sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

"Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Sep 17 08:25PM +0100 "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message news:56rqtbl5f1lgm9nbet1qvdunk318253rkg@4ax.com...   On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100, "Gareth Magennis" >http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/duracell-alkaline-batteries-seem-to-have-a-bad-rap/msg1027983/#msg1027983   >A quick check shows there is no evidence whatsoever in the OP link to >suggest that these batteries are indeed Duracell in genuine packaging.   A somewhat longer check found some interesting items about Duracell batteries. Draw your own conclusions from the anecdotal evidence:   "Duracell Batteries Leak In Normal Use, Class Action Claims" <https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/45069-duracell-batteries-leak-normal-use-class-action-claims/>               Jeff, I think you will find that the OP posted photos of packaged unused batteries that had leaked before use.   Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Sep 17 10:25PM +0100 Draw your own conclusions from the anecdotal evidence:       Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558           "Anecdotal evidence" is a bit of an Oxymoron, surely?     Gareth.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Sep 17 03:21PM -0700 On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 22:25:46 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"   >"Anecdotal evidence" is a bit of an Oxymoron, surely? >Gareth.   Not really, unless you prefer the quantity of evidence over the quality of evidence. The only problem with anecdotal evidence is the lack of a sufficiently large sample for the observations to be considered statistically relevant. However, that happens in a court of law all the time. For example, all you need is one witness and a corroborating witness to send someone to jail. That's no larger a sample size of the possible observations than the leaking Duracell in it's customer proof plastic packaging. Similarly, in civil trials, it's the preponderance of evidence that decides the outcome, which is nothing more than what each side can produce as anecdotal evidence. Much as I would like to have peer reviewed, authoritative, and properly documented evidence, with copious footnotes and sources, it's unlikely to happen on the internet. If you don't like my anecdotes, you can always get your own.     -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Sep 18 12:52AM +0100 "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message news:eofrtbddlf5fviu1d8vm7eivqq1c4kifra@4ax.com...     If you don't like my anecdotes, you can always get your own.       -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558           Jeff, I don't like your anecdotes, they are worthless.   Don't try and trade them as facts.     Gareth.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Sep 17 08:36PM -0700 On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 00:52:41 +0100, "Gareth Magennis" >I don't like your anecdotes, they are worthless. >Don't try and trade them as facts. >Gareth.   Is that an invitation to exchange insults? Gosh, I haven't done that in maybe 10 years. I'm not sure I remember how to be abusive, abrasive, and obnoxious. However, I'll give it my best effort while attempting to stay on topic. Let's see... leaking Duracell batteries.   Kinda sounds like your ability to scribble something worth reading is running down. Since you're obviously running on Duracell batteries, I suggest you upgrade to something rechargeable, which should provide the necessary brain boost.   How am I doing? Your turn.     -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

jurb6006@gmail.com: Sep 18 03:11AM -0700 >"Jeff, >I don't like your anecdotes, they are worthless.   >Don't try and trade them as facts. "   I stuck my finger in a light socket anf got a shock.   So go right ahead and do it because anecdotal evidence means nothing.   And hey, I am going point a gun at a cop, because the evidence that I will get killed is only andecdotal.   I am going to steal a car and drive 150 MPH through a school zone too.   There's the door, don't let it hit you where the dog should've bit you.   This attitude that anecdotal evidence is useless is a bunch of shit. Science, thoughout the years was done by trial and error. They got you motherfuckers brainwashed. Go ahead and try to use a 2N3055 for a 2SB425 and see what happens. And when the smoke comes out, try it again because anecdotal evidence does not count.   What the fuck kind of planet are you people on ? Even the discovery of the elements on the periodic table is anectodal. "I tried this kind of acid on it and it did not react" and "I tried that kind of acid on it and it did react" and "I found that is take X degrees of heat to melt this substance" and shit like that.   How the fuck can you not realize that everything you read was written by a person and therefore is anecdotal ? I bet you think the sky is blue. The sky is not blue. And the sun does not rise.   But I just posted this for the world because you can't be "arsed" to read my "waffle".

