No, as long as it will com back up, with all data in-tact, it has plenty of value. Or are you saying there is no value in a remote warehouse full of your backup tapes because you can't access them immediately and sometimes the facility closes down and you can't access them at all? Not that anyone should be using GitHub as a backup solution, but it's the same principle: a datastore.
If your data, and ability to access it at all times, is important, you plan for that. In this case, that means hosting your own remote alongside GitHub and configuring Git to push to both; that way, when Git is up, you get all of the added value it brings (and there is much) and, when it is down, you can still clone your repo from a known location, without having to collaborate with another developer, who may be unavailable, to clone from his repo.
You can do this for $5/mo if your repo is <15GB or so. Or, if you want something just ever so slightly more reliable, you can do the same for $10/mo and let me get a little commission on the deal (and get an extra 4GB of storage). Hell, if you're willing to trust me with temporary access, I'll even set it up for you (one time, maintenance is on you) on Linode if you've used my referral link.
I lack an EE degree as I'm a software developer and not a hardware guy (some day, perhaps...) but I do generally get the basics. It still comes down to planning for the least likely scenario when you can't do anything about the more likely ones, but that's product design, not port design; even if that level of protection was in the spec (and I haven't looked at 3.1 in detail) there's nothing preventing manufacturers from leaving it out and just not using the logo. Beyond that, while it would have been preferable (for the end user) to have reverse polarity protection, you know as well as I do that accounting and marketing run engineering anymore; if it's not marketable, accounting insists it gets cut. Input protection is only marketable in deveopment boards and high-end testing gear, so it gets left out of consumer kit. Welcome to modern life...
I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the state of consumer product engineering and your choices (especially as an EE) are to either put yourself in a position to change it, or get used to it. We lowly consumers are expected to have out hands around out ankles at all times, didn't you know?
Wow, where'd you get your EE degree? That's impressive!
Your complete lack of understanding of how electricity works, that is. And USB, for that matter.
For starters, the way USB handles overcurrent conditions is by limiting current to slightly more than requested (or slightly more than 500mA, 900mA for USB 3.1, if no negotiation has occurred) and monitoring current draw. In that way, even a dead short can not damage the device and the moment an overcurrent condition is detected, the port is shut down. This is all handled in the chipset and is a requirement of USB certification; the chipsets used in the Chromebook Pixel and the test gear mentioned in the articles I've read (I didn't read this article so I don't know if this particular article mentions which equipment was used, but I've read several others on this incident) are USB certified.
Second, this was not an overcurrent condition, but a reverse-voltage condition, so the above would be irrelevant if it weren't in response to your own irrelevant mention of current and overcurrent conditions. This had literally nothing to do with current and literally everything to do with polarity.
Third, that's not how diodes work. Diodes restrict the flow of electrons (not entirely block, mind you) in one direction, the don't short circuit anything and they certainly don't affect current. One could argue that putting too small of a diode in a circuit would add resistance, which would affect current, but then you're runnign a component out of spec and it is acting as a resistor, not a diode, because that's now what diodes do; and even in that instance, it would be limiting current, not drawing it and creating an overcurrent situation. That means, while a diode may have saved the device, it would not have involved a polyfuse in any way, shape, or form; it would have done so by reducing the reverse voltage, not by "short circuit[ing] the reverse polarity situation causing an overcurrent".
But, even then, diodes aren't magic. Remember, they don't magically stop current flow in one direction, they simply massively restrict it. To a point. Once that point is reached, the floodgates open and *bam*, current flows through. That that means is, if the diode is rated with a breakdown voltage of 5v (and why wouldn't it be in a 5v circuit?) and you reverse 5.1v through it, well... there you have it. The net result is either -5.1v through the circuit, if the circuit was not already energized, or -0.1v if it was. Negative voltage, either way. And let's not forget that it is common (and even specified) for slightly higher voltages to be used when charging which, I'll remind you, is also specified for USB 3.
That's not to say there aren't solutions, or that one or more of those solutions doesn't involve diodes; there certainly are solutions and they should have been employed here. A diode with a breakdown voltage higher than what one might expect to see sent down the wire by mistake (say 12v, the highest rail voltage in a PC, or 19v, the common laptop battery pack voltage; a 24v breakdown voltage should suffice) should adequately protect the device from and reverse voltage condition it might encounter. And before you suggest that it wouldn't protect against mains voltage, I'll remind you that mains is AC; there's no point protecting against that voltage in one direction when it's going to be allowed through in the other. You're toast by then anyway; and your polyfuse blew long after the overvoltage killed your USB controller.
