Re: The New iMacs




"John Slade" <hhitma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No I meant to say private rather than public. Public implies government
entities that are controlled and/or staffed by elected or oppointed
officials. IEEE is comprised of engineers.


Which merely means that unlike mine, your position is one of
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam".

'Public' in this context generally refers to something that is being
done in the public interest, not to faciliate profit by a self-
selected group of corporations.

The classical case study is the ASME Boiler Code, as for the period
before the published code (mid 19th through early 20th century), the
incidence rates of civilian deaths due to boiler explosions was
called, quite properly, a 'public scourge': it is estimated that
50,000 Americans died annually, which is a average rate of over 130
people per day. For references, see:

http://pepei.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=43862


This public interest dimension also lead to published Codes of Ethics
for these Professional Societies and which resulted in 'Public'
standards bodies. While their technical experts were often Engineers
by trade, these groups were not necessarily as you imply "Government
Entities", but rather were intended for the Public Interest and
because of this often included Government Representatives as part of
the Standards Group. This was effectively their route for
accredation.

BTW, one of these professional Codes of Ethics can be found here:

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/ASME.html

....which states the following:

The Fundamental Principles
--------------------------

Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the
Engineering profession by:

I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human
welfare;
II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public,
their employers and clients; and
III. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the
engineering profession.


The Fundamental Canons
----------------------

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of
the public in the performance of their professional duties.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout
their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional
development of those engineers under their supervision.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or
client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of
interest.

5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of
their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or
organizations.

7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner


You might have noticed that none of these statements say anything
about maximizing the profits of the corporation being an objective or
goal.




That standard is used in Macs or haven't you noticed?

Sorry, but no eSATA interfaces are being sold by Apple for use on a
Mac. If there is one...by Apple, not a 3rd Party... please be so kind
as to point it out.

I never said eSATA was, I said SATA is used in Macs.

I never contested SATA.

The IEEE has not recognized SATA as a standard according to you.

IEEE hasn't, but another credible accredited standards group has.


You made claims that because that group didn't recognize
the standard, it was bad.

Wrong on two counts:

First, IEEE was simply one example of a credible accredited standards
group; its not the only one. As I pointed out from the beginning, ISO
is another. ANSI is another, although they're effectively merged with
ISO as they now have a lot of joint standards. I would also include
ASME if I thought that they were relevant, since they tend to be
(obviously!) more mechanical instead of electrical in nature.

Second, I also clearly pointed out that the 'bad' aspect is merely one
of risk. This risk is due to the higher potential for a caprecious
standards change from its controlling body because of the nature of
the differences in these bodies. This risk is effectively one of
lifecycle management forshortening, classically due to an underlying
consortium profit motive which is something that is effectively never
in the Public Interest.




http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817121176

Read the review where it says, "It's not eSATA but internal
SATA..."

Exactly! TThis is an example of the configuration that you were
talking about, and this reviewer PANNED this product because it wasn't
the eSATA plug design that he was looking to buy.

And that SATA external connector is the one mainly in use. It provides
the full speed of and internal SATA connector but it's just on the outside.

In other words, there's a lot of (Windows PC) people who are ignorant
(or stupid) and are choosing to misapply a capability by using an
unshielded connection in an environment where shielding has been the
standard for over a decade.


And here, from the very same website, a SATA-eSATA plug adaptor:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812203034

Yep they sell adapters. And they sell enclosures that use both the
eSATA and SATA external connectors. You're trying to avoid subject now
because you know you've lost the argument.

Hardly. Afterall, if the SATA Standard had published provisions for
how to use it as an external bus, you would have simply provided those
instead. Your argument is based on the 'Appeal to Common
Practice' (sometimes known as the 'bandwagon fallacy'), which is a
known logical fallacy. From:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

"The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people
do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a
fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not
make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable."






If there isn't the faster hardware yet that would benefit from
adopting it today, then why should one even consider taking the risk
of the standard being dropped?

What are you babbling about again? The hardware does benefit from
the higher speeds.

And you'll be able to cite a benchmark test where with a HD of
respectable size (say 320GB) that it was able to do sustained read/
writes at significantly above the FW800 and SATA-I speeds. For sake
of round numbers, let's set the bar at 200 Megabytes per second.

What I've been saying if you bothered to pay attention is that SATA is
faster than Firewire. It's so much faster that few people would use it to
run an OS off Firewire over SATA.

The standard may be faster, but in the absence of real world hardware
that is able to realize that speed potential, your point is utterly
moot.





...Since Firewire is so good and fast, why doesn't
Apple or anyone else make HDs with a Firewire connector?

For the same reason you don't find a USB plug there: these are
expected to be an *external* bus connection.

Also because they're not as fast. Have you ever used a Firewire or USB
drive to bood the main OS you're using? I suggest you actually do a
Firewire drive vs. internal or external SATA drive comparisson. Then you'll
see what I'm talking about.

I'm (still!) in the midst of reconfiguring some HD's, so if I finish
my other chores and have the time, I'll burn a clone of my boot and
give it a try over the weekend. However, let's get three things
straight: the "time to boot" stopwatch starts when the relevant disk
I/O begins, so as to not inadvertantly include any potential timing
differences from the BIOS's logic for its selection which startup
disk. Second, because I only happen to own a FW400-based external HD
and not a FW800 external HD, this will also need to be accounted for:
the method that I propose is to measure the boot time from the FW400
and divide by two to make a parametric estimate for what a FW800 would
be reasonably expected to perform. Third, I don't care about minor
performance variations, which means that if the values fall reasonably
close to each other, I consider it be insignificant. For practical
purposes, anything within 5 seconds or 15% seems to be to be a
reasonable benchmark to begin with. If you have any protests for any
of these conditions, speak now or forever hold your peace and be sure
to include a comprehensive alternative, along with its justification
and rationale for why it is more appropriate while still being
objective and fair.


Don't recall which flavor of BSD it was; I mostly recall that it was a
unix email host computer that had been retired in the mid-1990s,
probably about the time that we moved our TCP/IP off of a broadband
(Sytek) network onto 10bT. Its contents weren't sensitive, so I'll
look to see about putting the file up on my website for you to access
if you want to take a crack at it.

Ok, what's your web site's URL.


For future reference, I own the entire huntzinger.com domain.
Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance yesterday to upload the file in
question, so I have no specific URL to the file in question yet.



-hh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
    ... might choose to use different systems that they discovered that the few standards that did exist weren't standard enough. ... without copying them to tape and cutting it with a razor blade and _that_ was pretty ... ten thousand studio engineers, but five out of ten could do basic electronic ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: How Congress screws up highway planning
    ... Those engineers were building to 1950's standards. ... Knowing the interstate system as I do, ... I knew a lot of those engineers in the late 60's and early 70's. ... Why would any engineer design a massive solid steel overhead sign ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Klista Epaggelmata
    ... I wonder what Gogu thinks,I believe his,is also a "closed profession". ... with us engineers things are a bit different... ... But I must say that the abolition of the minimum remuneration ... for a price and if he considers it's high he will look for a better price.. ...
    (soc.culture.greek)
  • Re: Sympathy (?) for the law profession?
    ... I checked the website of the provincial bar association to see if I could ... the engineering profession is squeaky clean. ... The most common offense committed by disbarred attorneys I knew of ... I've heard that most complaints against professional engineers are resolved well before a discipline hearing is convened, as they are either regarded as frivilous or are settled by other means. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: OT: PhD in Electronic Engineering
    ... I doubt that the MEs are but next time I can ask. ... In Europe most countries don't even have all that license legalese, ... I prefer not to increase the regulatory burden on a profession. ... and with engineers that is not the case. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)