jurb6006@gmail.com: Sep 18 03:28AM -0700 >"How am I doing? Your turn. "   Better'n him. People forget. I know you are a Jew, but you are a USian Jew. That means that you got all the arrogance we got plus about 14 % more. See all the business owners you've run across in your life ? Well they are business owners because they were too arrogant to work for anyone else.   That is one of the reasons jobs are never coming back to the US. They wat little lambs, sheep, cattle to herd and work their money making machine. Read Sloman, to him if the government didn't say it it is not true. And the Nazis killed 6,000,000 Jews. Not 6,000,001 or 5,999,999, Ed Zachary six million. And note, even if is was more like three million which is a more realistic estime, that doesn't make it right.   Like the WTC, anyone who questions the bullshit nd sketchy information pablum put out to the public and has questions is a conspiracy theorist and wears a tinfoil hat.   I think people like that would be called authoritarinists. Never question anything - as long as it is said by certain people. And whatever other people say is utter bullshit.   It is common in the UK ad related places, and possibly North Korea. It is utterly sickening.   I can tell that you got at least half of your knowledge by questioning everything. Here comes this sheep who says he doesn't want your help, as if Webster is going to post an answer to this questions. Or General Electric engineers or something.   BNrainwashed people like that detract from the value of Usenet and the internet in general. But don't killfile them. They can be entertaining at ties, especially if we help.

JW <none@dev.null>: Sep 18 06:31AM -0400 On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 00:52:41 +0100 "Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com> wrote in Message id:   >Jeff, >I don't like your anecdotes, they are worthless.   I don't like your opinions, they are less than worthless.   >Don't try and trade them as facts.   *YAWN*

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>: Sep 18 02:58PM > I don't like your opinions, they are less than worthless.   You are a liar, a coward, and a weakling.   -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)   NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JW <none@dev.null>: Sep 17 03:33PM -0400 On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:12:41 -0400 JW <none@dev.null> wrote in Message id: >band operation, and according to the Internet (so it must be true) 2.4Ghz >has better range and penetration through walls than 5GHz.   >Seems to be working great so far. Thanks for your advice Jeff.   So weeks later still happy with this router. On devices capable of only 54Mb/s It never drops below that number. Never any disconnects either. One of our newer laptops gets 300Mb/s on a regular basis.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Sep 17 03:08PM -0700 >>probably leave it that way as I think only my phone is capable of dual >>band operation, and according to the Internet (so it must be true) 2.4Ghz >>has better range and penetration through walls than 5GHz.   "So let it be written, so it shall be done" (Yul Brenner as pharaoh in CB DeMille's version of the Ten Commandments).   2.4GHz penetrates somewhat better than 5GHz. The "somewhat" depends on the material, where the reflections go, polarization, and the political agenda of whomever is paying for the research.   "Propagation Losses Through Common Building Materials 2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz" <http://www.am1.us/Protected_Papers/E10589_Propagation_Losses_2_and_5GHz.pdf> See Table 3 on Pg 9. However, if you want speed, 802.11ac works on 5GHz only. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac>   >>Seems to be working great so far. Thanks for your advice Jeff.   Y'er welcome. I just inherited a small collection of Netgear wireless routers. Much as I would like to buy a new Asus RT-AC68P for myself, I really don't need any more wireless routers. Maybe later and good to know that it works.   >So weeks later still happy with this router. On devices capable of only >54Mb/s It never drops below that number. Never any disconnects either. One >of our newer laptops gets 300Mb/s on a regular basis.   If you're actually getting 300 Mbits/sec throughput, it's probably doing it using 802.11ac on 5GHz and not on 2.4GHz.   -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

JW <none@dev.null>: Sep 18 06:48AM -0400 On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:08:39 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>of our newer laptops gets 300Mb/s on a regular basis.   >If you're actually getting 300 Mbits/sec throughput, it's probably >doing it using 802.11ac on 5GHz and not on 2.4GHz.   Yep, just checked and that one is 5GHz. The utility that's built into the thing is pretty cool. It shows all the clients that are connected, their IP addresses, their MAC addresses, throughout, and connect frequency. It also has a traffic analyzer and monitor plus tons of other stuff to play with. Even keeps statistics on how much data is transferred on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.

