terrible the internet is, it's full of trolls" [10:49] ah, I must be mostly avoiding those journalists. [10:49] just read some tabloids [10:49] let's turn off the internet, then [10:49] * MartijnVdS turns off dwatkins' internet [10:49] I can't bring myself to read the Daily Mail, it makes me want to hit walls. [10:50] ......$%*####### signal lost [10:50] * dwatkins connects with his phone [10:50] can't stop the signal... [10:51] it's presented like malicious gossip and namecalling are a new thing caused by the internet, rather than the truth: which is that the "normal users" have brought it in with them from TV, news papers, and just general "real life" [10:51] Anyway, I imagine the whole web 2.0 thing makes it really easy for even the least intelligent person to comment on something like a youtube video, thus bringing them all down to their level. [10:52] arguments ensue due to simple misunderstandings, which often end in insults etc. [11:24] and then there's the people who troll on purpose [11:28] ah yes, I forget about those as I tend to /ignore them ;) [11:33] everyone who trolls trolls on purpose [11:33] that's the whole point [11:42] ali1234: what are the other kind called then? Flamers? Idiots? [11:42] prats* [11:45] the other type is called "people you disagree with" [11:45] some of those are provably wrong though [11:57] I hadn't realised how completely nuts the Mars lander's sky crane is. [11:57] BBC Horizon tells all. [11:59] oh yeh watched that last week - it's nuts [12:00] yeah, especially the part where the rockets (hopefully) fire after it's dropped [12:01] * penguin42 won't be watching it live [12:49] it's got so many points of failure it's insane [12:50] MartijnVdS: yeah, the Beagle 2 failure was heartbreaking, but I got the impression they had far more luck-driven parts than NASA's lander. [12:51] oh for $2bn I'm sure they've considered lots of alternatives and failsafes :) [12:51] but sca-rey [12:51] hey, it's not my $2bn [12:52] you've still got your $2bn locked in a vault somewhere? ;) [12:53] Hmm.. someone managed to drive their car into the water at a place where the road goes UNDER the water [12:53] bitcoins man [12:55] MartijnVdS: Why would you have a road that goes under the water? [12:59] penguin42: to cross it? [12:59] obvious really [13:30] Hola :) [13:31] hey [13:42] ¡hola! [13:50] & groet, dag, hallo as well ;) [13:57] hoi SuperEngineer :) [14:01] MartijnVdS: someone turned your ! upside down! [14:02] Seeker`: ¿Really? [14:02] And your ? [14:02] Something strange going on here! [14:02] ⸘OMG‽ [14:03] * Seeker` keeps an eye out for the punctuation vandal ¡ [14:03] Wait, what?! They got me too! [14:11] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19124242 [14:12] ouch [14:14] yeh, ouch [14:14] ⸘ [14:15] exactly [14:15] :) [14:15] 💩 [14:15] some day i will paste that and it will actually work [14:15] but not today [14:16] ‽ [15:09] * penguin42 wonders what http://www.dealextreme.com/p/laptop-pc-debug-card-expert-mini-pci-e-pci-lpc-diagnostic-board-w-dual-1-7-lcd-147590?r=99999999 is actually connecting to/displaying [15:13] to the PCI bus [15:15] well, maybe - I mean it's offering mini-PCI-e, pci, and lpc (Low pin count) - and a display without saying what it displays - perhaps it's just displaying POST codes [15:15] probably [17:09] damn, GB almost overtook USA in that race [18:27] http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/odroid-x-is-like-a-quad-core-raspberry-pi-for-129-20120712/ nice [18:29] yeah [18:31] why the hell do they need to put annoying music on these videos [18:36] quad core :O [18:36] yeah [18:37] I just bought a galaxy s3 :P [18:37] I was just going to moan about no hdmi, but see it has hdmi mini. never knew that existed [18:37] *hdmi micro [18:38] hmm, whats the betting the leads for that are expensive [18:38] not many TVs are gonna have hdmi min input [18:38] make sure to get gold plated leads ;) [18:38] yeah [18:39] went to get hdmi cable for my pi, had the obligatory gold plated 75 quid lead argument with the sales guy [18:43] i ordered an HDMI cable off amazon today, £6 but reduced from £90! what a steal! [18:44] lol [18:44] Amazon Basics? [18:44] more like "reduced to sensible levels" [18:44] I think I need more