Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Pi Power - the power supply the Raspberry Pi *should* have come with->

Submitted by nsayer
nsayer (86181) writes "The Raspberry Pi is awesome. There's only one thing I dislike about it — how you're meant to power it. Crappy USB power supplies are ubiquitous, and the power more or less goes straight onto the +5 rail. Not only that, but the micro USB connector is SMT, and USB cables are much thicker and heavier than their 2.1mm barrel connector cable counterparts. No, it's just not the best tool for the job.

So I made Pi Power. It's a small board that sits on the GPIO pins (it comes with a stacking header so you can piggyback onto it) and has a 2.1mm barrel connector that will accept any DC voltage from 6-15 volts and output up to 2A of well regulated 5V power.

I sell them on Tindie for $15 ( https://www.tindie.com/product... ) and am running an IndieGoGo campaign to fund building 1000 of them at http://igg.me/at/PiPower ."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Not the United States (Score 1) 922

by nsayer (#39511823) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For 'Offensive Tweets'

So fundamentally my argument is that whatever scraps of paper exist that might be described as a constitution in the UK merely say that Parliament can do whatever the hell it wants. You're quibbling about the mere existence of those scraps of paper while ignoring my fundamental argument which is that whether they exist or not they have no value whatsoever.

Comment: Re:Not the United States (Score 1) 922

by nsayer (#39503339) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For 'Offensive Tweets'

Ok, douchebag. Maybe that quotation wasn't the best one. Look a bit further up on that same wikipedia page, and you'll find this one:

Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
—A.V. Dicey Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)

Comment: Re:Free speech dead in UK (Score 1) 922

by nsayer (#39490517) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For 'Offensive Tweets'

Even the ECHR was merely agreed to via an Act of Parliament. A future Parliament would have no legal encumbrance to repealing it. The UK Parliament is supremely sovereign. There's no law in the UK other than, ultimately, what Parliament passes. And there's no law they can't repeal, should they so choose. Their only restraint is custom and electability.

Comment: Cameras (Score 1) 414

by nsayer (#39478775) Attached to: Maybe the FAA Gadget Ban On Liftoff and Landing Isn't So Bad

I just want to use my camera. Like virtually all cameras made in the last 20 years, it qualifies as an electronic device. The last time I flew into Newark, I was treated to breathtaking vistas of the Manhattan skyline, including the Empire State building in full plumage. I can't share those memories because of FAA stupidity.

Comment: Re:4chan gets it wrong again... (Score 1) 363

by nsayer (#33486080) Attached to: 4chan Gives 90-Year-Old Vet a Great Birthday

Don't forget this, btw... The US did not declare war against Germany until Germany made such a declaration first, after the US declared war on Japan. Germany was not bound by the tri-partite pact to honor Japan's "de-facto" declaration of war (to wit, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), and it's quite possible that had Hitler not so declared that the US might have gone on to fight a one-front war against Japan only. I (and I don't believe I am alone in this) regard Germany's declaration of war against the US to be Hitler's first major blunder (not counting things before his rise to power, like the Beer Hall Putsch).

Comment: Snow leopard had this first (Score 1, Redundant) 163

by nsayer (#32557938) Attached to: Microsoft's Sleep Proxy Lowers PC Energy Use

So... Microsoft's "research" seems to come from reading competitor's product specifications: my AirPort Extreme has been doing this for my network of macs for ages now - ever since Snow Leopard came out.

This is WoL combined with a proxy. Whenever the target machine is asleep, the proxy continues to respond (in this case) to Bonjour requests. When someone attempts to actually connect to the machine, the proxy sends a WoL packet out and then when the original host wakes up, it will hear from the requesting host and proceed as normal.

The one thing that's a little weird about this is that the AirPort extreme will actually wake the target machine up every few hours to make sure it's still there.

Comment: Why the hate for 6to4? (Score 1) 204

by nsayer (#32094630) Attached to: Mac OS X Problem Puts Up a Block To IPv6

I've been using 6to4 ever since the 6bone shut down, and I've had no problems with it. In fact, it seems to me there are only two possible problems with 6to4 generally:

1. Bastard ISPs could, if they deeply inspect packets, see 6-in-4 packets generally as different or undesirable or whatever and do bad things like they do with bittorrent.

2. The 6to4 anycast default route as a mechanism to get from 6to4 space to the "real" IPv6 space can sometimes send your packets to a non-optimal gateway. The fix for this is simply for more such gateways to be created - preferably one (or more) per ISP - so that the traffic can be routed optimally.

I wanted to opt into Google over IPv6, but when I wrote them they told me to pound sand because I was using 6to4.

Comment: Re:-1 False Assumption (Score 1) 976

by nsayer (#31828324) Attached to: Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows

This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?

Because someone was asleep at the switch.

It used to be that the light turned green immediately after the light the other way turned red. Everybody knew this, and gave the yellow light a lot more respect than they do today.

Then some numb-nut thought it would be a good idea to separate the end of the yellow from the beginning of the (opposing) green. And as soon as they did, people adapted and yellow lights lost a measure of the respect they had before.

And now, there's no going back. It would be unsafe to get rid of the buffer because it's expected now.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (4) How many times do we have to tell you, "No prior art!"

Working...