Brasto <bram.stolk@gmail.com>: Sep 18 02:33AM -0700 I noticed that in various early Philips planar stereo or bi-ampli models the left and righthand loudspeaker magnets are not always in the same position relative to each other. Question: is it a don't care and go for easy access to the solderclips or shall magnetic fields oriented to prevent coupling to e.g nearby transformers?

bruce <bruce@invalid.dyndns.tv.invalid>: Sep 17 04:12PM -0400 Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> writes:   I purposely kept my earlier post at a fairly high level, mostly because from your other posts I was left with the opinion that you weren't handling the information you were presented with very well. I attempted to provide some background for the discussion so that we could at least agree on the meaning of various terms and the concepts that use those terms.   While your reply was cordial, for the most part, you did with me as you have done with others, namely rejected statements which are easily verified as true.     >> In the following I tend to intersperse WAN and LAN as well as BSSID >> and MAC. The basic underlying concepts work in both environments >> (with some fudging).   Again, here I was attepting to lay a background.     > Google also logs the SSID, the signal strength, and the GPS location, > but they are not of importance for *this* discussion.   > Only the MAC address (aka BSSID) is important for *this* discussion.   And here you are trying to bore down to a lower level prematurely, IMHO.   >> SSID has nothing to do with cellphones. It has to do with wifi only. >> The same is true for BSSID.   > This is not true that "SSID has nothing to do with cellphones".   Yes, I'm afraid it is true. To reject it implies that you believe that all cellphones do wifi. I have two on the shelf in this room that do not do and never did do wifi.   > As Jeff and I just discussed, if an Android or iOS cellphone acts as > an Access Point, then that cellphone will broadcast an SSID.   This is consistent with what I wrote above and what I wrote below. This action has nothing to do with it being a cellphone but to do with it acting at this point as a wifi device.   > If that iOS or Android cellphone broadcasts an SSID, it also > broadcasts a BSSID, which is unique to that cellphone.   Not necessarily. The protocols allow the creation of a BSSID on the fly. It only has to be unique within the (very short) range of the radios in use.   > In fact, it > broadcasts *two* BSSIDs, one for each radio (5Ghz and 2.4Ghz).   Actually, any wifi device acting as a BSS can identify itself as up to 32 BSSIDs and 1 or more SSIDs per radio. So, yes, a single radio can simultaneously be using 32 different BSSIDs/MACs.   > Android devices and uploaded multiple times a day to the Google Public > Database, along with the GPS location of the poorly configured Android > device and the SSID and Signal Strength of the access point.   As I said below, poorly configured has nothing to do with it when any user level program running on the BSS or within the cellphone can access the very same wifi information and pass it on to whomever it wishes.   > Notice this allows such iOS or Android cellphones to be tracked!   Did I ever say anything to contradict this? I merely pointed out that cellphone configuration, if done "properly" (whatever that means) won't cure the problem when user level code running on the equipment can accomplish the same thing. In fact, it might be through user level code that it is being accomplished right now.   >> around the world with the same SSID.   > I agree. SSID is "just a name". If the name ends with "_nomac", Google > promises to *drop* that SSID from its' public database.   While Google might honor the use of the suffix (for now) it doesn't mean that anybody else will.     > Anyone who doesn't *understand* that paragraph above can't possibly > understand the topic of this thread - so it's critical that the paragraph > above be *understood*.   That "paragraph above" means absolutely nothing until one understands that even in a "properly configured" phone user level code could be gathering the same information (or more) and sending it to agents unknown. > b. Your cellphone AP BSSID (aka MAC address) > c. Your AP signal strength seen by the poorly configured Android cellphone > d. The GPS location of the poorly configured Android cellpone   As stated above, poorly configured is not the problem, and Google might not be the only recipient.   > c. Your AP signal strength seen by the poorly configured Android > cellphone > d. The GPS location of the poorly configured Android cellpone   Get off this poorly configured fixation you have. A perfect config- uration with any amount of user-level programs has potentially the same nasty possibilities.   >> could be doing the nasty deed.   > Yep. Wardrivign software. > Or anything from Marius Milner (e.g., netstumbler).   Or maybe even "Angry Birds" does this too!   >> to work, the two high order bytes of the MAC were changed to reflect >> the fact that a packet was a DECnet packet.   > This is not true.   Actually, you are partially correct. DECnet changes the leading four octets (notice, the proper term is octets, not bytes; I was too casual in the above paragraph) to "AA 00 04 00". The remaining 2 octets make up the node within a DECnet network. How do I know this? I'm an ex-DECie. (Actually, I'm still a DECie but they don't pay me anymore.) If you want a reference on this a brief desctiption may be found at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECnet> which contains the following:   "The Ethernet implementation was unusual in that the software changed the physical address of the Ethernet interface on the network to AA-00-04-00-xx-yy where xx-yy reflected the DECnet network address of the host. This allowed ARP-less LAN operation because the LAN address could be deduced from the DECnet address."   I've avoided making any references to 802 so far here. And my DECnet references mostly concern(ed) 802.3, 802.<whatever> all have the same underpinnings. DEC was one of three companies that colaboratively "invented" ethernet (at least the hardware specs, that is). The origin of ethernet comes from the amateur radio two meter band protocols used in Hawaii, which was called "Aloha Net".   > Jeff Liebermann explained in the past why it would take an heroic > effort to clone the MAC address of the radio that is sending out the > packets.   Without reference I can not comment on this, but what I'm talking about for MAC has nothing to do with cloning.   > The cloning is on a different MAC address, which is not the MAC > address of concern here.   Huh?   > Too bad, becuase if it were easy to change the Access Point MAC > address, then I would change mine daily.   You might want to look into this then.     > Not true. > You're confusing the easily cloned MAC address with the one that would > take desoldering to change.   That statement is most definately true. I can assure you that when a VAX computer was moved from one location to another nobody went running for a soldering iron.   If changing the MAC address (also called the hardware address) was so difficult, why do you suppose the capability exist in ifconfig(8) to change it?   Bruce .   --

