I have little doubt that Griffin is playing games with the USB spec, and the USB people charged with enforcing the spec is letting them get away with it.
I can just imagine what would happen when a blue shirted "geek" that gets paid on commission is faced with a blue haired grandma and a shelf with the $40 Griffin cable, a $30 Thunderbolt cable, and a $20 USB 2 cable. Grandma might say she wants to get photos off her new camera onto her laptop so she can e-mail them off to the girls in her sewing circle, but no one knows if the person in the blue shirt is listening or cares. An honest person in a blue shirt will hand grandma the USB 2 cable, or maybe the Thunderbolt cable to be sure of a quick transfer. A dishonest and/or ignorant person in a blue shirt will hand over the more expensive Griffin cable because that means a higher commission.
My point is that it seems not that long ago that there was a lowest common denominator in USB, that you could be sure that any cable with USB connectors on both ends would talk USB, and that any device with a USB port could talk to any computer with a USB port. It might not be fast but it would talk some version of USB. Now you cannot be sure of that.
The people at USB are, IMHO, committing a slow suicide by allowing things to get so complicated. I expect people will get frustrated with this and the USB group will have to reign things in or USB will again become that "useless shitty bus" that they worked so hard to get rid of.
There's a FIFTH display mode, since you can use (and might need) an actual USB to display out adapter which consists in a chip made by a vendor called Displaylink.
USB is not a display protocol. That would be like saying I have a PCIe monitor because the video card I'm using is in a PCIe slot.
You do bring up a good point though. While many devices with a USB-C port will support one or more alternate video modes one might still need an actual graphics controller to connect to their display. LG and Dell will sell displays with USB-C and HDMI ports, and you can find phones that will have a USB-C port, and there are cables with USB-C on one end and USB-C or HDMI on the other but that does not mean the three together will mean video will display. The phone might even say in the documentation that it supports video from the USB-C port, and that they offer a USB-C to HDMI and USB-C to USB-C cables for this purpose. What you might miss though is that this is using the MHL protocol, which not all displays with an HDMI or USB-C port support. In that case you need the more expensive DisplayLink adapters, or whatever, that can convert the MHL signal to DisplayPort or HDMI.
This is something that I've been watching because I'm looking to get a new computer and display in the near future. I have a collection of computers with VGA, HDMI, DVI, and mini-DisplayPort outputs. I've been using VGA as the lowest common denominator for a long time now but this cannot go on for much longer. I'll have to pick something soon and this array of ports with multiple protocols, and protocols supporting different ports, is frustrating for someone that's been around computers for a long time. I just have to wonder what kind of frustrations this can bring to those less experienced than I.
There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which doesn't have any of the high speed pairs.
These are actually quite common. They are usually sold as "charge only" cables but the USB2 sets of wires are there to provide a data path to let the charging device know something is connected and to negotiate a charging rate.
One thing that I thought was true was that if a cable or device had a USB-C port or connector that it would have the pins for USB 2 data. This seemed true even for all the alternate modes, the USB 2 pins would still be there and could transmit data at USB 2 speeds. That data might only be "I'm here, now charge me" for a lot of devices but the cable would support USB 2 data. I was wrong.
I bought a Griffin "Magsafe" style USB-C charge cable that does not have a USB 2 data pass through. I don't have it here to verify but it seems it has some sort of USB chip on each end to tell the device it's plugged into that it can pass 60 watts of power, but that's it. Not a big deal since I had no intention of ever using this cable for data but I thought it would be nice to know that if I needed to just make something work, even if at only USB 2 speeds, I could use this cable to do it.
The one common feature across all the USB-C alternate modes was the USB 2 pins and 5V/1A/5W power, or so I thought. Seems that I can't even rely on a cable with USB-C connectors on both ends to transfer data at all.
They'll claim it meet USB-C specifications but they seem to use enough legalese to avoid getting slapped around by the USB lawyers, or the USB group is okay with a USB cable not actually passing through USB data.
Perhaps I'm picking nits in calling this "common" or even a "USB cable". I'm quite certain that I can find a USB 2 only cable, or power only cable, that is USB-C to USB-C at most any cell phone shop, grocery store, truck stop, hardware store, or fruit vendor.
Removing the DC bias meant that an equal number of 1s and 0s were sent so that the angle of the cable would not change the speed of data transfer. The ability to keep connections electrically isolated was a nice bonus.
What if the printer dropped USB 2.0 and only accepts Bluetooth 4.1 for data input?
You mean they dropped a 20 year old standard for a 15 year old standard? The horror.
A USB to Bluetooth adapter costs $20 and you only need one to communicate with multiple devices. A USB A to B cable costs $5 and you need one for every USB device you want to connect to. Assuming the printer does not come with the USB cable (which seems to be the norm) and the computer does not already have Bluetooth (when Bluetooth seems pretty common for 10 years now) then one is likely better off just using Bluetooth anyway.
You just said that you bought a top of the line cell phone and want to listen to it on wired headphones while charging it on a plane. That sounds like the $100k/year type person, not the homeless dude that wants a phone to keep in touch with family and look for a job.
Don't buy an $800 phone if you cannot afford the headphones too, or do without the headphones. No one can make a phone for all people.
I suspect that in this price range the lack of a 1/8" jack is a feature. It tells people that the owner has moved on to new technology and can afford a new $15 headphone set. Such people will have a wireless head set, spend the bucks for a splitter cable, or not be inconvenienced with the inability to listen while charging.
Somewhere between two years and two hours from now all new cell phones sold will lose the headphone jack. The homeless dude will have to put the phone to his head to listen to music while charging his phone on the plane.
I have to wonder what the USB people are thinking. They have a good idea going here, why are they trying to ruin it?
It used to be that USB-C was USB but faster. It made the "On-The-Go" bi-directional features from USB2 required so people didn't have to worry about the host/device relationship too much. The Micro-AB connector was switched to a "flippable" version, they called "Type C", which is great. The new connector is just as small but handles more power, and I don't have to worry if I got the "right" end or which way is "up".
Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes. You have Thunderbolt (which is just DisplayPort mixed with PCIe data), DisplayPort (which may or may not be backward compatible with the Thunderbolt mode), HDMI, and MHL (which may or may not be backward compatible with HDMI). They should have told the HDMI people to piss off and stopped at three. Maybe even tell the MHL people to piss off too but they already had an agreement with MHL on the micro-USB connector.
Now you have four video modes, two data modes (ThunderBolt and "SuperSpeed" USB), and with this new "Ludicrous Speed" mode they added a third data mode. It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need. Even buying a simple data cable is confusing. There's the USB2 cable, the USB3 cable, and the ThunderBolt cable, they all look identical at a glance with USB-C connectors on both ends. Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely? Or will it crap out and support only USB2 speed?
They created this "SuperSpeed" naming to differentiate the USB2 speed devices from the faster USB3 ones. Then when USB-C came along with two "SuperSpeed" lanes they had to figure out how to make that clear to the user. They came up with "SuperSpeed+". (Notice the addition of the plus sign? It's easy to miss.) What is this new one going to be called?
I have to wonder if this is going to die before it even gets started. The people that want a faster USB got ThunderBolt already.
If you spent $800 on a cell phone and $500 on an airplane ticket then an extra $10 or $15 isn't going to kill you. Buy a bottle of water instead of your usual Starbucks coffee and muffin, you'll come out even after that. I have a suspicion the reduction in calories wouldn't hurt. After you've bought this adapter then just keep it plugged into your headphones. Trust me, after a while you won't even notice it's there.
Right! When I spend $150 on a new laser printer I expect it to have a parallel port, dammit! You expect me to spend an extra $20 for a USB card and cable! Outrageous I tell you. These people are just giving me a "fuck you tax" because I am not about to spend any money on a new computer. Have you seen what those things cost? They want me to spend another $200 on one of those "chrome book" things. Chrome? At that price they must be made of platinum!
Now go away. I have to call these internet people. They tell me I have to upgrade my modem to this "dock sis" thing they are trying to push on me. I paid good money for my modem in 1998, top of the line too. It's got the latest in 56K technology, that's all I need. What's one of these "dock sis" things cost anyway? FIFTY DOLLARS! Is that made of chrome too?
If that's what is keeping anyone from buying an $800 phone then I'm at a loss. Buy some new headphones already. I just did a bit of searching for USB-C headphones and I saw that Amazon will sell a pair of USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapters for $7. I saw a set of USB-C earbuds for $12. Name brand earbuds and headphones are as cheap as $40 and the sky is the limit on the top end, as with most things. If spending an extra $20 or $50 for a quality adapter or headphone set is too much after dropping nearly a grand on a phone is then perhaps you might want to rethink getting the latest and greatest cell phone, because the spare Micro-B charger you had for your last phone won't work on this either.
Take your set of headphones with the TRS connector and give it to one of your grandkids to play with. They'll probably ask you what it's for. Tape a jar lid to the cord end and tell them its a stethoscope. Then pry open your wallet and pull out a $20 bill or two and make a trip to Best Buy. One of the nice people in the blue shirts can help you out. They might look at you funny for paying with cash since most people buy things with their cell phones these days. I'd tell you how that works but since you are apparently so attached to your TRS connectors I suspect that this kind of culture shock might induce a heart attack.
After you've tried your new headphones for a bit come back to your computer and dial up into AOL and give me a review, I'd like to know what you got.
Then any Muslim within earshot will kill you. As far as the Chinese government is concerned the problem is solved on their end either way.
How can they prove what you believe (or not?)
If they are looking to check that their spyware is installed on your phone then I doubt they care what you believe. There are no rights in China. Denial will not be enough to free you from surveillance.
Islam is not just a religion, it is a legal structure, where atheism is punishable by death. Communism is incompatible with any faith. Now we see the two meet. There will be no winners here.
Be prepared to go wireless or live the dongle life.
In my book bag, along with my books, papers, pens, and so forth, is a pair of headphones for my iPhone. Attached to the headphones is this tiny little "dongle" that allows me to plug the headphones into my iPhone. I don't really think about it, it's just become part of the headphone set in my mind.
Give up on this already. USB-C is here to stay. Buy a four pack of USB-A to USB-C adapters for $20 and shut up already. If you are buying a $800 phone or $1500 laptop then just consider the adapters the "legacy tax" for not upgrading everything at once, you can afford it.
If someone isn't already offering a set of USB-C headphones then I expect it to happen real soon now. Until then pay your "legacy tax", shut up, and when you lose, break, or wear out the headphones you got then go buy a nice shiny new USB-C headphone set. Who knows, it might just come with a "dongle" for your old 1/8" TRS devices in the box.
I've been living the "dongle life" since I bought my first computer. Actually even before that. I picked a VT terminal from the trash while in college. I had to get a DB-9 to 25 pin "dongle" to plug into the serial line provided in the dorm rooms.
Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth
Statistics fail! There will always be, by definition, a wealthy 1%.
Also, they earned their money, what gives anyone the right to take it from them? If you want their money then the best way to get it is the same way they got it, by trading up. I traded $30 for a tank of gas this morning, who got "wealthy" from that? The answer is both me and the gas station. They wanted my $30 more than they wanted that gasoline, and I wanted the gasoline more than I wanted the $30. Now with that $30 they can go buy more gasoline, and pay the cashier, and pay the lease on the property, and so on. With my tank of gas I can now get to and from classes for a week, which gives me an education that has a value of it's own.
especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?
This sounds like someone that lacks knowledge of history. People have always found work, doing things we never even thought of before. Long ago a "computer" was a person good at math. Now such people work at programming the machines we call computers.
Who knows what they will be doing. I'm quite certain though that they will still be able to find work, because supply often creates a demand on its own. No one knew they wanted a dishwasher until someone started selling them. What are all those people supposed to do now that they aren't washing dishes? I don't know, but they won't be wasting their time doing something so monotonous.
I know people who graduated from both colleges and have never heard of employers having a preference for one of the other.
That's because they both got a computer science degree from the same university with, as you point out, having highly similar coursework. I was comparing computer science to engineering from the same university, in universities that had computer science only in the liberal arts college.