ram, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3832397/Photos/2012/August/IMG_20120804_193938.jpg [18:44] amazon basics didn't do a cable long enough [18:44] Azelphur: 6x 256mb? [18:44] Azelphur: What size ? [18:44] but amazon basics are dirt cheep always anyway [18:44] ali1234: didn't you already have 32GB? [18:45] hehe, 4GB a stick (maxed out the board) [18:45] get yourself something that will take 32GB DIMMS then [18:45] that's a lot of 640kb chunks [18:45] ....and a mortgage [18:45] I got my board maxed out too. Too bad the max is 8GB :/ [18:45] haha [18:45] bitcoin price goes up, azelphur buys all the things [18:46] You should be buying gfx cards with that money [18:46] gfx cards are useless, I already have ASICs on preorder [18:46] a pair of running shoes? [18:47] haha [18:47] Azelphur: ASICs ? [18:47] penguin42: application specific integrated circuits [18:47] Azelphur: Yeh - for bitcoin? [18:47] yep. [18:47] Azelphur: you had custom hw made for bitcoins? [18:47] heck [18:47] Azelphur: Where from? [18:47] dogmatic69: I didn't specifically commission it, but I bought said hardware yes [18:47] from butterfly labs [18:47] Azelphur: ah ok [18:48] http://www.butterflylabs.com/products/ I have 3 of the BitForce Single 'SC' on preorder (the ones on the far right, not the $599 thing) [18:48] Is a gfx card really needed for it? cant use normal servers then? [18:49] dogmatic69: you can use CPU, but any CPU on the planet is going to be useless, GPU is becoming useless, FPGA is current, ASIC is near future [18:50] Azelphur: How do they compare to the crypto accelerators on CPUs? [18:50] penguin42: no idea [18:50] Azelphur: I guess those are cheaper than commercial cryptographic cards for bank security applications - which are more built to be ubersecure [18:51] * Azelphur shrugs [18:51] Azelphur: And is SHA256 all that you need? [18:51] penguin42: yup [18:51] to give you some idea, my new ASIC farm is going to be about 36 times as fast as my current farm (8 x 5870) [18:52] Azelphur: What would something like top of the line Radeons now give you - like 7xxx series? [18:53] penguin42: depends on OC of course, but you get about 685MH/sec on a 7970 [18:53] and your 5870? [18:53] I'm very high hashrate, 441MH/sec [18:53] Azelphur: which one did you get from that products page? [18:54] Azelphur: Interesting [18:54] I don't really see anyone getting close to my hashing speeds though [18:54] I spent a long time tuning my cards and software, I have custom operating systems, bios reflashed cards, the whole thing is super optimised [18:54] dogmatic69: bitforce SC single on the far right [18:54] damn, sounds like a full time job :D [18:55] hehe, it was, although now it doesn't require much maintenance [18:55] http://home.azelphur.com/mgpumon/ may interest people :P [18:55] I guess the bitcoins are tax free. Doubt there is a space to declare them [18:55] Azelphur: You didn't consider their Minirig then? [18:56] penguin42: FPGA or ASIC minirig? [18:56] (they have the same naming for both the FPGA and ASIC ones) [18:56] well the answer to both is that they are out of my price range, anyway [18:56] Azelphur: Oh didn't relaise some of the stuff on their page was FPGA [18:56] penguin42: yea, basically the left and middle are FPGA, and the right bar is all ASIC [18:57] ah ok [18:58] damn, and you get 25.2GH @ $15,295 vs 40GH @ $1,299 [18:58] yep, it's a huge change for bitcoin [18:58] how much would 40GH/s equate to in quid [18:59] dogmatic69: I could calculate that for right now, what it equates to now will not be valid in a matter of hours [18:59] sure [18:59] Azelphur: Presumably the availability of things like that will cause the price to drop though? [18:59] I know it will get less and less [19:00] penguin42: correct [19:00] penguin42: it will make bit coins more scares [19:00] dogmatic69: right now, 19.75 (~£146.97) a day [19:00] 19.75 bitcoins? [19:00] yep [19:00] k [19:00] what would be the prediction then for sometime in september say? [19:01] it's practically impossible to make such a prediction, it depends on exchange rate, difficulty, amount of people who buy them [19:01] you mean there isn't a short'ing market for them? [19:01] I'd say "less" but by how much, you'd probably need a marketing genius to even take a rough guess. [19:02] penguin42: yea but I'm not too up on stock