Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:20 year lifespan (Score 1) 372

You cannot just wave your arms and mumble a lot of words and pretend they are the same.

I think you should be heeding some of your own advice there, buddy. Normally, I don't feed trolls, but I'm feeling particularly ornery today, so here goes...

So you're now quoting the very same layman's definition of a "ballast" from Wikipedia I referenced in our previous discussion here to belittle someone else for not being "educated"? This, coming from the same troll who was unable/unwilling to comprehend the fact that an offline LED power supply (whether a simple, linear deign, or a more complicated SMPS type) was analogous to a gas discharge lamp ballast... That's rich.

LED's require their junction current to be limited, period. However, when the power source cannot be configured to supply "constant current", and is a "constant voltage" type, a series resistor is inserted in circuit, with it's value selected based on desired junction current, source voltage, and junction voltage. That series resistance (whether supplied from winding resistance, external resistor, or a combination of both) is known as... ballast resistance.

Rather than continuing to cultivate your own astonishing ignorance on subject matters you obviously know less than nothing about, I'd suggest you search that empty head of yours and try to locate two brain cells to rub together, educate yourself before you speak/type, and try to form a coherent thought. I know that may be a stretch for you, but give it a try - you'd be a better person for it.

And, if you aren't willing to actually try, then shut your trap.


Comment Re:20 year lifespan (Score 1) 372

In the future, I suggest you do a little research of your own before you accuse others being "ignorant". Unfortunately, I fear that bit of advice is nothing more than wasted words on a blunt object such as yourself. But, I welcome you to prove my fears unfounded.

Moving on, let's consult Wikipedia for a reasonable common-man's look at the disputed subject matter... From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast we have:

"An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of current in an electric circuit." Seems pretty straightforward.

Applying that to LED lighting, LED's must have their junction current limited. Ideally, for a constant brightness and reasonable life expectation, it should be fairly tightly regulated regulated - usually by a circuit most often referred to as a switch mode power supply, operating in a "current regulation" mode.

Therefore, as I said in my reply, it's proper to refer to it as a "power supply". However, in terms of a "ballast" used in gas discharge lamps, it's performing the same function.

Hence referring to is as an "analogue". Perhaps you need to look that up? Here, I'll help you with that - https://www.google.com/search?q=analogue+definition

Are there any other multi-syllable, "big" words you're having trouble comprehending in either of my replies? I can try to help you with those too if you'd like...


Comment Re:20 year lifespan (Score 2) 372

Well, if you consider a "ballast" as a sort of "power supply", then, yes, there most certainly are "ballasts" in many LED lamps.

LED traffic lights usually have several long-ish strings of LED's (each with a voltage drop of ~2V) wired together so that the drop resistor does not need to dissipate much heat under normal operation - identical in concept to a string of common LED Christmas lights. In the case where there are these long series connected LED strings, it's true that there's no "ballast" per-se.

But, in the case of replacement LED bulbs (40W, 60W, 80W "equivalent" bulbs commonly available now), there is indeed a power supply circuit inside each bulb that regulates the LED current, and some (many, now) provide for phase controlled dimmability too.

LED "flood lights", which would include street lamps, also have a fairly sophisticated power supply in them, particularly important where the power to the lamp housing can be less than ideal, and subjected to large voltage spikes/transients - which can be downright deadly to the light emitting diode junctions in the LED (amongst other things). To get the long lifespan, the power supply circuitry needs to be well designed, built with high quality components, and the LED's themselves need proper thermal management. Not impossible, but not cheap either.

So, in the case of "cheap" LED lights, there isn't necessarily a "ballast". Anything more efficient or higher luminosity than that, there is a "power supply" which would the be LED analogue to a "ballast".


Comment Re:That's not a refund. (Score 1) 215

Ironically, a cogent argument seems to be the antithesis of your rebuttal(s).

In an attempt to coax you into offering up a meaningful, cogent counter-argument of your own, I would ask you one simple question:

Why did Apple offer up a $22.99 "refund" to all Breaking Bad Season 5 HD "Season Pass" customers when you, in your own incredibly educated opinion, loudly proclaim to have had absolutely no reason to do so?

Normally, I'd be glad to debate your chemical-free toilet paper example with you. But, I'm afraid I currently have no faith that you're capable of discussing it intelligently, and your counter would reek more than your example product once used.