Computer science programs have in recent years started to cater to students that want to learn how to write good code, and the managers that want to hire them. At my school, in just the last couple years, I saw the software engineering track get created for both computer science and engineering students. Also, the engineering department began to offer a computer science major, as a bachelor in engineering program. Those that want to take a more traditional computer science path can still do so, as a computer science major lacking the "software engineering" electives. Those people will do better in research, teaching, and so on, but they will lack the engineering background that it takes to write good code.
I'm just offering a warning to those that want to find work as a software developer. Learn from my experience. College recruiters will lie to you, verify everything they say with a second opinion, looking at their own course plans, etc. Succeeding in software development means learning the engineering process, you are most definitely going to get this in an engineering program in college, finding it in computer science may be difficult or impossible. If you do major in computer science and want to do software development then take courses that teach software development., you might not find these classes in the CS department, they may be in the engineering department. Most schools will let CS students take software engineering courses from the engineering department, take them if you can. The one required class titled "software development" is not sufficient. This is only one class and, as experience and news articles like this show, the instructors may be overwhelmed with students and not offer a great education. Also take an advanced software development course, or two, or three. These will count toward your copious number of electives you'll need to fill, learn to write good code instead of taking that "web programming" class. (That class was a total waste of my time, who hand codes HTML any more?)
As a computer science major you will be competing with students that majored in software engineering and computer engineering, and they will have taken at least four courses in software development. Those that took writing good code seriously will have taken even more.
Sure, cutting flight times are nice but for most travelers the longest part of the trip is getting through airport security. Faster airplanes won't fix this, but it will make that time stick out more to the consumer.
If the TSA still insists on people arriving 2 hours in advance for a 5 hour flight instead of a 10 hour flight then people are going to notice that wait time more.
For many people the flight time could be cut in half by just doing a proper security check instead of this over the top crap the TSA has been doing.
At home when storms roll through my crappy cable internet can die on my but the Wi-Fi signal will still be strong. My iPhone will keep hammering away at the Wi-Fi because it sees a signal but it goes no where. If I disable the Wi-Fi and use the cellular network instead then I can go back to my e-mail, surf the web, or whatever. If the iPhone was smart enough to switch to cellular data when the Wi-Fi internet connection dies on me then that would be convenient. When the Wi-Fi internet comes back, because the cable company finally got their act together, then I'd like the iPhone to switch back automatically without me having to remember to re-enable Wi-Fi.
I'd want some indication on the screen that a Wi-Fi connection is available but deemed "unworthy" so I can look into why it failed. This is also so I can be aware I'm using my limited cell data instead of an unlimited Wi-Fi. I have certain apps disabled from using cellular data to keep me from going too far on grabbing data but even so I have to watch myself. For instance I had web browsing disabled on the cellular network to keep me from watching YouTube and using up all my data, but then I found that this also kept me from comparing prices online as I shopped. Some finer grained control might be handy here as well.
I will say that the Wi-Fi calling feature sure it nice. As I sit in my basement office I'll sometimes have a marginal cell signal. With Wi-Fi calling it's not a worry, at least until storms knock out my cable internet again. It was also nice to see that I could still make phone calls even in a basement lecture hall. No cell signal there but the campus Wi-Fi worked.
It seems this preference for Wi-Fi is now becoming a problem and it's nice to see Apple working on it.
Dood! You're supposed to sit back and enjoy that, not argue with idiots on Slashdot. 8^)
I was trying real hard to finish my thought before I went off into la-la land. I barely made it and afterward I could enjoy the ride without having the unfinished post harshing my buzz.
Once upon a time, I thought that civilization was going to collapse if we didn't start building a lot of nuc power plants and soon. I was pretty wrong about that. I didn't take into account the dual effects of increasingly efficient production of solar and wind and storage, and the gains in efficiency on the consumption end.
I remember those days too. Back then the world population was about half what it is now. Had we stopped at about 3, 4, maybe 5 billion people on this rock then we might be able to get by with wind, sun, and rain. That is long gone and barring some depopulation we aren't going back. I've heard people say we should reduce population, and I believe that it can still happen. I just don't like what "depopulation" might mean. There's a hundred different ways to do it and only a handful would be even close to being "pleasant".
I've looked over their website and it's just full of lies and scaremongering.
One lie is that U-233 is weapons grade material. First, the U-233 that comes from a thorium reactor is so tainted with other uranium isotopes that it cannot be handled safely without very expensive processing. Second, a U-233 weapon is theoretical, no one has yet built one successfully. Sure, there were devices that contained U-233 that went *BOOM* but they were considered duds. Anyone that has the technology to turn U-233 into weapons grade material won't need the reactor, they can use common dirt and process that to get U-235 instead.
Also, what are we supposed to so with all the weapons we have now? Break them apart and pretend this valuable plutonium doesn't exist? That plutonium can be turned into energy in a nuclear reactor. If this organization wants to be rid of nuclear weapons then they should be advocating for nuclear energy. The only way to destroy nuclear weapons material is in a nuclear reactor. You can try to contaminate it with other materials, bury it in a deep enough hole, but it will still be there for someone to dig back up and turn into weapons again.
Getting back to the cost of nuclear energy I keep hearing on how nuclear energy is so expensive. That's because it is a self fulfilling prophesy. The people that license nuclear energy don't want it to be successful so they make it expensive. These projects are always over budget because the powers that be just cannot leave them alone and let them finish. Because if they did actually let them finish then the lie of expensive nuclear energy would be exposed as the lie it is.
Nuclear energy can be safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap. We know this because we've been getting safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap energy from nuclear power for decades. Chernobyl was 30 years ago and none of the reactors like it exist anymore. Same for Three Mile Island which was 40 years ago. Fukushima was an accident at an aging nuclear power plant and no new ones would be built like it either. If people fear nuclear power accidents then we need new nuclear to replace the old nuclear or energy is going to get expensive, unreliable, harder to find, and not nearly as safe.
You've never advocated for anything "green" in your life so what should it matter?
Because I want cheap and reliable energy. Solar cannot do that, it is neither cheap nor reliable. Wind is not reliable but cheap enough that if combined with traditional energy it can mean reducing costs without reducing reliability.
I'll play the "let's be green" game so long as it is done logically. I have no problem with being green, so long as it does not mean energy prices go up and availability goes down. So, for the moment, let's be green.
