What if I sue some American small business in the UK over something they see as absurd, but because there is no defence, the litigant wins. Then they have US courts garnish the business. Sounds like a great new business for patent trolls to get into.
Ha. Got me there. Yes I did mean 3.5" (showing my age) The caddy we use takes the naked drive. Thus buy any 3.5" drive and slide it in, no caddy required.
We use RAID 5 + 1 hot swap spare on the main server. We only need to backup 250GB.
Compare that with an LTO-4 drive at AU$4k + AU$60 for the tapes vs AU$70 for 1TB HDD
We backup nightly to SATA using a 10 drive hanoi scheme. It cost $30 for a caddy that takes the naked 5.25" drives. The drives cost $50. They go into a fire proof safe, with offsite drives swapped once a fortnight. When we need to find the 'lost' file, it takes 60seconds, not 20 minutes of tape searching.
DLT,LTO etc has its place in enterprise, but for SME, SATA is the way to go.
I'd go with the "embarrassment/reprisal" hypothesis, myself.
Exactly. It's a smokescreen. If a nerdy kid can hack DOD, imagine what nefarious organised governments/private companies are doing. The DOD should send the kid a thank you card, then go arrest their abysmal security contractors.
I think Dawinistic Evolution is the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind, only gaining traction because of mans general inclination to reject any notion of being accountable to a God. Evolution doesn't even pass the first level of critical thinking. To believe that beneficial mutations have far outnumbered non-beneficial mutations is complete nonsense. Evolution of DNA (analagous to object code and partial execution machine) is like saying; lets get the a linux distribution and randomaly mutate a byte here and there, and presto theres a new video codec, without acknowledging such a process actually causes faster functional degredation whos rate far outweighs the beneficial creation of functionality.
Evolution is not science, its a pseudo religion by those wishing to reject any notion of a creator.
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.
Now, this is a clear indication that the standard deviation limits are not being applied. Which is extremely bad news. So I had a drains-up on anomauto.for.. and.. yup, my awful programming strikes again. Because I copied the anomdtb.f90 process, I failed to notice an extra section where the limit was applied to the whole station - I was only applying it to the normals period (1961-90)!
Probably the worst story is temperature, particularly for MCDW. Over 1000 new stations! Highly unlikely. I am tempted to blame the different lat/lon scale, but for now it will have to rest.
If I fix that, I get:...14 stations LESS than the previous exercise. That'll do, surely? It's not going to be easy to find 14 missing stations, is it? Since the anomalies aren't exactly the same. Should I be worried about 14 lost series? Less than 2%. Actually, I noticed something interesting.. look at the anomalies. The anomdtb ones aren't *rounded* to 1dp, they're *truncated*! So, er - wrong!
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely;0)
So, under/cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre/custom_anom_comparisons, we have a 'manual' directory and an 'automatic' directory, each with twelve 1990 anomaly files. And how do they compare? NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
This shows me the quality of data climate science works with is poor. There needs to be rigorous peer reviewed climate data collection standards (which won't improve the historical data.. like for example, which stations had concrete jungles grow around them, how were they calibrated (including traceability) etc) The raw data must be publically released (then it can't be fiddled with later)
But shoplifting is also trivial in most department stores, yet most people pay. Stealing from sidewalk mechandise stands is easy, yet most people pay.
Most people want to do the right thing, but the Music and Movie industry do not provide the option.
They provide : product priced above what the market wants to pay : region locked : in DRM locked formats (esp BlueRay): with unskippable ads : through outdated distribution models
Solve these issues and presto : most people will pay.
Harry, if you read my parent post, I'm not having a go at you and don't blame yourself! It is clear from your notes, that:
- You are not supported appropriately in 'systems and processes' in the work you are doing.
- There is no standardisation of data reporting from temperature stations (making your life a misery).
- There seems no way to authenticate the raw data or 'corrections' to the raw data. eg You made a comment of their being 12 1990 anomoly files. So some researcher has been having guesess as to why the original data should be varied, made 12 attempts at that, not documented why, and left you scratching your head as to what to use.
