The loop macro is, in essence, part of the compiler or the standard library. It is code that processes code during compilation. I'm not surprised that it's nontrivial.
So, if I, like, say like every, umm, like every few words, does that make it, like, acceptable, and best to be, like, ignored? It's not a common figure of speech. It's something that people choose to use, whether consciously or not, to sound more educated, it seems. I accept no excuses at all, and yes, I will not try to ignore it. I won't lose sleep over it either, but ignoring other's mistakes is counterproductive. Hopefully you'll reform and stop using that "figure of speech". I put it in quotes, because real figures of speech might get offended otherwise.
The formatting comes naturally. I'm always logged in. Everyfuckingwhere. So there:)
It's so bad that when I was biking, I decided to have two gopro HD cameras -- one on the helmet, another under the seat looking backwards. I tried biking to work, but the footage from the rear facing camera would show one very close call every other day or so, and many so-so close calls every day. The benefit of HD cameras with solid state memory is that it's expected to survive crashes, and you can clearly make out license plates, and often driver's faces, too. I decided it was too much of a risk, I don't bike anymore.
My wife would pass for a "soccer mom", but she drives a sedan, not an SUV. And for the car to cope with her driving style, I needed to upgrade her sway bars, add a front chassis brace, and get her much better front tires. The end links last about a year, then they all start clunking and need replacement:) Admittedly, the car drives much better after this work.
If she were distracted, she'd probably cause a minor pileup somewhere. Her driving style is very incompatible with distractions. The rule in the car is: the 8 year old has to keep her mouth shut, and the 1 year old is ignored (what else can you do, he won't die). The cellphone is in the trunk.
I beg you never to use that phrase again. It's some idiocy that a newshead must have come up with, and everyone is repeating it, having no clue what it means. Rate of speed [change] is acceleration. That's not what you meant. </rant>
When you mean speed, just say speed. Want to sound more scientificky? Say velocity. Sigh.
The Huygens fiasco was even posted on Slashdot back in 2004.
And I've read about it back then, that's why I immediately got a chuckle out of coward's post. I've messed simple things like that. You need detailed procedures (and follow them) to avoid messing up like so. I'm glad I don't deal with aerospace stuff.
Their measurement techniques are poor. I wouldn't even buy the authors a beer, that's how poor it is. They are measuring something else, not the real variations in decay rate.
I'd worry about the opposite effect of America gutting the science programs: that you have uneducated masses of pitchfork-wielding idiots who live in the 21st century and have about as much knowledge about the world as the medieval peasants had. And they go to the polls and vote.
Nothing much. I'm recalling from HS biology a good 15 years ago, but here's what I remember: In case of animals with intestines, the amino acids would likely be transported into the absorptive cells in the lining of small intestine. I don't think that the transport mechanism is very selective. Once there, they get reexported into the bloodstream. Assuming that the presence of that new amino acid doesn't somehow destroy the absorptive cells in your gut, you're OK up to this point.
Then the amino acids can be used for various things. They could be used for energy (as a last resort), but some particular ones are useless for that -- I have no idea whether the artificial one would be good for that. They could be used for building proteins, but since the feeding organism doesn't have any code to produce proteins that use such amino acids, they'd be perhaps useless here. Some amino acids can be synthesized inside of a cell, and some can't, and those latter ones are called essential amino acids and must come from the diet. The new amino acids would be useless in that respect -- they'd certainly be nonessential, and would remain so. I.e. there's no way I could think of that would "poison" an organism and make an amino acid essential that wasn't so before -- it couldn't make an animal chemically dependent on it, at least not in the metabolic sense. Perhaps there'd be some neural mechanisms that could be triggered, but that's a whole different ballgame.
About my only worry is that the new amino acid would inhibit some of the pathways that are needed to maintain normal operation of the feeder organism's cells. So it may have a toxic effect.
Since I have pretty much no clue what I'm talking about, if someone else could chime in, I'm all ears.
Look at it from the commercialization angle, I think you may be up to something. But I don't really see Japan as a big copier -- or maybe I'm just ignorant in this respect?
Engineers have messed up precisely simple stuff like Doppler shifts!
The Huygens mission to Titan would have been essentially lost if it weren't for one guy (Popken IIRC) who had a hunch that the Doppler shift wasn't correctly set up for receiver testing, and has done additional testing on the system while it was still enroute with Cassini to Saturn.
