Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #454172 > unrolled thread

Another Word For Linear?

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Another Word For Linear? "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 18:38 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? eacaws@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 18:48 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-29 18:50 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 19:22 -0700
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 00:45 -0500
        Re: Another Word For Linear? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 22:52 -0700
          Re: Another Word For Linear? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 02:48 -0500
            Re: Another Word For Linear? bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2017-03-30 10:37 -0700
            Re: Another Word For Linear? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 12:47 -0700
              Re: Another Word For Linear? gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2017-03-30 19:31 -0500
                Re: Another Word For Linear? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 18:19 -0700
              Re: Another Word For Linear? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-04-03 15:03 -0700
                Re: Another Word For Linear? krw@notreal.com - 2017-04-03 20:39 -0400
                  Re: Another Word For Linear? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-04-05 11:03 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 20:03 -0700
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-29 22:17 -0500
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 15:26 +1100
        Re: Another Word For Linear? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 21:30 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-30 00:16 -0400
      Re: Another Word For Linear? BM2335 <BM265@DMM.com.au> - 2017-03-30 12:18 +0800
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 15:56 +1100
        Re: Another Word For Linear? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-30 01:13 -0400
      Re: Another Word For Linear? krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 20:47 -0400
    Re: Another Word For Linear? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-29 22:34 -0700
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 00:48 -0500
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 00:06 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 00:39 -0500
    Re: Another Word For Linear? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 08:14 +0100
    Re: Another Word For Linear? djlocher56@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 04:41 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-03-30 16:47 -0500
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-30 17:03 -0700
      Re: Another Word For Linear? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 17:20 -0700
    Re: Another Word For Linear? John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> - 2017-03-30 19:23 -0500
    Re: Another Word For Linear? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-03 00:33 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#454172 — Another Word For Linear?

  Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).

  While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
intuitively.

  "The new control will operate more smoothly."

  "...proportionately."

  "...evenly."

  TIA

  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#454175

On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:38:27 UTC+11, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
> 
>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
> intuitively.
> 
>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
> 
>   "...proportionately."
> 
>   "...evenly."
> 
>   TIA

Use your own words - the new pot will spread the useful range of output levels over a wider range of knob positions.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454176

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:38:27 PM UTC+11, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
> 
>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
> intuitively.
> 
>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
> 
>   "...proportionately."
> 
>   "...evenly."
> 
>   TIA

Use your own words - the new pot will spread the useful range of output levels over a wider range of knob rotation.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454180

On 3/29/2017 6:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob
> with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot
> subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
>
> While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it?
> I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
> grasp intuitively.
>
> "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>
> "...proportionately."
>
> "...evenly."

"A more even (uniform?) response"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454201

On 3/29/2017 21:22, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/29/2017 6:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume
>> knob
>> with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot
>> subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the
>> circuit).
>>
>> While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>> describe it?
>> I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
>> grasp intuitively.
>>
>> "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>
>> "...proportionately."
>>
>> "...evenly."
>
> "A more even (uniform?) response"

Somewhere between "wrong" and "meaningless".  The linear pot gives a 
"more even (uniform?) response" of resistance change per degree of 
rotation than a log pot--that IS the problem.

You do not WANT a "more even (uniform?) response", you want a response 
that matches (more closely) the human ear response.



-- 
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454203

On 3/29/2017 10:45 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/29/2017 21:22, Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/29/2017 6:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume
>>> knob
>>> with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot
>>> subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the
>>> circuit).
>>>
>>> While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>>> describe it?
>>> I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
>>> grasp intuitively.
>>>
>>> "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>>
>>> "...proportionately."
>>>
>>> "...evenly."
>>
>> "A more even (uniform?) response"
>
> Somewhere between "wrong" and "meaningless".  The linear pot gives a "more even
> (uniform?) response" of resistance change per degree of rotation than a log
> pot--that IS the problem.
>
> You do not WANT a "more even (uniform?) response", you want a response that
> matches (more closely) the human ear response.

