Correct. The actual technology here is TI's M-Shield, a feature of the OMAP processors. Motorola was just one of the first to use it in a noticeable application. M-Shield which lets OEMs burn a public key into a set of ordinary e-fuses, which the processor will use to verify a boot-loader signature, falling back on a recovery firmware if the signature is not valid.
Well to be honest, the Linksys and Netgear routers are also pretty crappy in reality. (But are still much better than the (usually artificially limited) crap included in most DSL and DOCSIS modems).
The Linksys and Netgear (and other similar routers) are with few exceptions underpowered, and have limited configurability with the stock firmware. (Of course the non-stack firmwares like DD-WRT can still be somewhat hit or miss depending on exactly which device you have and which features you are interested in.
Well, the Court has not yet ruled that corporations have ALL the rights of people. I'm thankful that corporations don't have a right to a trial by their peers!
But Armored Games' Crush the Castle did exactly that (knock down a complex structure, while also killing the occupants, albeit with a trebuchet, rather than a slingshot.)
The Angy Birds game is merely a refined clone of that game.
Which is very similar to the Debian Project, since it also does not legally exist. While it does have membership as I pointed out, it does not really mean that much since it is highly reliant on non-members. (The IETF is obviously entirely reliant on non-members since it has no members).
SPI (Software in the Public Interest) serves both roles (to hold the trademarks and other resources including funds, as well as to provide support) for Debian, which likewise has no binding legal ties to SPI, and could not have such ties for the very same reason.
Thus I'm quite sure we are both saying the same thing, you saying it directly, and me by analogy to another non-(legal-entity) that some people may be more familiar with than the IETF.
You should not have any problem with the IETF. They do virtually everything in the public. You may read the mailing lists, and contribute.
The standards created by the IETF are generally completely open by every definition, in that any part may participate in development, there is no restrictions of any kind on access to the standards text[1], and most do not require any patent licensing[2].
The IETF has also been generally fairly competent. They did screw up a bit with IPv6[3], but otherwise many of the standards have been widely deployed with little or no issue, which is about all a standards body can ask for.
ICANN on the other hand has real issues. They are largely a policy organization, with the technical aspects restricted to the part known as the IANA. ICANN's IANA implementation leaves no complaints, but it does extremely poorly with setting policy. It does not help that it gets money from the US Government, which remains under the delusion that it is in charge of the internet. Personally I would kill off ICANN, having the IANA move under the umbrella of the ISOC, and have the IANA begin publishing the root zone directly, rather than involve Verisign and the US Government. Of course that would mean replacing the DNSSec key and procedures but that can be done.
Then we need to replace the policy aspect of ICANN, which is trickier. Policy should not be dictated by what would make the most money for the Registries and Registrars, assuming that the new policy would even keep that broken system. Better would be to require all Registries to be Non-profit organizations, which also operate as the sole registrar for said Registry. The exception would be the CC-TLDs, which would be run however the country in question desires.
Of course, the key here would be to convince the root server operators to go along with the coup, since ICANN would never relinquish control. Another tricky part would be for the new Registries to get the information needed to run (what domains are owned, and by who) from the existing for-profit registries.
Footnotes:
[1] One notable restriction it does not have is any fee to obtain a copy. [2] Although the standards are unfortunately permitted to be developed to require known patents that will require a license with either upfront costs or royalties. [3] They screwed up by not initially specifying some mechanism for IPv6 only clients to talk to IPv4 only hosts. This has resulted in multiple proposed mechanisms for doing just that, which are incompatible, and will cause some headache before we just go with one. They all include some sort of Network Protocol Translation (which obviously includes translating network addresses) being done by some ISP server or router. A few abuse other systems like DNS to do this, while the better ones merely encode IPv4 addresses in IPv6 addresses and use anycast to route them to the ISP servers/routers performing Network Protocol Translation.