As for why there wasn't a diode in the power path with a 24v breakdown voltage? If I had to guess, it's because the common expected failure mode is excessive forward voltage, which is much more difficult to deal with. Engineering is hard; it's even harder when you don't know what you're talking about, which makes it easier for you to think you've got it right (as you seem to believe) while getting it massively wrong. There's not much point in protecting against the thing that has 0.00001% of killing your device (reverse voltage, under the assumption of using properly made cables) if you're leaving the thing that has a 99% chance of killing it wide open (overvoltage, under the same assumption); that's engineering.
What if the perfectly approved Apple cable has been chafed and is now shorted to ground? Fail gracefully.
That's what you might think, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a cable that would fail gracefully when shorted to ground would not pass mains voltagemains to ground (e.g. the phone case). Read the articles before you blame shoddy aftermarket chargers, as the 2nd one involved a genuine Apple charger; but what you're saying is that the cable, connector, and/or device should somehow prevent this.
The Nexus line, being vanilla Android without any vendor- or carrier-specific modifications, has a very well-defined update system that works quite well. Google can't update system images that have been modified by 3rd parties (even on a Nexus; if you root or otherwise modify the system, you must flash a fresh factory image to update) lest they break things by replacing modified binaries with new, incompatible ones. This is why Google only directly updates their own devices.
No buying a nexus doesn't fucking count.
So you'd rather blame Google for the actions of Samsung, HTC, LG, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile?
Not everyone wants a shitty spy on me phone.
Which is why they don't buy from Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, or HTC, or use any phone sold by AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon (CarrierIQ). That leaves LG on T-Mobile, cheap Korean and Chinese knock-offs that likely have their own spyware and backdoors baked in, and the Nexus line. Oh, and Blackberry, but really?
Or were you trying to insinuate that Nexus phones are covert spy devices? And, if so, what makes you think Google would allow any other Android device to be different if they were in charge of updating them all?
The amount of outright ignorance in your post would be astounding if you weren't AC.
Could have bought a Nexus maybe, but that would be the only equivalent in the Android world.
All the other Android devices are alternatives; you're right, though, they're not equivalent. So, where are all the alternatives in the iPhone world?
I see this argument a lot and, really... REALLY? Of course the Android equivalent to the Apple model of developing the OS and hardware is the only line of phones Google develops. Duh much? If someone doesn't like what Apple or Google are offering on the hardware side, where are they to go? Windows? Hah! Blackberry? Hah! So they end up with one of the hundreds of other Android models available. Where is that selection for iOS?
Where can I read this EULA before I buy the phone? (nowhere) If I disagree with the EULA after buying the phone so I can read it, am I able to return it for a full refund, including any shipping charges, with no restocking fee? (no)
When corporations stop using EULAs as consumer-rights WMDs, you'll have an argument.
Remember, Apple's doing a privacy thing now - it's the one advantage they have over Google.
Google has mandated full-device encryption starting with 6.0, only allowing exemptions for devices which were already on the market before the requirement and, then, only when those devices lack the required hardware. In short, any device shipping with 6.0 is just as secure; and many shipping with 5.0 shipped in the same secure state, I know my Nexus 6 did.
Even with the correct and working fingerprint reader, you can use the passcode. It's how I unlock my wife's iPhone 6s Plus when she asks me to check something for her or change the song that is playing while she is driving.
Well, considering that they already require the passcode to unlock the phone for the first time after a reboot, or after it has remained locked for a certain period of time, it seems reasonable.
I think I might start doing something similar, but actually answer the call, say whatever is needed to get a real person on the line, then "Please leave a message after the beep..." [airhorn]
You do realize that someone else has been assigned that number in the 10 years since you last used it, right? It's not a dead line if some other poor schmuck (your true victim) has to answer your calls.
Ray Crock's principle of "The Customer is always right"
was referring to the customer always being right about what they want. They're seldom right about whether or not they should get it. The hospitality and restaurant industries are the only fields where it applies almost unilaterally, where the customer must be made to fee as comfortable as possible during their interaction with your company. Beyond that, you advertise what you're offering and the customer gets to decide if they want it or not, with few exceptions. That's the philosophy by which I run my business, and my clients tend to agree with it; I work in a competitive market, if they didn't like it, they'd go elsewhere.
Right, is that because CEOs are always saying things about their competitors that will get them sued and they never actually get sued? Oh, wait, some companies (specifically Apple) have sued over less? Well, then.
Now, when a CEO makes a statement about themselves, their company (again, except as protected by law), or their own products, those should typically be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise when they reference a study done by a 3rd party; they're not speaking about their competitor, they're relaying what the company they paid to lie for them said.
