You're right, of course, there must be some acceptance tests as part of final approval of any job "finished" by contractors. Yet there are some cabling guys who don't even have a tester. They just shrug and say that they use "Cat6 approved parts", LOL.
There are different kinds of "matches". There's a big difference between a marker match (the usual meaning of the phrase "DNA match"), and a full sequence match. That's why, as much as people despise the idea, there should be a push towards full sequencing since then there's really no question about where the DNA came from.
Interesting. I'd have thought that the whole point of slapping a Cisco box on customer premises as the effective demarcation point is to reliably monitor everything up to this point, using some $$$ infrastructure management solution they surely have deployed. Otherwise it would make no sense.
I recall gathering some scorn from a provider by basically taking their fiber and their GBIC from their gateway (figuring the less points of failure, the better), skipping their router, and plugging directly into our L2 switch. That fiber was then trunked over a dedicated VLAN to a linux server that then did the magic necessary to couple this to a soft pbx. It of course worked very well, but they "couldn't" support such a setup. I wonder how effective their "management" was since if they really managed those circuits they should have immediately noticed that their router and gateway have vanished from the face of the planet all the while the fiber link and the SIP trunks are up. I figure if I had never told them about it, they might have been none the wiser, and that's a scary realization.
An order of magnitude better is not much, in a grander scheme of things. It's basically the minimum improvement needed, in terms of light sensitivity, to even be worth talking about if we're to talk about fundamental improvements. Night vision optics mainly cope with more mundane sort of a problem. You are around light sources and your vision can't ever fully adapt. Also you haven't got an hour or two sometimes needed to fully adapt. Those mundane sort of issues reduce the effective sensitivity of your retina by orders of magnitude - not because the retina ultimately is "bad", but because it's only "good" in circumstances that are not very practical.
With standard hardware, only the POTS line supplies power to the end-user equipment. A T1/E1 line doesn't, not the way it's normally implemented. Pushing power through T1 pairs is certainly possible, but it's not something done as standard by last mile providers. You'd need special power injectors and power sources.
A PBX is just a bunch of software on a bunch of hardware. A minimal PBX is Raspberry PI doing switching of SIP trunks. You can run fairly large PBX systems without any ISDN, and with nothing but IP-based protocols throughout.
The solution is, then, for them to run SIP trunks to a router they manage, and you run your SIP trunks to that router as well. That way it's on them to get it going, and their management infrastructure will monitor what's up.
one of the biggest vendors of network equipment just decided that they aren't going to sell modems that can talk directly to E1/T1 line
I wouldn't worry too much. For the price of a T1/E1 card, a small 1U server, and a bunch of softmodem licenses, you can have the same thing, only running on modern, supported hardware.
the techs didn't know about tuning ISDN for high-quality audio
What? There's not much to tune. It's a digital, fixed bandwidth connection. You buy a codec box that has ISDN on one end and an XLR connector on the other end and you're set. Your choice is basically what codec to use.
It's real easy with Cat 6: unless you test it with a tester than runs standard-mandated tests (crosstalk, echo, bandwidth, skew, etc.), you don't have Cat 6, you're just deluding yourself. So if an installer claims that they've "laid Cat-6", you better ask for a binder with test result printouts for every drop, because they must have tested them and they must have maintained the test results to ensure that everything got tested. Otherwise it's a scam.
The heck? You don't need shielding in Cat 6, it's optional and doesn't change much. I haven't seen anyone run shielded Cat 6, I certainly haven't run shielded Cat 6 anywhere and I have laid a bunch of it. You'd maybe need it on a factory floor. The major pain with Cat 6 is that you need to be real careful about preserving the pair twist all the way to the terminations, and you really have to use an expensive cable tester to confirm that the cable run does indeed perform to Cat 6 specifications. You don't get a Cat 6 connection just by using parts that have "Cat 6" stamped on them. You must also properly terminate and properly handle the cable while laying it down. The first few Cat 6 runs I've done wouldn't pass testing so I had to redo them. They would only pass Cat 5e requirements.
Yep. Part of the problem is that some major voice providers are just now "experimenting" with VOIP. What Time Warner is doing for business voice service, for example, is pulling fiber to the premises, but the only way they offer you a connection is over a locally generated T1 line. They slap a fiber gateway and a Cisco router on it. It's quite silly since there's 100Mbit ethernet running on the fiber and plain old SIP trunks running over it, but the only way you can consume it is via T1. So instead of just plugging the ethernet coming out of the gateway straight into our server, we had to spend $500+ on a T1 card for our Asterisk server. Oh, and their fiber-based internet is priced ridiculously high compared to coax. So we have their coax for internet service, and fiber just to run a bunch of voice trunks, utilizing less than 0.1% of the fiber's capacity.
I think that some telcos would be served quite well by developing some of their own hardware again. A solid pair bonder for Ethernet can be ~$100 in parts in low quantities.