At the top of the green energy list is nuclear, wind, and hydro. All of them also fairly inexpensive compared to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is reliable, as is hydro, and if we don't go nuts on windmills where it overwhelms the ability of nuclear and hydro to keep things stable then wind is reliable too.
Solar power, in its varying forms, is expensive, has a larger carbon footprint than wind, hydro, and nuclear, and is dependent on favorable weather, so not reliable. Can we add batteries or other storage to make it reliable? Sure, that adds to the cost and carbon footprint, which is already not that great. Can we find sources of raw materials that use less carbon? Sure, but then those same materials can be used to reduce the carbon footprint of wind, hydro, and nuclear.
Can we have cheap carbon free energy without nuclear, using only wind and hydro? Only if you are lucky enough to live in a place with plenty of wind and water. At a certain point supply cannot meet demand and you'll have to use more expensive means to harness the wind and water, or turn to more carbon emitting energy like solar, geothermal, or natural gas.
Bio-fuel is just a bad idea, it's expensive, competes with food, and has a carbon footprint on par with natural gas. Just use the sun to grow food and lumber instead.
I like nuclear power because it provides plentiful cheap and reliable energy. Anyone that is honest about reducing carbon output should advocate for nuclear power too. If they want "green" but don't want "nukular" then they are mentally impaired, ignorant, or possibly both.
Building those windmill towers takes a lot of steel and concrete that could be put to better energy use, like nuclear power. I don't know how off shore wind power plays into this environmental disaster that on shore wind, but it can't be all that great if it costs twice as much to build out than onshore wind.
As far as "green" energy goes wind isn't nearly as bad as solar. I believe that wind could actually be profitable without government subsidy. Onshore wind produces energy that is about the same as natural gas or hydro, which is a fraction of the cost of solar energy. The carbon footprint of wind is on par with hydro, nuclear, which is a fraction of the carbon footprint of solar.
The problem with wind is the mess it can leave behind. Wind is not regulated like coal or nuclear. If you shut down a coal plant it must be cleared to a "brownfield" standard, meaning nothing left but bare dirt. Nuclear has to be torn down to "greenfield" standard, meaning what's left must be a grassland or forest. Wind is allowed to be abandoned, with rusted towers left in place. Sometimes they are required to tear down to a "grey-field" standard, where the towers and above ground structures must be removed but the buried concrete anchors can remain.
For a grey field to become useful again the concrete must be found useful as structural elements for industrial use, or removed with lots of diesel powered machinery. Only after it is removed can the ground be used for agriculture or wildlife. I assume if left to rot the concrete would slowly weather into rubble, but that would take centuries.
If the goal is cheap energy then wind can play along with coal, natural gas, and nuclear. When it comes to being "green" it seems only nuclear and wind apply. Solar isn't all it's cracked up to be, with the toxic materials involved and difficulty in recycling. Hydro might work but I wonder about such things as the Rio Grande not reaching the Gulf any more. Geothermal seems cheap and carbon free but it only works in places like Iceland and Hawaii.
The energy future looks like nuclear for base load, wind power when and where it is cheap, hydro for storage and load following where it is available. When we run out og hydro then we'll have to go to natural gas for peak load matching, at least in the near term. Synthetic fuels derived from excess nuclear capacity at low demand times can be tanked to burn later in converted natural gas turbines. Batteries might play a role if the price is right, which is unlikely. We'll probably have air cooled brayton cycle nuclear before the batteries get too far. Air cooled nuclear with turbines can load follow just as well as any natural gas turbine, since they work on the same physics.
If we get air cooled nuclear power then I have my doubts that even wind can compete on being as cheap or "green". Hydro will be around for a long time yet if only because we invested so much into it that it would be a shame not to let it run until it is no longer profitable. If wind survives this then it will be pumping water for hydro, or desalination, or to bring fresh water across long distance. Not for electricity.
I'm sorry for rambling on for a bit, but my medicine started to kick in as I typed. I think I'mn done heire for know. goooddnight.
My school had computer science in the engineering college.
I have no experience with such and no one I know went to such a school either. My complaints are with schools that have CS under liberal arts. There has been a shortage of competent CS instructors for years, perhaps even decades. Where I studied electrical/computer engineering it got so bad that one CS course I was in the head of the CS department was in class one day instead of our usual instructor. He started class with a statement that he knew the instructor was sub-par, that students have complained, and he'd allow students to switch to other sections of the course if they so wished. I did not have that option since I had course conflicts with other classes. After that the section I was in had half as many students as before.
Things only got worse. Anyone that could write code were getting hired, and teaching doesn't normally pay well. What we saw for instructors were people that came to the US for graduate school on a student visa, and barely spoke "American" English. They spoke English, but the "Queen's English" with heavy accents. The engineering department started their own parallel courses for engineering students, recruiting instructors from within the department, because the poor quality of CS instruction was making them look bad.
I would have thought in the time between my engineering education and my going back to school in CS that things would have improved. Apparently not. I've seen both sides now, CS and engineering. Engineering departments do not seem to be nearly as affected as CS in finding competent instruction. I can only speculate why this is. The growth in the number of people taking CS as a major certainly has to play a part. While I have first hand experience at just two universities, and some second hand knowledge of other schools, I'll read in the news of a shortage of CS instructors here and there. This is not an isolated problem.
So, my advice to people that want a proper education in software development is to go into engineering. This has to do with the seemingly widespread problems of CS departments recruiting incompetent instructors, the lack of an engineering "mindset" in most CS programs, and that recruiters have learned that engineering majors tend to make better software developers. In general it just looks better on paper, and there is a history on why that is.
If you want to major in computer science for other reasons, such as to be an instructor yourself, then be my guest. We need more people that know how to teach computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
I have little doubt that Griffin is playing games with the USB spec, and the USB people charged with enforcing the spec is letting them get away with it.
I can just imagine what would happen when a blue shirted "geek" that gets paid on commission is faced with a blue haired grandma and a shelf with the $40 Griffin cable, a $30 Thunderbolt cable, and a $20 USB 2 cable. Grandma might say she wants to get photos off her new camera onto her laptop so she can e-mail them off to the girls in her sewing circle, but no one knows if the person in the blue shirt is listening or cares. An honest person in a blue shirt will hand grandma the USB 2 cable, or maybe the Thunderbolt cable to be sure of a quick transfer. A dishonest and/or ignorant person in a blue shirt will hand over the more expensive Griffin cable because that means a higher commission.