trading so I have no idea, there's lots of options and stuff available though [19:02] Azelphur: It's what the commodity traders do though isn't it? [19:02] I just sit on my 7%/week interest I get from BS&T mostly [19:02] BS&T ? [19:02] bitcoin savings and trust [19:03] 7% reflects I guess the uncertainty in price/dogieness of the system that might collapse [19:03] guess so [19:04] imo the price is only going to go up over the next few months though [19:04] I called this price hike a few months ago (Although I didn't think it would start happening till October) [19:06] but yea, basically I'm just sitting on the price hike / interest rates and plan on cashing out a little later :) [19:17] Anyone know the cheapest courier to ship stuff to USA? [19:20] thought there were some courier comparison sites somewhere [19:21] * Azelphur shrugs [19:23] Courier New [19:23] lol [19:27] evening guys [19:27] evening cliftonts [19:28] anyone here know anything about python? [19:28] yep [19:28] ?anyone [19:29] I'm trying to follow a tutorial and I've run into a brick wall [19:29] derp, this bot is ! :( [19:29] !anyone [19:29] A high percentage of the first questions asked in this channel start with "Does anyone/anybody..." Why not ask your next question (the real one) and find out? See also !details, !gq, and !poll. [19:30] fair enough [19:30] I'm writing a simple script to open a file and read from it [19:30] If you load python and type the code in directly it works, but if I put it in a file and run the file it fails [19:30] The line that fails is [19:30] fileObject = open("emill.dat",'r') [19:31] put the code and full error on http://pastebin.com [19:31] ok, hang on [19:32] I think this is right [19:32] http://pastebin.com/pH5cAYug [19:32] pythonnnn! [19:33] .read() ? [19:33] cliftonts: you want read is a function not a variable [19:33] you want read() [19:33] I'm just typing it as the tutorial gives it [19:34] but the open statement is producing the error [19:34] tutorial is wrong find a better tutorial [19:34] so why if I load python and type it directly in does it work? [19:35] cliftonts: it shouldn't do. [19:35] very odd. [19:35] Ok, so how should the open statement look? [19:36] fine [19:36] it's the open statement that isn't working when I save it to file [19:36] Azelphur: just had a look at your site. What is "shares". you have accepted / invalid there [19:36] cliftonts: http://pastebin.com/3KqkWzFT here's an example [19:37] that example has the same code which isn't working [19:38] dogmatic69: I'm working as part of a pool, I do small chunks of work ("shares") and send them to the pool, sometimes the pool has moved on by the time I submit my work, making my share invalid [19:39] so nobody can help me then? [19:39] ..... [19:39] read isn't syntactically incorrect [19:39] it won't throw that error [19:39] but it's still wrong [19:39] also [19:39] I've just realised something [19:39] the open statement does not work when I try to run it from file [19:39] that error at the end of your file, it isn't a python error [19:40] your trying to run python code in bash [19:40] hense why it's not working so well [19:40] how else do you go about writing a program? [19:40] on line 1, your declaration is incorrect, remove the space on column 3 [19:41] and, even after fixing that, what I said is still correct, that tutorial is written by a moron if it tells you to do this: fileContents = fileObject.read [19:41] find a different tutorial. [19:41] please, forget that line. At the moment I just want to understand why running it from bash behaves differently to running in python [19:42] your not running it from bash [19:42] your running it in bash [19:42] yes [19:42] bash code is not python code [19:42] and what's the alternative? [19:42] your python is being evaluated as bash [19:42] because your running it in bash [19:42] you want to run it in python. [19:43] python programname.py [19:43] I wasn't aware you could load code into python like thar [19:43] yea, either that or fix your declaration on line 1 like I said earlier [19:43] if its a simple program i think you can [19:43] cliftonts: can I have a link to the tutorial your following? [19:44] I was using the python for kids tutorial but I'm being rather creative with it rather than just following blindly [19:44] hehe [19:45] yea, but in all honesty if it tells you to do fileContents = fileObject.read, you need to stop using that tutorial [19:45] because if someone can make a mistake like that, they havn't tested their code, or got past entry level python [19:45] and thus shouldn't be writing a tutorial [19:46] I'll look into that now, but I just needed to understand where I was going wrong in order to move on from here. [19:46] cliftonts: yea [19:46] did you understand the things I told you? [19:46] there was multiple mistakes so I went over all of them [19:46] Loading into python my program now does nothing, which I think is a step forward [19:46] Yes I do, thanks [19:47] cliftonts: yep that means your python code is running "correctly" [19:47] yes and i now need to work on getting some output to the screen. [19:48] cliftonts: here's a fixed up version if you want it, http://pastebin.com/R6sgWinW :) [19:49] that works with "./test.py" too, because I fixed the declaration on line 1 [19:49] it now just says [19:49] cliftonts: yep, as I said your tutorial is wrooooong [19:50] I guess that's my dodgy read statement not working hehe [19:50] file.read is a function, so your just assigning a variable to a function [19:50] yep [19:50] Got it [19:50] cliftonts: it's like if you do "a = open" then you could do a('emill.dat', 'r') [19:50] and it'd work [19:51] and a would be [19:51] I think I'm going to go back to the tutorial and check to see if the mistake was theirs or mine [19:51] yea :P [19:51] if it's theres, run from that tutorial....run like the wind! [19:51] feel free to nudge me if you have any more python questions, I know #python can be a bit useless [19:52] it was me, I obviously didn't copy it off accurately [19:52] hehe, fair enough :) [19:52] #python won't even let me in! [19:52] ah, you have to have a registered nick [19:53] I'm sure I'll have many more over the coming months. I don't have net access atm so when I do I don't really have time to dig for answers but normally I hunt them out myself [19:53] but word of warning they are usually quite hostile to beginners :( [19:53] yes, I noticed that. [19:53] generally they are too busy arguing about stuff to answer questions, and you just get a link to the manual (the entire manual, rather than any specific part that might answer your question) [19:54] I'm fluent in basic and I'm finding the essentals to be very familiar but of course there are lots of little culture shocks such as this one [19:55] I can read and understand code very well but writing it means lots of referring back to other people's work [19:56] yea I'm the same, code by example :) [19:56] you'll have a lot of fun with python though, you can go very far very quickly [19:56] Also I have performed this act of butchery on their tutorial because I learn better through having a practical problem to solve rather than going through lessons [19:57] yea same, I never really follow manuals or books, I just try and find examples for each part, and write what I actually want [19:57] I got bored learning about print (as opposed to basic's erm....print!) so I decided to convert one of my basic programs. The first thing it does is load a file [19:58] :) [19:58] My next issue will be it's loaded a massive list of numbers and commas, but I need them in an array so I can reference them individually [19:58] so I need to work out if I load each one individually or if I take the lot in one go and somehow assign it to a list [19:59] cliftonts: you will no doubt find split and splitlines useful [19:59] no doubt. But making those decisions is all part of the learning curve. [20:00] :) [20:00] My big issue is that quick basic has it's limits. I mean I've never considered working with gui, or accessing the net, or mouse or sound etc. [20:01] there are libraries for all those things [20:01] heh, python can do all that easy [20:01] How do I know what to look for if I have no core knowledge on that issue? [20:01] jusk ask :) [20:01] I know, but the point is I can use print becuase it's intuitive to a basic programmer. I can't even guess yet at the rest [20:01] should be a challenge. [20:01] hehe [20:01] Anyway i have to go. Thanks for curing a serious headache for me [20:01] bye [20:01] Will something like 'Dive into Python' help? [20:02]