They also screwed up by not taking the opportunity to fix anycast to make it support TCP connections. Anycast addresses are permitted as destination addresses, but source addressed must be unique to the device in question, so the TCP SYN/ACK packet would include the unique address of the server. If it were mandated that the TCP stack read this address and use it as the destionation IP for all remaining packets in this connection, then TCP would simply just work over IPv6 Anycast.
The IETF exists in the same way that Debian Project exists, as an unregistered association of individuals, who operate under specific rules created by consensus. However, not being a legal entity in and of themselves, they each have umbrella organizations, namely Software in the Public Interest and the Internet Society, respectively. Both umbrella organizations encompass multiple other proects in addition to Debian and IETF.
The only notable difference is that while the Debian Project has clearly defined members (the Debian Developers), the IETF does not. On the other hand Debian relies heavily on individuals who are not members, making even this distinction smaller than it may seem.
I will point out that only a development version of greasemonkey works for now, which is not available on addins.mozilla.org. For those that prefer Firebug over Web developer, you will need to wait (there is only an alpha for the Fx4beta10 prerelease).
The key here is that all the supported image formats have no known patent threats, so Google does not really care about images. They offer WebP simply because they can, and It was already well known in some circles that modern video compression algorithm's key frame compression was better than JPEG. (Although JPEG2000 can give many lossy image compression formats a run for their money)
With H.264 though the patent royalties on H.264 makes many small time content producers very wary, and does not help with keeping portable device costs as low as possible. Since google has a vested interest in maximizing content production (the more content there is, the more you need a search engine), and a vested interest in mobile devices (it looks like mobile internet access is the way of the future). Thus it is very much in Google's interest to ensure a royalty-free format becomes predominant in web video.
Since Google is not going buy a license at any price...
To clarify (as I understand things): For a patent that might be applicable to WebM, Google would be happy to buy a worldwide royalty free-perpetual public license (applicable to any person or company) that permits everything WebM (encoding, streaming, decoding, etc), if such a license were available at he right price.
But they will not buy any traditional royalty-based, or per person/company based license, and the patent holders are not interested in offering such a non-traditional license at all.
DSL speeds available vary drastically depending on exactly how far you are from the DSLAM, and also on the quality of the old copper lines, and can also depend on if the company took the time to remove old bridge taps from the line.
DSL gets a bad name from those far from the DSLAM, who have crappy lines, or have giant bridge taps causing echos on the line.
I mean I'm connected through a residential DSL service and I have 32.2 Mbps. Of course I'm also an AT&T U-Verse subscriber, so my DSLAM is only about 1,300 feet away from my modem, and AT&T checks the line quality, and replaces the lines if needed for U-verse, which does not occur for most traditional DSL service.
My parents have at least 6 Mbps on their standard residential ADSL line.
VP8 was arraprently designed by taking h.264 and a list of its patents, and making the smallest possible changes so that none of the H.264 pattents apply. The only real risk to it is that it might infringe patents not in the H.264 pool at the time it was created, or those minimal changes might my it fall into a patent that is almost but not quite applicable to H.264
However nobody will actually change WebM because of Mutual Assured Destruction. Google's VP8 patents are belied to cover H.264, and Google will not license them for that use. If anybody tries to apply H.264 patents to WebM, Google reserves the right to seek a mass injunction against all creation of H.264 content, killing H.264 completely. Thus no H.264 patent holder will sue, or they will lose all of their H.264 licensing revenue.
Which just goes to show why patents are a very bad idea.
That's nowhere near enough. Where is the Wiimote, Trackball, joystick, Digitizer pad (e.g. Wacom pad), touch screen, gamepad, light pen, and neural interface?
Seriously though, for avoiding RSI, having a variety of pointer devices available is not a bad idea. Not to mention that each pointer device has some benefits versus the others for certain applications.
But NOFORN is not really a classification level either. It is an endorsement meant to restrict access even to those who otherwise hold the relevant clearance level (if applicable) and have a need to know. As few foreign nationals would have jobs with a valid need to know, NOFORN basically indicates that those with a valid need to know should take extra effort to avoid accidental dissemination to a foreign national.
