Searching \ for '[EE] Float charging Li-ion (18650) in series' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/power/batterys.htm?key=li%2Dion
Search entire site for: 'Float charging Li-ion (18650) in series'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Float charging Li-ion (18650) in series'
2011\06\17@090507 by V G

picon face
Hi all,

I want to build a small battery pack (self contained unit with charger and
variable output power supply). The charging will most likely be from an
input source of 5V (either 500mA USB source or 2A supply, but it shouldn't
really matter since it's all going through a switching supply). The battery
configuration will be 3 x 18650 Li-ion in series. The 18650s have a built in
"protection circuit". I want to float charge these at around 4.1V, so is it
just safe to line the batteries up in series and apply a steady 12.3V? Would
I need 4.1V zener diodes across each of the batteries

2011\06\17@092741 by RussellMc

face picon face
Many of the answers from the prior LiIon charging threads apply.

Current needs to be limited, of course, to the maximum allowed by the
batteries used.

Zeners are nowhere precise enough for balancing.
A reference voltage controlled clamp (super zener) would be better.
eg a TL431, opamp sectopn, clamp transisto and "glue" per cell. Small
% of battery cost.

If running at 4.1V you MAY get close enough to allowable termination
voltage at some temperatures that charging termination is needed.
(Cells charged above a certain voltage need to have charging stopped
as charge current falls to some fraction of Ichgmax.
Lowering Vcellmax to 4.0V would probably [tm] eliminate the need for this.

You can get multi-cell balancing ICs BUT the above is easy, cheapish
and would work OK.

An easy termination system would be when all cell clamps are set to
say 4.1V and all are clamped. With only 1 or 2 clamped  charging
continues.



     Russell



On 18 June 2011 01:04, V G <spam_OUTx.solarwind.xTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\06\17@102031 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Could you draw a simple schematic on how this "clamp" works? I'm not really
understanding it

2011\06\17@103551 by RussellMc

face picon face
> Could you draw a simple schematic on how this "clamp" works? I'm not really
> understanding it.


Rushing ..
Look at the TL431 data sheets about how to make a high power preision zener..
Can be a transistor and a 431 - not even an opamp.
When V get's to limit 431 is programmed to turn on and this urns on a
clamp transistor.
Data sheets will have ap motes of this.
No opamp.
Per battery = 431, pnp, 4 resistors probably. Cheap.
More in due course if needed - have a look at data sheet.

      Russell

2011\06\17@120739 by RussellMc

face picon face
part 1 471 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" (decoded quoted-printable)

>> Could you draw a simple schematic on how this "clamp" works? I'm not really
>> understanding it.

Cct ex TI datasheet
TL431 December 2005.

R1, R2 set clamp voltage.
431 turning on turns on transistor and clamps voltage.

Applying  a very fully charged LiIon to this circuit may be exciting. Maybe not.
Resistor in battery lead can be used - maybe 1 ohm, to reduce fun and
games prospects.


   R


part 2 15089 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name="CCT TL431 shunt regulator.jpg" (decode)


part 3 181 bytes content-type:text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"
(decoded base64)

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2011\06\17@131804 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:06 PM, RussellMc <apptechnzspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:

> >> Could you draw a simple schematic on how this "clamp" works? I'm not
> really
> >> understanding it.
>
> Cct ex TI datasheet
> TL431 December 2005.
>
> R1, R2 set clamp voltage.
> 431 turning on turns on transistor and clamps voltage.
>
> Applying  a very fully charged LiIon to this circuit may be exciting. Maybe
> not.
> Resistor in battery lead can be used - maybe 1 ohm, to reduce fun and
> games prospects.
>
>
Would something like this work? Using the comparator across each battery?

http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic1.pn

2011\06\17@133108 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:06 +1200, "RussellMc"  wrote:
> >> Could you draw a simple schematic on how this "clamp" works? I'm not really
> >> understanding it.
>
> Cct ex TI datasheet
> TL431 December 2005.
>
> R1, R2 set clamp voltage.
> 431 turning on turns on transistor and clamps voltage.