My point is that it seems not that long ago that there was a lowest common denominator in USB, that you could be sure that any cable with USB connectors on both ends would talk USB, and that any device with a USB port could talk to any computer with a USB port. It might not be fast but it would talk some version of USB. Now you cannot be sure of that.
The people at USB are, IMHO, committing a slow suicide by allowing things to get so complicated. I expect people will get frustrated with this and the USB group will have to reign things in or USB will again become that "useless shitty bus" that they worked so hard to get rid of.
There's a FIFTH display mode, since you can use (and might need) an actual USB to display out adapter which consists in a chip made by a vendor called Displaylink.
USB is not a display protocol. That would be like saying I have a PCIe monitor because the video card I'm using is in a PCIe slot.
You do bring up a good point though. While many devices with a USB-C port will support one or more alternate video modes one might still need an actual graphics controller to connect to their display. LG and Dell will sell displays with USB-C and HDMI ports, and you can find phones that will have a USB-C port, and there are cables with USB-C on one end and USB-C or HDMI on the other but that does not mean the three together will mean video will display. The phone might even say in the documentation that it supports video from the USB-C port, and that they offer a USB-C to HDMI and USB-C to USB-C cables for this purpose. What you might miss though is that this is using the MHL protocol, which not all displays with an HDMI or USB-C port support. In that case you need the more expensive DisplayLink adapters, or whatever, that can convert the MHL signal to DisplayPort or HDMI.
This is something that I've been watching because I'm looking to get a new computer and display in the near future. I have a collection of computers with VGA, HDMI, DVI, and mini-DisplayPort outputs. I've been using VGA as the lowest common denominator for a long time now but this cannot go on for much longer. I'll have to pick something soon and this array of ports with multiple protocols, and protocols supporting different ports, is frustrating for someone that's been around computers for a long time. I just have to wonder what kind of frustrations this can bring to those less experienced than I.
There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which doesn't have any of the high speed pairs.
These are actually quite common. They are usually sold as "charge only" cables but the USB2 sets of wires are there to provide a data path to let the charging device know something is connected and to negotiate a charging rate.
One thing that I thought was true was that if a cable or device had a USB-C port or connector that it would have the pins for USB 2 data. This seemed true even for all the alternate modes, the USB 2 pins would still be there and could transmit data at USB 2 speeds. That data might only be "I'm here, now charge me" for a lot of devices but the cable would support USB 2 data. I was wrong.
I bought a Griffin "Magsafe" style USB-C charge cable that does not have a USB 2 data pass through. I don't have it here to verify but it seems it has some sort of USB chip on each end to tell the device it's plugged into that it can pass 60 watts of power, but that's it. Not a big deal since I had no intention of ever using this cable for data but I thought it would be nice to know that if I needed to just make something work, even if at only USB 2 speeds, I could use this cable to do it.
The one common feature across all the USB-C alternate modes was the USB 2 pins and 5V/1A/5W power, or so I thought. Seems that I can't even rely on a cable with USB-C connectors on both ends to transfer data at all.
I went to the website for the product and after looking closely I saw no USB emblem.
https://griffintechnology.com/...
They'll claim it meet USB-C specifications but they seem to use enough legalese to avoid getting slapped around by the USB lawyers, or the USB group is okay with a USB cable not actually passing through USB data.
Perhaps I'm picking nits in calling this "common" or even a "USB cable". I'm quite certain that I can find a USB 2 only cable, or power only cable, that is USB-C to USB-C at most any cell phone shop, grocery store, truck stop, hardware store, or fruit vendor.
Isn't this why the Manchester code was developed?
Removing the DC bias meant that an equal number of 1s and 0s were sent so that the angle of the cable would not change the speed of data transfer. The ability to keep connections electrically isolated was a nice bonus.
What if the printer dropped USB 2.0 and only accepts Bluetooth 4.1 for data input?
You mean they dropped a 20 year old standard for a 15 year old standard? The horror.
A USB to Bluetooth adapter costs $20 and you only need one to communicate with multiple devices. A USB A to B cable costs $5 and you need one for every USB device you want to connect to. Assuming the printer does not come with the USB cable (which seems to be the norm) and the computer does not already have Bluetooth (when Bluetooth seems pretty common for 10 years now) then one is likely better off just using Bluetooth anyway.
That'd be a load of fucking bullshit!
No, it wouldn't.
You just said that you bought a top of the line cell phone and want to listen to it on wired headphones while charging it on a plane. That sounds like the $100k/year type person, not the homeless dude that wants a phone to keep in touch with family and look for a job.
Don't buy an $800 phone if you cannot afford the headphones too, or do without the headphones. No one can make a phone for all people.
I suspect that in this price range the lack of a 1/8" jack is a feature. It tells people that the owner has moved on to new technology and can afford a new $15 headphone set. Such people will have a wireless head set, spend the bucks for a splitter cable, or not be inconvenienced with the inability to listen while charging.
Somewhere between two years and two hours from now all new cell phones sold will lose the headphone jack. The homeless dude will have to put the phone to his head to listen to music while charging his phone on the plane.
I have to wonder what the USB people are thinking. They have a good idea going here, why are they trying to ruin it?
It used to be that USB-C was USB but faster. It made the "On-The-Go" bi-directional features from USB2 required so people didn't have to worry about the host/device relationship too much. The Micro-AB connector was switched to a "flippable" version, they called "Type C", which is great. The new connector is just as small but handles more power, and I don't have to worry if I got the "right" end or which way is "up".
Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes. You have Thunderbolt (which is just DisplayPort mixed with PCIe data), DisplayPort (which may or may not be backward compatible with the Thunderbolt mode), HDMI, and MHL (which may or may not be backward compatible with HDMI). They should have told the HDMI people to piss off and stopped at three. Maybe even tell the MHL people to piss off too but they already had an agreement with MHL on the micro-USB connector.