In our company, if we wish to make a change to a product (which is essentially just data), it has to be formally reviewed, documented, and comitted back to a respoitory. It seems the data for climate science does not have this rigorous check and balance.
It seems cru is flat out compiling a working global temperature database, let alone taking into account 'heat island effects' and 'calibration accuracy of stations'.
I can see now why the raw data has not been released, as it is spead out in 11000 files, from hundreds of different meterlogical bodies, with different ways of recording data, and not enough information to describe that data (eg. If a station was moved, recalibrated, had a city grow up next to it), yet sweeping decisions involving trillions of dollars in carbon tax are based in part on this data.
OK, so I read the file the parent linked and what a shocker. Some quotes
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.:
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.
Now, this is a clear indication that the standard deviation limits are not being applied. Which is extremely bad news. So I had a drains-up on anomauto.for.. and.. yup, my awful programming strikes again. Because I copied the anomdtb.f90 process, I failed to notice an extra section where the limit was applied to the whole station - I was only applying it to the normals period (1961-90)!
Probably the worst story is temperature, particularly for MCDW. Over 1000 new stations! Highly unlikely. I am tempted to blame the different lat/lon scale, but for now it will have to rest.
If I fix that, I get:...14 stations LESS than the previous exercise. That'll do, surely? It's not going to be easy to find 14 missing stations, is it? Since the anomalies aren't exactly the same. Should I be worried about 14 lost series? Less than 2%. Actually, I noticed something interesting.. look at the anomalies. The anomdtb ones aren't *rounded* to 1dp, they're *truncated*! So, er - wrong!
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely;0)
So, under/cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre/custom_anom_comparisons, we have a 'manual' directory and an 'automatic' directory, each with twelve 1990 anomaly files. And how do they compare? NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
In Australia we have an oversight body called the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission)who looks the behaviour of the public service, and particularly law enforcement. http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10736
Does the USA have a similar authority?
I'm suprised the border patrol officer wasn't sacked for his behaviour.
An internal short could occur within one or more of the paths from the circuits leading to the ecm. That could lead to a situation where the computer cannot detect its own failure.
Goodness, who is the brilliant engineer who came up with that system.
We are only a tiny design company, but now do Failure Mode Analysis on anything that could be a safety threat. I can tell you now that the circuit you described above would have NO WAY of passing that review, yet it somehow got through the processes of a muti billion dollar company
There are dozens of low cost alternatives to having identical hall effect voltage sensors. eg: One 4-20mA, one 0-5v One PWM, One 0-5v Inverted curve outputs. CAN bus output. My design preference would be inverted curve PWM outputs. (Less change of EMI effecting a voltage/current output, mcu can verify frequency for interference, cheap to implement)
Another problem, is if you have a runaway microcontroller that happens 1 in 1^6 hours operation, it may be impossible to replicate by the engineers. I think that means you need a redundant system that monitors the main system and has the electrical ability to cut power to the engine if it sees a safety problem
In Australia:- Everyone is covered with free emergency care in the public system. (Which is very good despite what fringe whiners say) The public system has waiting lists for non life threatening stuff (Which can be days to years) You have the option of buying private health insurance which for a family is around $2k/annum. Private insurance gives you the choice of your own doctor in a private hospital. Pre existing ailments usually have a one year exclusion. Employers do not provide any form of health insurance.(because it is not required) GP visits are covered under the Medicare system where you are refunded 50-100% of the consult. If you spend more than about $1500/annum on medicines, the Govt covers the rest. Some medicine is covered under a Pharmacetical Benefits Scheme which makes their cost around $15/treatment no matter what the price of the drug.
In the USA, it sounds like when the Military Idustrial Complex ran out of wars, they got into medicine.
Corporations do NOT care about your safety unless it is monetarily profitable to them or a government forces them to.
OK, I'll bite because you are talking bullshit. Every corporate executive I have met cares about risk. They have families, friends, and are part of community; in otherwords they are people like you and I. They are also much more paranoid than you may think about risk & safety.
Risk = Likelyhood of occuring x Severity of Incident. Risk is impossible to eliminate and becomes exponentially expensive to reduce past what I call the practical point.