How large have you made the R1/R1 combination and still gotten decent
voltage tolerance over "room" temperature range?

The input bias current is rated at 2 to 4 uA +- 0.8 to 2.5 uA over
temperature range 0 - 70.
Lots better than a zener but maybe would drain the battery fairly
quickly unless the R1/R2 pair was very high and then input bias current
shift eats away at accuracy.

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                         wherever you are

2011\06\17@134711 by RussellMc

face picon face
> How large have you made the R1/R1 combination and still gotten decent
> voltage tolerance over "room" temperature range?
>
> The input bias current is rated at 2 to 4 uA +- 0.8 to 2.5 uA over
> temperature range 0 - 70.
>
> Lots better than a zener but maybe would drain the battery fairly
> quickly unless the R1/R2 pair was very high and then input bias current
> shift eats away at accuracy.

His app is a charger.
Power will be on most of the time and even if off is not going to
cause vast problems over charger residency type periods.

18650 LiIon are about 2000 mAh + .

1 mA drain at 24 hours  = a bit over 1% capacity.
100 UA - ~0.1%
10 uA ...

In order to avoid thinking about temperature compensation I suggested
he move the voltage back another 0.1 V to 4V.
This reduces capacity but (probably) allows simple float and greatly
improves cycle life.
Also avoids having to do current tail level triggered charge termination.

2011\06\17@150535 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Okay so I figured out another mechanism to charge. Uses a few transistors,
but simplifies the charging itself.

I'm guessing many will find this design messy and unnecessary. Please
comment.

Here's my circuit: http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2.png

The left side MOSFETs, when enabled, connect the batteries in series,
allowing regular discharge.

The right side MOSFETs and BJTs, when enabled, do a parallel current limited
charge up to 4V. As far as I know, the BJTs won't allow the batteries to
charge each other when the BJTs are disabled. When they are enabled, the
batteries are charging anyway. My only concern with this design is reverse
biasing the BJTs and the batteries charging each other when in parallel
charge mode.

I plan to use SOT-23 transistors to keep it small. Battery discharge I'm
guessing will be maximum 1A (to charge my iPhone). Battery charge will be
around 2A per cell

2011\06\17@150720 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:05 PM, V G <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Whoops, just noticed that my NPNs should be low side. Will fix now

2011\06\17@151434 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, V G <@spam@x.solarwind.xKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Updated and much more simplified circuit.

http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png<http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2..png>

I don't know if the series MOSFETs on the left are correctly oriented and if
they'll safely let current flow when enabled. Are they even biased
correctly

2011\06\17@151554 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, V G <spamBeGonex.solarwind.xspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:

>
> Updated and much more simplified circuit.
>
> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png<http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2.png>
>
> I don't know if the series MOSFETs on the left are correctly oriented and
> if they'll safely let current flow when enabled. Are they even biased
> correctly?
>



Whoops. GMail link issue.

Updated link:

http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png
<http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png%20

2011\06\17@151743 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, V G <TakeThisOuTx.solarwind.xEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, V G <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Updated and much more simplified circuit.
>>
>> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png<http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2.png>
>>
>> I don't know if the series MOSFETs on the left are correctly oriented and
>> if they'll safely let current flow when enabled. Are they even biased
>> correctly?
>>
>
> Whoops. GMail link issue.
>
> Updated link:
>
> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png
> <http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png%20>
>

GMail continues to give me link issues.

http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png

Should work

2011\06\17@152244 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:15 -0400, "V G" wrote:

> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png

Any chance of using flickr or someplace that I would actually trust to
click on? And I don't mean postimage, either :)

Bob


-- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2011\06\17@153105 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Bob Blick <bobblickEraseMEspam.....ftml.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:15 -0400, "V G" wrote:
>
> > http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png
>
> Any chance of using flickr or someplace that I would actually trust to
> click on? And I don't mean postimage, either :)
>

Seriously?

I can never do anything right, can I? People were complaining about
postimage, so I registered for a free, trusted webhost.

That link is perfectly fine. It's my webhost. What's the difference between
that link and an attachment (if I were to have attached it)?