The Huygens telemetry receiver was based on a design that had operated successfully on several earlier space missions. That receiver was able to cope with a Doppler shift at data rates of up to 2 kilobits per second (Kb/s). The data rate between Huygens and Cassini, however, was 8 kb/s—four times faster.
Due to an implementation error, a scaling parameter in the Huygens receiver’s embedded software was not adjusted to accommodate the higher data rate. As a result, the bandwidth of the receiver’s bit synchronizer was too narrow to compensate for the Doppler shift of the data stream frequency.
What about engineers messing up units of measure, resulting in a loss of $300M mission:
The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces). The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a MSOP Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric units of Newtonseconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers. Subsequent processing of the data from AMD file by the navigation software algorithm therefore, underestimated the effect on the spacecraft trajectory by a factor of 4.45, which is the required conversion factor from force in pounds to Newtons. An erroneous trajectory was computed using this incorrect data.
How many companies out there sell internet access *and* padlocks? +1 for Czech resourcefullness.:)
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Someone going by radagast posted the below in the msnbc.com comment section on TFA. It's very well said, so I'll just cite it to preserve it in case msnbc ever wipes their old comments (that wouldn't be the first time):
Nowhere in the health care bill does the government "takeover" healthcare. They simply mandate that everyone be covered. The health care you would buy under the plan will still be administered by private, competing companies. Our system will not be a "socialized" version of Canada, nor will there be government employees administering your plan.
Holy @!$%#, holy @!$%#. It's been two years and still this misinformed tripe continues to bubble up as "knowledge." Why don't some of you who hate progressives do something to better America? The only ones who seem willing to try are the progressives. Slandering what they do only defeats your own self interest.
Drug companies do not develop cell therapies, they develop small molecule drugs. You might as well blame Ford Motor Co. when the crops fail. Cancer is a collection of thousands of different diseases which present differently in nearly all patients. It is one of the most intellectually and technically challenging problems in human history. Millions of people are working on it. Many cancers are curable right now. Many drugs are effective (despite your widely held belief that there are no cures). Other forms can be managed, while still other forms remain a death sentence.
If you want cures - THEN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND MONEY ON BASIC RESEARCH. Cutting government funding cuts basic science, which keeps scientists from advancing in a great many fields - cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, the list is exceptionally long. Putting academic scientists (the average scientist in academia makes ~ $30-40,000) out of work seems to be what some of you want. These men and women who have sacrificed much of their lives and money to solving these problems are starving for funding. There will be only one result. The quality of research will deteriorate. People will be forced to cut corners and make mistakes as they claw for the scraps from Congress.
Even so, drug companies play their part because they have some of the best private funding and funding derived from their profits. The notion that they won't research cures or that they don't want cures because they will lose money is personally insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who perform some of the most advanced research in these fields. Research that would put your simple minds to shame by its depth and breadth of ingenuity and know-how. When there is a cure it is gotten to market as fast as possible and gotten into the hands of doctors as fast as possible. There are endless examples of this.
Do you really think that these private sector workers don't have family members who have died? Do you think that they don't read the same headlines? They know the challenge better than any of you and they know the face of the disease better than you. If there really was any validity to the notion that drug companies are standing in the way of cures, then the people who would be complaining the loudest would be those who work in them. They would be complaining very loudly that their work is not getting out because of the company's supposed policies. How many of those people do we hear from?
NONE.
You people who traffic in nonsense and politically motivated tripe are the reason our Congress is the way it is. Look at yourselves and the ignorance you spread as fact. Shame. Nothing but rumor mongers, denialists, and idiots. Our Congress is a reflection of the American people and the American people continue to prove they are shamelessly and willfully ignorant, belligerant, and infantile. If you can't handle the internet like adults maybe we should take it away from you.
It's really silly to argue about electrical insulation and current ratings when USB spec is pretty damn clear about it:
5.6 Electrical Requirements This section covers the electrical requirements for USB 3.0 raw cables, mated connectors, and mated cable assemblies. [...] The requirements in the section apply to all USB 3.0 connectors and/or cable assemblies unless specified otherwise
5.6.2.2 Dielectric Strength (EIA 364-20) No breakdown shall occur when 100 Volts AC (RMS) is applied between adjacent contacts of unmated and mated connectors.