There is a lot of context to consider when deciding whether or not to trust a CEO's word on something; legal exposure is a huge indicator and, thus, why I take Must at his word in this instance. If he wanted to turn around ant dell me that 100% of PayPal account seizures were due to user fraud, on the other hand, I'd tell him to his face he's full of shit.
There are certain statements one simply can't make without opening himself up to a lawsuit if false. Musk is a smart man and would not make such statements publicly against a company with a history of taking stupid shit to court. Following that logic, we can determine that if Musk makes such a statement about Apple, as he did here, it is most likely true.
So, no, I'm not repeating Musk as you claim but, rather, extrapolating data from his words and the context in which they were said. If Apple sues him (and wins), I'll know I was wrong.
Oh and "firt spoer" is the result of typing a reply on my phone while squinting after just waking up... and autocorrect apparently thinking those are both words. Thank you for not pointing it out...
Good call. I've unplugged it and will take it in this weekend. Thanks!
For the record, that's been the failure mode of 3 of the 4 failed L shape plugs, as well; the 4th was the one that had the cord sliced (caught in the workings of a recliner) and repaired twice, which worked fine for 2 years after the last repair before the supply itself gave up the ghost rather uneventfully. That one just stopped working in the middle of a work day, I noticed when my screen dimmed, wasn't hot or anything, not even warm, just dead. And I'm starting to notice some insulation crumble near the connector on the one L shaped plug I have that hasn't already been patched up... just noticed it earlier today... lovely. So that's a 100% fault rate, then, even if 4 of 8 (I said 7 earlier because I wasn't including the Magsafe 2) still technically "work". Quality.
Here's a hint, while you're getting all defensive: The article linked has nothing to do with any backdoor in anything. If you'd given it a quick click you'd have seen that and not bothered replying.
Really? Justin Case? If that's not a clearly fake name, I don't know what is. And a link to a completely unrelated non-english article? Whoever the hell submitted this spam should never be allowed to submit again and whoever posted it should be fired.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's really not.
No, as long as it will com back up, with all data in-tact, it has plenty of value. Or are you saying there is no value in a remote warehouse full of your backup tapes because you can't access them immediately and sometimes the facility closes down and you can't access them at all? Not that anyone should be using GitHub as a backup solution, but it's the same principle: a datastore.
If your data, and ability to access it at all times, is important, you plan for that. In this case, that means hosting your own remote alongside GitHub and configuring Git to push to both; that way, when Git is up, you get all of the added value it brings (and there is much) and, when it is down, you can still clone your repo from a known location, without having to collaborate with another developer, who may be unavailable, to clone from his repo.
You can do this for $5/mo if your repo is <15GB or so. Or, if you want something just ever so slightly more reliable, you can do the same for $10/mo and let me get a little commission on the deal (and get an extra 4GB of storage). Hell, if you're willing to trust me with temporary access, I'll even set it up for you (one time, maintenance is on you) on Linode if you've used my referral link.
It's Coolio with me if people wanna do that. After all, you gotta get up to get down.
I lack an EE degree as I'm a software developer and not a hardware guy (some day, perhaps...) but I do generally get the basics. It still comes down to planning for the least likely scenario when you can't do anything about the more likely ones, but that's product design, not port design; even if that level of protection was in the spec (and I haven't looked at 3.1 in detail) there's nothing preventing manufacturers from leaving it out and just not using the logo. Beyond that, while it would have been preferable (for the end user) to have reverse polarity protection, you know as well as I do that accounting and marketing run engineering anymore; if it's not marketable, accounting insists it gets cut. Input protection is only marketable in deveopment boards and high-end testing gear, so it gets left out of consumer kit. Welcome to modern life...
I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the state of consumer product engineering and your choices (especially as an EE) are to either put yourself in a position to change it, or get used to it. We lowly consumers are expected to have out hands around out ankles at all times, didn't you know?
Wow, where'd you get your EE degree? That's impressive!
Your complete lack of understanding of how electricity works, that is. And USB, for that matter.
For starters, the way USB handles overcurrent conditions is by limiting current to slightly more than requested (or slightly more than 500mA, 900mA for USB 3.1, if no negotiation has occurred) and monitoring current draw. In that way, even a dead short can not damage the device and the moment an overcurrent condition is detected, the port is shut down. This is all handled in the chipset and is a requirement of USB certification; the chipsets used in the Chromebook Pixel and the test gear mentioned in the articles I've read (I didn't read this article so I don't know if this particular article mentions which equipment was used, but I've read several others on this incident) are USB certified.