I'm running Dolphin HD mostly for better tabbing support, and the ability to download any file (including those I don't have an app for). I know the latter is a feature of Astro File Manager, but I use Root Explorer for my File Manager, and don't really want Astro.
The problem with the online video system is that there are very few producers that do anything that really resembles actual television dramas. You get many short one-offs, and a bunch of "webisode"-length serials.
You also get a fair number of documentaries, but all in all very little quite like TV programming. Part of that is because those sites don't provide much opportunity to make money. The occasional viral video will make a fair amount, but barely make enough to cover the wear and tear on the camera.
On the other hand, a movie that makes it to Sundance actually has a pretty good chance of recovering most expenses by way of sales.
[quote]Efficiency has nothing to do with fission-powered cars; it's unrealistic to even suggest that it's possible, at all, ever.[/quote] Fission powered cars are entirely possible as long as you use a loose enough definition of car. After all fission-powered submarines are quite possible. Take one of them, strap it to some giant wheels and axles and attach a gear system between the propeller and the wheels, and you have a fission powered "car". But it would be a terribly, terribly inefficient thing to drive to work every day.
My point was that oil is currently needed because most alternatives either have similar inefficiencies on a smaller scale (the giant batteries of purely Electric vehicles), or currently have a greater per mile cost than oil. Most of those other alternatives (like the hydrogen fuel cells) also use more energy to collect or create the fuel component than that fuel component will give back out when burned or otherwise used.
[quote]No, running out of it doesn't mean we won't need it anymore. You might wish it so, but it ain't so.[/quote]
I did not say that. I said that we, (we=humans, not any specific sibset of individuals) will continue to pump oil until one of 3 things occurs.
The first is that we run out. Once there is no more oil there is no reason to pump it.
The second case would be not needing it any more, having found suitable alternatives for everything that uses it.
The third case would be that we it starts becoming scarce enough that it becomes less expensive to simply create it synthetically.
Until at least one of those happens the oil will be pumped, even it it takes more than one barrels worth of energy to pump a barrel of oil, since the goal is a sufficiently compact, lightweight mobile fuel source.
At the moment Verizon is advertising a $30/month unlimited cell data add-on plan for phones on their web site. What they no longer offer is unlimited data plans for non-phones.
It is also worth knowing that there are unadvertised rate plans, which are possible to subscribe to, but some require VZW employee referral, and others require you to know the plan code, which even the sales reps cannot pull up, having been marked to not appear in the searchable plan lists.
I would ask the same question about most sports (regardless of origin), although there are a few I can understand, although I still have no interest in myself.
I could also ask the same thing about most "reality" television that seems to be exceptionally popular in the US (where it is slowly replacing prime-time dramas, not really sure if this is happening overseas). the only "reality" programming that has a shot of being worthwhile (but still often falls short) is the stuff that predates the phrase "reality television", such as news, or game shows.
I find the growing percentage of television prime-time hours being consumed by "reality" programing quite distressing, as it means that the rare show I find worthwhile (which usually do very poorly in the ratings game) are all the more likely to be cancel to make room for yet another "American Idol" or "Survivor" clone.
I'm expecting a gradual emergence of indie television programs starting out through the existing film festival mechanism, and gradually building a new support mechanism tailed for the purpose.
Except of course in the case of collusion, or as actually appears to be the case here, no company feels that the expenses of trying to compete based on SMS pricing (in order to actually compete in a reasonably short term requires some form of advertising. Being able to go below a cent a message would also almost certainly require updates to the software being used, as the original billing software specs are unlikely to have contemplated sub-cent pricing for SMS.
(Not to mention that if text messages were $0.001, "Verizon Math" would be an even bigger issue, as more people would be incorrectly quoted fractional cent prices.)
No the standard USB power negotiation spec does not. The official USB Battery Charging spec on the other hand allows dedicated charging or combined data/charging ports that can supply up to 1.5 amp, and which does so through a different mechanism than the power negotiation system, that supports the common inexpensive current limiters found in many chargers. No digital logic required in the power brick.