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net>: Sep 18 02:30AM On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:12:40 -0400, bruce wrote:     > Yes, I'm afraid it is true. To reject it implies that you believe that > all cellphones do wifi. I have two on the shelf in this room that do > not do and never did do wifi.   OK. You found a corner case, where not all cellphones do WiFi. Since I also have iOS equipoment, all my iOS equipment has WiFi also.   While I am sure they exist, I personally have never seen a cellphone that doesn't do WiFi; but I also have a limit on cellphones of 16GB minimum, 1GHz minimum, 1GB RAM minimum, etc., where the cost is never below $200 so, the cellphones "I" have bought *all* have WiFi.   I did goof with the wife's $200 Moto G, which only has 2.4GHz WiFi, since I simply *assumed* that all of the WiFi cellphones had *both* 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi ... so I agree with you on the wide range of what Android phones do.     > This is consistent with what I wrote above and what I wrote below. This > action has nothing to do with it being a cellphone but to do with it > acting at this point as a wifi device.   I think here is where we get mired in conflicting details, which are better discussed in person, because the mere fact that the BSSID is encapsulated in the clear in the WiFi packet is *absolutely meaningless* for the purpose of this discussion *if* all those poorly configured Android devices don't *upload* that BSSID to the Google Public Database.   The *only* BSSID that matters for this discussion is the BSSID which is *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by all those poorly configured Android devices.     > Not necessarily. The protocols allow the creation of a BSSID on the > fly. It only has to be unique within the (very short) range of the > radios in use.   I'm completely and intimately familiar with the fact that the BSSID only has to be unique on the subnet, e.g., you can use DE:AD:BE:EF:CA:FE on your own network and it won't matter, as long as only a single device on your network has that BSSID.   Up until Jeff's later responses, I had thought that the BSSID that matters (which is the one *uploaded* to the Google database by poorly configured Android devices!) was hard to change, and it is, for a typical factory-software router.   But Jeff explained that certain firmware will enable that all-important BSSID (which is the one that is *uploaded* to the Google database by poorly configured Android devices) *can* be changed on a router.   In addition, Jeff noted that, for Android devices which are *rooted*, that all-important BSSID (which is the one *uploaded* to the Google publid database by poorly configured Android devices) *can* be changed.   Unfortunately, a quick search on Google shows a history of Apple *breaking* any jailbroken device's ability to change that specific BSSID with each new OS version - so we can effectively say it can't easily be done on iOS (which is another reason why iOS has less privacy than Android in certain situtations).     > Actually, any wifi device acting as a BSS can identify itself as up to > 32 BSSIDs and 1 or more SSIDs per radio. So, yes, a single radio can > simultaneously be using 32 different BSSIDs/MACs.   Are you saying that you have 32 different access points in "a single radio"?   It's possible - but remember, the *only BSSID that matters* for this conversation is the one that is *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by poorly configured Android devices.   All other BSSIDs are meaningless for the purpose of this discussion.   Given that, are you saying that you have *32* different SSIDs which are being uploaded, as we speak, to the Google Public Database by all poorly configured Android devices in your vicinity?   > As I said below, poorly configured has nothing to do with it when any > user level program running on the BSS or within the cellphone can access > the very same wifi information and pass it on to whomever it wishes.   I see why you are frustrated in this conversation.   Jeff already noted that there are *plenty* of situations where a BSSID is found, in the clear, in the context of WiFi communications.   Since *this* discussion is *only* about exploring privacy flaws in the Google Public Database, the only BSSID that matters for this discussion is the BSSID that is *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by all poorly configured Android devices in your vicinity.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Sep 17 10:54PM -0400 In article <nrku8g$9od$1@news.mixmin.net>, Horace Algier > Since I also have iOS equipoment, all my iOS equipment has WiFi also.   > While I am sure they exist, I personally have never seen a cellphone that > doesn't do WiFi;   this one doesn't: <https://admin.mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/motorola-dynatac- 8000x1.jpg>

