@Bob That's the thing, when we import them we pay $USD or whatever, so it costs more to get them into the country, negating any benefit of exporting it again
This is now completed and (for now) enabled on meta.stackexchange.com and meta.stackoverflow.com. If there are no issues, it'll go live network-wide soon.
Note that if you're a moderator (and thus your flags are authoritative), there's no retracting. Also, close flags get converted into close vo...
I suspect it doesn't. QC2 and QC3 stop working if the data pins are blocked (my usb meter has optional block ports), but the S4 acts the same either way.
Then again I hadn't seen the S4 do >1.2A till now anyway so all my previous tests can be discarded >_>
There is no way to change the game units. This is intended by Niantic, as Ingress uses the metric system as well.
I would suggest getting used to the metric system.
There used to be a root/kernel hack to enable quick charging in places where it wasn't on, I wonder if that's still around for disabling this screen on power hack
> Quick Charge 1.0 was introduced in 2012 and it made use of a 5V/2A charger, which could charge a phone up to 40% faster than conventional 5V, 1A chargers. That boost accounts for a 10W max charging power.
Qualcomm Quick Charge 1.0 was available on phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S III, LG Nexus 4 and LG Optimus G, the Sony Xperia T and the Redmi2.
> Samsung Fast Charge solution is no different than Qualcomm's Quick Charge 2.0. Samsung uses its own Exynos chipset for the Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 Edge so you'd reckon they didn't have the luxury of relying on Qualcomm's ready-made solution that comes with Snapdragon processors. Or did they?
After some research we found out that Qualcomm is actually offering their Quick Charge 2.0 technology to third-party OEMs royalty free. All they have to do is integrate the extra Power management integrated circuit into their designs.
What makes the jump from 1.2A to 2.0A significant enough to warrant calling it Qualcomm Quick Charge? Only difference I can tell is QC 1.0 chargers deliver 5.3v+
Ah, a Charging downstream port (CDP) uses the resistor, a Dedicated charging port (DCP) which doesn't have data/USB host capability at all just shorts D+ to D-
I know Apple devices used a different identifier previously. Now chargers advertise "smart" charging ICs that autodetect apple vs. android devices and do whatever it takes to tell the phone it's a 2A charger
> Nowadays the iPhone expects a certain voltage on those two pins to decide how much current to absorb from the charger. Putting a 2.0 V voltage on both the pins the iPhone will absorb about 500 mA, while with 2.8 V on D- and 2.0 V on D+ it will absorb about 1000 mA.
The non-QC ports on my "intelligent" multi-port wall charger read about 8 ohms and the Galaxy S4/S5 chargers read 1 ohm, which is basically a direct short
If a device is connected while it's on and the device is connected to the data block port on my meter it draws ~1A too
So the port delivers 1A+ whatever its state, but I'm curious whether it uses the short method or resistance method, or some IC because it has to transfer data as well
Funny thing is I have a microUSB cable here marked "Charge only" which doesn't have the data pins connected at all and aren't shorted at the connector either, so my phones only charge at 500mA. So my "charge only" cable also happens to be the slowest and worst cable to use for charging...
I want to become a porn director and film a shibari scene using cat5 cable instead of rope.... if this is too nsfw to talk about in this group, let me know and I'll delete it
> The TPS2511 is a USB dedicated charging port (DCP) controller and current limiting power switch. An auto-detect feature monitors USB data line voltage, and automatically provides the correct electrical signatures on the data lines to charge compliant devices among the following dedicated charging schemes:
- Divider DCP, required to apply 2.7 V and 2.0 V on the D+ and D– lines respectively or 2.0 V and 2.7 V on the D+ and D– lines respectively - BC1.2 DCP, required to short the D+ Line to the D– Line
But I have to say, I haven't really seen you around, and I'm a regular round these parts, so I don't know if that's necessarily the appropriate response.
I wonder what'd happen if I connected these cables to something like a Roku or a Chromecast, something that draws a lot of power and doesn't throttle back if the voltage dips.
So um. My friend agreed to lend me the money to buy my computer parts in exchange for me giving him my old graphics card. So basically the PC project is back on tracks, although with a graphics card this time. I was wondering if someone felt line advising me.
I'm also wondering whether I need to change my case. At the repair shop they said a short circuit between the case and the motherboard caused the death of the latter. But they couldn't say for what reason it happened. I wouldn't want to burn my new stuff eight away.
@Ariane Most consumer workloads do not benefit greatly from higher memory bandwidth (unless you're using integrated graphics; see superuser.com/questions/789816/…)
Memory latency is actually more important than memory bandwidth. You'll probably want lower CAS timings (but even then, the benefit is still rather limited).
Anyway, your CPU only supports up to DDR4-2133 (without overclocking) so if you get the higher-specced DDR4-2400 it'll just run at the lower speed anyway.
just make sure it's DDR4 and for desktops (full-size DIMM) :P
if you want, you can get the ones with a heat spreader but generally RAM doesn't run hot enough to be an issue (and heat spreaders can make them too big to fit on some small boards)
Now, on the subject of the pins on my motherboard... It's been years but I really don't think I had leftover parts back when I built the computer. I take it they're all installed? What worries me is that the short circuit happened after years of event-less use.
@oldmud0 Intel's looking for ways to stop malware at the hardware level, yes. The problem is poor adoption and concerns about abuse (will ISVs use this technology to restrict legitimate uses?)
I'm actually in favor of Secure Boot. I just wish it was easier to configure.
if anything, they'll shut down mcafee and include Intel Advanced VS+ Elite technology or whatever in their new processors that "interfaces with UEFI to install new malware definitions even when the computer is turned off" or whatever
There is no way to change the game units. This is intended by Niantic, as Ingress uses the metric system as well.
I would suggest getting used to the metric system.