5.6.2.4 Contact Current Rating (EIA 364-70, Method 2) A current of 1.8 A shall be applied to VBUS pin and its corresponding GND pin (pin 1 and pin 4 of the USB 3.0 Standard-A and Standard-B/Powered-B connectors; pin 1 and pin 5 of the USB 3.0 Micro connector family). Additionally, a minimum current of 0.25 A shall be applied to all the other contacts. When the current is applied to the contacts, the delta temperature shall not exceed +30 C at any point on the USB 3.0 connectors under test, when measured at an ambient temperature of 25 C.
That means that 43W @ 48V is perfectly safe. The fire risk at such current ant voltage is someone's imagination and fearmongering. How can making stuff up when the standard is freely available be called "decent engineering" I don't know.
"His damn point" is that he is just talking out his ass, as if all USB3 cables were doomed. SOME USB3 cables (those long enough) will be perfectly suitable for 100W use simply by meeting the current spec (and not some future spec!) -- abridged table:
11.4.7 Wire Gauge Table Table 11-3 is a table of VBUS/Gnd wire gauges showing the relationship between gauge and maximum length in order to achieve the previously cited voltage drop values. The user should note that these lengths are the maximum length possible to meet the voltage drop budget, thus gauges smaller and lengths greater than the table values will fail to deliver the expected voltage value. Table 11-3. VBUS/Gnd Wire Gauge vs. Maximum Length American Stranded Wire Gauge (AWG) on VBUS/Gnd | Maximum Cable Length (Meters) #28 0.8 #26 1.3 #24 2.0 #22 3.0 #20 5.3
Some others (below 2.0m, as those can use #26 and smaller wire) won't and that's why I've said that they'll likely do a minor modification: a cable-identifying means, perhaps with a resistor as to avoid retooling the connectors. What you, and the GP is saying has the tone of "sky is falling", whereas nothing of the sort is really going on.
Agreed. The worst thing you can do is to let Chinese assemble your entire product that contains electronics. Here's what will happen: once you're happy with what you're getting, they'll start reverse engineering the design to cheapen it up. They'll start by removing the decoupling capacitors until it stops working, and then they'll put some back. They'll change to capacitors with less stable dielectrics -- say X5R/X7R to Y5V to Z7U. The latter can lose 75% of their capacitance when brought up to working voltage. They'll change metal film or thin film resistors to cheaper thick film. They'll replace low tempco resistors with ones with worse tempco. They'll use electrolytic capacitors with worse temperature and lifetime ratings. They'll use cheaper, knockoff electromechanical components like switches. And so it goes. All while lying through their teeth about it. The rule with Chinese electronics production is this: if you must, get the boards assembled there, but under no circumstances are test setups to be made available, other than basic electrical test for continuity/impedance. You get their best-effort boards and you functionally test and package them elsewhere. The Chinese seriously seem to think that if it works when it leaves the production line, everything is fine. Long-term reliability is a concept that must be foreign.
WTF are you talking about w.r.t. the ISA bus? ISA was a fundamentally slow bus, using single-ended transmission lines and data strobing that was never meant for a bus with multiple connectors on it. ISA is basically what a Z80 CPU bus looked like, with an extra control line or two. It works fine on one PC board, but as soon as you bring connectors into the mix, you're up for trouble. There was no way to keep it working and making it faster, too. It was a technological dead end, so to speak. Good for what it was, and that's it. It's still used in embedded computing -- PC 104 is nowhere near dead, and if all you have is a couple serial ports or other "slow" devices (even a text mode display), ISA is perfectly adequate.
How the heck could you call PCI (the major bus that came after ISA) "patented technology to astro-turf ontop of existing open standards" -- that I just don't know. If that's what you meant, that is, because your rant is hard to comprehend.
Nope, that's not how it works. Soviets did the same thing, and they never caught up, because if all you do is copy, you can't. Copying takes time. There's no chance of catching up. You'll perpetually be years behind the curve.
What you claim is not how nature works. Sorry about that, but that's how it is. You've got to accept it for what it is. That's why we have high voltage transmission lines: high voltage decreases the current, and thus self-heating losses. There are transmission lines that carry hundreds of megawatts of power in wires that are merely thick as your thumb.