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net>: Sep 18 03:43AM On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:12:40 -0400, bruce wrote:   > cure the problem when user level code running on the equipment can > accomplish the same thing. In fact, it might be through user level code > that it is being accomplished right now.   Since *this* discussion is *only* about exploring privacy flaws in the Google Public Database, the only BSSID that matters for this discussion is the BSSID that is *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by all poorly configured Android devices in your vicinity.   >> promises to *drop* that SSID from its' public database.   > While Google might honor the use of the suffix (for now) it doesn't mean > that anybody else will.   It's even worse than that. 1. While we all know that *hiding* the SSID is futile, it's actually *useful* to hide your SSID in that the poorly configured Android devices apparently do *not* upload "hidden" SSIDs to the Google Public Database.   2. However, most of us don't "hide" our SSID from being broadcast (since there is almost zero security value in hiding the SSID broadcast).   3. Hence, our SSIDs are being *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by poorly configured Android devices whether or not we have "_nomac" at the end of the SSID.   4. What's worse, the *unique* BSSID of the radio is also uploaded at the same time (along with the signal strength of the SSID and the current GPS location of the poorly configured Android device).   Therefore, the SSID is the *least* of our privacy worries (unless we're dumb enough to name our SSID after our first and last name or something similarly identifiable).   The privacy concern is the association of the *hard-to-change* unique MAC address with its GPS location.   These two critical pieces of metadata are *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by poorly configured Android devices, whether or not you put "_nomac" on the SSID.   > that even in a "properly configured" phone user level code could be > gathering the same information (or more) and sending it to agents > unknown.   Bruce .... you're trying to argue that the world contains a lot of parameters, and nobody (not even me!) is disagreeing with you.   You may as well tell me that every radio has a MAC address or that every radio has an antenna or that every computer on the net has an IP address or that the BSSID is in every packet, etc.   Nobody is disputing what you're saying - but what you're saying has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the topic at hand!   The topic at hand is *only* about the BSSIDs that are *uploaded* to the Google Public Database by poorly configured Android devices.   The two related questions are: a. Under what circumstances is your phone's BSSID uploaded to the Google Public Database? b. How would an attacker *exploit* that public database to track the *location* of the phone?   If you want a *different* topic, then just say so - but *that* is the topic here that "I" am trying to find out more about.   >> d. The GPS location of the poorly configured Android cellpone   > As stated above, poorly configured is not the problem, and Google might > not be the only recipient.   The two related questions are: a. Under what circumstances is your phone's BSSID uploaded to the Google Public Database? b. How would an attacker *exploit* that public database to track the *location* of the phone?   If you want a *different* topic, then just say so - but *that* is the topic here that "I" am trying to find out more about.       > Get off this poorly configured fixation you have. A perfect config- > uration with any amount of user-level programs has potentially the same > nasty possibilities.   The two related questions are: a. Under what circumstances is your phone's BSSID uploaded to the Google Public Database? b. How would an attacker *exploit* that public database to track the *location* of the phone?   If you want a *different* topic, then just say so - but *that* is the topic here that "I" am trying to find out more about.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Sep 17 02:56PM -0700 Go away.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

"Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Sep 17 08:11PM +0100 "WW" <ccco@bresnan.net> wrote in message news:4OCdnfzNq5p4_57UnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@bresnan.com...   >> Confuscious say: "War doesn't determine who's right. War determines >> who's left."   > Not bad, you may just loose your eye. WEAR SAFTY GLASSES!   You need a pretty big blob to do permanent damage, but even a small one can be painful.   Its something that happens sometimes - mine are usually on difficult solder joints when salvaging parts, sometimes a solder joint spits as you heat it.   When harvesting components with a pencil blowtorch; the spitting can be hotter - but I hold the board looking at it edgewise, the spitting goes sideways and nowhere near my face.

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.