Society demands an 'acceptable' level of risk for an 'acceptable' monetary cost. This is what engineers design for and ultimatley what courts reinforce.
That bar rises higher every year as technology improves and legislation/standards are created to enforce/reinforce our understanding of risk.
Often the data is crap, because the measurements are so hard to make. For example, you would think measuring temperature is easy. Not so. Lets say you wish to determine the cooling capacity of an airconditioner. How do you measure the temperature and air velocity gradients across both the return and supply air streams. Do I use 1 sensor, 10 sensors, 100 sensors. Do you create turbulence or laminar flow? How accurate is the humidity measurement? The point is, the data is often crap, because measurements are hard to make, time is limited, can't afford the right equipment, not enough labour, could not fully simulate the enviroment etc etc.
I'm sorry, but you are totally WRONG. We manufacture battery only powered devices which require mandatory testing for CE (europe) and FCC Part15 (USA) Ctick(Australia) etal. In fact I remember a story many years ago of a very anal person in the military insisting a light bulb circuit be tested for EMC. The design engineer said no way, what a waste of time, but the anal person inisted it be tested for emissions. Well suprise, suprise, it failed. It turned out the light bulb indeed resonated in the cavity of the glass envelope and had spurious unitended emissions that made it fail EMC testing.
This is a good example of where a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Developing electronics used to be easy. It still can be except for one big area. Compliance. For us to release a product (ie distribute outside the lab), there are a raft of conformance tests a device must pass to be legally sold/used.
EMC is one of the hardest and there are a myriad of traps for the inexperienced. eg
- Innerlayer pre peg spacing changes on your PCB
- Subtle changes in track layout
- Dielectric of capacitors
- Die shrink (ie your unit passes, but then a functionally equivilent die shunk part will make you fail because of faster switching)
- Chassis interaction with PCB
- Changes in cable harness layout
- Change in brand of resonators
- etc etc
Depending on the product you may need to comply for
- Emissions (all cases)
- Susceptibility (EU, all cases)
- Intended Emissions (for radio devices)
- Safety (for non SELV device)
- Mains tests (surge, dips, spikes etc)
- ESD testing (high voltage discharges) Those are the main ones, but there are many more depending on end use.
So you may have a schematic, but the implementation of that schematic into hardware requires lots of expensive testing before it can be used in the real world.
beleive me- the data said its so. its invisible now because I deleted it but just beleive in me. beleive me when i say something else and claim I ment something else. Just beleive everything I say when I say it and dont question it. I am Mann hear me roar.
Religions, though, have the unpleasant architectural problem of (in the vast majority of cases) coupling social and organizational power with strongly implied, or even overt, assertions of trustworthiness.
I think your post is spot on.
Churches have been behind the 8 ball on this matter for a long time.
Our Church and many others have now implemented formal Child Safety Policies in recognition of this problem.
All staff or church members dealing with children must have a blue card (A govt supplied card that performs basic criminal checks). It deals with how staff react when they come into knowledge of possible criminal behaviour.
There is even a requirement that children must be taken to the toilet by two adults, and the event recorded in a log book.
Remember that 99+% of Christians are very loving, supportive, trustworthy; but a small minority will always be tempted to do the wrong thing or attempt to use the Church for their own evil motives.
This may not stop the determined crimnal, but it does raise the bar for expectations and reduce risk by reducing opportunity.
I've used Roboform for about 3 years now and it works great. I have around 100 passwords stored on it. It works on the single master password concept and stores the hashed files as text files in the appropriate folder. It has a USB version for portability (which I don't use) It also has form filling functions including credit card details which work very well.
You click on the site you wish to visit, it surfs there, fills in the forms, enters the site (in one click)
Slashdot Mirror
http://hackaday.com/2010/03/17/im-me-spectrum-analyzer/ [hackaday.com] The IM-ME can be had for about $15 or so, and is purportedly very hackable.
But it's... pink...
Well the law is an ass.
What if I sue some American small business in the UK over something they see as absurd, but because there is no defence, the litigant wins. Then they have US courts garnish the business.
Sounds like a great new business for patent trolls to get into.
In Soviet America, All you comments belong to us.
