Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Proprietary charging cables are devil's work (Score 1) 285

Why would you need 12V for it to work for laptops?

Because at 5V you need to pull 3X as many amps over the wire to meet the power needs... Probably MORE, with conversion losses.

So, for a laptop that draws 90W (pretty common), at USB's 5V, that's over 20amps. Do you know what a USB cable that can supply 20amps will look like? Here's a hint: Those big long heavy orange $20+ extension cords are only rated for 15amps.

Comment Re:Unitasking cables are dumb design (Score 1) 285

If you are one of these deluded people who thinks we can do everything through wireless then you couldn't be more wrong.

I never said that, and your feigned outrage as you distort what I said isn't helping your argument.

When it comes to phones, yes, we could eliminate data cables. We certainly don't need them often, so it's ridiculous to pretend we need data (rarely used) and power (frequently needed) combined.

Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember every frickin' cell phone vendor shipping their own unique power cable.

Yes I am... and they were ALL combined power + data. If they didn't tack data onto it, they could have used simple barrel connectors. That's how you end up with proprietary connectors... tacking-on new mis-features.

Who gives a shit?

You do, genius. Don't you remember what you JUST SAID?

"USB just needs to settle on a single un-keyed connector that can carry enough power to run a laptop" -sjbe

Single function cables are idiotic, wasteful and unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

No, in fact we've got decades of history to prove they're the best options, all-around, every time.

Demonstrably not true and completely missing the point.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that, because you're spouting nonsense. Tiny pins can't take a fraction the force of big solid metal barrels. And you're missing the point that broken USB cables, and worse, jacks, are a HUGE and ridiculously common failure mode, resulting in tons of money being wasted, and a great many phones being thrown away for no other reason.

Having to carry a special quasi-unique power cord around everywhere is idiotic design.

Laptop connectors don't have many variations, and they could easily settle on a single one, if just a fraction the government interest that was put on phones to get micro-USB MANDATED, was directed towards other devices like laptops.

Barrel connectors have their uses but powering a laptop, tablet, cellphone or other mobile device should not be one of them. It is wasteful, unnecessary, and provides no meaningful performance benefit.

You're actually describing USB... It has its uses, but it's a clumsy and fragile piece of shit as a power supply. Barrel connectors are nearly the perfect design for just such a task. Hell, the headphone jacks one cell phones tablets and laptos, which nobody ever has trouble with, is proof enough of the durability of such a simple connector design.

Comment Re:Discussed before (Score 1) 285

For years, firewire buried usb in terms of hard drive transfer speeds. (solid 800mbps vs laggy 480mbps) But it was during this time that PC motherboard manufacturers stubbornly refused to put firewire ports on their boards. Also during this time, it was difficult to impossible to boot a windows computer from an external drive. These factors led to almost a decade of time where the macs were the only computers that commonly used high performing external storage.

Uhh, not really... Even Apple balked at the expense of Firewire-800, and mostly stuck with 400, except in their most expensive products.

When Firewire-800 was introduced, hard drives couldn't even keep-up with Firewire-400 or USB2 speeds. Even the 15,000 RPM Seagate Cheetah drives introduced around 2002 had maximum throughput of 60MB/sec, while their average was lower.

Firewire-800 was 2002... Around 2004, higher-end PCs started getting eSATA connectors that were at worst TWICE AS FAST as Firewire-800. And yes, as above, eSATA was much faster than necessary, too. Most hard drives, particularly external 2.5" ones, weren't seriously bottle-necked by USB2 speeds, which is why USB3 took so long to materialize.

Comment Re:Discussed before (Score 1) 285

But I thought that USB 2 was inadequate, or rather, that High Speed USB was inadequate, and that they needed Super Speed USB (3) in order to get video transfers enabled over USB

USB2 is just fast enough to about max-out the transfer speed of a Class-6 SD card (i.e. real-time), which is on the high-end and more than fast enough for 1080 video recordings (can usually get away with Class-4).

You'll only need speeds above that for all I-frames/stills in 1080 (e.g. for studio use) or 4K recording... And even then, you could still transfer the data over USB2 if needed, just at less-than real-time.

Comment Re:Proprietary charging cables are devil's work (Score 1) 285

Power and data can and should go over the same cables.

We no longer need ANY CABLE for data. Your saddling yourself with restrictions to satisfy a long-lost need. And...

Proprietary charging cables are wasteful, annoying, redundant, and unnecessary

It's only where POWER and DATA go over the same cable that we end up with horrible proprietary crap! If phones had power-only cables, they'd have been simple, standard barrel connectors.

Now USB just needs to settle on a single un-keyed connector that can carry enough power to run a laptop

Laptops have had that forever... Their simple barrel connectors can pull 200W+, no trouble at all. And no USB connector will ever be 1/100th as durable as a tough, simple, basic barrel connector.

There's only ONE THING I give USB credit for... It sucked the air out of all the subtle variation of voltages around its range. Instead of devices that needed 3V, some that needed 6V, and others that needed 4.5V, and even with some that wanted 7.5V, now all those devices will have mini-USB plugs (usually not micro-usb), and run on 5V.

Of course if every smartphone charger on the planet switched to 12V, it would have the same effect on laptops, and all other devices that use any voltages anywhere around that range.

Comment Re:Not replaced: serial and parallel ports. (Score 1) 285

It is also unnecessary 99.9% of the time. Nearly all RS232 devices and hosts will work just fine with TTL voltages (+5V/GND).

I wish that were true, but it sure as hell isn't!

Sure, MANY devices accept TTL voltage RS232, but a big number DO NOT. So if you depend on that USB-RS232 adapter, you'll be left standing around, looking like a moron.