Does the spec detail exactly how a device wanting more than 100mA of power gets it when it's plugged into an adaptor rather than a computer?
There is a USB Battery Charging Spec. It specifies how a dedicated charging port (which can be bower brick with a USB-A port, or something with a permanently attached cable) shall act to be USB compliant.
But AFAICT, if phone from Vendor A draws 800mA and your PSU is rated at 500mA - well, if it's been designed without any sort of protection (quite possible on a cheap & nasty adaptor) - that's the end of that.
Adapters without even basic current limiting are illegal in many countries, so in practice all adapters have at least basic current limiting. Basic current limiting drops the voltage when trying to draw more than the desired current. The cheap systems will still provide more current, but will do so at a lower voltage, so the net result is still safe. The more expensive ones will keep dropping the voltage until the device draws the rated maximum current.
A device simply either accepts the reduced voltage, or it cuts back on the current demand to get the full voltage. All real charging circuits in phones will drop the current demand if the voltage goes too low, so this all just works.
That is not true. Some devices may work like that, but according to the USB specification as amended by the USB Battery Charging specification, the data lines being shorted together means that a device may draw current up to 1.5 A (I_DEVCHG), but the charger is not required to be able to supply 1.5A, and its voltage may drop before the device reaches 1.5A.
The charger is permitted to source up to 5A (maximum current a USB Port is designed to safely handle), but the device is not permitted to draw more than 1.5 Amps. The charger must be able to source a minimum of 0.5 Amps.
We will continue to pump oil well after it takes more than one barrel's worth of energy to pump it. Why? Well oil is used because it is a good mobile energy source, not because it is a good energy source. Oil pumping uses other energy sources which are more cost-efficient. But you can't easilly make a reasonably efficient fission powered car or lawnmower, and oil is still comming out better than systems that store energy from the grid.
We will stop pumping oil upon running out; no longer needing it for plastics, rubber, and mobile energy; or a synthetic petroleum creation process becoming more cost effective than pumping it.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. The actual technology here is TI's M-Shield, a feature of the OMAP processors. Motorola was just one of the first to use it in a noticeable application. M-Shield which lets OEMs burn a public key into a set of ordinary e-fuses, which the processor will use to verify a boot-loader signature, falling back on a recovery firmware if the signature is not valid.
s/non-stack/non-stock/
Well to be honest, the Linksys and Netgear routers are also pretty crappy in reality. (But are still much better than the (usually artificially limited) crap included in most DSL and DOCSIS modems).
The Linksys and Netgear (and other similar routers) are with few exceptions underpowered, and have limited configurability with the stock firmware. (Of course the non-stack firmwares like DD-WRT can still be somewhat hit or miss depending on exactly which device you have and which features you are interested in.
Well, the Court has not yet ruled that corporations have ALL the rights of people. I'm thankful that corporations don't have a right to a trial by their peers!
But Armored Games' Crush the Castle did exactly that (knock down a complex structure, while also killing the occupants, albeit with a trebuchet, rather than a slingshot.)
The Angy Birds game is merely a refined clone of that game.
Which is very similar to the Debian Project, since it also does not legally exist. While it does have membership as I pointed out, it does not really mean that much since it is highly reliant on non-members. (The IETF is obviously entirely reliant on non-members since it has no members).
SPI (Software in the Public Interest) serves both roles (to hold the trademarks and other resources including funds, as well as to provide support) for Debian, which likewise has no binding legal ties to SPI, and could not have such ties for the very same reason.
Thus I'm quite sure we are both saying the same thing, you saying it directly, and me by analogy to another non-(legal-entity) that some people may be more familiar with than the IETF.
You should not have any problem with the IETF. They do virtually everything in the public. You may read the mailing lists, and contribute.
The standards created by the IETF are generally completely open by every definition, in that any part may participate in development, there is no restrictions of any kind on access to the standards text[1], and most do not require any patent licensing[2].
The IETF has also been generally fairly competent. They did screw up a bit with IPv6[3], but otherwise many of the standards have been widely deployed with little or no issue, which is about all a standards body can ask for.