Again: the amount of heat a conductor produces is only depending on its resistance and current flowing through it. The voltage does not figure anywhere in this. The resistance goes up slightly as the conductor heats up, but to the first approximation it's a constant proportional to length and inversely proportional to cross-sectional area (or to square of the diameter). The current flowing through the wire, given constant power passed to the load (here: 100W), is inversely proportional to the voltage. If you want a simple fixed-power heater, get a length of wire, hook it up to a current source, and you're done.
The resistance of USB3 cables is fixed to maintain a constant voltage drop independently of length, and that's precisely what we want. As the length goes up, the cables have to go to a progressively thicker wire. For any USB3 cable at least 2m long, the power conductors are so thick that you can perfectly safely pass 100W at 48V, while dissipating same thermal power in the cable as when passing 4.5W at 5V. If you don't believe me, get a calorimeter and do the measurements for yourself. Don't come back until you do. Please.
You can safely pass 43W of power at 48V through existing USB3 cables of any length -- they'll heat up just as much as they do at the current limit of 4.5W at 5V. That's not 100W, of course -- for that you need cables at least 2m long, if done to current spec. Why? Because those cables use #24 conductors, as opposed to #28 conductors in very short cables. I guess you didn't even realize that USB cables use different power conductor sizes depending on their length...
The 100W extension to USB3 (let's call it USB3.1) will limit power to 43W @ 48V when a plain USB3 cable is used (without any identification, that is). If you'll use a USB3.1 cable that will presumably have a built-in identification resistor or somesuch, the host will allow negotiation up to full power of 100W.
Quadruple stock value? Haha. There are companies out there that had much lesser drugs approved and their stock would go up in value by more than an order of magnitude. If there was a company to commercialize that, went to an IPO, then got an FDA approval, there'd be millionaires left and right made out of this.
I don't know how often it happens to others, but I was always getting some nasty bacterial infection after a prolonged viral cold. I'd, say, get bacterial bronchitis that'd last sometimes for a month or two. Luckily, this "phenomenon" waned over the last decade, and these days I don't use antibiotics. Yay!
Slashdot Mirror
The loop macro is, in essence, part of the compiler or the standard library. It is code that processes code during compilation. I'm not surprised that it's nontrivial.
So, if I, like, say like every, umm, like every few words, does that make it, like, acceptable, and best to be, like, ignored? It's not a common figure of speech. It's something that people choose to use, whether consciously or not, to sound more educated, it seems. I accept no excuses at all, and yes, I will not try to ignore it. I won't lose sleep over it either, but ignoring other's mistakes is counterproductive. Hopefully you'll reform and stop using that "figure of speech". I put it in quotes, because real figures of speech might get offended otherwise.
The formatting comes naturally. I'm always logged in. Everyfuckingwhere. So there :)
It's so bad that when I was biking, I decided to have two gopro HD cameras -- one on the helmet, another under the seat looking backwards. I tried biking to work, but the footage from the rear facing camera would show one very close call every other day or so, and many so-so close calls every day. The benefit of HD cameras with solid state memory is that it's expected to survive crashes, and you can clearly make out license plates, and often driver's faces, too. I decided it was too much of a risk, I don't bike anymore.
My wife would pass for a "soccer mom", but she drives a sedan, not an SUV. And for the car to cope with her driving style, I needed to upgrade her sway bars, add a front chassis brace, and get her much better front tires. The end links last about a year, then they all start clunking and need replacement :) Admittedly, the car drives much better after this work.
If she were distracted, she'd probably cause a minor pileup somewhere. Her driving style is very incompatible with distractions. The rule in the car is: the 8 year old has to keep her mouth shut, and the 1 year old is ignored (what else can you do, he won't die). The cellphone is in the trunk.
high rate of speed
I beg you never to use that phrase again. It's some idiocy that a newshead must have come up with, and everyone is repeating it, having no clue what it means. Rate of speed [change] is acceleration. That's not what you meant. </rant>
When you mean speed, just say speed. Want to sound more scientificky? Say velocity. Sigh.
Go and procreate. We need more people like you! :)
The FCC Says ISPs Aren't Hitting Advertised Speeds
An I'm, like, no shit, Sherlock? In other news, people get hurt in car crashes.
The Huygens fiasco was even posted on Slashdot back in 2004.
And I've read about it back then, that's why I immediately got a chuckle out of coward's post. I've messed simple things like that. You need detailed procedures (and follow them) to avoid messing up like so. I'm glad I don't deal with aerospace stuff.