I've recently replumbed my house in CPVC and sure as heck the almost 200 USD I got from all that copper piping was a nice surprise. Sure as heck it completely covered the cost of all of the CPVC pipe, fittings and glue.
Just as you can get a T1 circuit set up point-to-point over copper, you can also get DS3 going over coax or fiber. In many places cable companies also offer fiber ethernet service and they'll happily circuit-switch it for you as point-to-point. Can't beat that.
Nope. There's not much more sensitivity anything can have compared to a human eye since the human eye can sense about one in then photons hitting the retina, with additional losses due to scattering and reflections in the solid parts of the eye. Basically all any sensor can be is an order of magnitude more sensitive than our retina. That's it. If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that it's a very tall order. Just read about what amateur astronomers have to deal with to image the sky!
A darkness-adapted human eye can IIRC detect one in ten photons; that's a pretty tall order for any room-temperature image sensor AFAIK. Please correct me if I mis-remember the figures, though.
So what that there will be such footage? It normally has nothing to do with any court cases and doesn't have to be introduced into evidence. You don't need to have the entire shift's footage in evidence, and even if you decide to, the judge can enforce some rules as to access to such evidence, up to and including holding whoever leaks it or behaves inappropriately in accessing the evidence in contempt. It's a solved problem, don't make up dumb excuses, pwetty please.
Yes, what about it? What, you think that you'll be showing the entire shift's worth of footage in court or on local TV news? Could people please stop with the reactionary "but think of xyz!" and actually think themselves?
I'm sorry that your significant other was silly enough not to be able to deal with what the life has served you both. I can't understand such relationships. If you're not in "it" together, then what's the point? Lower taxes?
Frankly said, given the slight loss of my privacy vs. loss of accountability for a force that's supposed to uphold the law, I have no problem with the loss of my privacy. And no, this is not a slippery slope.
We don't need such a law. A judge can and should impose contempt-of-court sanctions on those who tamper with evidence. If you have a camera and you're in a confrontation, there's no way to play silly and not know that should you tamper with the camera, you're tampering with evidence. If I was a judge, I'd toss whoever tampers with camera footage evidence, whether Joe the plumber or a cop or archbishop Canterbury, in jail for a week and have them pay for an ad in a major local paper admitting to the fact and proclaiming how sorry they are.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, of course, there must be some acceptance tests as part of final approval of any job "finished" by contractors. Yet there are some cabling guys who don't even have a tester. They just shrug and say that they use "Cat6 approved parts", LOL.
There are different kinds of "matches". There's a big difference between a marker match (the usual meaning of the phrase "DNA match"), and a full sequence match. That's why, as much as people despise the idea, there should be a push towards full sequencing since then there's really no question about where the DNA came from.
Interesting. I'd have thought that the whole point of slapping a Cisco box on customer premises as the effective demarcation point is to reliably monitor everything up to this point, using some $$$ infrastructure management solution they surely have deployed. Otherwise it would make no sense.
I recall gathering some scorn from a provider by basically taking their fiber and their GBIC from their gateway (figuring the less points of failure, the better), skipping their router, and plugging directly into our L2 switch. That fiber was then trunked over a dedicated VLAN to a linux server that then did the magic necessary to couple this to a soft pbx. It of course worked very well, but they "couldn't" support such a setup. I wonder how effective their "management" was since if they really managed those circuits they should have immediately noticed that their router and gateway have vanished from the face of the planet all the while the fiber link and the SIP trunks are up. I figure if I had never told them about it, they might have been none the wiser, and that's a scary realization.
An order of magnitude better is not much, in a grander scheme of things. It's basically the minimum improvement needed, in terms of light sensitivity, to even be worth talking about if we're to talk about fundamental improvements. Night vision optics mainly cope with more mundane sort of a problem. You are around light sources and your vision can't ever fully adapt. Also you haven't got an hour or two sometimes needed to fully adapt. Those mundane sort of issues reduce the effective sensitivity of your retina by orders of magnitude - not because the retina ultimately is "bad", but because it's only "good" in circumstances that are not very practical.
With standard hardware, only the POTS line supplies power to the end-user equipment. A T1/E1 line doesn't, not the way it's normally implemented. Pushing power through T1 pairs is certainly possible, but it's not something done as standard by last mile providers. You'd need special power injectors and power sources.
A PBX is just a bunch of software on a bunch of hardware. A minimal PBX is Raspberry PI doing switching of SIP trunks. You can run fairly large PBX systems without any ISDN, and with nothing but IP-based protocols throughout.