No.  You want a term that "your average street idiot will grasp intuitively".
Presumably, without resorting to graphs and verbose examples.

(Do you think the "average street idiot" understands how *he* perceives sound?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454212

On 3/30/2017 00:52, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/29/2017 10:45 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 3/29/2017 21:22, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2017 6:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume
>>>> knob
>>>> with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot
>>>> subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the
>>>> circuit).
>>>>
>>>> While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>>>> describe it?
>>>> I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
>>>> grasp intuitively.
>>>>
>>>> "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>>>
>>>> "...proportionately."
>>>>
>>>> "...evenly."
>>>
>>> "A more even (uniform?) response"
>>
>> Somewhere between "wrong" and "meaningless".  The linear pot gives a
>> "more even
>> (uniform?) response" of resistance change per degree of rotation than
>> a log
>> pot--that IS the problem.
>>
>> You do not WANT a "more even (uniform?) response", you want a response
>> that
>> matches (more closely) the human ear response.
>
> No.  You want a term that "your average street idiot will grasp
> intuitively".
> Presumably, without resorting to graphs and verbose examples.
>
> (Do you think the "average street idiot" understands how *he* perceives
> sound?)

My generalized belief (valid here) is that most people are not as stupid 
as most subject-matter-specific geeks wish they were.

In the instant case "somebody installed the wrong part here.  Replacing 
it with the correct part should fix the problem." is correct, to the 
point, and probably sufficient.  (The possible follow on question 
"what's wrong with it?" can be pursued factually as well.)

No bullshit, no Politically Correct, no unwarranted overbearing eye 
rolling, ...



-- 
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454249

Yup.  We all tend to be good at what we focus on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454263

On 3/30/2017 12:48 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/30/2017 00:52, Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/29/2017 10:45 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2017 21:22, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2017 6:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>>>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume
>>>>> knob
>>>>> with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot
>>>>> subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the
>>>>> circuit).
>>>>>
>>>>> While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>>>>> describe it?
>>>>> I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
>>>>> grasp intuitively.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>>>>
>>>>> "...proportionately."
>>>>>
>>>>> "...evenly."
>>>>
>>>> "A more even (uniform?) response"
>>>
>>> Somewhere between "wrong" and "meaningless".  The linear pot gives a
>>> "more even
>>> (uniform?) response" of resistance change per degree of rotation than
>>> a log
>>> pot--that IS the problem.
>>>
>>> You do not WANT a "more even (uniform?) response", you want a response
>>> that
>>> matches (more closely) the human ear response.
>>
>> No.  You want a term that "your average street idiot will grasp
>> intuitively".
>> Presumably, without resorting to graphs and verbose examples.
>>
>> (Do you think the "average street idiot" understands how *he* perceives
>> sound?)
>
> My generalized belief (valid here) is that most people are not as stupid as
> most subject-matter-specific geeks wish they were.

You're being far too generous -- or incredibly naive.

If I told an 8 year old to "pick a string of 8 characters including
at least one digit, uppercase, lowercase and punctuation mark", he'd
undoubtedly be able to do so.  Yet, tell a (responsible?) adult to do the
same TO PROTECT HIS ONLINE ACCOUNT (i.e., his MONEY), and he'll do
something like "P@ssw0rD" -- despite having read the periodic headlines
reporting on breaches and compromised accounts.  Many of which deliberately
mentioning such BAD password choices.

Or, failing to change the DEFAULT password on the bits of kit they purchase?

Or, NOT opening attachments in email?

Becoming drawn in by calls/threats from the "IRS" on their home phone?
(wouldn't you at least think of calling the phone number IN THE PHONE BOOK
for the IRS if so threatened?)

Sending monies to Nigerian princes?  ("Gee, I wonder why he picked *me*
as his BENEFICIARY?")

(In the past) Being unable to set the clock on their VCR to be rid of
that annoying "blinking 12:00"?