Ha. Got me there. Yes I did mean 3.5" (showing my age)
The caddy we use takes the naked drive. Thus buy any 3.5" drive and slide it in, no caddy required.
We use RAID 5 + 1 hot swap spare on the main server.
We only need to backup 250GB.
Compare that with an LTO-4 drive at AU$4k + AU$60 for the tapes vs AU$70 for 1TB HDD
I agree tape sucks.. at least for SME.
We backup nightly to SATA using a 10 drive hanoi scheme. It cost $30 for a caddy that takes the naked 5.25" drives. The drives cost $50.
They go into a fire proof safe, with offsite drives swapped once a fortnight.
When we need to find the 'lost' file, it takes 60seconds, not 20 minutes of tape searching.
DLT,LTO etc has its place in enterprise, but for SME, SATA is the way to go.
I'd go with the "embarrassment/reprisal" hypothesis, myself.
Exactly. It's a smokescreen. If a nerdy kid can hack DOD, imagine what nefarious organised governments/private companies are doing.
The DOD should send the kid a thank you card, then go arrest their abysmal security contractors.
Typical Ad hominem response I would expect.
I think Dawinistic Evolution is the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind, only gaining traction because of mans general inclination to reject any notion of being accountable to a God.
Evolution doesn't even pass the first level of critical thinking. To believe that beneficial mutations have far outnumbered non-beneficial mutations is complete nonsense.
Evolution of DNA (analagous to object code and partial execution machine) is like saying; lets get the a linux distribution and randomaly mutate a byte here and there, and presto theres a new video codec, without acknowledging such a process actually causes faster functional degredation whos rate far outweighs the beneficial creation of functionality.
Evolution is not science, its a pseudo religion by those wishing to reject any notion of a creator.
I still don't get it. Could you use a car analogy?
OK, so lets look at the quality of the CRU climate data as logged here http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I'll even quote some bits for you.
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.
I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.
Now, this is a clear indication that the standard deviation limits are not being applied.
Which is extremely bad news. So I had a drains-up on anomauto.for.. and.. yup, my awful
programming strikes again. Because I copied the anomdtb.f90 process, I failed to notice
an extra section where the limit was applied to the whole station - I was only applying
it to the normals period (1961-90)!
Probably the worst story is temperature, particularly for MCDW. Over 1000 new stations! Highly
unlikely. I am tempted to blame the different lat/lon scale, but for now it will have to rest.
If I fix that, I get:...14 stations LESS than the previous exercise. That'll do, surely? It's not going to be easy to find 14 missing stations, is it? Since the anomalies aren't exactly the same. Should I be worried about 14 lost series? Less than 2%. Actually, I noticed something interesting.. look
at the anomalies. The anomdtb ones aren't *rounded* to 1dp, they're *truncated*! So, er - wrong!
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect ;0)
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely
So, under /cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre/custom_anom_comparisons, we have a
'manual' directory and an 'automatic' directory, each with twelve 1990 anomaly files. And
how do they compare? NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
This shows me the quality of data climate science works with is poor.
There needs to be rigorous peer reviewed climate data collection standards (which won't improve the historical data.. like for example, which stations had concrete jungles grow around them, how were they calibrated (including traceability) etc)
The raw data must be publically released (then it can't be fiddled with later)
Until then, I will assume GIGO.
But shoplifting is also trivial in most department stores, yet most people pay.
Stealing from sidewalk mechandise stands is easy, yet most people pay.
Most people want to do the right thing, but the Music and Movie industry do not provide the option.
They provide : product priced above what the market wants to pay : region locked : in DRM locked formats (esp BlueRay): with unskippable ads : through outdated distribution models
Solve these issues and presto : most people will pay.
Harry, if you read my parent post, I'm not having a go at you and don't blame yourself! It is clear from your notes, that:
- You are not supported appropriately in 'systems and processes' in the work you are doing.
- There is no standardisation of data reporting from temperature stations (making your life a misery).
- There seems no way to authenticate the raw data or 'corrections' to the raw data. eg You made a comment of their being 12 1990 anomoly files. So some researcher has been having guesess as to why the original data should be varied, made 12 attempts at that, not documented why, and left you scratching your head as to what to use.