You can trust it as much as you can trust the attachments here from anyone

2011\06\17@155903 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 15:15 -0400, V G wrote:
> Whoops. GMail link issue.
>
> Updated link:
>
> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png
> <http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png%20>

Link works fine for me Solarwind.

TTYL

2011\06\17@160027 by Tobias Gogolin

picon face
solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2.png was better than 3...
3 is all shorted to 4 V no more series circuit if you haven't noticed...

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM, V G <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\06\17@160346 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:30 -0400, "V G" wrote:
>
> Seriously?
>
> I can never do anything right, can I? People were complaining about
> postimage, so I registered for a free, trusted webhost.

I didn't mean to suggest you had done anything wrong.

Looking at "byethost7" doesn't inspire me to think "trusted". Still
doesn't.

> That link is perfectly fine. It's my webhost. What's the difference
> between
> that link and an attachment (if I were to have attached it)?

Besides the technical difference of one being served by an unknown(to
me) host and the the other coming from your computer through email?
That's enough for me.

But I take your point, you moved from postimage to something better. I
didn't recognize the name. Maybe later I'll look at the link from a
Linux box. But on a work Windows machine, I don't click links I'm unsure
about.

Cheers,

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
 http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

2011\06\17@160406 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Tobias Gogolin <RemoveMEusertogoTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic2.png was better than 3...
> 3 is all shorted to 4 V no more series circuit if you haven't noticed...
>

The 4V source will be detached or switched off when done charging, so it'll
be removed

2011\06\17@160516 by Tobias Gogolin

picon face
Problem I see with your serial discharge parallel charge approach is that
now you don't have the full supply voltage anymore while charging, of course
you are avoiding the need for a step up in your charger and that is nice...

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Tobias Gogolin <EraseMEusertogospamspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>> -

2011\06\17@161137 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Tobias Gogolin <KILLspamusertogospamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:

> Problem I see with your serial discharge parallel charge approach is that
> now you don't have the full supply voltage anymore while charging
>

I don't understand. Why is that a problem

2011\06\17@172346 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 17/06/2011 21:03, Bob Blick wrote:
> But I take your point, you moved from postimage to something better. I
> didn't recognize the name. Maybe later I'll look at the link from a
> Linux box. But on a work Windows machine, I don't click links I'm unsure
> about.

That's fine

But Firefox "attack site" feature is quite good.

Also then add the "noscript" plugin

Work machines you have to have whatever they give you often.

What VG/Solarwind has now seems fine.

Though I'd switch off Directory browsing. Put a simple index.html in your root



NO-ONE should be able to see or read the .htaccess file
permissions 644?

2011\06\17@173800 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Michael Watterson <EraseMEmikespamEraseMEradioway.org>wrote:

>  That's fine
>
> But Firefox "attack site" feature is quite good.
>
> Also then add the "noscript" plugin
>
> Work machines you have to have whatever they give you often.
>
> What VG/Solarwind has now seems fine.
>
> Though I'd switch off Directory browsing. Put a simple index.html in
> your root
>

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Thanks

2011\06\17@173853 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:37 PM, V G <@spam@x.solarwind.x@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Michael Watterson <spamBeGonemikespamKILLspamradioway.org>wrote:
>
>>  That's fine
>>
>> But Firefox "attack site" feature is quite good.
>>
>> Also then add the "noscript" plugin
>>
>> Work machines you have to have whatever they give you often.
>>
>> What VG/Solarwind has now seems fine.
>>
>> Though I'd switch off Directory browsing. Put a simple index.html in
>> your root
>>
>
> Oh yeah, forgot about that. Thanks.
>

I put the .htaccess in there to turn off cache, because images get cached
and I need to update stuff sometimes. Maybe I'll turn it off at some point

2011\06\17@180127 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 17/06/2011 22:38, V G wrote:
> I put the .htaccess in there to turn off cache, because images get cached
> and I need to update stuff sometimes. Maybe I'll turn it off at some point.

you can do all sorts of clever cool stuff with .htaccess

But 3rd parties should never be able to read it.

