Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 70 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
charging policy "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100
Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-21 17:36 +0000
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 19:02 +0100
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re:charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 18:53 +0100
Re: Re:charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:42 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 07:13 +0100
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 01:50 -0500
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 09:15 +0100
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:09 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:18 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 17:26 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 12:54 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:26 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-23 09:28 +0000
"tl; dr" (was: Re: charging policy) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:28 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 10:22 -0700
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-22 18:45 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 13:47 -0500
Re: charging policy "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-22 20:40 +0000
Re: charging policy David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:29 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:30 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:26 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:13 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 19:52 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:40 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 21:48 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:06 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 22:09 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:23 -0500
Re: charging policy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-23 21:00 -0800
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 09:05 -0500
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 15:46 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 10:51 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 10:01 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 12:55 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 13:07 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 16:33 -0400
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 11:33 -0700
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-25 19:06 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 22:07 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 04:46 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 00:32 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 22:37 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:45 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 10:49 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-26 16:04 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 19:11 -0500
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 20:14 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
Re: charging policy Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-26 10:36 +0200
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:37 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <261120181049556190%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57900 |
In article <pth7u0.cf0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > An ad hominem fallacy does not mean that any and all personal > premisses about the opponent are off limits. It's only an ad hominem > fallacy if the introduced personal premiss is *irrelevant*. and it is irrelevant. > IMO, considering nospam's track record - and again in this thread - of > supporting and defending all things Apple no matter what, the > qualification 'fanboi' is quite relevant. false claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pthu56$s8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57900 |
On 11/26/2018 8:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Saying that something is an ad hominem attack is often a fallacy in > itself, because the person saying so doesn't quite know what an ad > hominem attack - or better an ad hominem fallacy - is and is not. My chuckle was that our overly sensitive victim said my (perceived) attack made my entire argument baseless. So apparently he thought it had some 'base' before the attack... ;) No matter. The OT thread was pretty well worn out anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 19:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <261120181911263471%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57913 |
In article <pthu56$s8g$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > My chuckle was that our overly sensitive victim said my (perceived) > attack made my entire argument baseless. any personal attack does. stick to the topic. > So apparently he thought it had > some 'base' before the attack... ;) it did not, which is why you resorted to personal attacks. > No matter. The OT thread was pretty well worn out anyway. yep.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-24 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptcf08.40c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57844 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/2018 8:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > there's little to no incentive for device makers to prolong the life
> > of their products
>
> And if the battery does manage to live too long a life, the
> (no longer updated) OS gets out of date...
This subthread was mainly talking about laptops, where OS updating is
much less or even no problem.
But also for phones and tablets, the OS getting 'out of date'
('obsolete', anyone? :-)) is - IMO - made a much bigger 'problem' than
it really is.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, my old phone has 4.1.1 and sofar
there's been only *one* app which does no longer get updates unless
you're on 6.0. And that app is a rather bad one.
That phone is a little over five years old and the state of the
battery is more of a problem than the version of the OS.
So it would be nice if device makers made the batteries in their
devices last longer than they do.
For laptops, it's trivial to do, but device-specific, so third-party
solutions are not possible/feasible.
For Android devices, it's possible as well, but third-party solutions
require a rooted device which makes them not possible/feasible either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ptcv84$2vm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57847 |
On 11/24/2018 1:14 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > my old phone has 4.1.1 and sofar > there's been only *one* app which does no longer get updates unless > you're on 6.0. And that app is a rather bad one. My Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet runs a version of Android 5.x (Fire OS) and still runs the apps I use just fine, though I realize I'm a sample of one. The Amazon App Store seems to have many older app versions apparently selected to fit the Fire OS. However I have installed the Google Play Store and its newer app versions mostly seem to just run fine as well. > That phone is a little over five years old and the state of the > battery is more of a problem than the version of the OS. Ironically (considering the current drift of the thread) the only total battery failure I've encountered before buying a new phone was the wife's iPhone 6+. That battery swelled up so much it popped open the case (at about two years of age). > So it would be nice if device makers made the batteries in their > devices last longer than they do. Agreed. So far I've noticed no battery degradation in my 2+ year old phone but I've already been to YouTube and, when necessary, replacement appears easy. But then my OS updates stopped almost a year ago at 7.0 so perhaps we'll be having the same discussion about how well our old versions work in another few years... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <251120180042505365%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57852 |
In article <ptcv84$2vm$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > That phone is a little over five years old and the state of the > > battery is more of a problem than the version of the OS. > > Ironically (considering the current drift of the thread) the only total > battery failure I've encountered before buying a new phone was the > wife's iPhone 6+. That battery swelled up so much it popped open the > case (at about two years of age). that's a defective battery, which has nothing to do with any particular device or os. nothing is perfect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 10:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vg38t1g1bhd.fsf@coffee.modeemi.fi> |
| In reply to | #57735 |
Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> writes: > Before such a scenario, charge it first fully, the best out if the car, > And then start navigating while on the charger. Or, do not charge > it, if the ride is not too long. Kind of hard to do on a lot of cars these days, at least if you want the phone to display on the car's larger screen via Android Auto since that usually happens over USB... Likewise if the phone goes in a stand, there usually isn't an option to charge or not charge. Navigating and driving a car with the phone in hand, well, I wish people wouldn't do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <941v5iWcFC$bFwrk@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57891 |
In message <vg38t1g1bhd.fsf@coffee.modeemi.fi>, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> writes: >Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> writes: > >> Before such a scenario, charge it first fully, the best out if the car, >> And then start navigating while on the charger. Or, do not charge >> it, if the ride is not too long. > >Kind of hard to do on a lot of cars these days, at least if you want the >phone to display on the car's larger screen via Android Auto since that >usually happens over USB... Likewise if the phone goes in a stand, there >usually isn't an option to charge or not charge. Navigating and driving >a car with the phone in hand, well, I wish people wouldn't do that. It's specifically illegal in the UK. (Well, _speaking_ into a fobile you're holding certainly is; I'm not sure about any other handheld use.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum. You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <211120181510393630%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57730 |
In article <pt44dh$ce4$1@dont-email.me>, Linea Recta <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> wrote: > What's the best charging policy for Li-ion batteries, regarding battery life > span? the best policy is not to worry about it. the battery will outlast the useful life of the device. worst case, replace it once in a few years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pt4kj0$olu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57730 |
On 11/21/2018 10:24 AM, Linea Recta wrote: > What's the best charging policy for Li-ion batteries, regarding > battery life span? As others have noted battery opinions vary. I can only relate my own practical experience. I've let my phone charge overnight while we're both sleeping for the last 2+ years. So far I've noticed no battery degradation. I'm sure there is some, but it's just not bad enough for me to notice...and that's the important part.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web