Leaving their MD's office with a diagnosis that is little more (to them)
than "alphabet soup" instead of asking for a "plain english" translation
(it's *their* condition that the MD has described; presumably they would
want to UNDERSTAND what the MD was telling them)

Reading *two* pages of instructions written at a 6th grade level for a
recent purchase?

Unplugging an appliance before working on it?

NOT smoking while refueling a vehicle?

NOT using a screwdriver as a chisel?

FAILING to wear eye/ear protection?

What term would you use to describe these?  ("stupid" comes to mind)

Note that *none* of these require "special", domain-specific knowledge,
beyond COMMON SENSE!

Half the population is of below average intelligence.  :>  Many (most?) are
"lazy thinkers" and need things "spelled out" for them, explicitly.  Dealing
in abstractions is such an abstract concept that most can't even conceive of
what that means!  People don't like to "ask questions" if those questions
will HIGHLIGHT their ignorance/lack of understanding.  Like the patient
nodding his head as the MD spews lots of latin terms describing his condition
VERY EXPLICITLY (for the MD!) -- and being completely clueless as to what
the MD has said *or* what it means for them.

You want to offer explanations that the user can wrap their head around
without *needing* a lecture on psychoacoustics or electronics -- so he
can describe his problem -- AND YOUR REMEDY -- to others without THEM
pestering him for an explanation of what *you* meant.

A friend was diagnosed as having some sort of systemic infection.  They
cultured the organism over a period of 4 weeks -- prescribing a wide-spectrum
antibiotic for him in that interval.  At the end of the interval, they claimed
"nothing grew" and sent him on his way (the 4 weeks of GI distress being just
an unfortunate aspect of the treatment plan).

Then, called him back claiming it was a *fungal* infection and put him on
some new (?) medication for another 4 weeks.  *My* questions (as an univolved
third party):
- did they identify the organism?
- are you now on an anti-fungal?
- will they repeat the culture after 4 weeks to VERIFY THE ORGANISM IS GONE?
   (else, how will you KNOW you have been cured?  You were asymptomatic to
   begin with so that doesn't suggest you'll KNOW from your own observations
   that you're "healed")

He knew none of these answers.  In hindsight, I felt bad *asking* them as I'd
assumed anyone faced with such a lengthy/uncomfortable treatment would
WANT/demand to know what's involved!  And, how *he* would be able to reassure
himself that he was "cured".

When you explain something, it never hurts to offer more information in a
lower level of complexity and let the user latch onto what he wants/needs
to satisfy his "curiosity".  This isn't "patronizing" -- especially if
you're in the business of dealing with a number of different individuals,
each of differing capabilities.  Its relatively easy for the individual to
indicate his understanding of your "simple" explanation and drill down
for more detail -- just by his choice of vocabulary in followup questions.

> In the instant case "somebody installed the wrong part here.  Replacing it with
> the correct part should fix the problem." is correct, to the point, and
> probably sufficient.  (The possible follow on question "what's wrong with it?"
> can be pursued factually as well.)
>
> No bullshit, no Politically Correct, no unwarranted overbearing eye rolling, ...

Where's the "bullshit", "PC" or "eye rolling" in *my* response -- of which
you were so dismissive?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454308

On 3/30/2017 2:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2017 12:48 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 00:52, Don Y wrote:
[snip]
>> In the instant case "somebody installed the wrong part here.  Replacing it with
>> the correct part should fix the problem." is correct, to the point, and
>> probably sufficient.  (The possible follow on question "what's wrong with it?"
>> can be pursued factually as well.)
>>
>> No bullshit, no Politically Correct, no unwarranted overbearing eye rolling, ...
>
> Where's the "bullshit", "PC" or "eye rolling" in *my* response -- of which
> you were so dismissive?
>

Years ago I repaired amps for the local musicians. I was fairly well known. 
Often while making the scene some guitar player would tell me his amp would make 
a strange noise, one channel didn't work or some such and ask what was wrong 
with it.  He was somewhat taken aback when I said it was probably broke. After 
giving it some thought he finally understood what I meant. That there was a 
problem and it needed expert attention and not a drawn out technical discussion 
he wouldn't understand. The bottom line is they just want it fixed and it really 
doesn't matter what the problem was.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454321