Second, this was not an overcurrent condition, but a reverse-voltage condition, so the above would be irrelevant if it weren't in response to your own irrelevant mention of current and overcurrent conditions. This had literally nothing to do with current and literally everything to do with polarity.
Third, that's not how diodes work. Diodes restrict the flow of electrons (not entirely block, mind you) in one direction, the don't short circuit anything and they certainly don't affect current. One could argue that putting too small of a diode in a circuit would add resistance, which would affect current, but then you're runnign a component out of spec and it is acting as a resistor, not a diode, because that's now what diodes do; and even in that instance, it would be limiting current, not drawing it and creating an overcurrent situation. That means, while a diode may have saved the device, it would not have involved a polyfuse in any way, shape, or form; it would have done so by reducing the reverse voltage, not by "short circuit[ing] the reverse polarity situation causing an overcurrent".
But, even then, diodes aren't magic. Remember, they don't magically stop current flow in one direction, they simply massively restrict it. To a point. Once that point is reached, the floodgates open and *bam*, current flows through. That that means is, if the diode is rated with a breakdown voltage of 5v (and why wouldn't it be in a 5v circuit?) and you reverse 5.1v through it, well... there you have it. The net result is either -5.1v through the circuit, if the circuit was not already energized, or -0.1v if it was. Negative voltage, either way. And let's not forget that it is common (and even specified) for slightly higher voltages to be used when charging which, I'll remind you, is also specified for USB 3.
That's not to say there aren't solutions, or that one or more of those solutions doesn't involve diodes; there certainly are solutions and they should have been employed here. A diode with a breakdown voltage higher than what one might expect to see sent down the wire by mistake (say 12v, the highest rail voltage in a PC, or 19v, the common laptop battery pack voltage; a 24v breakdown voltage should suffice) should adequately protect the device from and reverse voltage condition it might encounter. And before you suggest that it wouldn't protect against mains voltage, I'll remind you that mains is AC; there's no point protecting against that voltage in one direction when it's going to be allowed through in the other. You're toast by then anyway; and your polyfuse blew long after the overvoltage killed your USB controller.
As for why there wasn't a diode in the power path with a 24v breakdown voltage? If I had to guess, it's because the common expected failure mode is excessive forward voltage, which is much more difficult to deal with. Engineering is hard; it's even harder when you don't know what you're talking about, which makes it easier for you to think you've got it right (as you seem to believe) while getting it massively wrong. There's not much point in protecting against the thing that has 0.00001% of killing your device (reverse voltage, under the assumption of using properly made cables) if you're leaving the thing that has a 99% chance of killing it wide open (overvoltage, under the same assumption); that's engineering.
What if the perfectly approved Apple cable has been chafed and is now shorted to ground? Fail gracefully.
That's what you might think, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a cable that would fail gracefully when shorted to ground would not pass mains voltage mains to ground (e.g. the phone case). Read the articles before you blame shoddy aftermarket chargers, as the 2nd one involved a genuine Apple charger; but what you're saying is that the cable, connector, and/or device should somehow prevent this.
Hint: fix your broken update system first.
The Nexus line, being vanilla Android without any vendor- or carrier-specific modifications, has a very well-defined update system that works quite well. Google can't update system images that have been modified by 3rd parties (even on a Nexus; if you root or otherwise modify the system, you must flash a fresh factory image to update) lest they break things by replacing modified binaries with new, incompatible ones. This is why Google only directly updates their own devices.
No buying a nexus doesn't fucking count.
So you'd rather blame Google for the actions of Samsung, HTC, LG, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile?
Not everyone wants a shitty spy on me phone.
Which is why they don't buy from Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, or HTC, or use any phone sold by AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon (CarrierIQ). That leaves LG on T-Mobile, cheap Korean and Chinese knock-offs that likely have their own spyware and backdoors baked in, and the Nexus line. Oh, and Blackberry, but really?
Or were you trying to insinuate that Nexus phones are covert spy devices? And, if so, what makes you think Google would allow any other Android device to be different if they were in charge of updating them all?
The amount of outright ignorance in your post would be astounding if you weren't AC.
Could have bought a Nexus maybe, but that would be the only equivalent in the Android world.
All the other Android devices are alternatives; you're right, though, they're not equivalent. So, where are all the alternatives in the iPhone world?
I see this argument a lot and, really... REALLY? Of course the Android equivalent to the Apple model of developing the OS and hardware is the only line of phones Google develops. Duh much? If someone doesn't like what Apple or Google are offering on the hardware side, where are they to go? Windows? Hah! Blackberry? Hah! So they end up with one of the hundreds of other Android models available. Where is that selection for iOS?
