Exactly! For me the cable was the problem as well. The Nexus 7 2012 I mentioned comes with a wallsocket-to-usb charger, and a special USB cable. I managed to mislay that cable, and with most ordinary cables I had very long or even negative charging rates, even with the original charger. As far as I can tell the trick is to find a cable with low wire resistance, either because it is short, or because it has thick wires.
In any case, I think the whole discussion illustrates that some kind of measurement instrument to determine charging time or current is indeed helpful.
One example: my Nexus 7 draws so much power, even when sleeping, that it is possible to connect it to a weakly charging USB port, come back a few hours later, and it has a lower charge level. I'm sure the same is true for other tablets, and possibly even some phones.
I think it's become clear that you can't believe anything Obama says. That's not "fascinating", it's deeply disturbing in the top executive of our government. The president is supposed to be boring, honest, and careful; instead, we got an activist and a liar.
The last boring, honest, and careful president that the USA elected was Jimmy Carter, and look how popular he is. His successor was the opposite, and look how popular he is. It seems to me that the USA does not want boring, honest, and careful, it wants and gets flimflam artists.
Yes, US policy is thoroughly corrupt because money talks in US elections. But why does this work? Because the US electorate wants their flimflam. They don't want honest and careful candidates, and certainly not boring ones. They want show and glitz and scandal and outrage. And the more money you have as a politician, the more flimflam you can serve up.
I could go on, but I think this mythbuster didn't really get the true potential danger gasoline can cause. Once that spark happens, gasoline releases an incredible amount of energy.
To be fair, that episode never claimed to show the dangers of gasoline, it was just testing a specific myth. (Plus of course they were working to meet their contractually required number of gun/rifle shots and explosions.)
No Apple is pushing CLANG for exactly the reason that they want to use BSD license in a take not give fashion...how hackable is it; Xcode(SDK) will only work on Mac OS X. Looking forward to proprietary extensions:)
Huh? Apple is putting a lot of work in llvm (the general compiler framework), and they give that work away under the BSD license. They are most certainly not only taking, they are also giving a lot. llvm is highly portable, and is certainly not restricted to Mac OS X (or C/C++ compilation, for that matter). In fact, lots of BSD distributions (and Minix) use llvm as their compiler of choice, because they don't want GPLed software. Similarly, clang (the c/c++ compiler on top of llvm) is highly portable, under a BSD license, and Apple is putting a lot of work in it.
Moreover, Apple is eating its own dog food, and using llvm/clang to compile most of Mac OS X, which is a solid guarantee for the quality of the resulting compiler, and is therefore another highly significant contribution.
It is true that Xcode (the Integrated Development Environment (IDE)) is not free, but that does not diminish the contributions that Apple is making to llvm and clang.
Cable orientation wasn't a problem before the connectors got tiny and I have to stare at it very closely to spot the shape.
It was already a problem with the original USB connectors, and they are nowadays considered huge. How many human hours have been wasted in plugging in USB connectors the wrong way round? Per person it may not be much, but it does add up.
I hate slashdotters like you who try to look smart exploiting the ambiguity of natural language.
I'm not playing language games here. Exactly how do you propose to distinguish between a fact and someone just saying something? At some point you will have to trust the word of somebody or something; you cannot verify everything down to its fundamentals.
Correction: don't use a cell phone with a proprietary OS. This means iOS and Google's and carriers' builds of Android, but don't necessarily the rest.
No, it means: don't use a cell phone, period. The phone radio software will be proprietary in the foreseeable future, there are plenty of opportunities to place backdoors on a cell phone no matter what OS is running on it, cell phones can be tracked no matter what OS is running on it, and even a fully open OS is so large and specialised you cannot possibly check it unless you have nothing else to do in life.
We all know how often other parties win in the US.. seriously this is a non option until the american public gives a shit about what's happening and by then it's going to be too late.
I have tried voting for other candidates in the past and they never win.
It depends on high you shoot. Don't expect a candidate for president who is not backed by a big party to ever win. That is only common sense: how could such a candidate ever be an effective president, if he has to fight just about every other politician with power?
What can be effective is to start low and build from there. Start a local political party, show that you can run a town, and then two towns, and then an entire state. Then and only then it starts to make sense to meddle in federal politics. It will be hard work to reach that point, but people might be more ready than you expect for a bunch of non-corrupt people with some bright ideas.