Sure -- not a novel claim because they aren't the first crackpots/scammer that came around, and won't be the last.
Their measurement techniques are poor. I wouldn't even buy the authors a beer, that's how poor it is. They are measuring something else, not the real variations in decay rate.
Rimshot!
I'd worry about the opposite effect of America gutting the science programs: that you have uneducated masses of pitchfork-wielding idiots who live in the 21st century and have about as much knowledge about the world as the medieval peasants had. And they go to the polls and vote.
Nothing much. I'm recalling from HS biology a good 15 years ago, but here's what I remember: In case of animals with intestines, the amino acids would likely be transported into the absorptive cells in the lining of small intestine. I don't think that the transport mechanism is very selective. Once there, they get reexported into the bloodstream. Assuming that the presence of that new amino acid doesn't somehow destroy the absorptive cells in your gut, you're OK up to this point.
Then the amino acids can be used for various things. They could be used for energy (as a last resort), but some particular ones are useless for that -- I have no idea whether the artificial one would be good for that. They could be used for building proteins, but since the feeding organism doesn't have any code to produce proteins that use such amino acids, they'd be perhaps useless here. Some amino acids can be synthesized inside of a cell, and some can't, and those latter ones are called essential amino acids and must come from the diet. The new amino acids would be useless in that respect -- they'd certainly be nonessential, and would remain so. I.e. there's no way I could think of that would "poison" an organism and make an amino acid essential that wasn't so before -- it couldn't make an animal chemically dependent on it, at least not in the metabolic sense. Perhaps there'd be some neural mechanisms that could be triggered, but that's a whole different ballgame.
About my only worry is that the new amino acid would inhibit some of the pathways that are needed to maintain normal operation of the feeder organism's cells. So it may have a toxic effect.
Since I have pretty much no clue what I'm talking about, if someone else could chime in, I'm all ears.
Look at it from the commercialization angle, I think you may be up to something. But I don't really see Japan as a big copier -- or maybe I'm just ignorant in this respect?
That was absurd, dear coward.
Engineers have messed up precisely simple stuff like Doppler shifts!
The Huygens mission to Titan would have been essentially lost if it weren't for one guy (Popken IIRC) who had a hunch that the Doppler shift wasn't correctly set up for receiver testing, and has done additional testing on the system while it was still enroute with Cassini to Saturn.
The Huygens telemetry receiver was based on a design that had operated successfully on several earlier space missions. That receiver was able to cope with a Doppler shift at data rates of up to 2 kilobits per second (Kb/s). The data rate between Huygens and Cassini, however, was 8 kb/s—four times faster.
Due to an implementation error, a scaling parameter in the Huygens receiver’s embedded software was not adjusted to accommodate the higher data rate. As a result, the bandwidth of the receiver’s bit synchronizer was too narrow to compensate for the Doppler shift of the data stream frequency.
(source).
What about engineers messing up units of measure, resulting in a loss of $300M mission:
The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces). The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a MSOP Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric units of Newtonseconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers. Subsequent processing of the data from AMD file by the navigation software algorithm therefore, underestimated the effect on the spacecraft trajectory by a factor of 4.45, which is the required conversion factor from force in pounds to Newtons. An erroneous trajectory was computed using this incorrect data.
How many companies out there sell internet access *and* padlocks? +1 for Czech resourcefullness. :)
Someone going by radagast posted the below in the msnbc.com comment section on TFA. It's very well said, so I'll just cite it to preserve it in case msnbc ever wipes their old comments (that wouldn't be the first time):
Nowhere in the health care bill does the government "takeover" healthcare. They simply mandate that everyone be covered. The health care you would buy under the plan will still be administered by private, competing companies. Our system will not be a "socialized" version of Canada, nor will there be government employees administering your plan.
Holy @!$%#, holy @!$%#. It's been two years and still this misinformed tripe continues to bubble up as "knowledge." Why don't some of you who hate progressives do something to better America? The only ones who seem willing to try are the progressives. Slandering what they do only defeats your own self interest.
Drug companies do not develop cell therapies, they develop small molecule drugs. You might as well blame Ford Motor Co. when the crops fail. Cancer is a collection of thousands of different diseases which present differently in nearly all patients. It is one of the most intellectually and technically challenging problems in human history. Millions of people are working on it. Many cancers are curable right now. Many drugs are effective (despite your widely held belief that there are no cures). Other forms can be managed, while still other forms remain a death sentence.