In our company, if we wish to make a change to a product (which is essentially just data), it has to be formally reviewed, documented, and comitted back to a respoitory. It seems the data for climate science does not have this rigorous check and balance.
It seems cru is flat out compiling a working global temperature database, let alone taking into account 'heat island effects' and 'calibration accuracy of stations'.
I can see now why the raw data has not been released, as it is spead out in 11000 files, from hundreds of different meterlogical bodies, with different ways of recording data, and not enough information to describe that data (eg. If a station was moved, recalibrated, had a city grow up next to it), yet sweeping decisions involving trillions of dollars in carbon tax are based in part on this data.
OK, so I read the file the parent linked and what a shocker.
Some quotes
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm :
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.
I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.
Now, this is a clear indication that the standard deviation limits are not being applied.
Which is extremely bad news. So I had a drains-up on anomauto.for.. and.. yup, my awful
programming strikes again. Because I copied the anomdtb.f90 process, I failed to notice
an extra section where the limit was applied to the whole station - I was only applying
it to the normals period (1961-90)!
Probably the worst story is temperature, particularly for MCDW. Over 1000 new stations! Highly
unlikely. I am tempted to blame the different lat/lon scale, but for now it will have to rest.
If I fix that, I get:...14 stations LESS than the previous exercise. That'll do, surely? It's not going to be easy to find 14 missing stations, is it? Since the anomalies aren't exactly the same. Should I be worried about 14 lost series? Less than 2%. Actually, I noticed something interesting.. look
at the anomalies. The anomdtb ones aren't *rounded* to 1dp, they're *truncated*! So, er - wrong!
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect ;0)
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely
So, under /cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre/custom_anom_comparisons, we have a
'manual' directory and an 'automatic' directory, each with twelve 1990 anomaly files. And
how do they compare? NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
In Australia we have an oversight body called the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission)who looks the behaviour of the public service, and particularly law enforcement.
http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10736
Does the USA have a similar authority?
I'm suprised the border patrol officer wasn't sacked for his behaviour.
An internal short could occur within one or more of the paths from the circuits leading to the ecm. That could lead to a situation where the computer cannot detect its own failure.
Goodness, who is the brilliant engineer who came up with that system.
We are only a tiny design company, but now do Failure Mode Analysis on anything that could be a safety threat.
I can tell you now that the circuit you described above would have NO WAY of passing that review, yet it somehow got through the processes of a muti billion dollar company
There are dozens of low cost alternatives to having identical hall effect voltage sensors.
eg:
One 4-20mA, one 0-5v
One PWM, One 0-5v
Inverted curve outputs.
CAN bus output.
My design preference would be inverted curve PWM outputs. (Less change of EMI effecting a voltage/current output, mcu can verify frequency for interference, cheap to implement)
Another problem, is if you have a runaway microcontroller that happens 1 in 1^6 hours operation, it may be impossible to replicate by the engineers.
I think that means you need a redundant system that monitors the main system and has the electrical ability to cut power to the engine if it sees a safety problem
Whoaaa! $800/month ($10k/annum)
In Australia:-
Everyone is covered with free emergency care in the public system. (Which is very good despite what fringe whiners say)
The public system has waiting lists for non life threatening stuff (Which can be days to years)
You have the option of buying private health insurance which for a family is around $2k/annum.
Private insurance gives you the choice of your own doctor in a private hospital.
Pre existing ailments usually have a one year exclusion.
Employers do not provide any form of health insurance.(because it is not required)
GP visits are covered under the Medicare system where you are refunded 50-100% of the consult.
If you spend more than about $1500/annum on medicines, the Govt covers the rest.
Some medicine is covered under a Pharmacetical Benefits Scheme which makes their cost around $15/treatment no matter what the price of the drug.
In the USA, it sounds like when the Military Idustrial Complex ran out of wars, they got into medicine.
Corporations do NOT care about your safety unless it is monetarily profitable to them or a government forces them to.
OK, I'll bite because you are talking bullshit.
Every corporate executive I have met cares about risk. They have families, friends, and are part of community; in otherwords they are people like you and I.