ICANN on the other hand has real issues. They are largely a policy organization, with the technical aspects restricted to the part known as the IANA. ICANN's IANA implementation leaves no complaints, but it does extremely poorly with setting policy. It does not help that it gets money from the US Government, which remains under the delusion that it is in charge of the internet. Personally I would kill off ICANN, having the IANA move under the umbrella of the ISOC, and have the IANA begin publishing the root zone directly, rather than involve Verisign and the US Government. Of course that would mean replacing the DNSSec key and procedures but that can be done.
Then we need to replace the policy aspect of ICANN, which is trickier. Policy should not be dictated by what would make the most money for the Registries and Registrars, assuming that the new policy would even keep that broken system. Better would be to require all Registries to be Non-profit organizations, which also operate as the sole registrar for said Registry. The exception would be the CC-TLDs, which would be run however the country in question desires.
Of course, the key here would be to convince the root server operators to go along with the coup, since ICANN would never relinquish control. Another tricky part would be for the new Registries to get the information needed to run (what domains are owned, and by who) from the existing for-profit registries.
Footnotes:
[1] One notable restriction it does not have is any fee to obtain a copy.
[2] Although the standards are unfortunately permitted to be developed to require known patents that will require a license with either upfront costs or royalties.
[3] They screwed up by not initially specifying some mechanism for IPv6 only clients to talk to IPv4 only hosts. This has resulted in multiple proposed mechanisms for doing just that, which are incompatible, and will cause some headache before we just go with one. They all include some sort of Network Protocol Translation (which obviously includes translating network addresses) being done by some ISP server or router. A few abuse other systems like DNS to do this, while the better ones merely encode IPv4 addresses in IPv6 addresses and use anycast to route them to the ISP servers/routers performing Network Protocol Translation.
They also screwed up by not taking the opportunity to fix anycast to make it support TCP connections. Anycast addresses are permitted as destination addresses, but source addressed must be unique to the device in question, so the TCP SYN/ACK packet would include the unique address of the server. If it were mandated that the TCP stack read this address and use it as the destionation IP for all remaining packets in this connection, then TCP would simply just work over IPv6 Anycast.
The IETF exists in the same way that Debian Project exists, as an unregistered association of individuals, who operate under specific rules created by consensus. However, not being a legal entity in and of themselves, they each have umbrella organizations, namely Software in the Public Interest and the Internet Society, respectively. Both umbrella organizations encompass multiple other proects in addition to Debian and IETF.
The only notable difference is that while the Debian Project has clearly defined members (the Debian Developers), the IETF does not. On the other hand Debian relies heavily on individuals who are not members, making even this distinction smaller than it may seem.
I will point out that only a development version of greasemonkey works for now, which is not available on addins.mozilla.org. For those that prefer Firebug over Web developer, you will need to wait (there is only an alpha for the Fx4beta10 prerelease).
The key here is that all the supported image formats have no known patent threats, so Google does not really care about images. They offer WebP simply because they can, and It was already well known in some circles that modern video compression algorithm's key frame compression was better than JPEG. (Although JPEG2000 can give many lossy image compression formats a run for their money)
With H.264 though the patent royalties on H.264 makes many small time content producers very wary, and does not help with keeping portable device costs as low as possible. Since google has a vested interest in maximizing content production (the more content there is, the more you need a search engine), and a vested interest in mobile devices (it looks like mobile internet access is the way of the future). Thus it is very much in Google's interest to ensure a royalty-free format becomes predominant in web video.
Since Google is not going buy a license at any price...
To clarify (as I understand things):
For a patent that might be applicable to WebM, Google would be happy to buy a worldwide royalty free-perpetual public license (applicable to any person or company) that permits everything WebM (encoding, streaming, decoding, etc), if such a license were available at he right price.
But they will not buy any traditional royalty-based, or per person/company based license, and the patent holders are not interested in offering such a non-traditional license at all.