If you want cures - THEN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND MONEY ON BASIC RESEARCH. Cutting government funding cuts basic science, which keeps scientists from advancing in a great many fields - cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, the list is exceptionally long. Putting academic scientists (the average scientist in academia makes ~ $30-40,000) out of work seems to be what some of you want. These men and women who have sacrificed much of their lives and money to solving these problems are starving for funding. There will be only one result. The quality of research will deteriorate. People will be forced to cut corners and make mistakes as they claw for the scraps from Congress.
Even so, drug companies play their part because they have some of the best private funding and funding derived from their profits. The notion that they won't research cures or that they don't want cures because they will lose money is personally insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who perform some of the most advanced research in these fields. Research that would put your simple minds to shame by its depth and breadth of ingenuity and know-how. When there is a cure it is gotten to market as fast as possible and gotten into the hands of doctors as fast as possible. There are endless examples of this.
Do you really think that these private sector workers don't have family members who have died? Do you think that they don't read the same headlines? They know the challenge better than any of you and they know the face of the disease better than you. If there really was any validity to the notion that drug companies are standing in the way of cures, then the people who would be complaining the loudest would be those who work in them. They would be complaining very loudly that their work is not getting out because of the company's supposed policies. How many of those people do we hear from?
NONE.
You people who traffic in nonsense and politically motivated tripe are the reason our Congress is the way it is. Look at yourselves and the ignorance you spread as fact. Shame. Nothing but rumor mongers, denialists, and idiots. Our Congress is a reflection of the American people and the American people continue to prove they are shamelessly and willfully ignorant, belligerant, and infantile. If you can't handle the internet like adults maybe we should take it away from you.
Grow the @!$%# up and get a clue. All of you.
It's really silly to argue about electrical insulation and current ratings when USB spec is pretty damn clear about it:
5.6 Electrical Requirements
This section covers the electrical requirements for USB 3.0 raw cables, mated connectors, and mated cable assemblies. [...]
The requirements in the section apply to all USB 3.0 connectors and/or cable assemblies unless specified otherwise
5.6.2.2
Dielectric Strength (EIA 364-20)
No breakdown shall occur when 100 Volts AC (RMS) is applied between adjacent contacts of unmated and mated connectors.
5.6.2.4 Contact Current Rating (EIA 364-70, Method 2)
A current of 1.8 A shall be applied to VBUS pin and its corresponding GND pin (pin 1 and pin 4 of the USB 3.0 Standard-A and Standard-B/Powered-B connectors; pin 1 and pin 5 of the USB 3.0 Micro connector family). Additionally, a minimum current of 0.25 A shall be applied to all the other contacts. When the current is applied to the contacts, the delta temperature shall not exceed +30 C at any point on the USB 3.0 connectors under test, when measured at an ambient temperature of 25 C.
That means that 43W @ 48V is perfectly safe. The fire risk at such current ant voltage is someone's imagination and fearmongering. How can making stuff up when the standard is freely available be called "decent engineering" I don't know.
"His damn point" is that he is just talking out his ass, as if all USB3 cables were doomed. SOME USB3 cables (those long enough) will be perfectly suitable for 100W use simply by meeting the current spec (and not some future spec!) -- abridged table:
11.4.7 Wire Gauge Table
Table 11-3 is a table of VBUS/Gnd wire gauges showing the relationship between gauge and maximum length in order to achieve the previously cited voltage drop values. The user should note that these lengths are the maximum length possible to meet the voltage drop budget, thus gauges smaller and lengths greater than the table values will fail to deliver the expected voltage value.
Table 11-3. VBUS/Gnd Wire Gauge vs. Maximum Length
American Stranded Wire Gauge (AWG) on VBUS/Gnd | Maximum Cable Length (Meters)
#28 0.8
#26 1.3
#24 2.0
#22 3.0
#20 5.3
Some others (below 2.0m, as those can use #26 and smaller wire) won't and that's why I've said that they'll likely do a minor modification: a cable-identifying means, perhaps with a resistor as to avoid retooling the connectors. What you, and the GP is saying has the tone of "sky is falling", whereas nothing of the sort is really going on.