They are also much more paranoid than you may think about risk & safety.
Risk = Likelyhood of occuring x Severity of Incident.
Risk is impossible to eliminate and becomes exponentially expensive to reduce past what I call the practical point.
Society demands an 'acceptable' level of risk for an 'acceptable' monetary cost.
This is what engineers design for and ultimatley what courts reinforce.
That bar rises higher every year as technology improves and legislation/standards are created to enforce/reinforce our understanding of risk.
Often the data is crap, because the measurements are so hard to make.
For example, you would think measuring temperature is easy. Not so.
Lets say you wish to determine the cooling capacity of an airconditioner.
How do you measure the temperature and air velocity gradients across both the return and supply air streams. Do I use 1 sensor, 10 sensors, 100 sensors. Do you create turbulence or laminar flow? How accurate is the humidity measurement?
The point is, the data is often crap, because measurements are hard to make, time is limited, can't afford the right equipment, not enough labour, could not fully simulate the enviroment etc etc.
I'm sorry, but you are totally WRONG.
We manufacture battery only powered devices which require mandatory testing for CE (europe) and FCC Part15 (USA) Ctick(Australia) etal.
In fact I remember a story many years ago of a very anal person in the military insisting a light bulb circuit be tested for EMC. The design engineer said no way, what a waste of time, but the anal person inisted it be tested for emissions. Well suprise, suprise, it failed. It turned out the light bulb indeed resonated in the cavity of the glass envelope and had spurious unitended emissions that made it fail EMC testing.
This is a good example of where a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.
Developing electronics used to be easy. It still can be except for one big area. Compliance.
For us to release a product (ie distribute outside the lab), there are a raft of conformance tests a device must pass to be legally sold/used.
EMC is one of the hardest and there are a myriad of traps for the inexperienced. eg
- Innerlayer pre peg spacing changes on your PCB
- Subtle changes in track layout
- Dielectric of capacitors
- Die shrink (ie your unit passes, but then a functionally equivilent die shunk part will make you fail because of faster switching)
- Chassis interaction with PCB
- Changes in cable harness layout
- Change in brand of resonators
- etc etc
Depending on the product you may need to comply for
- Emissions (all cases)
- Susceptibility (EU, all cases)
- Intended Emissions (for radio devices)
- Safety (for non SELV device)
- Mains tests (surge, dips, spikes etc)
- ESD testing (high voltage discharges)
Those are the main ones, but there are many more depending on end use.
So you may have a schematic, but the implementation of that schematic into hardware requires lots of expensive testing before it can be used in the real world.
beleive me- the data said its so.
its invisible now because I deleted it but just beleive in me.
beleive me when i say something else and claim I ment something else. Just beleive everything I say when I say it and dont question it. I am Mann hear me roar.
Believe me, it's i after e except before c!
Religions, though, have the unpleasant architectural problem of (in the vast majority of cases) coupling social and organizational power with strongly implied, or even overt, assertions of trustworthiness.
I think your post is spot on. Churches have been behind the 8 ball on this matter for a long time. Our Church and many others have now implemented formal Child Safety Policies in recognition of this problem. All staff or church members dealing with children must have a blue card (A govt supplied card that performs basic criminal checks). It deals with how staff react when they come into knowledge of possible criminal behaviour. There is even a requirement that children must be taken to the toilet by two adults, and the event recorded in a log book. Remember that 99+% of Christians are very loving, supportive, trustworthy; but a small minority will always be tempted to do the wrong thing or attempt to use the Church for their own evil motives. This may not stop the determined crimnal, but it does raise the bar for expectations and reduce risk by reducing opportunity.
My neighbour who is a Surgeon *HATES* operating on smokers because their their circulation is crap making any operation more risky/complicated.
I too abhor the overcompression of music that began in the early 90's
A good example is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
I've used Roboform for about 3 years now and it works great. I have around 100 passwords stored on it.
It works on the single master password concept and stores the hashed files as text files in the appropriate folder.
It has a USB version for portability (which I don't use)
It also has form filling functions including credit card details which work very well.
You click on the site you wish to visit, it surfs there, fills in the forms, enters the site (in one click)