Now you have four video modes, two data modes (ThunderBolt and "SuperSpeed" USB), and with this new "Ludicrous Speed" mode they added a third data mode. It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need. Even buying a simple data cable is confusing. There's the USB2 cable, the USB3 cable, and the ThunderBolt cable, they all look identical at a glance with USB-C connectors on both ends. Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely? Or will it crap out and support only USB2 speed?
They created this "SuperSpeed" naming to differentiate the USB2 speed devices from the faster USB3 ones. Then when USB-C came along with two "SuperSpeed" lanes they had to figure out how to make that clear to the user. They came up with "SuperSpeed+". (Notice the addition of the plus sign? It's easy to miss.) What is this new one going to be called?
I have to wonder if this is going to die before it even gets started. The people that want a faster USB got ThunderBolt already.
With this:
https://www.amazon.com/Support...
Or this:
https://www.amazon.com/Yeworth...
If you spent $800 on a cell phone and $500 on an airplane ticket then an extra $10 or $15 isn't going to kill you. Buy a bottle of water instead of your usual Starbucks coffee and muffin, you'll come out even after that. I have a suspicion the reduction in calories wouldn't hurt. After you've bought this adapter then just keep it plugged into your headphones. Trust me, after a while you won't even notice it's there.
Right! When I spend $150 on a new laser printer I expect it to have a parallel port, dammit! You expect me to spend an extra $20 for a USB card and cable! Outrageous I tell you. These people are just giving me a "fuck you tax" because I am not about to spend any money on a new computer. Have you seen what those things cost? They want me to spend another $200 on one of those "chrome book" things. Chrome? At that price they must be made of platinum!
Now go away. I have to call these internet people. They tell me I have to upgrade my modem to this "dock sis" thing they are trying to push on me. I paid good money for my modem in 1998, top of the line too. It's got the latest in 56K technology, that's all I need. What's one of these "dock sis" things cost anyway? FIFTY DOLLARS! Is that made of chrome too?
And a headphone jack is a requirement.
Whatever.
If that's what is keeping anyone from buying an $800 phone then I'm at a loss. Buy some new headphones already. I just did a bit of searching for USB-C headphones and I saw that Amazon will sell a pair of USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapters for $7. I saw a set of USB-C earbuds for $12. Name brand earbuds and headphones are as cheap as $40 and the sky is the limit on the top end, as with most things. If spending an extra $20 or $50 for a quality adapter or headphone set is too much after dropping nearly a grand on a phone is then perhaps you might want to rethink getting the latest and greatest cell phone, because the spare Micro-B charger you had for your last phone won't work on this either.
Take your set of headphones with the TRS connector and give it to one of your grandkids to play with. They'll probably ask you what it's for. Tape a jar lid to the cord end and tell them its a stethoscope. Then pry open your wallet and pull out a $20 bill or two and make a trip to Best Buy. One of the nice people in the blue shirts can help you out. They might look at you funny for paying with cash since most people buy things with their cell phones these days. I'd tell you how that works but since you are apparently so attached to your TRS connectors I suspect that this kind of culture shock might induce a heart attack.
After you've tried your new headphones for a bit come back to your computer and dial up into AOL and give me a review, I'd like to know what you got.
What if you deny it?
Then any Muslim within earshot will kill you. As far as the Chinese government is concerned the problem is solved on their end either way.
How can they prove what you believe (or not?)
If they are looking to check that their spyware is installed on your phone then I doubt they care what you believe. There are no rights in China. Denial will not be enough to free you from surveillance.
Islam is not just a religion, it is a legal structure, where atheism is punishable by death. Communism is incompatible with any faith. Now we see the two meet. There will be no winners here.
Pretty sure it's Bush's fault. Worked for Obama, didn't it?
Be prepared to go wireless or live the dongle life.
In my book bag, along with my books, papers, pens, and so forth, is a pair of headphones for my iPhone. Attached to the headphones is this tiny little "dongle" that allows me to plug the headphones into my iPhone. I don't really think about it, it's just become part of the headphone set in my mind.
Give up on this already. USB-C is here to stay. Buy a four pack of USB-A to USB-C adapters for $20 and shut up already. If you are buying a $800 phone or $1500 laptop then just consider the adapters the "legacy tax" for not upgrading everything at once, you can afford it.
If someone isn't already offering a set of USB-C headphones then I expect it to happen real soon now. Until then pay your "legacy tax", shut up, and when you lose, break, or wear out the headphones you got then go buy a nice shiny new USB-C headphone set. Who knows, it might just come with a "dongle" for your old 1/8" TRS devices in the box.
I've been living the "dongle life" since I bought my first computer. Actually even before that. I picked a VT terminal from the trash while in college. I had to get a DB-9 to 25 pin "dongle" to plug into the serial line provided in the dorm rooms.
Now get off my lawn!
Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth
Statistics fail! There will always be, by definition, a wealthy 1%.
Also, they earned their money, what gives anyone the right to take it from them? If you want their money then the best way to get it is the same way they got it, by trading up. I traded $30 for a tank of gas this morning, who got "wealthy" from that? The answer is both me and the gas station. They wanted my $30 more than they wanted that gasoline, and I wanted the gasoline more than I wanted the $30. Now with that $30 they can go buy more gasoline, and pay the cashier, and pay the lease on the property, and so on. With my tank of gas I can now get to and from classes for a week, which gives me an education that has a value of it's own.
especially in a post automation economy when they don't even need workers to buy their goods anymore because who need to sell things when you already own everything?
This sounds like someone that lacks knowledge of history. People have always found work, doing things we never even thought of before. Long ago a "computer" was a person good at math. Now such people work at programming the machines we call computers.
Who knows what they will be doing. I'm quite certain though that they will still be able to find work, because supply often creates a demand on its own. No one knew they wanted a dishwasher until someone started selling them. What are all those people supposed to do now that they aren't washing dishes? I don't know, but they won't be wasting their time doing something so monotonous.
Let's ban clothes washers too.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
Because jobs.
I know people who graduated from both colleges and have never heard of employers having a preference for one of the other.
That's because they both got a computer science degree from the same university with, as you point out, having highly similar coursework. I was comparing computer science to engineering from the same university, in universities that had computer science only in the liberal arts college.