Agreed. The worst thing you can do is to let Chinese assemble your entire product that contains electronics. Here's what will happen: once you're happy with what you're getting, they'll start reverse engineering the design to cheapen it up. They'll start by removing the decoupling capacitors until it stops working, and then they'll put some back. They'll change to capacitors with less stable dielectrics -- say X5R/X7R to Y5V to Z7U. The latter can lose 75% of their capacitance when brought up to working voltage. They'll change metal film or thin film resistors to cheaper thick film. They'll replace low tempco resistors with ones with worse tempco. They'll use electrolytic capacitors with worse temperature and lifetime ratings. They'll use cheaper, knockoff electromechanical components like switches. And so it goes. All while lying through their teeth about it. The rule with Chinese electronics production is this: if you must, get the boards assembled there, but under no circumstances are test setups to be made available, other than basic electrical test for continuity/impedance. You get their best-effort boards and you functionally test and package them elsewhere. The Chinese seriously seem to think that if it works when it leaves the production line, everything is fine. Long-term reliability is a concept that must be foreign.
WTF are you talking about w.r.t. the ISA bus? ISA was a fundamentally slow bus, using single-ended transmission lines and data strobing that was never meant for a bus with multiple connectors on it. ISA is basically what a Z80 CPU bus looked like, with an extra control line or two. It works fine on one PC board, but as soon as you bring connectors into the mix, you're up for trouble. There was no way to keep it working and making it faster, too. It was a technological dead end, so to speak. Good for what it was, and that's it. It's still used in embedded computing -- PC 104 is nowhere near dead, and if all you have is a couple serial ports or other "slow" devices (even a text mode display), ISA is perfectly adequate.
How the heck could you call PCI (the major bus that came after ISA) "patented technology to astro-turf ontop of existing open standards" -- that I just don't know. If that's what you meant, that is, because your rant is hard to comprehend.
Nope, that's not how it works. Soviets did the same thing, and they never caught up, because if all you do is copy, you can't. Copying takes time. There's no chance of catching up. You'll perpetually be years behind the curve.
And somehow even the Swiss think that CHF is now overvalued...
What you claim is not how nature works. Sorry about that, but that's how it is. You've got to accept it for what it is. That's why we have high voltage transmission lines: high voltage decreases the current, and thus self-heating losses. There are transmission lines that carry hundreds of megawatts of power in wires that are merely thick as your thumb.
Again: the amount of heat a conductor produces is only depending on its resistance and current flowing through it. The voltage does not figure anywhere in this. The resistance goes up slightly as the conductor heats up, but to the first approximation it's a constant proportional to length and inversely proportional to cross-sectional area (or to square of the diameter). The current flowing through the wire, given constant power passed to the load (here: 100W), is inversely proportional to the voltage. If you want a simple fixed-power heater, get a length of wire, hook it up to a current source, and you're done.
The resistance of USB3 cables is fixed to maintain a constant voltage drop independently of length, and that's precisely what we want. As the length goes up, the cables have to go to a progressively thicker wire. For any USB3 cable at least 2m long, the power conductors are so thick that you can perfectly safely pass 100W at 48V, while dissipating same thermal power in the cable as when passing 4.5W at 5V. If you don't believe me, get a calorimeter and do the measurements for yourself. Don't come back until you do. Please.
You can safely pass 43W of power at 48V through existing USB3 cables of any length -- they'll heat up just as much as they do at the current limit of 4.5W at 5V. That's not 100W, of course -- for that you need cables at least 2m long, if done to current spec. Why? Because those cables use #24 conductors, as opposed to #28 conductors in very short cables. I guess you didn't even realize that USB cables use different power conductor sizes depending on their length...
The 100W extension to USB3 (let's call it USB3.1) will limit power to 43W @ 48V when a plain USB3 cable is used (without any identification, that is). If you'll use a USB3.1 cable that will presumably have a built-in identification resistor or somesuch, the host will allow negotiation up to full power of 100W.
Quadruple stock value? Haha. There are companies out there that had much lesser drugs approved and their stock would go up in value by more than an order of magnitude. If there was a company to commercialize that, went to an IPO, then got an FDA approval, there'd be millionaires left and right made out of this.
I don't know how often it happens to others, but I was always getting some nasty bacterial infection after a prolonged viral cold. I'd, say, get bacterial bronchitis that'd last sometimes for a month or two. Luckily, this "phenomenon" waned over the last decade, and these days I don't use antibiotics. Yay!