In fact, I would argue that this is the best way to ever get a serious change in government. Second-amendment options are obviously a non-starter, and mass protests might work but are far harder to organise than a third-party solution.
The secrets Snowdon or even Manning revealed were not on your short and sensible list of things to keep secret. They were on a list of things to keep secret because the populace would get angry if they knew about it.
How does this in any way address the point that the grand-parent post raised? Nobody is claiming that a government should not keep anything secret. But when a government is abusing this power, something has to be done.
Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.
Well, that is factually incorrect. There are still some people left in this world that have other motivations than worshipping the almighty dollar (or other currency of your choice). But I'm sure there is a reason we don't count.
In order to be accorded the full privileges and protections of the Geneva Convention you must wage war in a lawful manner. That is part of the treaty enforcement mechanism. Al Qaida and its associates do not do so and are therefore not entitled to the full privileges and protections. The US does act in accordance with the treaty, you just seem unfamiliar with its terms, or perhaps have listened to advocates that wish the treaty was other than it is.
Can you back that up with some proof? As far as I know the Geneva Convention was always a set of rules that civilised countries adhered to because they were, well, civilised. (And of course because they would want their own PoW to be treated in the same manner.)
And exactly what is `waging war in a lawful manner' supposed to mean? Is carpet-bombing `waging war in a lawful manner'? How about using agent orange? Exterminating an entire village? Bombing a restaurant because Saddam Hussein just might be there? Droning wedding parties and other ordinary meetings, repeatedly, because you're too stupid/lazy/careless/ignorant to get your information right?
And even granting some people somehow do not deserve to be treated as PoW, is there any legal basis for treating them any worse than normal criminals? And no, introducing some kind of mealy-mouthed new term like `enemy combatant' after the fact doesn't address this issue in any way.
Basically at one point in time we said there ought to be limits on how much of societies limited resources we dedicate to 1 person.
The problem with this idea is that its not the government's job to determine how much money I earn, or how much someone else pays me.
You're still allowed to earn as much money as you want, and anybody can pay you as much as they want. It's just that society wants a larger share of that money, since you can afford to contribute more. A tax rate of 90% would be a bit high, but I don't see anything wrong with 70% or perhaps even 80%.
It COULD be the governments job, if we wanted to take another crack at that sort of system, but it hasnt worked terribly well in the past.
But in fact it has worked terribly well in the past. In the booming years after WW2 top tax rates were considerably higher in both the USA and western Europe.
Note, however, that this requires an at least reasonably functional society, where a decent attempt is made to spend tax money on things that contribute to the society: safety, decent education and healthcare, safe housing, work, food, and infrastructure, fairness in labor, etc.
If your particular society is too corrupt to provide that, that should be fixed urgently; government is not inherently bad, but corrupt government is.
Fixing a corrupt government is a long and tedious process, but it can be done, as history has shown repeatedly. A populace that is well-educated and well-informed helps a lot in this.
The aggregate statistics for countries with socialized medicine and general survival rates do not paint a rosy picture for your 50% off bargain.
Considering that the US ranks about 25th on the list of highest life expectancies, and that plenty of the countries above it have public or strictly regulated healthcare, I think those dirty marxist communist hippie countries must be doing something right.
Or perhaps those countries simply have a lower level of corruption of their government than the US, allowing them to have saner and more efficient government regulation of life essentials such as healthcare.
Considering that this voting process has evolved in the face of thousands of years of intrigue and backstabbing that makes even politicians look like choirboys, why is this a surprise? The evolutionary pressure was most certainly there.
And of course this analysis overlooks the most reliable way of rigging an election, and one that is most certainly practiced here: hand-picking the electorate.
Who appointed those cardinals in the first place, eh?
... many will actually be denied care because what little income they have will now be sent to the insurance companies.
Wow, only one sentence, but a huge pile of bovine fertiliser.
These poor people pay premiums for health insurance, so they're now covered. So they do get healthcare.
Obamacare forces the insurance companies to accept people with preconditions, and not deny coverage for some kind of nonsense reason.
Obamacare forces the insurance companies to actually spend the money they collect on care for their customers, or else they have to return the excess money to their customers.
If people cannot afford the insurance premiums, they get a subsidy.
I'm sure Obamacare is flawed, but if you argue against it at least argue with the facts, rather than making up things.