Computer science programs have in recent years started to cater to students that want to learn how to write good code, and the managers that want to hire them. At my school, in just the last couple years, I saw the software engineering track get created for both computer science and engineering students. Also, the engineering department began to offer a computer science major, as a bachelor in engineering program. Those that want to take a more traditional computer science path can still do so, as a computer science major lacking the "software engineering" electives. Those people will do better in research, teaching, and so on, but they will lack the engineering background that it takes to write good code.
I'm just offering a warning to those that want to find work as a software developer. Learn from my experience. College recruiters will lie to you, verify everything they say with a second opinion, looking at their own course plans, etc. Succeeding in software development means learning the engineering process, you are most definitely going to get this in an engineering program in college, finding it in computer science may be difficult or impossible. If you do major in computer science and want to do software development then take courses that teach software development., you might not find these classes in the CS department, they may be in the engineering department. Most schools will let CS students take software engineering courses from the engineering department, take them if you can. The one required class titled "software development" is not sufficient. This is only one class and, as experience and news articles like this show, the instructors may be overwhelmed with students and not offer a great education. Also take an advanced software development course, or two, or three. These will count toward your copious number of electives you'll need to fill, learn to write good code instead of taking that "web programming" class. (That class was a total waste of my time, who hand codes HTML any more?)
As a computer science major you will be competing with students that majored in software engineering and computer engineering, and they will have taken at least four courses in software development. Those that took writing good code seriously will have taken even more.
Your mileage may vary, buyer beware, etc.
Sure, cutting flight times are nice but for most travelers the longest part of the trip is getting through airport security. Faster airplanes won't fix this, but it will make that time stick out more to the consumer.
If the TSA still insists on people arriving 2 hours in advance for a 5 hour flight instead of a 10 hour flight then people are going to notice that wait time more.
For many people the flight time could be cut in half by just doing a proper security check instead of this over the top crap the TSA has been doing.
At home when storms roll through my crappy cable internet can die on my but the Wi-Fi signal will still be strong. My iPhone will keep hammering away at the Wi-Fi because it sees a signal but it goes no where. If I disable the Wi-Fi and use the cellular network instead then I can go back to my e-mail, surf the web, or whatever. If the iPhone was smart enough to switch to cellular data when the Wi-Fi internet connection dies on me then that would be convenient. When the Wi-Fi internet comes back, because the cable company finally got their act together, then I'd like the iPhone to switch back automatically without me having to remember to re-enable Wi-Fi.
I'd want some indication on the screen that a Wi-Fi connection is available but deemed "unworthy" so I can look into why it failed. This is also so I can be aware I'm using my limited cell data instead of an unlimited Wi-Fi. I have certain apps disabled from using cellular data to keep me from going too far on grabbing data but even so I have to watch myself. For instance I had web browsing disabled on the cellular network to keep me from watching YouTube and using up all my data, but then I found that this also kept me from comparing prices online as I shopped. Some finer grained control might be handy here as well.
I will say that the Wi-Fi calling feature sure it nice. As I sit in my basement office I'll sometimes have a marginal cell signal. With Wi-Fi calling it's not a worry, at least until storms knock out my cable internet again. It was also nice to see that I could still make phone calls even in a basement lecture hall. No cell signal there but the campus Wi-Fi worked.
It seems this preference for Wi-Fi is now becoming a problem and it's nice to see Apple working on it.
Dood! You're supposed to sit back and enjoy that, not argue with idiots on Slashdot. 8^)
I was trying real hard to finish my thought before I went off into la-la land. I barely made it and afterward I could enjoy the ride without having the unfinished post harshing my buzz.
Once upon a time, I thought that civilization was going to collapse if we didn't start building a lot of nuc power plants and soon. I was pretty wrong about that. I didn't take into account the dual effects of increasingly efficient production of solar and wind and storage, and the gains in efficiency on the consumption end.
I remember those days too. Back then the world population was about half what it is now. Had we stopped at about 3, 4, maybe 5 billion people on this rock then we might be able to get by with wind, sun, and rain. That is long gone and barring some depopulation we aren't going back. I've heard people say we should reduce population, and I believe that it can still happen. I just don't like what "depopulation" might mean. There's a hundred different ways to do it and only a handful would be even close to being "pleasant".
I've looked over their website and it's just full of lies and scaremongering.
One lie is that U-233 is weapons grade material. First, the U-233 that comes from a thorium reactor is so tainted with other uranium isotopes that it cannot be handled safely without very expensive processing. Second, a U-233 weapon is theoretical, no one has yet built one successfully. Sure, there were devices that contained U-233 that went *BOOM* but they were considered duds. Anyone that has the technology to turn U-233 into weapons grade material won't need the reactor, they can use common dirt and process that to get U-235 instead.
Also, what are we supposed to so with all the weapons we have now? Break them apart and pretend this valuable plutonium doesn't exist? That plutonium can be turned into energy in a nuclear reactor. If this organization wants to be rid of nuclear weapons then they should be advocating for nuclear energy. The only way to destroy nuclear weapons material is in a nuclear reactor. You can try to contaminate it with other materials, bury it in a deep enough hole, but it will still be there for someone to dig back up and turn into weapons again.
Getting back to the cost of nuclear energy I keep hearing on how nuclear energy is so expensive. That's because it is a self fulfilling prophesy. The people that license nuclear energy don't want it to be successful so they make it expensive. These projects are always over budget because the powers that be just cannot leave them alone and let them finish. Because if they did actually let them finish then the lie of expensive nuclear energy would be exposed as the lie it is.
Nuclear energy can be safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap. We know this because we've been getting safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap energy from nuclear power for decades. Chernobyl was 30 years ago and none of the reactors like it exist anymore. Same for Three Mile Island which was 40 years ago. Fukushima was an accident at an aging nuclear power plant and no new ones would be built like it either. If people fear nuclear power accidents then we need new nuclear to replace the old nuclear or energy is going to get expensive, unreliable, harder to find, and not nearly as safe.
You've never advocated for anything "green" in your life so what should it matter?
Because I want cheap and reliable energy. Solar cannot do that, it is neither cheap nor reliable. Wind is not reliable but cheap enough that if combined with traditional energy it can mean reducing costs without reducing reliability.