When you finish high school and are hopefully able to use several multi-syllable words together to form a coherent counter argument, please reply. Until then, please go back to Facebook and playing Candy Crush Saga on your Android phone.

Comment Re:That's not a refund. (Score 1) 215

This may be asking for too much, but I'll try to use smaller words here so that you might actually be able to comprehend the issue at hand.

It matters not what the price is, or what the product is called. The issue is with false/misleading representation of what the offered product consisted of.

Apple iTunes initially offered for sale a "Season Pass" of Breaking Bad Season 5. No disclaimer was made within the iTunes Store at the time of purchase stating that it included only episodes 1 through 8, or that it was a "half season", or that the other half of the season was going to be offered up separately as "Season 6" or "The Final Season". Further, no indication of that information was present on the receipt from iTunes.

So it comes down to being a false/misleading advertising through the manipulation of terms - specifically the term "season".

From laws-dot-com, we have "Advertising law also recognizes the manipulation of standards as a deception under consumer law. This means that a company will begin to change something, such as a unit of measurement, to mean something different from how it is normally understood. This will allow companies to charge more for their services, but is a violation of rights according to consumer law." In this specific case, the "unit of measurement" being manipulated is the length of a TV season.

Based on both of those commonly held interpretations, the issue is with what exactly comprises a television "season". And, fortunately that much is an immutable fact - by AMC's own publicized information, Breaking Bad Season 5 consists of 16 episodes.

As to who's responsible for resolving the debacle, that too is clear. The customer purchases the content from Apple iTunes, not from AMC or Sony Entertainment. The money goes to Apple first, who takes their cut and then disburses the remainder. There is no legal recourse or remedy to be had from any other party than Apple here, contrary to what all of the fanboi shills want to proclaim at the top of their lungs.

iTunes is Apple's content "walled garden", so by design they accept responsibility for the good and the bad that comes of it. If AMC/Sony chose or directed iTunes to represent the first eight episodes as "season 5", and the last eight episodes as something else - that's Apple's problem to resolve with both the content provider, and their customers. How Apple resolves it with AMC/Sony is a separate matter completely.

This was a case of false/deceptive advertising, plain and simple. And, that is also exactly why Apple did what it did.

Fanboi? Unclear. Obtuse? Apparently.

Comment Re:My views of ownership may differ from yours (Score 1) 561

I have this belief that if I buy something I can do what the hell I want with it.

Which is indeed the case.

You can do whatever you want with it. That includes figuring out how to install Linux on it.

Microsoft has no obligation to assist or otherwise support you in that effort.

End of discussion.


Submission + - Shady Registrar Renewal Practices?

pagley writes: "Today, I recieved yet another "Gold VIP Renewal Notice" from Network Solutions with an ominous warning "SERVICES DUE TO EXPIRE: 3", with three of my domain names boldly listed as "EXPIRED". And, the ramifications of not renewing were quite clearly detailed in the statement "Please Note: For expired domain names, unless you renew immediately upon receipt of this notification, the expired domain name(s) listed above will be deleted from your account and we may, in accordance with our service agreement, attempt to renew and transfer this domain name(s) to a third party on your behalf."

In other words, pay us right now, or we will delete the domain from your account and/or sell it to a squatter.

All three domains were up for renewal on December 9, were not set to auto-renew, and were manually renewed for two years on December 5. They all currently show the correct expiry date via WHOIS, and are perfectly safe from being snapped up by a squatter.

This last renewal email comes exactly one week after the domains were renewed, and states that "This information is current as of 12/4/07" — a day before the renewal took place.

The curious part of all of this is that:

1) The information in this email is a week old — an eternity in Internet time, particularly for a company who is responsible for replicating huge chunks of DNS zone information across the Internet several times a day.
2) The tone of the email is threatening, to say the least.
3) The timing of the notice conincides identically with other past notices from NetSol regarding domains which were near expiry, had been renewed, only to recieve another expiration notice a week after the fact.

I doubt that any of this is coincidence, and feel the timing and tone of the notices are intended to provoke an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to renew immediately when it's not necessary. Granted, the CYA "accurate as of" statement probably insulates them from legal issues, but I feel this is essentially a borderline legal phishing scheme.

What other registrars and what other scare-tactics have you seen employed in an attempt to get you to renew or transfer a domain name that has already been renewed or otherwise in no danger of expiry?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.