So when someone makes a video attacking Islam, he's called "far right" and it is the moderates who make his film illegal and ban him from their country (as the UK did to Geert Wilders). But when someone makes a facebook page attacking Orthodox Christians, he's a moderate and the people who want the facebook banned are called "far right".
Just trying to make sure I understand the definition of "far right".
Perhaps it is because of the contents of the movie? Wilders' movie was just a collection of lies and distortions that had two goals (1) piss off the people he hates (2) stroke the egos of his followers. In other words: he is just a schoolyard bully, a troll. Any talk about `opening a discussion' was just sanctimonious posturing.
It would have been nice if everyone would just have ignored him, but sadly he did manage to piss off a few too many people. Don't feed the trolls is a hard lesson to learn for many people.
Given all that, I can't say that I blame other countries if they don't want him, although it does mean that we `enjoy' his presence in the Netherlands all the more. Fortunately, his 15 minutes of fame seem to be drawing to an end. He has to say more and more outrageous things to get attention, and his support is fading.
In case anybody thinks that this is a case of sour grapes and that the charity is the important bit, you can think of this as a variation on the broken window fallacy. Sure, Gates is donating to charity, but to obtain the money to do so, he used business practices which set the industry back several years. Overall, it's a net loss to society.
The big flaw in this argument is that he could just as easily have spent his money on exclusive cars, bling, hookers, and donations to moronic lobby groups. There are plenty of rich people that have made this choice.
Instead Bill Gates is doing his sincere best to spend his time and money on doing good for world society, and he now has a long history in this. Moreover, he does a lot more than just write a cheque now and then, he is deeply involved in many of these projects. I think he deserves a lot more praise for this, not the acid comments he normally gets here on/..
No, the man is not a saint. However, if the evil things he has done still deserve to be mentioned after all these years, I think it is only fair to also remember his long history of charity. Has he done more evil than good? Personally I prefer not do get into karma bookkeeping; I think it is pretty arrogant to do so, especially because we don't know the full story, both of his charity and of his evil deeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! For me the cable was the problem as well. The Nexus 7 2012 I mentioned comes with a wallsocket-to-usb charger, and a special USB cable. I managed to mislay that cable, and with most ordinary cables I had very long or even negative charging rates, even with the original charger. As far as I can tell the trick is to find a cable with low wire resistance, either because it is short, or because it has thick wires.
In any case, I think the whole discussion illustrates that some kind of measurement instrument to determine charging time or current is indeed helpful.
What am I missing from this?
One example: my Nexus 7 draws so much power, even when sleeping, that it is possible to connect it to a weakly charging USB port, come back a few hours later, and it has a lower charge level. I'm sure the same is true for other tablets, and possibly even some phones.
So the US doesn't have party politics? Really? Seriously?
I think it's become clear that you can't believe anything Obama says. That's not "fascinating", it's deeply disturbing in the top executive of our government. The president is supposed to be boring, honest, and careful; instead, we got an activist and a liar.
The last boring, honest, and careful president that the USA elected was Jimmy Carter, and look how popular he is. His successor was the opposite, and look how popular he is. It seems to me that the USA does not want boring, honest, and careful, it wants and gets flimflam artists.
Yes, US policy is thoroughly corrupt because money talks in US elections. But why does this work? Because the US electorate wants their flimflam. They don't want honest and careful candidates, and certainly not boring ones. They want show and glitz and scandal and outrage. And the more money you have as a politician, the more flimflam you can serve up.
I could go on, but I think this mythbuster didn't really get the true potential danger gasoline can cause. Once that spark happens, gasoline releases an incredible amount of energy.
To be fair, that episode never claimed to show the dangers of gasoline, it was just testing a specific myth. (Plus of course they were working to meet their contractually required number of gun/rifle shots and explosions.)
No Apple is pushing CLANG for exactly the reason that they want to use BSD license in a take not give fashion...how hackable is it; Xcode(SDK) will only work on Mac OS X. Looking forward to proprietary extensions :)
Huh? Apple is putting a lot of work in llvm (the general compiler framework), and they give that work away under the BSD license. They are most certainly not only taking, they are also giving a lot. llvm is highly portable, and is certainly not restricted to Mac OS X (or C/C++ compilation, for that matter). In fact, lots of BSD distributions (and Minix) use llvm as their compiler of choice, because they don't want GPLed software. Similarly, clang (the c/c++ compiler on top of llvm) is highly portable, under a BSD license, and Apple is putting a lot of work in it. Moreover, Apple is eating its own dog food, and using llvm/clang to compile most of Mac OS X, which is a solid guarantee for the quality of the resulting compiler, and is therefore another highly significant contribution.