The solution is, then, for them to run SIP trunks to a router they manage, and you run your SIP trunks to that router as well. That way it's on them to get it going, and their management infrastructure will monitor what's up.
one of the biggest vendors of network equipment just decided that they aren't going to sell modems that can talk directly to E1/T1 line
I wouldn't worry too much. For the price of a T1/E1 card, a small 1U server, and a bunch of softmodem licenses, you can have the same thing, only running on modern, supported hardware.
the techs didn't know about tuning ISDN for high-quality audio
What? There's not much to tune. It's a digital, fixed bandwidth connection. You buy a codec box that has ISDN on one end and an XLR connector on the other end and you're set. Your choice is basically what codec to use.
Exactly. When the electricity is out you'll often see a truck with a generator parked next to a DSLAM to keep it going.
It's real easy with Cat 6: unless you test it with a tester than runs standard-mandated tests (crosstalk, echo, bandwidth, skew, etc.), you don't have Cat 6, you're just deluding yourself. So if an installer claims that they've "laid Cat-6", you better ask for a binder with test result printouts for every drop, because they must have tested them and they must have maintained the test results to ensure that everything got tested. Otherwise it's a scam.
The heck? You don't need shielding in Cat 6, it's optional and doesn't change much. I haven't seen anyone run shielded Cat 6, I certainly haven't run shielded Cat 6 anywhere and I have laid a bunch of it. You'd maybe need it on a factory floor. The major pain with Cat 6 is that you need to be real careful about preserving the pair twist all the way to the terminations, and you really have to use an expensive cable tester to confirm that the cable run does indeed perform to Cat 6 specifications. You don't get a Cat 6 connection just by using parts that have "Cat 6" stamped on them. You must also properly terminate and properly handle the cable while laying it down. The first few Cat 6 runs I've done wouldn't pass testing so I had to redo them. They would only pass Cat 5e requirements.
Yep. Part of the problem is that some major voice providers are just now "experimenting" with VOIP. What Time Warner is doing for business voice service, for example, is pulling fiber to the premises, but the only way they offer you a connection is over a locally generated T1 line. They slap a fiber gateway and a Cisco router on it. It's quite silly since there's 100Mbit ethernet running on the fiber and plain old SIP trunks running over it, but the only way you can consume it is via T1. So instead of just plugging the ethernet coming out of the gateway straight into our server, we had to spend $500+ on a T1 card for our Asterisk server. Oh, and their fiber-based internet is priced ridiculously high compared to coax. So we have their coax for internet service, and fiber just to run a bunch of voice trunks, utilizing less than 0.1% of the fiber's capacity.
That sucks. I wasn't aware it's that bad.
I think that some telcos would be served quite well by developing some of their own hardware again. A solid pair bonder for Ethernet can be ~$100 in parts in low quantities.
I've recently replumbed my house in CPVC and sure as heck the almost 200 USD I got from all that copper piping was a nice surprise. Sure as heck it completely covered the cost of all of the CPVC pipe, fittings and glue.
Just as you can get a T1 circuit set up point-to-point over copper, you can also get DS3 going over coax or fiber. In many places cable companies also offer fiber ethernet service and they'll happily circuit-switch it for you as point-to-point. Can't beat that.
RTFM?
Nope. There's not much more sensitivity anything can have compared to a human eye since the human eye can sense about one in then photons hitting the retina, with additional losses due to scattering and reflections in the solid parts of the eye. Basically all any sensor can be is an order of magnitude more sensitive than our retina. That's it. If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that it's a very tall order. Just read about what amateur astronomers have to deal with to image the sky!
A darkness-adapted human eye can IIRC detect one in ten photons; that's a pretty tall order for any room-temperature image sensor AFAIK. Please correct me if I mis-remember the figures, though.
So what that there will be such footage? It normally has nothing to do with any court cases and doesn't have to be introduced into evidence. You don't need to have the entire shift's footage in evidence, and even if you decide to, the judge can enforce some rules as to access to such evidence, up to and including holding whoever leaks it or behaves inappropriately in accessing the evidence in contempt. It's a solved problem, don't make up dumb excuses, pwetty please.
Yes, what about it? What, you think that you'll be showing the entire shift's worth of footage in court or on local TV news? Could people please stop with the reactionary "but think of xyz!" and actually think themselves?
I'm sorry that your significant other was silly enough not to be able to deal with what the life has served you both. I can't understand such relationships. If you're not in "it" together, then what's the point? Lower taxes?
Frankly said, given the slight loss of my privacy vs. loss of accountability for a force that's supposed to uphold the law, I have no problem with the loss of my privacy. And no, this is not a slippery slope.
We don't need such a law. A judge can and should impose contempt-of-court sanctions on those who tamper with evidence. If you have a camera and you're in a confrontation, there's no way to play silly and not know that should you tamper with the camera, you're tampering with evidence. If I was a judge, I'd toss whoever tampers with camera footage evidence, whether Joe the plumber or a cop or archbishop Canterbury, in jail for a week and have them pay for an ad in a major local paper admitting to the fact and proclaiming how sorry they are.