DSL speeds available vary drastically depending on exactly how far you are from the DSLAM, and also on the quality of the old copper lines, and can also depend on if the company took the time to remove old bridge taps from the line.
DSL gets a bad name from those far from the DSLAM, who have crappy lines, or have giant bridge taps causing echos on the line.
I mean I'm connected through a residential DSL service and I have 32.2 Mbps. Of course I'm also an AT&T U-Verse subscriber, so my DSLAM is only about 1,300 feet away from my modem, and AT&T checks the line quality, and replaces the lines if needed for U-verse, which does not occur for most traditional DSL service.
My parents have at least 6 Mbps on their standard residential ADSL line.
VP8 was arraprently designed by taking h.264 and a list of its patents, and making the smallest possible changes so that none of the H.264 pattents apply. The only real risk to it is that it might infringe patents not in the H.264 pool at the time it was created, or those minimal changes might my it fall into a patent that is almost but not quite applicable to H.264
However nobody will actually change WebM because of Mutual Assured Destruction. Google's VP8 patents are belied to cover H.264, and Google will not license them for that use. If anybody tries to apply H.264 patents to WebM, Google reserves the right to seek a mass injunction against all creation of H.264 content, killing H.264 completely. Thus no H.264 patent holder will sue, or they will lose all of their H.264 licensing revenue.
Which just goes to show why patents are a very bad idea.
That's nowhere near enough. Where is the Wiimote, Trackball, joystick, Digitizer pad (e.g. Wacom pad), touch screen, gamepad, light pen, and neural interface?
Seriously though, for avoiding RSI, having a variety of pointer devices available is not a bad idea. Not to mention that each pointer device has some benefits versus the others for certain applications.
But NOFORN is not really a classification level either. It is an endorsement meant to restrict access even to those who otherwise hold the relevant clearance level (if applicable) and have a need to know. As few foreign nationals would have jobs with a valid need to know, NOFORN basically indicates that those with a valid need to know should take extra effort to avoid accidental dissemination to a foreign national.
I'm running Dolphin HD mostly for better tabbing support, and the ability to download any file (including those I don't have an app for). I know the latter is a feature of Astro File Manager, but I use Root Explorer for my File Manager, and don't really want Astro.
The problem with the online video system is that there are very few producers that do anything that really resembles actual television dramas. You get many short one-offs, and a bunch of "webisode"-length serials.
You also get a fair number of documentaries, but all in all very little quite like TV programming.
Part of that is because those sites don't provide much opportunity to make money. The occasional viral video will make a fair amount, but barely make enough to cover the wear and tear on the camera.
On the other hand, a movie that makes it to Sundance actually has a pretty good chance of recovering most expenses by way of sales.
[quote]Efficiency has nothing to do with fission-powered cars; it's unrealistic to even suggest that it's possible, at all, ever.[/quote]
Fission powered cars are entirely possible as long as you use a loose enough definition of car. After all fission-powered submarines are quite possible. Take one of them, strap it to some giant wheels and axles and attach a gear system between the propeller and the wheels, and you have a fission powered "car". But it would be a terribly, terribly inefficient thing to drive to work every day.
My point was that oil is currently needed because most alternatives either have similar inefficiencies on a smaller scale (the giant batteries of purely Electric vehicles), or currently have a greater per mile cost than oil. Most of those other alternatives (like the hydrogen fuel cells) also use more energy to collect or create the fuel component than that fuel component will give back out when burned or otherwise used.
[quote]No, running out of it doesn't mean we won't need it anymore. You might wish it so, but it ain't so.[/quote]
I did not say that. I said that we, (we=humans, not any specific sibset of individuals) will continue to pump oil until one of 3 things occurs.
The first is that we run out. Once there is no more oil there is no reason to pump it.
The second case would be not needing it any more, having found suitable alternatives for everything that uses it.
The third case would be that we it starts becoming scarce enough that it becomes less expensive to simply create it synthetically.
Until at least one of those happens the oil will be pumped, even it it takes more than one barrels worth of energy to pump a barrel of oil, since the goal is a sufficiently compact, lightweight mobile fuel source.