On 3/30/2017 5:31 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 3/30/2017 2:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 12:48 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2017 00:52, Don Y wrote:
> [snip]
>>> In the instant case "somebody installed the wrong part here.  Replacing it with
>>> the correct part should fix the problem." is correct, to the point, and
>>> probably sufficient.  (The possible follow on question "what's wrong with it?"
>>> can be pursued factually as well.)
>>>
>>> No bullshit, no Politically Correct, no unwarranted overbearing eye rolling,
>>> ...
>>
>> Where's the "bullshit", "PC" or "eye rolling" in *my* response -- of which
>> you were so dismissive?
>
> Years ago I repaired amps for the local musicians. I was fairly well known.
> Often while making the scene some guitar player would tell me his amp would
> make a strange noise, one channel didn't work or some such and ask what was
> wrong with it.  He was somewhat taken aback when I said it was probably broke.
> After giving it some thought he finally understood what I meant. That there was
> a problem and it needed expert attention and not a drawn out technical
> discussion he wouldn't understand. The bottom line is they just want it fixed
> and it really doesn't matter what the problem was.

The OP asked:
     "While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe
     it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will
     grasp intuitively."
He obviously wasn't wanting to fall back on "it was broke; I fixed it" as the
extent of the conversation.

He also (IMO) wasn't looking for a "drawn out technical discussion" (e.g.,
regarding how the user perceives sound intensity and how an "amplifier"
translates electrical signals into pressure waves).  Indeed, the tone of
his post suggested he was looking for a way to AVOID confusing techno-babble
yet still provide a "meaningful" explanation.

Unlike your "musicians", I find most want *some* sort of explanation -- if
only to gauge the seriousness of the problem, likelihood of its repetition,
etc.  And, ideally, something that they can wrap their heads around.

A neighbor chased me down the street, last night, as I was out for my evening
walk.  He'd had some "problem" with his DSL connection that left him without
connectivity for 4 days.  It had since been fixed.  But, he wanted *me* to
explain the problem -- and remedy -- to him.  Despite the fact that I had
no knowledge of the symptoms he'd encountered, steps the TELCO and ISP had
taken, nor the actions they undertook that ultimately fixed the problem.

"There was a problem and it needed expert attention".  The fact that it
was now, apparently, repaired didn't leave him with a warm/fuzzy feeling
(that it wouldn't REPEAT -- cuz nothing on HIS end had been changed in
the repair!)

SWMBO's car in for service and mentioned a rattle in the back, driver-side
seat.  When picking up the vehicle, the dealer (under warranty) claimed
the license plate was loose.

(sigh)  No, that's not the problem.  So, I know I'll be making a trip
back there with demonstrable proof of the problem and the ineffectiveness
of their solution (e.g., I'll REMOVE the license plate and demonstrate
the continued presence of the rattle:  "Ooops!")  Had they listened to the
description of the symptoms that caused the rattle to "go away" (i.e.,
fold down the driver-side back seat), they would have known that their
"solution" wasn't appropriate (i.e., "Gee, I wonder how folding the seat down 
causes the license plate to rattle LESS?")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454970

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

> Or, failing to change the DEFAULT password on the bits of kit they purchase?

The manufacturers use default passwords because those are the very best.
 
> Or, NOT opening attachments in email?

If you don't open attachments they may fall off.  Which is bad, if you're
attached to something.
 
> Becoming drawn in by calls/threats from the "IRS" on their home phone?
> (wouldn't you at least think of calling the phone number IN THE PHONE BOOK
> for the IRS if so threatened?)

Yes, but calling the actual IRS might cost you a lot more.

> Sending monies to Nigerian princes?  ("Gee, I wonder why he picked *me*
> as his BENEFICIARY?")

That's one of the best ways to make $34 million a day from home.  Beats
commuting.