I'll play the "let's be green" game so long as it is done logically. I have no problem with being green, so long as it does not mean energy prices go up and availability goes down. So, for the moment, let's be green.
At the top of the green energy list is nuclear, wind, and hydro. All of them also fairly inexpensive compared to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is reliable, as is hydro, and if we don't go nuts on windmills where it overwhelms the ability of nuclear and hydro to keep things stable then wind is reliable too.
Solar power, in its varying forms, is expensive, has a larger carbon footprint than wind, hydro, and nuclear, and is dependent on favorable weather, so not reliable. Can we add batteries or other storage to make it reliable? Sure, that adds to the cost and carbon footprint, which is already not that great. Can we find sources of raw materials that use less carbon? Sure, but then those same materials can be used to reduce the carbon footprint of wind, hydro, and nuclear.
Can we have cheap carbon free energy without nuclear, using only wind and hydro? Only if you are lucky enough to live in a place with plenty of wind and water. At a certain point supply cannot meet demand and you'll have to use more expensive means to harness the wind and water, or turn to more carbon emitting energy like solar, geothermal, or natural gas.
Bio-fuel is just a bad idea, it's expensive, competes with food, and has a carbon footprint on par with natural gas. Just use the sun to grow food and lumber instead.
I like nuclear power because it provides plentiful cheap and reliable energy. Anyone that is honest about reducing carbon output should advocate for nuclear power too. If they want "green" but don't want "nukular" then they are mentally impaired, ignorant, or possibly both.
YEs, after thent they start yo swimn away
like a fissh that lost it's hook.
alll the Pritty cullors
in the qater, washing and wishing along
ggo go away the collers nad leaf teh bluew bhid.
I oppose wind power because it's often not all that "green".
http://www.carlineconomics.com...
Building those windmill towers takes a lot of steel and concrete that could be put to better energy use, like nuclear power. I don't know how off shore wind power plays into this environmental disaster that on shore wind, but it can't be all that great if it costs twice as much to build out than onshore wind.
As far as "green" energy goes wind isn't nearly as bad as solar. I believe that wind could actually be profitable without government subsidy. Onshore wind produces energy that is about the same as natural gas or hydro, which is a fraction of the cost of solar energy. The carbon footprint of wind is on par with hydro, nuclear, which is a fraction of the carbon footprint of solar.
The problem with wind is the mess it can leave behind. Wind is not regulated like coal or nuclear. If you shut down a coal plant it must be cleared to a "brownfield" standard, meaning nothing left but bare dirt. Nuclear has to be torn down to "greenfield" standard, meaning what's left must be a grassland or forest. Wind is allowed to be abandoned, with rusted towers left in place. Sometimes they are required to tear down to a "grey-field" standard, where the towers and above ground structures must be removed but the buried concrete anchors can remain.
For a grey field to become useful again the concrete must be found useful as structural elements for industrial use, or removed with lots of diesel powered machinery. Only after it is removed can the ground be used for agriculture or wildlife. I assume if left to rot the concrete would slowly weather into rubble, but that would take centuries.
If the goal is cheap energy then wind can play along with coal, natural gas, and nuclear. When it comes to being "green" it seems only nuclear and wind apply. Solar isn't all it's cracked up to be, with the toxic materials involved and difficulty in recycling. Hydro might work but I wonder about such things as the Rio Grande not reaching the Gulf any more. Geothermal seems cheap and carbon free but it only works in places like Iceland and Hawaii.
The energy future looks like nuclear for base load, wind power when and where it is cheap, hydro for storage and load following where it is available. When we run out og hydro then we'll have to go to natural gas for peak load matching, at least in the near term. Synthetic fuels derived from excess nuclear capacity at low demand times can be tanked to burn later in converted natural gas turbines. Batteries might play a role if the price is right, which is unlikely. We'll probably have air cooled brayton cycle nuclear before the batteries get too far. Air cooled nuclear with turbines can load follow just as well as any natural gas turbine, since they work on the same physics.
If we get air cooled nuclear power then I have my doubts that even wind can compete on being as cheap or "green". Hydro will be around for a long time yet if only because we invested so much into it that it would be a shame not to let it run until it is no longer profitable. If wind survives this then it will be pumping water for hydro, or desalination, or to bring fresh water across long distance. Not for electricity.
I'm sorry for rambling on for a bit, but my medicine started to kick in as I typed. I think I'mn done heire for know. goooddnight.
My school had computer science in the engineering college.
I have no experience with such and no one I know went to such a school either. My complaints are with schools that have CS under liberal arts. There has been a shortage of competent CS instructors for years, perhaps even decades. Where I studied electrical/computer engineering it got so bad that one CS course I was in the head of the CS department was in class one day instead of our usual instructor. He started class with a statement that he knew the instructor was sub-par, that students have complained, and he'd allow students to switch to other sections of the course if they so wished. I did not have that option since I had course conflicts with other classes. After that the section I was in had half as many students as before.
Things only got worse. Anyone that could write code were getting hired, and teaching doesn't normally pay well. What we saw for instructors were people that came to the US for graduate school on a student visa, and barely spoke "American" English. They spoke English, but the "Queen's English" with heavy accents. The engineering department started their own parallel courses for engineering students, recruiting instructors from within the department, because the poor quality of CS instruction was making them look bad.
I would have thought in the time between my engineering education and my going back to school in CS that things would have improved. Apparently not. I've seen both sides now, CS and engineering. Engineering departments do not seem to be nearly as affected as CS in finding competent instruction. I can only speculate why this is. The growth in the number of people taking CS as a major certainly has to play a part. While I have first hand experience at just two universities, and some second hand knowledge of other schools, I'll read in the news of a shortage of CS instructors here and there. This is not an isolated problem.
So, my advice to people that want a proper education in software development is to go into engineering. This has to do with the seemingly widespread problems of CS departments recruiting incompetent instructors, the lack of an engineering "mindset" in most CS programs, and that recruiters have learned that engineering majors tend to make better software developers. In general it just looks better on paper, and there is a history on why that is.
If you want to major in computer science for other reasons, such as to be an instructor yourself, then be my guest. We need more people that know how to teach computer science.