Somehow that doesn't sound right to me. Like in the movies, when they try to hack a computer: there is always some OVERWRITE command, that doesn't require a password but will grand you access to all the files.<br><br>
Same applies here. Why put a safety-measure in place if you plan to ignore it anyway? ;-)<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ian Stirling</b> <<a href="mailto:openmoko@mauve.plus.com">
openmoko@mauve.plus.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Frank Coenen wrote:<br>><br>> On 5/10/07, *Aloril* <
<a href="mailto:aloril@iki.fi">aloril@iki.fi</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:aloril@iki.fi">aloril@iki.fi</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> Small battery-powered USB charger:<br>> <a href="http://www.ladyada.net/make/mintyboost/">
http://www.ladyada.net/make/mintyboost/</a><br>> I assume above should be able to charge Neo1973?<br>><br>><br>> No it won't be able to charge the Neo1973, since it doesn't identify<br>> itself as a
USB2.0 host.<br>> Hence, the Neo will only draw 100mA. You need the full 500mA from USB2.0<br>> to charge.<br><br>Unless you apply the soon-to-be-created patch that someone (maybe me)<br>will write that draws 500mA anyway, if the host does not talk USB1 to us
<br>in 10 seconds.<br>Maybe even with a confirmation dialog box.<br><br></blockquote></div><br>