Google it

2011\06\17@180710 by Andrew Herdman

flavicon
face
On 6/17/2011 3:30 PM, V G wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Bob Blick<.....bobblickspam_OUTspamftml.net>  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:15 -0400, "V G" wrote:
>>
>>> http://solarwind.byethost7.com/pic3.png
>> Any chance of using flickr or someplace that I would actually trust to
>> click on? And I don't mean postimage, either :)
>>
> Seriously?
>
> I can never do anything right, can I? People were complaining about
> postimage, so I registered for a free, trusted webhost.
>
> That link is perfectly fine. It's my webhost. What's the difference between
> that link and an attachment (if I were to have attached it)?
>
> You can trust it as much as you can trust the attachments here from anyone.
The links are not fine, it tried to hijack my browser to who knows where.  It activated my no-script protection to the point of popping up a dialog asking me to report this.

Use flickr, it's trusted.

2011\06\17@183202 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Herdman <TakeThisOuTandrew.....spamTakeThisOuTwhine.com> wrote:

> The links are not fine, it tried to hijack my browser to who knows
> where.  It activated my no-script protection to the point of popping up
> a dialog asking me to report this.
>
> Use flickr, it's trusted.
>

Haha. That made me chuckle a little.

Then it pissed me off.

Flickr my ass. I don't trust anything that replaces an -er with an -r.

If my links caused your browser/os to go haywire, then the fault lies with
your operating system. Get better security and stop blaming the world for
your viruses, security holes, etc. I heard Linux/BSD/QNX offer great
security

2011\06\17@183417 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Michael Watterson <TakeThisOuTmikeKILLspamspamspamradioway.org>wrote:

>  you can do all sorts of clever cool stuff with .htaccess
>
> But 3rd parties should never be able to read it.
>
>
I'm well aware what .htaccess can do, but that's not necessarily true. I
agree that many web admins don't like it accessible, it doesn't do any harm
if someone can see it. I'm not hiding any passwords/whatever in there...



> Google it
>

2011\06\17@184411 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, V G <.....x.solarwind.xspamRemoveMEgmail.com> wrote:

> That link is perfectly fine. It's my webhost. What's the difference between
> that link and an attachment (if I were to have attached it)?
>
> You can trust it as much as you can trust the attachments here from anyone.
>

It is not about the link if the DNS resolves the address or not or the webs
server transfers the file or not. It is about net hygiene.

First of all not all clicks on all type of links whatever is posted for
various security reasons. Secondly not all web hosting
services providing sufficient protection against getting compromised -- so
even if we know you have set up that site and we trust you, we cannot be
sure if your web site is still intact or compromised. Maybe yes maybe not --
and that is the principle, does not matter which one. We trust more on a big
names that are less likely to taken over control by a hacker...

Now the serious side:
This bytehost7.com was created on Feb 2011, fairly new. The whois database
does not show correct owner information, and I have checked with our
ThreatSeeker Network and it shows that the IP address shares with many
malicious web sites (over 4k sites I am talking about!), and the IP is
blocked! I would delete my account from this hosting service straight away
and buy one from a trusted company instead...

Tamas





>

2011\06\17@191124 by Andrew Herdman

flavicon
face
On 6/17/2011 6:31 PM, V G wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Herdman<RemoveMEandrewspamspamBeGonewhine.com>  wrote:
>
>> The links are not fine, it tried to hijack my browser to who knows
>> where.  It activated my no-script protection to the point of popping up
>> a dialog asking me to report this.
>>
>> Use flickr, it's trusted.
>>
> Haha. That made me chuckle a little.
>
> Then it pissed me off.
>
> Flickr my ass. I don't trust anything that replaces an -er with an -r.
>
> If my links caused your browser/os to go haywire, then the fault lies with
> your operating system. Get better security and stop blaming the world for
> your viruses, security holes, etc. I heard Linux/BSD/QNX offer great
> security.

So I don't think anyone here actually cares if you trust something that removes an e from their name. Flickr has a reputation to maintain,  bytehost7 has no such reputation, and has already shown to be malicious.