Where can I read this EULA before I buy the phone? (nowhere) If I disagree with the EULA after buying the phone so I can read it, am I able to return it for a full refund, including any shipping charges, with no restocking fee? (no)
When corporations stop using EULAs as consumer-rights WMDs, you'll have an argument.
every damned bit of consumer electronics is moving in this same damned direction
Right, so we're bent over. That doesn't mean we should just take it. Your legs work. Kick.
Remember, Apple's doing a privacy thing now - it's the one advantage they have over Google.
Google has mandated full-device encryption starting with 6.0, only allowing exemptions for devices which were already on the market before the requirement and, then, only when those devices lack the required hardware. In short, any device shipping with 6.0 is just as secure; and many shipping with 5.0 shipped in the same secure state, I know my Nexus 6 did.
Even with the correct and working fingerprint reader, you can use the passcode. It's how I unlock my wife's iPhone 6s Plus when she asks me to check something for her or change the song that is playing while she is driving.
Well, considering that they already require the passcode to unlock the phone for the first time after a reboot, or after it has remained locked for a certain period of time, it seems reasonable.
I think I might start doing something similar, but actually answer the call, say whatever is needed to get a real person on the line, then "Please leave a message after the beep..." [airhorn]
You do realize that someone else has been assigned that number in the 10 years since you last used it, right? It's not a dead line if some other poor schmuck (your true victim) has to answer your calls.
Ray Crock's principle of "The Customer is always right"
was referring to the customer always being right about what they want. They're seldom right about whether or not they should get it. The hospitality and restaurant industries are the only fields where it applies almost unilaterally, where the customer must be made to fee as comfortable as possible during their interaction with your company. Beyond that, you advertise what you're offering and the customer gets to decide if they want it or not, with few exceptions. That's the philosophy by which I run my business, and my clients tend to agree with it; I work in a competitive market, if they didn't like it, they'd go elsewhere.
Musk, not Must. Fucking autocorrect...
Right, is that because CEOs are always saying things about their competitors that will get them sued and they never actually get sued? Oh, wait, some companies (specifically Apple) have sued over less? Well, then.
Now, when a CEO makes a statement about themselves, their company (again, except as protected by law), or their own products, those should typically be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise when they reference a study done by a 3rd party; they're not speaking about their competitor, they're relaying what the company they paid to lie for them said.
There is a lot of context to consider when deciding whether or not to trust a CEO's word on something; legal exposure is a huge indicator and, thus, why I take Must at his word in this instance. If he wanted to turn around ant dell me that 100% of PayPal account seizures were due to user fraud, on the other hand, I'd tell him to his face he's full of shit.
I can see a plethora of +5, Disagree posts. Yes.
Why hasn't Netcraft confirmed the death yet?
There are certain statements one simply can't make without opening himself up to a lawsuit if false. Musk is a smart man and would not make such statements publicly against a company with a history of taking stupid shit to court. Following that logic, we can determine that if Musk makes such a statement about Apple, as he did here, it is most likely true.
So, no, I'm not repeating Musk as you claim but, rather, extrapolating data from his words and the context in which they were said. If Apple sues him (and wins), I'll know I was wrong.
Oh and "firt spoer" is the result of typing a reply on my phone while squinting after just waking up... and autocorrect apparently thinking those are both words. Thank you for not pointing it out...
Good call. I've unplugged it and will take it in this weekend. Thanks!
For the record, that's been the failure mode of 3 of the 4 failed L shape plugs, as well; the 4th was the one that had the cord sliced (caught in the workings of a recliner) and repaired twice, which worked fine for 2 years after the last repair before the supply itself gave up the ghost rather uneventfully. That one just stopped working in the middle of a work day, I noticed when my screen dimmed, wasn't hot or anything, not even warm, just dead. And I'm starting to notice some insulation crumble near the connector on the one L shaped plug I have that hasn't already been patched up... just noticed it earlier today... lovely. So that's a 100% fault rate, then, even if 4 of 8 (I said 7 earlier because I wasn't including the Magsafe 2) still technically "work". Quality.
Here's a hint, while you're getting all defensive: The article linked has nothing to do with any backdoor in anything. If you'd given it a quick click you'd have seen that and not bothered replying.
Really? Justin Case? If that's not a clearly fake name, I don't know what is. And a link to a completely unrelated non-english article? Whoever the hell submitted this spam should never be allowed to submit again and whoever posted it should be fired.