It is true that Xcode (the Integrated Development Environment (IDE)) is not free, but that does not diminish the contributions that Apple is making to llvm and clang.
Cable orientation wasn't a problem before the connectors got tiny and I have to stare at it very closely to spot the shape.
It was already a problem with the original USB connectors, and they are nowadays considered huge. How many human hours have been wasted in plugging in USB connectors the wrong way round? Per person it may not be much, but it does add up.
I hate slashdotters like you who try to look smart exploiting the ambiguity of natural language.
I'm not playing language games here. Exactly how do you propose to distinguish between a fact and someone just saying something? At some point you will have to trust the word of somebody or something; you cannot verify everything down to its fundamentals.
Correction: don't use a cell phone with a proprietary OS. This means iOS and Google's and carriers' builds of Android, but don't necessarily the rest.
No, it means: don't use a cell phone, period. The phone radio software will be proprietary in the foreseeable future, there are plenty of opportunities to place backdoors on a cell phone no matter what OS is running on it, cell phones can be tracked no matter what OS is running on it, and even a fully open OS is so large and specialised you cannot possibly check it unless you have nothing else to do in life.
After James Clapper i don't trust words anymore. I want facts.
Because facts are not words?
We all know how often other parties win in the US.. seriously this is a non option until the american public gives a shit about what's happening and by then it's going to be too late.
I have tried voting for other candidates in the past and they never win.
It depends on high you shoot. Don't expect a candidate for president who is not backed by a big party to ever win. That is only common sense: how could such a candidate ever be an effective president, if he has to fight just about every other politician with power?
What can be effective is to start low and build from there. Start a local political party, show that you can run a town, and then two towns, and then an entire state. Then and only then it starts to make sense to meddle in federal politics. It will be hard work to reach that point, but people might be more ready than you expect for a bunch of non-corrupt people with some bright ideas.
In fact, I would argue that this is the best way to ever get a serious change in government. Second-amendment options are obviously a non-starter, and mass protests might work but are far harder to organise than a third-party solution.
The secrets Snowdon or even Manning revealed were not on your short and sensible list of things to keep secret. They were on a list of things to keep secret because the populace would get angry if they knew about it.
How does this in any way address the point that the grand-parent post raised? Nobody is claiming that a government should not keep anything secret. But when a government is abusing this power, something has to be done.
Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.
Well, that is factually incorrect. There are still some people left in this world that have other motivations than worshipping the almighty dollar (or other currency of your choice). But I'm sure there is a reason we don't count.
In order to be accorded the full privileges and protections of the Geneva Convention you must wage war in a lawful manner. That is part of the treaty enforcement mechanism. Al Qaida and its associates do not do so and are therefore not entitled to the full privileges and protections. The US does act in accordance with the treaty, you just seem unfamiliar with its terms, or perhaps have listened to advocates that wish the treaty was other than it is.
Can you back that up with some proof? As far as I know the Geneva Convention was always a set of rules that civilised countries adhered to because they were, well, civilised. (And of course because they would want their own PoW to be treated in the same manner.)
And exactly what is `waging war in a lawful manner' supposed to mean? Is carpet-bombing `waging war in a lawful manner'? How about using agent orange? Exterminating an entire village? Bombing a restaurant because Saddam Hussein just might be there? Droning wedding parties and other ordinary meetings, repeatedly, because you're too stupid/lazy/careless/ignorant to get your information right?
And even granting some people somehow do not deserve to be treated as PoW, is there any legal basis for treating them any worse than normal criminals? And no, introducing some kind of mealy-mouthed new term like `enemy combatant' after the fact doesn't address this issue in any way.
(Unlike is not a verb - yet.)
In English, you can verb anything.
Huh? We're only talking about tax rates here. What does that have to do with 'government control of production'?
Basically at one point in time we said there ought to be limits on how much of societies limited resources we dedicate to 1 person.
The problem with this idea is that its not the government's job to determine how much money I earn, or how much someone else pays me.
You're still allowed to earn as much money as you want, and anybody can pay you as much as they want. It's just that society wants a larger share of that money, since you can afford to contribute more. A tax rate of 90% would be a bit high, but I don't see anything wrong with 70% or perhaps even 80%.
It COULD be the governments job, if we wanted to take another crack at that sort of system, but it hasnt worked terribly well in the past.
But in fact it has worked terribly well in the past. In the booming years after WW2 top tax rates were considerably higher in both the USA and western Europe.
Note, however, that this requires an at least reasonably functional society, where a decent attempt is made to spend tax money on things that contribute to the society: safety, decent education and healthcare, safe housing, work, food, and infrastructure, fairness in labor, etc. If your particular society is too corrupt to provide that, that should be fixed urgently; government is not inherently bad, but corrupt government is. Fixing a corrupt government is a long and tedious process, but it can be done, as history has shown repeatedly. A populace that is well-educated and well-informed helps a lot in this.
The aggregate statistics for countries with socialized medicine and general survival rates do not paint a rosy picture for your 50% off bargain.
Considering that the US ranks about 25th on the list of highest life expectancies, and that plenty of the countries above it have public or strictly regulated healthcare, I think those dirty marxist communist hippie countries must be doing something right.
Or perhaps those countries simply have a lower level of corruption of their government than the US, allowing them to have saner and more efficient government regulation of life essentials such as healthcare.
Considering that this voting process has evolved in the face of thousands of years of intrigue and backstabbing that makes even politicians look like choirboys, why is this a surprise? The evolutionary pressure was most certainly there.
And of course this analysis overlooks the most reliable way of rigging an election, and one that is most certainly practiced here: hand-picking the electorate. Who appointed those cardinals in the first place, eh?
... many will actually be denied care because what little income they have will now be sent to the insurance companies.
Wow, only one sentence, but a huge pile of bovine fertiliser.
I'm sure Obamacare is flawed, but if you argue against it at least argue with the facts, rather than making up things.
You're talking about a net loss to society, but you're not doing karma bookkeeping? You've completely lost me here.
So when someone makes a video attacking Islam, he's called "far right" and it is the moderates who make his film illegal and ban him from their country (as the UK did to Geert Wilders). But when someone makes a facebook page attacking Orthodox Christians, he's a moderate and the people who want the facebook banned are called "far right". Just trying to make sure I understand the definition of "far right".
Perhaps it is because of the contents of the movie? Wilders' movie was just a collection of lies and distortions that had two goals (1) piss off the people he hates (2) stroke the egos of his followers. In other words: he is just a schoolyard bully, a troll. Any talk about `opening a discussion' was just sanctimonious posturing.
It would have been nice if everyone would just have ignored him, but sadly he did manage to piss off a few too many people. Don't feed the trolls is a hard lesson to learn for many people.
Given all that, I can't say that I blame other countries if they don't want him, although it does mean that we `enjoy' his presence in the Netherlands all the more. Fortunately, his 15 minutes of fame seem to be drawing to an end. He has to say more and more outrageous things to get attention, and his support is fading.
In case anybody thinks that this is a case of sour grapes and that the charity is the important bit, you can think of this as a variation on the broken window fallacy. Sure, Gates is donating to charity, but to obtain the money to do so, he used business practices which set the industry back several years. Overall, it's a net loss to society.
The big flaw in this argument is that he could just as easily have spent his money on exclusive cars, bling, hookers, and donations to moronic lobby groups. There are plenty of rich people that have made this choice.
Instead Bill Gates is doing his sincere best to spend his time and money on doing good for world society, and he now has a long history in this. Moreover, he does a lot more than just write a cheque now and then, he is deeply involved in many of these projects. I think he deserves a lot more praise for this, not the acid comments he normally gets here on /..
No, the man is not a saint. However, if the evil things he has done still deserve to be mentioned after all these years, I think it is only fair to also remember his long history of charity. Has he done more evil than good? Personally I prefer not do get into karma bookkeeping; I think it is pretty arrogant to do so, especially because we don't know the full story, both of his charity and of his evil deeds.
It's pretty obvious what crimes he committed, he's not even denying it.
Exactly what crimes are you talking about? The rape charges he denies, and leaking secret US documents is not a crime for an Australian citizen.