> Here is a good one, if you are left-handed do you still like a volume control (or some sort of control knob) to be CW for up and ACW for down? It just struck me after seeing some students wire pots the wrong way round that we just accept CW as forwards.
I don't know that it matters so much which way you turn them as long as
they go to eleven.
--
Rick
Reply by ●October 10, 20152015-10-10
Toilet paper rolls
Reply by Eric Jacobsen●October 8, 20152015-10-08
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:59:48 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 07/10/15 23:11, kaz wrote:
>>> Here is a good one, if you are left-handed do you still like a volume
>>> control (or some sort of control knob) to be CW for up and ACW for down?
>> It
>>> just struck me after seeing some students wire pots the wrong way round
>> that
>>> we just accept CW as forwards.
>>
>> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need standards".
>> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
>
>To allow us to concentrate on new things where we can add value.
>
That's actually a pretty good one.
Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by Eric Jacobsen●October 8, 20152015-10-08
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0500, "kaz" <37480@DSPRelated> wrote:
>>Here is a good one, if you are left-handed do you still like a volume
>>control (or some sort of control knob) to be CW for up and ACW for down?
>It
>>just struck me after seeing some students wire pots the wrong way round
>that
>>we just accept CW as forwards.
>
>I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need standards".
>It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
>
>I am still unable to phrase a good answer. Any help appreciated.
>
>We certainly need standards for "everything" even for this forum replies
>otherwise we are quickly diving in a mess.
>
>should we read upside down or the opposite, or should we read unrelated
>replies, or a reply that follows a good reply and buries it alive, or a
>heated argument between the bosses of forum on trivial terminology or a
>dsp guy reply to rtl question or vice versa....etc.
>
>Kaz
Standards increase availability and reduce duplication of effort.
Standards increase economic efficiency and promote innovation.
I could go on, actually, but standards are very beneficial.
Sometimes people ask how standards benefit them, and there are some
many simple examples that people tend to understand:
1. You can buy a light bulb (which is almost a quaint idea now), at
any store that will fit the light sockets in your lamps and light
fixtures. There are multiple standards for this for different types
of light, but it means that you don't have to go to a specific store
or vendor to get a bulb or a fluorescent tube (or whatever).
2. When you go to plug in the lamp for which you just bought a light
bulb with a standardized socket, you know it'll work because there's a
standard for the electrical supply at the socket (in the US, 120VAC).
You know the plug will physically fit in the socket because that's
standardized, too.
It's easy to go on, like for car parts, bolts, nuts, windshield
wipers, tires, everything has some sort of standard so that there is
wider availability for the user. You don't have to go back to the
car manufacturer to get their specific tire, windshield wiper, oil,
fuel, wheel, etc., etc., etc.
The implications are deep and profound. As bad as standards can be,
things would be much, much worse and less efficient without them.
Other things that are standardized that people easily relate to:
Shoe and clothing sizes
Fasteners (screws, nails, nuts, bolts, rivets, etc., etc.)
Music (tuning and scales, string gauges, etc.)
Fuel (gasoline, diesel, oil, etc.) - and the plug-ins for electric
cars.
Measures - mkg, etc., even for cooking, teaspoons, tablespoons, etc.
One can go on about this stuff forever... ;)
Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by Frank Miles●October 8, 20152015-10-08
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 04:54:28 -0500, kaz wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0500, kaz wrote:
>>>
>>> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need
>>> standards".
>>> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
>>>
>>> I am still unable to phrase a good answer. Any help appreciated.
>>
>>In the unlikely event that you really want an answer to that, mine is:
>> to avoid thinking.
>>Because we (as a species) really aren't that good at thinking, especially
>
>>thinking fast or while other things are going on or if there are other
>>interacting things.
>>
> yes I do want an answer, here are some of my superficial thoughts:
> we need standards for the sake of team work and interfacing across globe
> and time.
> we need standards to impose the experience of experts on others and stop
> others thinking.
>
> Kaz
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Posted through http://www.DSPRelated.com
Yes, it's that whole interoperability thing. Just not as funny or as deep.
Reply by ●October 8, 20152015-10-08
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 10:54:32 PM UTC+13, kaz wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0500, kaz wrote:
> >>
> >> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need
> >> standards".
> >> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
> >>
> >> I am still unable to phrase a good answer. Any help appreciated.
> >
> >In the unlikely event that you really want an answer to that, mine is:
> > to avoid thinking.
> >Because we (as a species) really aren't that good at thinking, especially
>
> >thinking fast or while other things are going on or if there are other
> >interacting things.
> >
> yes I do want an answer, here are some of my superficial thoughts:
> we need standards for the sake of team work and interfacing across globe
> and time.
> we need standards to impose the experience of experts on others and stop
> others thinking.
>
> Kaz
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Posted through http://www.DSPRelated.com
You certainly need standards in safety critical systems - on aircrafts etc. I am not so sure it matters on say a radio or TV, after all that is part of the aesthetic design process.
Reply by kaz●October 8, 20152015-10-08
>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0500, kaz wrote:
>>
>> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need
>> standards".
>> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
>>
>> I am still unable to phrase a good answer. Any help appreciated.
>
>In the unlikely event that you really want an answer to that, mine is:
> to avoid thinking.
>Because we (as a species) really aren't that good at thinking, especially
>thinking fast or while other things are going on or if there are other
>interacting things.
>
yes I do want an answer, here are some of my superficial thoughts:
we need standards for the sake of team work and interfacing across globe
and time.
we need standards to impose the experience of experts on others and stop
others thinking.
Kaz
---------------------------------------
Posted through http://www.DSPRelated.com
Reply by Tom Gardner●October 8, 20152015-10-08
On 07/10/15 23:11, kaz wrote:
>> Here is a good one, if you are left-handed do you still like a volume
>> control (or some sort of control knob) to be CW for up and ACW for down?
> It
>> just struck me after seeing some students wire pots the wrong way round
> that
>> we just accept CW as forwards.
>
> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need standards".
> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
To allow us to concentrate on new things where we can add value.
Reply by Frank Miles●October 7, 20152015-10-07
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:11:23 -0500, kaz wrote:
>>Here is a good one, if you are left-handed do you still like a volume
>>control (or some sort of control knob) to be CW for up and ACW for down?
> It
>>just struck me after seeing some students wire pots the wrong way round
> that
>>we just accept CW as forwards.
>
> I was asked in an interview some 16 years ago "why do we need
> standards".
> It was so obvious to me that I went dumb.
>
> I am still unable to phrase a good answer. Any help appreciated.
In the unlikely event that you really want an answer to that, mine is:
to avoid thinking.
Because we (as a species) really aren't that good at thinking, especially
thinking fast or while other things are going on or if there are other
interacting things.
[snip]