When I used to work at HHGregg, we used the SHIT out of the floor-model TVs. If anyone was willing to buy those fuckers, it was usually because we'd discount 'em for massive amounts. That being said, if you buy a service plan with the TV, and the TV's discount is more than the cost of the plan, you'll come out on top.…

You sound mad, bro.

I mean, as a programmer it's not hard to know a pretty large number of languages. Realistically, once you get the basics down, you've got 70% of any language.

That, or he made a mistake while he was typing out a quick comment on an unimportant internet forum.

I'm assuming he unfolds it.

Not exactly correct. Employers don't like to see massive gaps in employment. If you spent three years working at an unrelated job, it's better to have that in there than to just have a big-ass blank spot.

It doesn't *have* to touch the adapter. The magnet is just to hold it in place and make it easy. You can either define it by the technology used or you can get omega-specific by saying "it has to be X inches away while still providing X watts of power and charging the phone in under X number of minutes/hours/days, and…

It's a *huge* deal. Is this technology impressive right now? Not particularly, but with this (and the phones that already support it), people are going to start expecting wireless charging. These are the baby steps towards the inevitable future of being able to install a wireless charger in your wall that powers…

Sorry, I was mistaken; inductive charging is wireless charging. Anyways, the point is that, for whatever reason, it wasn't used widely until phones picked up on it, and Apple decided to throw it into their watch (though not their phone, for some reason...).

Inductive charging *is* wireless charging. It doesn't matter what it looks like; a portion of the journey is completed by sending the energy through a space without any direct copper contact. If you hovered the charger a tiny amount away from the back of the watch, it would still function (unless they purposely…

So then you're saying you won't call it wireless until the energy is beamed directly from the generator all the way to your device in your house? There will *always* be a wire somewhere. The point is that the energy is, at the last leg of the journey, traveling through open space without the need of any direct wired…

The energy is being wirelessly transmitted across empty space from the charging coil to the receiving coil. That's... kinda what wireless means.

Hey, nice! That's exactly the response I'd give if I'd just been proven completely wrong!

Except that it is wireless. It's wirelessly transmitting the energy from the charting plate across empty space to the receiving coil.

Right, when they say "wireless", they're defining the technology, not the look. Name a single wireless charger available to the masses right now that isn't a cable from outlet to plate, which must touch the device to charge it.

Sorry, I meant "hopefully this will define one winner", not "create". I also use the Qi chargers, and they're fine by me.

You can say it's egregious, but it's not. It's not defining how the charging method looks to you, it's defining the technology behind it.

I mean, you said 2012, but the phone wasn't even released until the VERY end of 2012, so it's safe to count it as a 2013 phone. Additionally, I already said it might've just been the phone. On top of that, "leaps and bounds" is a bit of a stretch. My co-workers with modern phones and wireless charging plates see…

Incorrect. Learn the difference between the technologies.

I know, right? I don't have .05 seconds to do that; I'm a busy man.