You're posting links to thousands of people asking them for their help on your projects, putting their systems at risk, no matter what OS they choose to use is disrespectful to all the people that have contributed to your continued learning process.

I'd also like to point out, that I only dabble in electronics.  I am however a professional Systems and Network Designer for the past 18 years.  I have designed and implemented secure and trusted systems for governments and businesses in several parts of the world.  I have deployed hundreds of Linux systems, many FBSD, many Solaris systems in my history.  I do use MS for my laptop OS for several reasons, mostly business ones.  That aside, the script that tripped up Firefox and no-script would have tripped up Firefox on Linux, FBSD, Solaris etc...

If you wish to continue to erode your station on this list, feel free to ignore the comments of others on this list who are much better known for their calm and rational statements.

If you have nothing pleasant or useful to say to this response, feel free to just delete it.

Andrew


2011\06\17@192058 by Tobias Gogolin

picon face
This left the topic a long time ago, but I don't understand what you guys
are afraid of, the link goes straight to a png, not an executable, its very
simple to verify that with virtually any browser; are you guys claiming they
are trying to exploit some kind of weakness in the png display plugin of
some browser or what?


On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnai@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> > --

2011\06\17@192954 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Gogolin <usertogoEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:

> This left the topic a long time ago, but I don't understand what you guys
> are afraid of, the link goes straight to a png, not an executable, its very
> simple to verify that with virtually any browser; are you guys claiming
> they
> are trying to exploit some kind of weakness in the png display plugin of
> some browser or what?
>

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's virtually no harm to their systems
by clicking a link. If your system is sufficiently secured, clicking a link
will NOT harm it in any way

2011\06\17@193108 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

It doesn't matter. I'm only asking for people to view an image. What are you
afraid of? Seriously. Tell me.

Doesn't matter where the image came from. If your computer somehow becomes
compromised from viewing an image, you have to question the security of your
own machine. Not that of the server

2011\06\17@193640 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM, V G <@spam@x.solarwind.xRemoveMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Gogolin <EraseMEusertogospam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This left the topic a long time ago, but I don't understand what you guys
>> are afraid of, the link goes straight to a png, not an executable, its very
>> simple to verify that with virtually any browser; are you guys claiming
>> they
>> are trying to exploit some kind of weakness in the png display plugin of
>> some browser or what?
>>
>
> That's exactly what I'm saying. There's virtually no harm to their systems
> by clicking a link. If your system is sufficiently secured, clicking a link
> will NOT harm it in any way.


Some links are more prestigious than others.

When I mail boring intranet links to my coworkers, I make sure to use
this service: http://www.shadyurl.com/

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmai

2011\06\17@193751 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:30 PM, V G <@spam@x.solarwind.xspam_OUTspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

But a malicious server can serve any MIME type to a URL ending in
..png.  On the web, the extension is not used to determine file type.


-- Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markragesspamBeGonespammidwesttelecine.com

2011\06\17@194153 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Mark Rages <RemoveMEmarkrages@spam@spamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

> But a malicious server can serve any MIME type to a URL ending in
> .png.  On the web, the extension is not used to determine file type.
>

You're absolutely right, but no computer that's not a shitty winbloze 98
machine will automatically execute something off the Internet. It would at
least need to be through a plugin of some sort which would at least warn you
first

2011\06\17@194625 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:41 PM, V G <.....x.solarwind.x@spam@spamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Mark Rages <.....markragesRemoveMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But a malicious server can serve any MIME type to a URL ending in
>> .png.  On the web, the extension is not used to determine file type.
>>
>
> You're absolutely right, but no computer that's not a shitty winbloze 98
> machine will automatically execute something off the Internet. It would at
> least need to be through a plugin of some sort which would at least warn you
> first.
>

I agree that certain holes can be taken advantage of (specifically, I am
reminded of the early iPhone jailbreak exploits which used an image/buffer
overrun technique to execute code on the client), but those are very rare,
obscure, and specific to the target. Also, Apple's proprietary crappy code
was to blame. This rarely happens or is patched extremely quickly on popular
open source software such as Firefox.

