Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?

Yes.

Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Comment Smart cables (Score 1) 90

The cables have an ID chip in them that will specify their rating as to amps and voltage, plus a few other things. If you read my USB-PD story linked above, you will get the details. In short both ends start at the USB base and negotiate up their capabilities for voltage and amperage for send, receive, or both. They will do this within the bounds of the cable connecting them, and while both sides have limited capabilities to sense the cable properties, they really depend on the USB-PD ID chip.

This ID chip is of course counterfeit-proof, something we know that low end manufacturers are not capable of cloning or getting around in, oh, say, 12 seconds. So in short DO NOT BUY CHEAP/NO-NAME USB-PD CABLES FROM EVEN A POSSIBLY QUESTIONABLE SOURCE. Amazon, I am looking at you. Really. 100W = big fire quickly.

            -Charlie

Comment Re:Google is being dumb (Score 1) 90

Basically yes, but not necessarily operating the phone circuit at optimal efficiency. I think it is engineered to charge the battery as quickly as possible while minimizing damage/degradation to the cells. The charger circuitry efficiency is a big concern too, but secondary to preserving the cell life. That said this problem is optimization on a dozen axis or more, not just A vs B.

              -Charlie

Comment Re:Never fast enough will lead to disaster. (Score 1) 90

The GN7 used QC2 from what I understand, likely because of their decision to split the GS7's SoC between QC and Samsung parts. I know that the phone version used QC2 because of lowest common denominator support and I am fairly sure that carried over to the Note.

That said the problem with the GN7's fires was not a battery defect but a manufacturing/assembly problem where the batteries were physically damaged and 'crimped' to the point where they internally shorted. I should be talking to someone today who probably knows if the QC-like tech has the ability to detect and stop this. I doubt it, but I am going to ask anyway.

                  -Charlie

Comment Re:Google is being dumb (Score 1) 90

Yes. First see what the guy below said (currently ranked 0 but worth a read), and then there is the responsiveness. USB-PD doesn't have the granularity and speed to deliver power in a way that won't hurt the battery. It can't shift quickly enough of finely enough to avoid hurting the battery. Could you do the same with USB-PD? Eventually yes, but it is really designed for charging laptops and powering big monitors, not for careful charging of mobile devices.

As was said below, you effectively have to dissipate the pressure of the firehose from USB-PD, QC3 and possibly others allow you to modify the inputs to your requirements from the source. This allows you to both match your input requirements precisely and to avoid generating heat at the source (charger) rather than on the device itself. Heat is REALLY bad for battery life, that alone makes schemes like QC3 worth it.

              -Charlie

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...