At the moment Verizon is advertising a $30/month unlimited cell data add-on plan for phones on their web site. What they no longer offer is unlimited data plans for non-phones.
It is also worth knowing that there are unadvertised rate plans, which are possible to subscribe to, but some require VZW employee referral, and others require you to know the plan code, which even the sales reps cannot pull up, having been marked to not appear in the searchable plan lists.
How on earth can people watch that shit?
I would ask the same question about most sports (regardless of origin), although there are a few I can understand, although I still have no interest in myself.
I could also ask the same thing about most "reality" television that seems to be exceptionally popular in the US (where it is slowly replacing prime-time dramas, not really sure if this is happening overseas). the only "reality" programming that has a shot of being worthwhile (but still often falls short) is the stuff that predates the phrase "reality television", such as news, or game shows.
I find the growing percentage of television prime-time hours being consumed by "reality" programing quite distressing, as it means that the rare show I find worthwhile (which usually do very poorly in the ratings game) are all the more likely to be cancel to make room for yet another "American Idol" or "Survivor" clone.
I'm expecting a gradual emergence of indie television programs starting out through the existing film festival mechanism, and gradually building a new support mechanism tailed for the purpose.
Except of course in the case of collusion, or as actually appears to be the case here, no company feels that the expenses of trying to compete based on SMS pricing (in order to actually compete in a reasonably short term requires some form of advertising. Being able to go below a cent a message would also almost certainly require updates to the software being used, as the original billing software specs are unlikely to have contemplated sub-cent pricing for SMS.
(Not to mention that if text messages were $0.001, "Verizon Math" would be an even bigger issue, as more people would be incorrectly quoted fractional cent prices.)
No the standard USB power negotiation spec does not. The official USB Battery Charging spec on the other hand allows dedicated charging or combined data/charging ports that can supply up to 1.5 amp, and which does so through a different mechanism than the power negotiation system, that supports the common inexpensive current limiters found in many chargers. No digital logic required in the power brick.
Does the spec detail exactly how a device wanting more than 100mA of power gets it when it's plugged into an adaptor rather than a computer?
There is a USB Battery Charging Spec. It specifies how a dedicated charging port (which can be bower brick with a USB-A port, or something with a permanently attached cable) shall act to be USB compliant.
But AFAICT, if phone from Vendor A draws 800mA and your PSU is rated at 500mA - well, if it's been designed without any sort of protection (quite possible on a cheap & nasty adaptor) - that's the end of that.
Adapters without even basic current limiting are illegal in many countries, so in practice all adapters have at least basic current limiting. Basic current limiting drops the voltage when trying to draw more than the desired current. The cheap systems will still provide more current, but will do so at a lower voltage, so the net result is still safe. The more expensive ones will keep dropping the voltage until the device draws the rated maximum current.
A device simply either accepts the reduced voltage, or it cuts back on the current demand to get the full voltage. All real charging circuits in phones will drop the current demand if the voltage goes too low, so this all just works.
That is not true. Some devices may work like that, but according to the USB specification as amended by the USB Battery Charging specification, the data lines being shorted together means that a device may draw current up to 1.5 A (I_DEVCHG), but the charger is not required to be able to supply 1.5A, and its voltage may drop before the device reaches 1.5A.
The charger is permitted to source up to 5A (maximum current a USB Port is designed to safely handle), but the device is not permitted to draw more than 1.5 Amps.
The charger must be able to source a minimum of 0.5 Amps.
We will continue to pump oil well after it takes more than one barrel's worth of energy to pump it. Why? Well oil is used because it is a good mobile energy source, not because it is a good energy source. Oil pumping uses other energy sources which are more cost-efficient. But you can't easilly make a reasonably efficient fission powered car or lawnmower, and oil is still comming out better than systems that store energy from the grid.
We will stop pumping oil upon running out; no longer needing it for plastics, rubber, and mobile energy; or a synthetic petroleum creation process becoming more cost effective than pumping it.