Honestly, I do a LOT of risky things on my winbloze box, but I have a solid
web browser and good anti virus and I've never had problems of any sort

2011\06\17@195253 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Language! Stop!

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:41 -0400, "V G" <.....x.solarwind.xSTOPspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

2011\06\17@195528 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Bob Blick <bobblickEraseMEspam@spam@ftml.net> wrote:

> Language! Stop!
>

Okay mommy :

2011\06\17@201639 by Dave

picon face
Subject line?,.........

V G <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Bob Blick <spamBeGonebobblickKILLspamspam@spam@ftml.net> wrote:
>
>> Language! Stop!
>>
>
>Okay mommy :(
>

2011\06\17@205546 by RussellMc

face picon face
Gentlemen, and others.
Please.

Please move discussion to [OT] *immediately* when it is no longer
relevant to original and to [EE] tag.

(Please) keep childish behaviour, technical-religion, operating system
and  network security discussions out of [EE].

Where material is still [EE] relevant but subject changes please
change subject line.

But, please do not rewrite subject lines just for the heck of it.

Childish abusive language*, adhominem attack and general rowdy
behaviour with no useful purpose apart from making the poster feel
good and important while making them look silly to everyone else,
should be avoided.
_______________

Addenda / Corregatum / Effluvium:

This got unnecessarily out of hand and it was very obvious where it
was going but people kept feeding it in little saunters towards
disaster.

As a first step - if / once the subject changes from the excellent
technical one it started with (even though here all the batteries
ended up fatally hard shorted positive to positive all round) then
plea... , no, just

        *** change the tag to [OT]  when the subject is no longer relevant  ***

Here we went from a battery charger to file hosting (use dropbox?) to
hosting security to O/S religion mixed with childish behaviour.

Where we can't grow up, and where the subject is drastically and
manifestly not related to the original or to the [EE] tag, please be
not grown up in [OT] where we can stamp on the stupidities with
relative impunity and not sully Scott and Xiofan's worlds.


            Russell

* There is no adult abusive language :-

2011\06\18@033419 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 17/06/2011 23:31, V G wrote:
>> The links are not fine, it tried to hijack my browser to who knows
>> >  where.  It activated my no-script protection to the point of popping up
>> >  a dialog asking me to report this.
>> >
>> >  Use flickr, it's trusted.
>> >
> Haha. That made me chuckle a little.
>
> Then it pissed me off.
>
> Flickr my ass. I don't trust anything that replaces an -er with an -r.
>
> If my links caused your browser/os to go haywire, then the fault lies with
> your operating system. Get better security and stop blaming the world for
> your viruses, security holes, etc. I heard Linux/BSD/QNX offer great
> security.

Because there is stupid stuff in the .htaccess

I use Linux since 1999 and Unix since 1986. It's mythical that it's more secure. I've never had to re-install Windows XP on this laptop in 9 years. Using it on Internet all that time.

If links do strange stuff it's your site, not his browser or OS

2011\06\18@042345 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 18/06/2011 00:41, V G wrote:
> You're absolutely right, but no computer that's not a shitty winbloze 98
> machine will automatically execute something off the Internet. It would at
> least need to be through a plugin of some sort which would at least warn you
> first.

Wrong.

Though such behaviour would be unusual, it's not unknown.

That's why I check my computer with silentrunners.vbs -all from http://www.silentrunners.org occasionally

2011\06\18@083247 by V G

picon face
Whatever, man. This pissing contest is over. Please stay on topic.

On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Michael Watterson <mikespam_OUTspam@spam@radioway.org> wrote:
> On 18/06/2011 00:41, V G wrote:
>> You're absolutely right, but no computer that's not a shitty winbloze 98
>> machine will automatically execute something off the Internet. It would at
>> least need to be through a plugin of some sort which would at least warn you
>> first.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Though such behaviour would be unusual, it's not unknown.
>
> That's why I check my computer with silentrunners.vbs -all from
> http://www.silentrunners.org occasionally.
>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...