Just had to configure a brand new smart PDU a while ago... Absolutely no activity to my company laptop via USB. Bad cable? Incorrect wiring? Defective PDU? Nope... Plugged that cable to a server with an actual RS232 port, and it works flawlessly.

I wish I could find USB-RS232 adapters that actually output the proper voltages...

Comment Re:Discussed before (Score 1) 285

USB is dirt cheap. You can have a separate bus-per-device if you so desire. That will easily eliminate all contention.

And what you really mean is USB is useless for REAL-TIME work... When USB can do faster-than-realtime for you, the contention and other gripes aren't much of an issue. Firewire is dying out in production video shops, too, though it has been (almost-) replaced by several different alternatives, not (just) USB.

Comment Re:Discussed before (Score 1) 285

Firewire is long dead, except for a few niches in the industry.

DV cameras were the one and only practical consumer application of firewire, and they've been obsolete and forgotten for many years. Once you eliminate DV tape and switch to solid-state, you eliminate the need for the fixed-bit-rate codec, and can easily transfer faster-than-real-time over USB2.

In fact, you can skip the USB cables, and transfer your videos over WiFi these days, even with sub-$100 camcorders...

Comment Re:"Failed" push for renewables? (Score 3, Insightful) 349

Nuclear is an over-centralized, expensive, and dangerous technology based on a limited fuel source.

You want to call Nuclear over-centralized and expensive in the same breath you praise wind? Take a good look at the Pickens Plan:

"New transmission lines, worth $64 billion to $128 billion, would be needed to carry the power from the windmills to the cities. Pickens [...] said the government should begin building transmission lines for wind-generated power in the same way that President Eisenhower did by declaring an emergency to build the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s."

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 232

As for the mountain ranges I bet there are TV repeaters on top of those ridges.

Absolutely not. ATSC doesn't really support single-frequency networks/repeaters.

2edge, 60 miles away, and -117dBm according to TVFool, yet good-enough reception for my purposes (some channels break-up more than others).

50 miles south of the Jacksonville ones.

That sounds entirely doable, even with pine trees. At least Florida doesn't throw mountains in the way. Trying TVFool with a zip of 32134, it says you have very good signal strength, even at that distance.

Ten years ago I got a new extreme range one, didn't help.

Every cheap $20 antenna claims to get extreme-range reception... that doesn't mean they do. What you need is an 8-bay for UHF, like a Winegard 8800, combined with a mast-mounted preamp like the RCA TVPRAMP1R. For VHF stations, an AntennaCraft y10-7-13, connected to that same preamp. Even with the large obstructions, I have no doubt you'll get solid reception.

And yes I want to watch what I want, my sports and The Walking Dead.

You're welcome to do what you want... Just not justifying it by pretending you don't have any (free) alternatives, when it looks like you're got a far better signal than many of us who go the free route.

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 232

I meant I'd have to go to 350 ft to get signal that I could actually watch reliably.

That still makes zero sense. How high your antenna tower needs to be is directly correlated with how good your antenna is, (and how many of them you install together). TVFool contains NO INFORMATION on how good antennas are, so it never (directly) tells anyone how tall of a tower they need. So it seems you're making some big assumptions, somewhere, which likely aren't accurate. You were quick to claim you were technically adept, but haven't shown any knowledge of RF, thus far. The quickest way to get at the facts of the matter would be to give a rough location, so your claim could be verified, or useful advice could be give to correct your misunderstanding.

One simple hint: Using TWO antennas is equivalent to doubling the height of your tower. Four antennas doubles it, again. Even taking your unexplained "350ft" antenna tower at face value, a quad antenna setup gets you down under 90ft, which is far more manageable.

Comment Re:If you're a $100k/yr engineer (Score 1) 443

It's pretty well documented. Wealthy and educated people get treatment programs, while poor (and let's face it, black) people get jail. It's because what we're really using our drug policy for is to keep the poors in check.

What's even better documented is the fact poor black people get harsher sentences, because poor black people vote for politicians who advocate tougher sentences in their jurisdictions.

It's unfortunate, but it's caused by sociological factors, NOT a grand conspiracy by white people to keep black people down...

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 232

TV Fools says I would need a 350 ft tower to get any signal

That makes no sense. Except for the dark side of the moon, there's no place on Earth where you'd have ZERO radio signals. TVFool doesn't have a zero value that it would ever show. It might show stations in RED or GREY as a quick hint that the signal isn't strong, but a good antenna can handle very weak signals in those ranges.

So what is TVFool showing as the dBm of your strongest network station? I've got good (but not perfect) reception with ATSC signals as weak as -120 dBm, with just a single good 4-bay UHF antenna and preamp. And mine are all 2Edge reception...

If you really are on the fringes, it's possible touse two or even FOUR antennas, together, to pull-in even weaker signals without a huge tower.

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 232

I watch live events carried only on ESPN. Or a certain few programs only available on cable

There are plenty of people who have become accustomed to the shows they watch on cable, and just refuse to adapt to the near-equivalents available OTA. You're not unique in that aspect, but I'm completely unsympathetic to those who are merely set in their ways. And you really are part of the problem, one of those making it profitable to lock-up content under expensive paid TV service packages.

I have to have the satellite for broadcast channels also because I live in the middle of a pine forest and would need a 100 ft tower to get an antenna over the trees.

OTA TV signals do NOT require line-of-sight. In my case, I've got TWO mountain ranges in my way, but I still get OTA television.

What's your zip code? I looked-up Yosemite, since that was the first (and biggest) "pine forest" which came to mind, and found a good TV antenna 20ft above ground can EASILY receive all the major network stations in the area. Of course you could be in one of the few areas in the country where OTA signals are too far away, but it sounds like you've really never tried, and you've always just assumed the worst.

"Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain