If you can get a job developing Stingray software/hardware, you can get a job for less money doing something less ethically abhorrent.
I must ask, is the problem with the devices or how they are used? If used only after a warrant has been obtained would people still be outraged over these devices?
Also, these Stingray devices are made of a bunch of parts, everyone with a different use. Are the people that make the capacitors in these things somehow responsible? Even the software in these things were likely derived from code used in legitimate cell phone towers. I find it real hard to draw a bright line that separates the ethical and unethical people in those that make the devices. That get's back to my original point, is the problem with the device or how they are used?
I can draw a parallel with a guillotine. Are the people the cut down the trees, sawed them to shape, and delivered them to where the guillotine was made responsible for the deaths caused from the use of the guillotine. It is quite likely the lumberjack, sawyer, and delivery service had no idea what the wood would be used for in the end. Even if they did, it is quite likely they were told the people put to death in the machine were criminals that "deserved" to die. They would then have to agree in the death penalty, which has its own controversy, much like some would believe that there is no legitimate need for a government to snoop into a private conversation.
Perhaps one agrees with the use of the death penalty, and snooping into phone calls, but is opposed to how it's done. People might prefer hanging by rope for the death penalty, and tapping the cell phone towers in the area instead of the Stingray. Just because one is opposed to the use of the guillotine is that someone supposed to find work where they would not contribute to the making of a guillotine? What kind of work would that be? Likewise for the Stingray, what kind of work is someone that develops electronics and software supposed to go to know for certain their work would not wind up in a Stingray? I guess they could go into making lumber or rope but then they might be making the next guillotine or gallows.
I think of the Cluedo game and the possible murder weapons. Are the makers of the candlestick, lead pipe, rope, revolver, knife, or spanner somehow responsible for the death of Mr. Boddy? Do not all of those items have a non-lethal purpose? Even the revolver is a recognized piece of sporting equipment, much like those used in Olympic shooting events.
As I said above... My response to them then, and my response to critics now, is the same. No one is forcing you to buy Apple hardware. Apple still offers the older product with the hardware you desire. You quite likely are not their target demographic. Apple cannot provide every product to meet every possible customer desire, compromises must be made.
The only exception to my previous statement is that Apple may not be offering the previous model any more. I did a quick look at Apple's online store and I do see that they have discontinued their quad core Mac Mini models. What confuses me though is why you are looking to buy a new Mac Mini if the one you have still works. Is it broken? It's quite likely that you are not Apple's demographic any more and most people in your situation would rather get an iMac or Mac Pro.
For a lot of us, this is the line in the sand. It might be silly to people like you that think it's progress to remove things.
I don't like it when things are removed that I still used. I remember a few times when ports that were important to me went away. It sucks having to abandon working peripherals but time marches on. As I type this I'm trying to make a laptop I have work for me for just one more year so I can save up for something better later. It has ports I don't use, like a parallel port and S-video. It has some legacy ports I still use, like FireWire and VGA. But really all I use are the USB ports. I'm trying to get a network interface working, wired or wireless, but if I can't then I'll just plug in a USB adapter like I was doing before. I think that is where a lot of people are going, they'll just buy the adapter for the legacy ports they still use. Newer ports like USB and Thunderbolt are very versatile and so it's not like people need a large variety of ports any more. With so many things wireless it's not like people need a large number of them either. Docks, hubs, and daisy-chaining helps with the low port count too.
I mean what is the line for you. Are you willing to accept any decision the technology overlords push on you?
You mean like Microsoft pushing Windows 10 on me? I was happy with Windows XP as were a lot of people I work with. With XP went some good and some bad. I still use XP to run some old games I like, and as long as the computer keeps running I'll keep using it. So it goes with a lot of hardware I own. I still use CRTs for my displays because they keep working. I'm gong to have to give up on my iPod and it's 30-pin docks and cables soon since I cracked the screen. If I had my way we might still be seeing SCSI ports on Apple computers, which is probably one good reason why I'm not in charge of Apple's hardware decisions.
I guess my question to you is, what do you expect me to do about it? I can write angry e-mails to Apple, mock them on every web forum I know of, but in the end money talks. They figured out what sells and people like you and me don't buy enough hardware to dictate anything Apple sells.
I'm reminded of a conversation with some co-workers when the new MacBook without an optical drive came out. I was told about how Apple was being stupid for leaving out such a critical piece of hardware, that they'd never buy such a computer, etc.
My response to them then, and my response to critics now, is the same. No one is forcing you to buy Apple hardware. Apple still offers the older product with the hardware you desire. You quite likely are not their target demographic. Apple cannot provide every product to meet every possible customer desire, compromises must be made.
I then asked them about how often they actually used the optical drive they have in their computers. Since Apple included a disc with the MacBook that had software that allowed one to share an optical drive in another computer, MacOS or Windows, I asked if they had more than one computer at home. What I found out is that people rarely used their optical drive, and they all had more than one computer at home. So while they didn't like the idea of needing a peripheral to access an optical drive they did agree that not including the drive did not prevent them from reading optical disks.
What is interesting here is that this analogy only carries so far since this time Apple includes as a peripheral what they left off by default. It'd be like putting an optical drive in the box with every MacBook. Yet people still complain. Apple in both cases was not the first to do this, but the first (or even second) guy didn't make near as many waves. Why is that?
Mock Apple if you want. I even hesitate to come to Apple's defense since they don't need my help and I'll likely be labeled as a "fanboi" for doing so.
What confuses me further about this is that this forum, like my co-workers, consists of largely of people that are (or at least claim to be) knowledgeable of electronics and its industry. Is it so confusing to people that a business case was made for this decision long before the product made it to store shelves? They figured this out. As evidence I'll give the popularity of the MacBook and iPhone product lines, much less that Apple is still around to be mocked. Not only can a business case be made but this was expected to happen eventually.
Thing is that I'm not likely to even buy this new iPhone, I bought a new "dumb" phone a few months ago and I'm happy with it for now. I didn't buy one of those MacBooks either, but I did get one when someone else was paying for it. I'm not in their demographic either but I'd like to think I know a good business choice when I see one. I think Apple did good here, or at least not bad. Now, if all iPhone models lacked the headphone port then we'd have a different conversation.
It would have been nice to see a map in the news article to give some idea to those reading it unfamiliar with the area just how big of a "blunder" this was. From the Great Circle Mapper website I linked to above we see that KUL is about 4000 miles from SYD, and SYD is less than 500 miles from MEL. Given the typical cruising speed of a jetliner they were in the air for perhaps not much more than an hour on a flight that would have lasted 8 or 9 hours. Since they knew right away something was wrong I doubt they were flying much longer than that, maybe 3 hours. If they were flying much longer than that I suspect they would have landed much further from either SYD or MEL, or we'd be reading about a plane lost at sea.
The article makes a big deal about "landing in the wrong country" which I suppose is a big deal if you take off in the USA, headed for Canada, but end up in India. Much less of a deal if you take off from USA while headed for Canada but a technical problem means you have to land back in USA.
Once wilderness is gone, it cannot be restored because the ecological processes that underpin the ecosystems are destroyed, the researchers said. The only option, they said, is to proactively protect what is left.
This is true only because they define wilderness so narrowly. I've seen what happens when people no longer inhabit an area, wilderness takes over. The ecosystem can grow and restore itself. If we define "wilderness" only as areas undisturbed by human activity then, by definition, wilderness can only shrink or stay the same. Which then leads one to ask, how did that ecosystem get there in the first place? The answer is either it grew there naturally, or some deity wished it into being.
I don't know if I should assume these people are Creationists or that they didn't think this all the way through. What I really think though is that they are trying to simplify the problem to the point it has become a lie. They lie to us hoping we don't think it through.
They also assume that "wilderness" is always better than what human activity can create. I've seen many great gardens, animal habitats, parks, arboretums, etc. where there was just barren land before. If allowed to occur naturally it would have taken thousands of years for so much plant and animal life to spread like that.
Do these people think humans can only destroy? People create things too, beautiful things even. People can even make the world better. Preserving wilderness at the cost of humanity's ability to grow, learn, and explore is beyond wrong, I believe it is a mental illness.
Is that how you think you should respond to people trying to answer your questions? Is it that hard to comprehend that an Ethernet switch is a kind of computer? And that to make sure that the network is maintained that this computer needs to send commands to another similar computer? And do so "routinely"?
Therefore, if the switch fails to respond to those commands, and the network was not planned well, and competent people aren't there to fix the problem then the the network fails. Which is what brought this lawsuit, the network failed and they are trying to put this on Cisco instead of their own failure to plan for the possibility of a broken/buggy switch.
From your response I must assume you are either a child or just acting childish. So, grow up.
What you failed to do is explain how oil is artificially cheap. I pointed out that oil is naturally cheap, we get much more value from it than it costs.
Compared to wood or cattle dung we find that we can get cleaner energy from fossil fuels. It also leaves the wood for building and the dung for fertilizer.
You claim that fossil fuels damage the environment beyond the benefit they give which is demonstrably false. We are only able to have as much food, clean water, clothing, shelter, medicines, etc. because we have naturally cheap fossil fuels.
What you propose is not removing the "artificially" inexpensive but creating an artificial expense.
After taking training for Cisco certification I can think of many such commands. These switches are not the kind you find at Best Buy. These switches will communicate with other devices on the network about how to route traffic. Ethernet does do routing much like how IP does routing, just at a different layer. For this routing to be efficient every device needs to know something about where on the network the other devices are located.
An equipment failure, a poorly planned network, and improperly trained staff, would make a lengthy network failure inevitable.
How else do you expect this to turn out? I suppose that Cisco could pay up to keep them quiet and out of a courtroom but that sets a precedent for writing checks if a company can somehow blame them for their failure.
There is already a long history of people getting fitness of purpose claims tossed out of court. I don't believe that Cisco has much to worry about here.
This is a "faux doctor group" because they get upset that the government is making their job difficult? Perhaps medical professionals would not have to be so political if the politicians weren't practicing medicine. I'd think this would be true of any profession. If bakers had the government bust down their doors to see what they were putting in their cakes, who they were selling cakes to, how many cakes sold to each customer, and how much they charged for them then I'd expect bakers to speak up often on politics.
I took a look at the poll and it seems that a majority of these physicians believe that HRC's medical symptoms are serious enough that they need to be discussed and/or disclosed by any candidate.
Tell me something, if you had a co-worker that could end up being your boss show signs of illness then would you not want to have some assurance that this illness would not affect your work? She's been shown to have some serious coughing fits. We've seen her act confused. She's had some rather unusual twitches/spasms. It does not take professional medical training to know these things are signs of potential medical problems. If she were not running for POTUS then I would not care so much about her health. It's not like I wish her ill health if she weren't running, it's that her health is not something that would be of my concern if she was to retire.
You seem to speak as if these physicians are dictating her treatment or offering a diagnosis. They are not saying what kind of care she needs, or claiming she suffers from some specific illness. What they are saying is that she is showing signs of an illness, an illness that may be serious, and these symptoms should disqualify anyone for running for POTUS.
Again, these are medical professionals that have seen a person act in a way consistent with someone with a serious illness, serious enough to be disqualifying for public office. They did not make a claim on what that illness may be, and they are not recommending any specific treatment. It's just natural for someone, even without formal training in medicine, to be concerned about someone's health after seeing them with a coughing fit like we've seen from HRC. Getting a physician to say that perhaps she is not fit to be POTUS from what we've all seen should not be considered any kind of medical malpractice. In fact I would like to see more physicians speak up about this rather than some talking head that studied journalism, political science, or whatever in college.
Look at the source. This groups says HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. This group says being gay itself shortens life expectancy.
I'm not trying to defend these people since all I really know is what little I've read about them in a few minutes but I'm not ready to call this group a "joke" based only on those two stances.
Of course gay people have a shorter life expectancy. This should not be controversial. Men that engage in anal sex with other men tend to spread disease, and they also tend to be gay. Gay people also tend to be victims of violence. Violence against gay men should not be tolerated but merely recognizing it's prevalence should not make anyone a "joke".
The claim that this group says HIV isn't the cause of AIDS requires some further explanation before it becomes "joke" worthy. There are certainly the conspiracy theorist types that will make this claim and come up with rather unbelievable explanations on why this is so. Such people are "jokes" to me as well. I also recognize that there is an element of the scientific community that do believe that there is a high correlation between HIV and AIDS but dispute which causes the other. Given my limited knowledge on the subject I am willing to accept the possibility that there is perhaps a scientific reason to make this claim.
I will also say that I do believe that HIV causes AIDS. Since I do not engage in activities that put me at risk of HIV I really don't think about it much. If a group of physicians believe that HIV does not cause AIDS then I'm not in the position to argue with them. I'm also unsure on where the controversy lies here. Does this stance somehow affect the way people with AIDS are treated? I mean treatment in both the social and medical sense.
This is damn near more a political group than a true medical group anyone should listen to.
In reading a few things on their website I believe that they make it clear they are a political organization. I interpret their stance as being that the government should stay out of the physician-patient relationship, and that is something I can agree with. I believe the greater outrage should be over a government that wants to interfere in that physician-patient relationship. A group of physicians advocating for their profession is an expected result of the government taking great interest in that profession.
If the government wasn't making their job so difficult then we'd never have heard of this group. It should not be difficult to imagine a group of physicians would be opposed to another Clinton in the White House given how Democrats have made their job harder than it should be. This may be an unconventional tactic to oppose her election but HRC's health is in the news.
This is a news article about the opinion of 250 physician's over HRC's health, which to me is not very newsworthy. HRC has been showing signs of illness, has not been doing many public appearances, and has a history of medical problems, so her health is news. Getting an opinion from physicians would seem wise for people that intend to vote.
What I'd like to see are opinions from more physicians on this.
Fossil fuels are profitable only because we've collectively decided that they should be profitable, not due to the invisible hand of the market.
Oh really? We just "decided" they were profitable. Imagine if we just "decided" they weren't profitable tomorrow, what would happen then? I'll tell you. A lot of children would not get to school because they could not ride a bus. A lot of people would die of seemingly minor injuries because we could not drive an ambulance to them and/or the medicines we produce, transport, refrigerate, and sterilize with fossil fuels would disappear. No more airplanes for travel and communication. No more container ships by sea, or they'd be limited to the speed of the prevailing winds. Say goodbye to a lot of the cheap goods that you enjoy.
In short, life would suck without fossil fuels. You choose to focus on the negatives of fossil fuels because you've been brainwashed into thinking they are bad. I think you need to take a history course on modern western civilization from a college professor that isn't a raging lefty. I imagine there are a few of them left in the world. My history professors were raging left wingers but at least I knew enough before hand to know when bias crept into the lecture. I suspect you are not so inclined.
It's because of fossil fuels that societal constructs like slavery ended. It is because of fossil fuels that we were able to transport coffee and sugar across the world. It also helped that fossil fuels made it much easier to produce a modern water and sewage system. We live in a world built on oil, sugar, and coffee. From that flowed a healthy and well fed population, capable of doing so much more than subsistence farming. If the oil stops we might still get the sugar and coffee but we'd need slave labor to harvest it.
Or we'd need nuclear power. But we "decided" that nuclear power wasn't going to be profitable. When we decide different then maybe we can have our coffee and eat our cake too.
As I recall the solar PV panels have a color and/or reflective properties that are not seen in nature. The birds are confused by the panels and run into them in flight, which injures and kills them.
One theory is that they are confusing them with water, and instead of a pleasant "plop" into a puddle they have a hard landing and break their little legs. Another theory is that the dark flat color looks like a hole or cave to them, so instead of flying into shade they fly into a hard surface. Another theory is that birds just run into things but PV panels are harder and with sharper edges than leaves and grass, what would be a soft bounce off of vegetation is now a deadly hard collision.
Solar thermal stations create invisible and intense beams of heat. A bird is a relatively small animal, moving at a relatively low speed, and so once a bird happens to cross this beam they don't have much of a chance on flying out before the heat overwhelms them and they cook to death. If they survive the initial encounter with the heat then they might have cooked feathers, temporary blindness, and other injuries that make them easy prey for small furry creatures on the ground. The beam concentrators also create an artificial sun from the intense point of light, this can lead birds astray as many species will use the sun as a navigation point. A lost bird cannot find food and shelter.
I also recall that it's not just birds that are hazards to the solar power farms, vegetation also cause problems. If plant life is not controlled they can grow to a height to obstruct the sunlight. A responsible solar farm owner will mow the grass and trim the trees. A less environmentally conscious, and more conscious of profit, solar farm manager will control the plant life with chemicals. These chemicals can cause problems later as the weather moves them around. What the weather will also do is blow dirt, leaves, and grass clippings onto the solar panels. These need to be washed off with fresh water, a valuable resource, and possibly with soap/detergents in the water, polluting the water downstream.
We'd be better off with nuclear power. A modern air cooled nuclear power plant would not kill near as many birds, and would not consume or pollute near as much fresh water. A modern nuclear power plant would also possibly consume the waste from previous inefficient reactors or, at a minimum, not add to the radioactive waste problem we have.
I assume this does not apply for docks, no? I have an iPod dock I use to make up for its worn headphone jack. I can charge the iPod while listening to headphones. In reality though I'm much more likely to take advantage of the wireless streaming to listen through powered speakers or my stereo while charging.
Actually, for me that is probably the most valuable feature. Getting bigger, faster, etc. is expected. What concerns me are things like durability. I've had my iPod Touch for years now, and three times I was afraid I might have to be without it. First I dropped it in the woods, not sure how one would fix that problem though. Second time it fell out of my pocket and into a puddle, thankfully I got it out of the water quickly and I saw no permanent damage. The third time was when I dropped my iPod onto a hard concrete floor. Newer devices have tougher glass to deal with such abuses and had I got a new iPod recently I would not be dealing with a cracked screen right now. It still works but the cracks in the screen are annoying so I'm looking for a replacement.
A piece of electronics designed to fit in a pocket with the durability to handle short drops onto hard floors and puddles of water are a selling point to me. If it also has something to help me find it again if lost in the woods then I will be much more likely to buy it over the competition.
The loss of a headphone jack is a non-issue for me. Since the headphone jack on my iPod wore out months ago I've learned to do without. What I would have liked is a cheap replacement for the worn headphone jack but none exist. With this iPhone I know one is available. So, perhaps less than a non-issue but actually a plus.
Agreed. They had determined the sole occupant was dead and so there was no point in further risk of life in dealing with the wreckage.
How is this even news? Is it because it is an electric car? We've had electric cars before. If one is to include things like electric forklifts then I imagine similar situations have come up many times before. Is it news because it is a Tesla? If so then is this supposed to make them look bad? Perhaps someone's bias is showing.
If this had been a wreck in water then I imagine a recovery would take just as long. A crash in water also is unlikely to result in survivors, regardless of the power plant that powers the vehicle. If there were live occupants, such as if one had just witnessed the crash, then a lot of safety protocols go out the window.
The guy is dead. Take your time to clean up the mess and do it right. Just don't take too long as there is a social need to have respect for the dead.
Can you tell me what is a "standard audio system" connector?
Just off the top of my head I can think of XLR, 1/4" phone, 1/8" phone, SpeakOn, RCA, banana clips, and bare wire (spring clips or binding post). Then there are the numerous combination audio/video connectors like MHL, HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort, a couple USB-C alt modes, and each seemingly with standard, mini, and micro versions.
It wasn't that long ago that people would buy a cassette to 1/8" phone adapter to plug their iPods, CD players, or whatever, into their car stereo. I still have mine somewhere around here.
What we've seen are electronics manufacturers make a lot of money on adapters. Which is inevitable in a way since each connector type has good and bad points, as they are all a compromise. Electronics manufacturers have also made a lot of money by supporting these connectors directly hoping someone would buy their device because it had the "right" connector built into it. Like some car models having a 30-pin iPod connector to connect the sound system to iPods, and allow for use of controls built into the steering wheel.
I'm not a fan of Apple not including a "standard" phone jack but I understand their decision. I haven't used the phone jack on my iPod for nearly a year. I haven't used it because it broke. I've been listening to my iPod through the built in speaker, the iPod adapter I installed in my truck, the dock I have next to my stereo, and by W-Fi through my Airport Express. If there was a 30-pin to "standard" headphone jack adapter I probably would have bought one long ago, but I haven't found one. I gave up on finding an adapter, partly because I've found other ways to do what I want, partly because that iPod is now so old and worn I'm shopping for a replacement.
What sucks about getting a new iPod is that my 30-pin connector cables and docks will have to be replaced too. I'm not going to cry about Apple abandoning the 30-pin iPod connector since I believe it wasn't that great of a connector, certainly not now. Firewire is no longer "standard" equipment on computers. Component A/V cables are uncommon as well. As demonstrated by my mild inconvenience in doing without the 1/8" audio connector for so long I've learned to do without that as well. When I do need it I know I can find an adapter.
I was actually discussing something like this with a co-worker today but about video connectors, not audio. Not too long ago VGA ruled the world and so we had a lot of VGA displays. What came along to replace it was DVI but we didn't want to replace the display with the computer every time so we bought adapters. As displays were replaced over time we put the DVI to VGA adapters in a box until we needed one again. Now those DVI to VGA adapters are piling up in a box because computers are now coming with DisplayPort outputs. As our displays have VGA and/or DVI inputs we had to order more DisplayPort to DVI adapters today. New displays that we order tend to have one or more of DVI, DisplayPort, and MHL inputs.
We will always need adapters. We will always be able to find adapters. If for some reason you cannot find the adapter you need then perhaps you are being too early or too late to the "standard". If your new cell phone can't plug into your audio system then maybe, just maybe, your audio system needs an upgrade too.
I think I see your problem but this HDMI over USB-C only complicates things. It's rare to see a laptop that does not have a Thunderbolt, MiniDP, DVI, or even VGA to go along with an HDMI port. If the HDMI port is lacking then there are cheap adapters for MiniDP and (fat) DP. If the port is DP++ then HDMI support is there from a passive cable. Passive adapters are typically less than $20. Active adapters can be as much as $80 for the multi-ported ones from Apple, but more like $40.
With a cable that has USB-C on one end and HDMI-A on the other one would have to know which protocol it is speaking on each end, and then see if the source and sink devices speak that protocol. The HDMI end might be MHL or HDMI, and whatever versions those might be. The USB-C end might speak HDMI, MHL, DP, TB3, or only USB. That one cable configuration could have one of ten different kinds of circuitry in it, and you'll need to know which one will work and how to tell them apart.
In the case of doing a presentation in an unfamiliar lecture hall I'd want to keep the number of cables to a minimum while maximizing my chances of getting things to work. The best is likely a USB 2.0 to some version of HDMI. I might not get the best resolution but the chances of success would be very high. A cheap VGA adapter in my bag for the worst case. If I'm feeling lucky I can bring a Thunderbolt cable, those support USB3, MiniDP, and Thunderbolt as part of the spec, expensive but versatile and high bandwidth. Another way that might maximize results with little expense is a passive MHL cable if the source device supports it. That would be cheap and give up to 4K video.
This was a problem solved already with DP and MHL. For those that want HDMI from a computer with USB-C then an active cable may be wanted regardless to get passed the limitation of supporting only HDMI 1.4,
We have computers trying to be lawyers now. Law is one part of society with so much nuance that it is very difficult to write it into any set code. This is why we have a court system, because legal code is something we must interpret with intention.
I am reminded of automated speeding tickets being issued and how they've gone wrong. In nearly every case the city responsible (because it's almost always a city that does this) will swear in a court of law that every ticket was reviewed but a sworn officer before being issued. When challenged it becomes obvious they weren't.
So now we have automated DCMA notices going out and obviously no one bothered to verify them before going out, or the person doing the review was not suited for doing the review. Here is a case of one large corporate entity going to battle with another large corporate entity and the problem seems to disappear, right?
When elephants battle it's always the grass that loses.
I don't know why I bother to reply to an AC but here is your citation: http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadge... Scroll down to the graphic where the pin out is shown.
The USB-C alt modes define how the 4 high speed lanes on the port are used. In USB 3.1 mode they are used for 2 pair of RX/TX lanes. In a 2-lane DP mode there is one RX/TX pair of lanes for USB 3.1 and 2 lanes for DP. In 4-lane DP mode all 4 lanes are used for DP data. In Thunderbolt mode all the USB-C high speed lanes are dedicated to PCIe and DP packets, USB 3.1 packets will not share these lanes. I have not seen the spec on how MHL or HDMI use these lanes, I can only assume it is similar to DP mode. In whatever mode the USB-C connector is in there will always be a bidirectional pair of data wires for USB 2.0.
The mode of the port will be defined by the first cable or device connected to it. Once in a certain mode it will stay there until every device is disconnected. Daisy chaining USB 3 and TB 3 devices will not be allowed. DP and TB devices can be daisy chained only if the DP devices are on the end of the chain. I assume daisy chaining USB and DP devices is allowed but then the USB devices would have to be at the end.
I imagine it possible to make a cable that converts one USB-C mode to another but it would have to be insanely expensive, convert only one mode to another (and only in one direction), and still be confusing for many users. Even if someone makes one of these magic cables that USB-C port will go to whatever mode that the peripheral, cable, and host all support. This might be DP, MHL, HDMI, USB3, or TB3. It may even be just USB2.0 since that is where they all have a common denominator. The exception is that DP can share the cable with either USB3 or TB3 but again every piece in the chain has to support it, and there are other limits that go with that.
I was torn with ignoring an AC that may just be trolling to helping to inform someone that was mistaken but was willing to learn. I hope I didn't choose poorly.
Imagine someone wanting to connect a USB-C computer with a port that does not support MHL or HDMI, which shouldn't be hard since that is likely 100% of the computers that have been made for years now. Now imagine a display with a USB-C port that uses only MHL and/or HDMI that someone wants to connect to that computer they bought in the last five years. Now this person will have to go shopping for a cable that connects a USB-C port carrying USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt to another USB-C port carrying MHL or HDMI.
It used to be that we'd have a keyboard port, a mouse port, a printer port, and so on. A port for everything and everything connected to its port. Not utopia exactly but if the connector fit we had a high probability of the devices talking to each other. Now we can have a single connector that can be talking any one of four (?) protocols. Unless one take care to look at the little icons, which might rub off with use, it's very possible to be using the right cable for the job but using the wrong end on each device.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can get a job developing Stingray software/hardware, you can get a job for less money doing something less ethically abhorrent.
I must ask, is the problem with the devices or how they are used? If used only after a warrant has been obtained would people still be outraged over these devices?
Also, these Stingray devices are made of a bunch of parts, everyone with a different use. Are the people that make the capacitors in these things somehow responsible? Even the software in these things were likely derived from code used in legitimate cell phone towers. I find it real hard to draw a bright line that separates the ethical and unethical people in those that make the devices. That get's back to my original point, is the problem with the device or how they are used?
I can draw a parallel with a guillotine. Are the people the cut down the trees, sawed them to shape, and delivered them to where the guillotine was made responsible for the deaths caused from the use of the guillotine. It is quite likely the lumberjack, sawyer, and delivery service had no idea what the wood would be used for in the end. Even if they did, it is quite likely they were told the people put to death in the machine were criminals that "deserved" to die. They would then have to agree in the death penalty, which has its own controversy, much like some would believe that there is no legitimate need for a government to snoop into a private conversation.
Perhaps one agrees with the use of the death penalty, and snooping into phone calls, but is opposed to how it's done. People might prefer hanging by rope for the death penalty, and tapping the cell phone towers in the area instead of the Stingray. Just because one is opposed to the use of the guillotine is that someone supposed to find work where they would not contribute to the making of a guillotine? What kind of work would that be? Likewise for the Stingray, what kind of work is someone that develops electronics and software supposed to go to know for certain their work would not wind up in a Stingray? I guess they could go into making lumber or rope but then they might be making the next guillotine or gallows.
I think of the Cluedo game and the possible murder weapons. Are the makers of the candlestick, lead pipe, rope, revolver, knife, or spanner somehow responsible for the death of Mr. Boddy? Do not all of those items have a non-lethal purpose? Even the revolver is a recognized piece of sporting equipment, much like those used in Olympic shooting events.
As I said above...
My response to them then, and my response to critics now, is the same. No one is forcing you to buy Apple hardware. Apple still offers the older product with the hardware you desire. You quite likely are not their target demographic. Apple cannot provide every product to meet every possible customer desire, compromises must be made.
The only exception to my previous statement is that Apple may not be offering the previous model any more. I did a quick look at Apple's online store and I do see that they have discontinued their quad core Mac Mini models. What confuses me though is why you are looking to buy a new Mac Mini if the one you have still works. Is it broken? It's quite likely that you are not Apple's demographic any more and most people in your situation would rather get an iMac or Mac Pro.
For a lot of us, this is the line in the sand. It might be silly to people like you that think it's progress to remove things.
I don't like it when things are removed that I still used. I remember a few times when ports that were important to me went away. It sucks having to abandon working peripherals but time marches on. As I type this I'm trying to make a laptop I have work for me for just one more year so I can save up for something better later. It has ports I don't use, like a parallel port and S-video. It has some legacy ports I still use, like FireWire and VGA. But really all I use are the USB ports. I'm trying to get a network interface working, wired or wireless, but if I can't then I'll just plug in a USB adapter like I was doing before. I think that is where a lot of people are going, they'll just buy the adapter for the legacy ports they still use. Newer ports like USB and Thunderbolt are very versatile and so it's not like people need a large variety of ports any more. With so many things wireless it's not like people need a large number of them either. Docks, hubs, and daisy-chaining helps with the low port count too.
I mean what is the line for you. Are you willing to accept any decision the technology overlords push on you?
You mean like Microsoft pushing Windows 10 on me? I was happy with Windows XP as were a lot of people I work with. With XP went some good and some bad. I still use XP to run some old games I like, and as long as the computer keeps running I'll keep using it. So it goes with a lot of hardware I own. I still use CRTs for my displays because they keep working. I'm gong to have to give up on my iPod and it's 30-pin docks and cables soon since I cracked the screen. If I had my way we might still be seeing SCSI ports on Apple computers, which is probably one good reason why I'm not in charge of Apple's hardware decisions.
I guess my question to you is, what do you expect me to do about it? I can write angry e-mails to Apple, mock them on every web forum I know of, but in the end money talks. They figured out what sells and people like you and me don't buy enough hardware to dictate anything Apple sells.
I'm reminded of a conversation with some co-workers when the new MacBook without an optical drive came out. I was told about how Apple was being stupid for leaving out such a critical piece of hardware, that they'd never buy such a computer, etc.
My response to them then, and my response to critics now, is the same. No one is forcing you to buy Apple hardware. Apple still offers the older product with the hardware you desire. You quite likely are not their target demographic. Apple cannot provide every product to meet every possible customer desire, compromises must be made.
I then asked them about how often they actually used the optical drive they have in their computers. Since Apple included a disc with the MacBook that had software that allowed one to share an optical drive in another computer, MacOS or Windows, I asked if they had more than one computer at home. What I found out is that people rarely used their optical drive, and they all had more than one computer at home. So while they didn't like the idea of needing a peripheral to access an optical drive they did agree that not including the drive did not prevent them from reading optical disks.
What is interesting here is that this analogy only carries so far since this time Apple includes as a peripheral what they left off by default. It'd be like putting an optical drive in the box with every MacBook. Yet people still complain. Apple in both cases was not the first to do this, but the first (or even second) guy didn't make near as many waves. Why is that?
Mock Apple if you want. I even hesitate to come to Apple's defense since they don't need my help and I'll likely be labeled as a "fanboi" for doing so.
What confuses me further about this is that this forum, like my co-workers, consists of largely of people that are (or at least claim to be) knowledgeable of electronics and its industry. Is it so confusing to people that a business case was made for this decision long before the product made it to store shelves? They figured this out. As evidence I'll give the popularity of the MacBook and iPhone product lines, much less that Apple is still around to be mocked. Not only can a business case be made but this was expected to happen eventually.
Thing is that I'm not likely to even buy this new iPhone, I bought a new "dumb" phone a few months ago and I'm happy with it for now. I didn't buy one of those MacBooks either, but I did get one when someone else was paying for it. I'm not in their demographic either but I'd like to think I know a good business choice when I see one. I think Apple did good here, or at least not bad. Now, if all iPhone models lacked the headphone port then we'd have a different conversation.
Maybe they didn't do that because they did their own market research before they developed the product and already know which feature people prefer.
Laughed. Out. Loud.
Well done.
http://www.gcmap.com/featured/...
It would have been nice to see a map in the news article to give some idea to those reading it unfamiliar with the area just how big of a "blunder" this was. From the Great Circle Mapper website I linked to above we see that KUL is about 4000 miles from SYD, and SYD is less than 500 miles from MEL. Given the typical cruising speed of a jetliner they were in the air for perhaps not much more than an hour on a flight that would have lasted 8 or 9 hours. Since they knew right away something was wrong I doubt they were flying much longer than that, maybe 3 hours. If they were flying much longer than that I suspect they would have landed much further from either SYD or MEL, or we'd be reading about a plane lost at sea.
The article makes a big deal about "landing in the wrong country" which I suppose is a big deal if you take off in the USA, headed for Canada, but end up in India. Much less of a deal if you take off from USA while headed for Canada but a technical problem means you have to land back in USA.
Once wilderness is gone, it cannot be restored because the ecological processes that underpin the ecosystems are destroyed, the researchers said. The only option, they said, is to proactively protect what is left.
This is true only because they define wilderness so narrowly. I've seen what happens when people no longer inhabit an area, wilderness takes over. The ecosystem can grow and restore itself. If we define "wilderness" only as areas undisturbed by human activity then, by definition, wilderness can only shrink or stay the same. Which then leads one to ask, how did that ecosystem get there in the first place? The answer is either it grew there naturally, or some deity wished it into being.
I don't know if I should assume these people are Creationists or that they didn't think this all the way through. What I really think though is that they are trying to simplify the problem to the point it has become a lie. They lie to us hoping we don't think it through.
They also assume that "wilderness" is always better than what human activity can create. I've seen many great gardens, animal habitats, parks, arboretums, etc. where there was just barren land before. If allowed to occur naturally it would have taken thousands of years for so much plant and animal life to spread like that.
Do these people think humans can only destroy? People create things too, beautiful things even. People can even make the world better. Preserving wilderness at the cost of humanity's ability to grow, learn, and explore is beyond wrong, I believe it is a mental illness.
Is that how you think you should respond to people trying to answer your questions? Is it that hard to comprehend that an Ethernet switch is a kind of computer? And that to make sure that the network is maintained that this computer needs to send commands to another similar computer? And do so "routinely"?
Therefore, if the switch fails to respond to those commands, and the network was not planned well, and competent people aren't there to fix the problem then the the network fails. Which is what brought this lawsuit, the network failed and they are trying to put this on Cisco instead of their own failure to plan for the possibility of a broken/buggy switch.
From your response I must assume you are either a child or just acting childish. So, grow up.
What you failed to do is explain how oil is artificially cheap. I pointed out that oil is naturally cheap, we get much more value from it than it costs.
Compared to wood or cattle dung we find that we can get cleaner energy from fossil fuels. It also leaves the wood for building and the dung for fertilizer.
You claim that fossil fuels damage the environment beyond the benefit they give which is demonstrably false. We are only able to have as much food, clean water, clothing, shelter, medicines, etc. because we have naturally cheap fossil fuels.
What you propose is not removing the "artificially" inexpensive but creating an artificial expense.
You can't be serious. Sugar and coffee healthy? Really?
It's healthier than the beer and wine it replaced.
After taking training for Cisco certification I can think of many such commands. These switches are not the kind you find at Best Buy. These switches will communicate with other devices on the network about how to route traffic. Ethernet does do routing much like how IP does routing, just at a different layer. For this routing to be efficient every device needs to know something about where on the network the other devices are located.
An equipment failure, a poorly planned network, and improperly trained staff, would make a lengthy network failure inevitable.
How else do you expect this to turn out? I suppose that Cisco could pay up to keep them quiet and out of a courtroom but that sets a precedent for writing checks if a company can somehow blame them for their failure.
There is already a long history of people getting fitness of purpose claims tossed out of court. I don't believe that Cisco has much to worry about here.
This is a "faux doctor group" because they get upset that the government is making their job difficult? Perhaps medical professionals would not have to be so political if the politicians weren't practicing medicine. I'd think this would be true of any profession. If bakers had the government bust down their doors to see what they were putting in their cakes, who they were selling cakes to, how many cakes sold to each customer, and how much they charged for them then I'd expect bakers to speak up often on politics.
I took a look at the poll and it seems that a majority of these physicians believe that HRC's medical symptoms are serious enough that they need to be discussed and/or disclosed by any candidate.
Tell me something, if you had a co-worker that could end up being your boss show signs of illness then would you not want to have some assurance that this illness would not affect your work? She's been shown to have some serious coughing fits. We've seen her act confused. She's had some rather unusual twitches/spasms. It does not take professional medical training to know these things are signs of potential medical problems. If she were not running for POTUS then I would not care so much about her health. It's not like I wish her ill health if she weren't running, it's that her health is not something that would be of my concern if she was to retire.
You seem to speak as if these physicians are dictating her treatment or offering a diagnosis. They are not saying what kind of care she needs, or claiming she suffers from some specific illness. What they are saying is that she is showing signs of an illness, an illness that may be serious, and these symptoms should disqualify anyone for running for POTUS.
Again, these are medical professionals that have seen a person act in a way consistent with someone with a serious illness, serious enough to be disqualifying for public office. They did not make a claim on what that illness may be, and they are not recommending any specific treatment. It's just natural for someone, even without formal training in medicine, to be concerned about someone's health after seeing them with a coughing fit like we've seen from HRC. Getting a physician to say that perhaps she is not fit to be POTUS from what we've all seen should not be considered any kind of medical malpractice. In fact I would like to see more physicians speak up about this rather than some talking head that studied journalism, political science, or whatever in college.
Look at the source. This groups says HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. This group says being gay itself shortens life expectancy.
I'm not trying to defend these people since all I really know is what little I've read about them in a few minutes but I'm not ready to call this group a "joke" based only on those two stances.
Of course gay people have a shorter life expectancy. This should not be controversial. Men that engage in anal sex with other men tend to spread disease, and they also tend to be gay. Gay people also tend to be victims of violence. Violence against gay men should not be tolerated but merely recognizing it's prevalence should not make anyone a "joke".
The claim that this group says HIV isn't the cause of AIDS requires some further explanation before it becomes "joke" worthy. There are certainly the conspiracy theorist types that will make this claim and come up with rather unbelievable explanations on why this is so. Such people are "jokes" to me as well. I also recognize that there is an element of the scientific community that do believe that there is a high correlation between HIV and AIDS but dispute which causes the other. Given my limited knowledge on the subject I am willing to accept the possibility that there is perhaps a scientific reason to make this claim.
I will also say that I do believe that HIV causes AIDS. Since I do not engage in activities that put me at risk of HIV I really don't think about it much. If a group of physicians believe that HIV does not cause AIDS then I'm not in the position to argue with them. I'm also unsure on where the controversy lies here. Does this stance somehow affect the way people with AIDS are treated? I mean treatment in both the social and medical sense.
This is damn near more a political group than a true medical group anyone should listen to.
In reading a few things on their website I believe that they make it clear they are a political organization. I interpret their stance as being that the government should stay out of the physician-patient relationship, and that is something I can agree with. I believe the greater outrage should be over a government that wants to interfere in that physician-patient relationship. A group of physicians advocating for their profession is an expected result of the government taking great interest in that profession.
If the government wasn't making their job so difficult then we'd never have heard of this group. It should not be difficult to imagine a group of physicians would be opposed to another Clinton in the White House given how Democrats have made their job harder than it should be. This may be an unconventional tactic to oppose her election but HRC's health is in the news.
This is a news article about the opinion of 250 physician's over HRC's health, which to me is not very newsworthy. HRC has been showing signs of illness, has not been doing many public appearances, and has a history of medical problems, so her health is news. Getting an opinion from physicians would seem wise for people that intend to vote.
What I'd like to see are opinions from more physicians on this.
Fossil fuels are profitable only because we've collectively decided that they should be profitable, not due to the invisible hand of the market.
Oh really? We just "decided" they were profitable. Imagine if we just "decided" they weren't profitable tomorrow, what would happen then? I'll tell you. A lot of children would not get to school because they could not ride a bus. A lot of people would die of seemingly minor injuries because we could not drive an ambulance to them and/or the medicines we produce, transport, refrigerate, and sterilize with fossil fuels would disappear. No more airplanes for travel and communication. No more container ships by sea, or they'd be limited to the speed of the prevailing winds. Say goodbye to a lot of the cheap goods that you enjoy.
In short, life would suck without fossil fuels. You choose to focus on the negatives of fossil fuels because you've been brainwashed into thinking they are bad. I think you need to take a history course on modern western civilization from a college professor that isn't a raging lefty. I imagine there are a few of them left in the world. My history professors were raging left wingers but at least I knew enough before hand to know when bias crept into the lecture. I suspect you are not so inclined.
It's because of fossil fuels that societal constructs like slavery ended. It is because of fossil fuels that we were able to transport coffee and sugar across the world. It also helped that fossil fuels made it much easier to produce a modern water and sewage system. We live in a world built on oil, sugar, and coffee. From that flowed a healthy and well fed population, capable of doing so much more than subsistence farming. If the oil stops we might still get the sugar and coffee but we'd need slave labor to harvest it.
Or we'd need nuclear power. But we "decided" that nuclear power wasn't going to be profitable. When we decide different then maybe we can have our coffee and eat our cake too.
As I recall the solar PV panels have a color and/or reflective properties that are not seen in nature. The birds are confused by the panels and run into them in flight, which injures and kills them.
One theory is that they are confusing them with water, and instead of a pleasant "plop" into a puddle they have a hard landing and break their little legs. Another theory is that the dark flat color looks like a hole or cave to them, so instead of flying into shade they fly into a hard surface. Another theory is that birds just run into things but PV panels are harder and with sharper edges than leaves and grass, what would be a soft bounce off of vegetation is now a deadly hard collision.
Solar thermal stations create invisible and intense beams of heat. A bird is a relatively small animal, moving at a relatively low speed, and so once a bird happens to cross this beam they don't have much of a chance on flying out before the heat overwhelms them and they cook to death. If they survive the initial encounter with the heat then they might have cooked feathers, temporary blindness, and other injuries that make them easy prey for small furry creatures on the ground. The beam concentrators also create an artificial sun from the intense point of light, this can lead birds astray as many species will use the sun as a navigation point. A lost bird cannot find food and shelter.
I also recall that it's not just birds that are hazards to the solar power farms, vegetation also cause problems. If plant life is not controlled they can grow to a height to obstruct the sunlight. A responsible solar farm owner will mow the grass and trim the trees. A less environmentally conscious, and more conscious of profit, solar farm manager will control the plant life with chemicals. These chemicals can cause problems later as the weather moves them around. What the weather will also do is blow dirt, leaves, and grass clippings onto the solar panels. These need to be washed off with fresh water, a valuable resource, and possibly with soap/detergents in the water, polluting the water downstream.
We'd be better off with nuclear power. A modern air cooled nuclear power plant would not kill near as many birds, and would not consume or pollute near as much fresh water. A modern nuclear power plant would also possibly consume the waste from previous inefficient reactors or, at a minimum, not add to the radioactive waste problem we have.
I assume this does not apply for docks, no? I have an iPod dock I use to make up for its worn headphone jack. I can charge the iPod while listening to headphones. In reality though I'm much more likely to take advantage of the wireless streaming to listen through powered speakers or my stereo while charging.
Actually, for me that is probably the most valuable feature. Getting bigger, faster, etc. is expected. What concerns me are things like durability. I've had my iPod Touch for years now, and three times I was afraid I might have to be without it. First I dropped it in the woods, not sure how one would fix that problem though. Second time it fell out of my pocket and into a puddle, thankfully I got it out of the water quickly and I saw no permanent damage. The third time was when I dropped my iPod onto a hard concrete floor. Newer devices have tougher glass to deal with such abuses and had I got a new iPod recently I would not be dealing with a cracked screen right now. It still works but the cracks in the screen are annoying so I'm looking for a replacement.
A piece of electronics designed to fit in a pocket with the durability to handle short drops onto hard floors and puddles of water are a selling point to me. If it also has something to help me find it again if lost in the woods then I will be much more likely to buy it over the competition.
The loss of a headphone jack is a non-issue for me. Since the headphone jack on my iPod wore out months ago I've learned to do without. What I would have liked is a cheap replacement for the worn headphone jack but none exist. With this iPhone I know one is available. So, perhaps less than a non-issue but actually a plus.
Agreed. They had determined the sole occupant was dead and so there was no point in further risk of life in dealing with the wreckage.
How is this even news? Is it because it is an electric car? We've had electric cars before. If one is to include things like electric forklifts then I imagine similar situations have come up many times before. Is it news because it is a Tesla? If so then is this supposed to make them look bad? Perhaps someone's bias is showing.
If this had been a wreck in water then I imagine a recovery would take just as long. A crash in water also is unlikely to result in survivors, regardless of the power plant that powers the vehicle. If there were live occupants, such as if one had just witnessed the crash, then a lot of safety protocols go out the window.
The guy is dead. Take your time to clean up the mess and do it right. Just don't take too long as there is a social need to have respect for the dead.
Can you tell me what is a "standard audio system" connector?
Just off the top of my head I can think of XLR, 1/4" phone, 1/8" phone, SpeakOn, RCA, banana clips, and bare wire (spring clips or binding post). Then there are the numerous combination audio/video connectors like MHL, HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort, a couple USB-C alt modes, and each seemingly with standard, mini, and micro versions.
It wasn't that long ago that people would buy a cassette to 1/8" phone adapter to plug their iPods, CD players, or whatever, into their car stereo. I still have mine somewhere around here.
What we've seen are electronics manufacturers make a lot of money on adapters. Which is inevitable in a way since each connector type has good and bad points, as they are all a compromise. Electronics manufacturers have also made a lot of money by supporting these connectors directly hoping someone would buy their device because it had the "right" connector built into it. Like some car models having a 30-pin iPod connector to connect the sound system to iPods, and allow for use of controls built into the steering wheel.
I'm not a fan of Apple not including a "standard" phone jack but I understand their decision. I haven't used the phone jack on my iPod for nearly a year. I haven't used it because it broke. I've been listening to my iPod through the built in speaker, the iPod adapter I installed in my truck, the dock I have next to my stereo, and by W-Fi through my Airport Express. If there was a 30-pin to "standard" headphone jack adapter I probably would have bought one long ago, but I haven't found one. I gave up on finding an adapter, partly because I've found other ways to do what I want, partly because that iPod is now so old and worn I'm shopping for a replacement.
What sucks about getting a new iPod is that my 30-pin connector cables and docks will have to be replaced too. I'm not going to cry about Apple abandoning the 30-pin iPod connector since I believe it wasn't that great of a connector, certainly not now. Firewire is no longer "standard" equipment on computers. Component A/V cables are uncommon as well. As demonstrated by my mild inconvenience in doing without the 1/8" audio connector for so long I've learned to do without that as well. When I do need it I know I can find an adapter.
I was actually discussing something like this with a co-worker today but about video connectors, not audio. Not too long ago VGA ruled the world and so we had a lot of VGA displays. What came along to replace it was DVI but we didn't want to replace the display with the computer every time so we bought adapters. As displays were replaced over time we put the DVI to VGA adapters in a box until we needed one again. Now those DVI to VGA adapters are piling up in a box because computers are now coming with DisplayPort outputs. As our displays have VGA and/or DVI inputs we had to order more DisplayPort to DVI adapters today. New displays that we order tend to have one or more of DVI, DisplayPort, and MHL inputs.
We will always need adapters. We will always be able to find adapters. If for some reason you cannot find the adapter you need then perhaps you are being too early or too late to the "standard". If your new cell phone can't plug into your audio system then maybe, just maybe, your audio system needs an upgrade too.
I think I see your problem but this HDMI over USB-C only complicates things. It's rare to see a laptop that does not have a Thunderbolt, MiniDP, DVI, or even VGA to go along with an HDMI port. If the HDMI port is lacking then there are cheap adapters for MiniDP and (fat) DP. If the port is DP++ then HDMI support is there from a passive cable. Passive adapters are typically less than $20. Active adapters can be as much as $80 for the multi-ported ones from Apple, but more like $40.
With a cable that has USB-C on one end and HDMI-A on the other one would have to know which protocol it is speaking on each end, and then see if the source and sink devices speak that protocol. The HDMI end might be MHL or HDMI, and whatever versions those might be. The USB-C end might speak HDMI, MHL, DP, TB3, or only USB. That one cable configuration could have one of ten different kinds of circuitry in it, and you'll need to know which one will work and how to tell them apart.
In the case of doing a presentation in an unfamiliar lecture hall I'd want to keep the number of cables to a minimum while maximizing my chances of getting things to work. The best is likely a USB 2.0 to some version of HDMI. I might not get the best resolution but the chances of success would be very high. A cheap VGA adapter in my bag for the worst case. If I'm feeling lucky I can bring a Thunderbolt cable, those support USB3, MiniDP, and Thunderbolt as part of the spec, expensive but versatile and high bandwidth. Another way that might maximize results with little expense is a passive MHL cable if the source device supports it. That would be cheap and give up to 4K video.
This was a problem solved already with DP and MHL. For those that want HDMI from a computer with USB-C then an active cable may be wanted regardless to get passed the limitation of supporting only HDMI 1.4,
We have computers trying to be lawyers now. Law is one part of society with so much nuance that it is very difficult to write it into any set code. This is why we have a court system, because legal code is something we must interpret with intention.
I am reminded of automated speeding tickets being issued and how they've gone wrong. In nearly every case the city responsible (because it's almost always a city that does this) will swear in a court of law that every ticket was reviewed but a sworn officer before being issued. When challenged it becomes obvious they weren't.
So now we have automated DCMA notices going out and obviously no one bothered to verify them before going out, or the person doing the review was not suited for doing the review. Here is a case of one large corporate entity going to battle with another large corporate entity and the problem seems to disappear, right?
When elephants battle it's always the grass that loses.
I don't know why I bother to reply to an AC but here is your citation:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadge...
Scroll down to the graphic where the pin out is shown.
The USB-C alt modes define how the 4 high speed lanes on the port are used. In USB 3.1 mode they are used for 2 pair of RX/TX lanes. In a 2-lane DP mode there is one RX/TX pair of lanes for USB 3.1 and 2 lanes for DP. In 4-lane DP mode all 4 lanes are used for DP data. In Thunderbolt mode all the USB-C high speed lanes are dedicated to PCIe and DP packets, USB 3.1 packets will not share these lanes. I have not seen the spec on how MHL or HDMI use these lanes, I can only assume it is similar to DP mode. In whatever mode the USB-C connector is in there will always be a bidirectional pair of data wires for USB 2.0.
The mode of the port will be defined by the first cable or device connected to it. Once in a certain mode it will stay there until every device is disconnected. Daisy chaining USB 3 and TB 3 devices will not be allowed. DP and TB devices can be daisy chained only if the DP devices are on the end of the chain. I assume daisy chaining USB and DP devices is allowed but then the USB devices would have to be at the end.
I imagine it possible to make a cable that converts one USB-C mode to another but it would have to be insanely expensive, convert only one mode to another (and only in one direction), and still be confusing for many users. Even if someone makes one of these magic cables that USB-C port will go to whatever mode that the peripheral, cable, and host all support. This might be DP, MHL, HDMI, USB3, or TB3. It may even be just USB2.0 since that is where they all have a common denominator. The exception is that DP can share the cable with either USB3 or TB3 but again every piece in the chain has to support it, and there are other limits that go with that.
I was torn with ignoring an AC that may just be trolling to helping to inform someone that was mistaken but was willing to learn. I hope I didn't choose poorly.
But hey, the connectors reversible!
But the cables might not be!
Imagine someone wanting to connect a USB-C computer with a port that does not support MHL or HDMI, which shouldn't be hard since that is likely 100% of the computers that have been made for years now. Now imagine a display with a USB-C port that uses only MHL and/or HDMI that someone wants to connect to that computer they bought in the last five years. Now this person will have to go shopping for a cable that connects a USB-C port carrying USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt to another USB-C port carrying MHL or HDMI.
It used to be that we'd have a keyboard port, a mouse port, a printer port, and so on. A port for everything and everything connected to its port. Not utopia exactly but if the connector fit we had a high probability of the devices talking to each other. Now we can have a single connector that can be talking any one of four (?) protocols. Unless one take care to look at the little icons, which might rub off with use, it's very possible to be using the right cable for the job but using the wrong end on each device.
PROGRESS!