If this how Jeff greets new people to the newsgroup, then you'll never get me to agree he's a swell guy. Sorry.
-- Steve Cole President, Kingston Online Services
Yep, but there's more. I've seen some production machines in the distant past get retrofitted with the latest safety interlocks and gadgets, only to find that the accident rate increased. The problem wasn't just that the workers felt safe. The problem was that the added complexity of the safety devices prevented the worker from actually understanding how the machine operated. Without this knowledge, they are incapeable of understanding how much damage the machine can do to the operator. There's also the problem of idiot error on the part of the machine vendors. The clear acrylic "safety shields" probably clobbered plenty of fingers because the worker could not see the shields (because they were so clear). This is the reason that many such shields now have brightly painted borders. I could go on forever on the topic...
Yeah, I know. The problem is that Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) allegedly pays for "expert opinions" on their products, but doesn't appear to hire what I consider to be experts. When they do, they don't let them do what all experts enjoy most.... tearing into the product. However, the test are not performed by experts. They're performed by competent technicians.
Not much online:
How We Test:
Lab Tour:
I've had the displeasure of trying to specify a repeatable and valid test for various consumer devices. That certainly does take an expert. However, the actual tests can be performed by any competent technician, who may not necessarily be qualifies to pass judgement on the results. When I was running a small R&D group, I had to constantly remind the techs *NOT* to pass judgement on data. I certainly did not want them "modifying" the units under test in the process. Methinks Consumer Reports is doing the right thing and keep the itchy fingers out of the electronics.
Also, I think (not sure) that they sell the units they test afterwards, so I'm sure they don't want them trashed.
I couldn't find the page of photographs, but I remember it well. Now, there's a list of 11 different mutations:
However, I think Intel and 3com both get the award for recycling model numbers. Both have downloadable programs that identify the card inside the machine.
That's the situation with NWAY negotiation failure. However, you can't always blame the ethernet card. There were also several early ethernet switches that would also do it badly. As I recall, Netgear FS-108 switch was one. I've used a substantial number of Tulip chip based ethernet devices (Compaq, DEC, etc), and don't recall any NWAY failures attributable to the card. It's really a difficult problem to identify because it doesn't always happen. However, if you end up with a weird or slow ethernet connection that can only be solved by literally removing power from the machine (not just a reboot), then it probably was an NWAY failure. It's possible the Windoze XP, with it's ability to reset the IP stack when disconnecting the media, might recover without a power cycle, but XP wasn't around when I was using
3C905 cards.
Which part of what he said was incorrect?
Oh, and for someone claiming to work in computing, you have an astoundingly thin skin. This is usenet, not nursery, we're big boys and girls and we don't have to be polite to people who wander in off the street and do nothing but complain.
Like I said, its a free world.
I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
Can we say thrombotic distress
Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
decaturtxcowboy hath wroth:
Ummm... That's overkill, but I've done bigger. I was working for an unspecified aerospace contractor on large battlefield audio systems in the 1960's. I swept the floor, but one has to start somewhere. There were no conventional loudspeakers. Instead, it used huge air compressors and fluidic valves. I think it was at least 100 horsepower delivered (at 746 watts/hp). The frequency response was awful, but it was incredibly loud. It was certainly more efficient than the average loudspeaker.
I never actually attended or heard the full power testing, but I was told that broken instruments, glass, fasteners, and even welds were a constant problem. One fun test was to estimate the resonant frequency of the human intestinal tract and induce a stampede to the bathrooms. Anyway, measuring the delivered power in watts or horsepower was useless. I vaguely recall that the white lab suits were using differential air pressure in psi (assuming a flat wave front) and ergs for delivered energy, but it a constant point of contention. The hi-fi contingent just could not pull themselves away from watts. I didn't stay around long enough to identify the winner.
Well...you know kids. Its never loud enough
Teh bar staff knew I had been in there doing audio sweep testing as all the pineapple tins and glassware (actually plastic) were danced all over the place. I used pink noise too, but used a fast sweep so that nothing would go into resonance and shatter.
I read some that Tesla found a frequency that caused Edison to...umm.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.