> (In the past) Being unable to set the clock on their VCR to be rid of
> that annoying "blinking 12:00"?

That's the self-destruct timer. DO *NOT* set it running--that's the last
thing you'd want.

> Leaving their MD's office with a diagnosis that is little more (to them)
> than "alphabet soup" instead of asking for a "plain english" translation
> (it's *their* condition that the MD has described; presumably they would
> want to UNDERSTAND what the MD was telling them)

If it's not bigger than a grapefruit or spurting blood, you probably
didn't need to see a doctor anyhow.

> Reading *two* pages of instructions written at a 6th grade level for a
> recent purchase?

Never underestimate a sixth-grader. They're fiendishly clever.
 
> Unplugging an appliance before working on it?

If it's unplugged, congratulations--you just figured out why it wasn't
working.

> NOT smoking while refueling a vehicle?

Smoking is one of the best ways to detect invisible fumes.
 
> NOT using a screwdriver as a chisel?

True.  Screwdrivers are for prying, not chiseling.
 
> FAILING to wear eye/ear protection?

I can't see your point.

> What term would you use to describe these?  ("stupid" comes to mind)
> 
> Note that *none* of these require "special", domain-specific knowledge,
> beyond COMMON SENSE!

[...]

Happy April!

Cheers,
James Arthur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454990

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
>
>> Or, failing to change the DEFAULT password on the bits of kit they purchase?
>
>The manufacturers use default passwords because those are the very best.

Feynman (just reading his book now) has a really good story about this
(default combinations).

>> Or, NOT opening attachments in email?
>
>If you don't open attachments they may fall off.  Which is bad, if you're
>attached to something.

If someone went to the trouble of attaching stuff to the email, it
must be important.  Not opening it would be rude.

>> Becoming drawn in by calls/threats from the "IRS" on their home phone?
>> (wouldn't you at least think of calling the phone number IN THE PHONE BOOK
>> for the IRS if so threatened?)
>
>Yes, but calling the actual IRS might cost you a lot more.

Certainly.  Ignore everything from the IRS.  They may forget (it is
the government).

>> Sending monies to Nigerian princes?  ("Gee, I wonder why he picked *me*
>> as his BENEFICIARY?")
>
>That's one of the best ways to make $34 million a day from home.  Beats
>commuting.

Beats working for a living by a mile!  It's marginally better than
welfare, too.
>
>> (In the past) Being unable to set the clock on their VCR to be rid of
>> that annoying "blinking 12:00"?
>
>That's the self-destruct timer. DO *NOT* set it running--that's the last
>thing you'd want.

Not to worry.  It'll stop at 00:02.  Every time.

>> Leaving their MD's office with a diagnosis that is little more (to them)
>> than "alphabet soup" instead of asking for a "plain english" translation
>> (it's *their* condition that the MD has described; presumably they would
>> want to UNDERSTAND what the MD was telling them)
>
>If it's not bigger than a grapefruit or spurting blood, you probably
>didn't need to see a doctor anyhow.

*and*

>> Reading *two* pages of instructions written at a 6th grade level for a
>> recent purchase?
>
>Never underestimate a sixth-grader. They're fiendishly clever.

That's the problem.  It's written at the sixth-grade level.  That
stuff isn't taught until graduate school anymore.

>> Unplugging an appliance before working on it?
>
>If it's unplugged, congratulations--you just figured out why it wasn't
>working.

Maybe you noticed.
>
>> NOT smoking while refueling a vehicle?
>
>Smoking is one of the best ways to detect invisible fumes.

A lit match works better.  You can see further down the filler tube.

>> NOT using a screwdriver as a chisel?
>
>True.  Screwdrivers are for prying, not chiseling.

No problem using screwdrivers for chisels, or prying.  However, using
chisels or pry bars for screwing isn't recommended at all.

>> FAILING to wear eye/ear protection?
>
>I can't see your point.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!?
>
>> What term would you use to describe these?  ("stupid" comes to mind)
>> 
>> Note that *none* of these require "special", domain-specific knowledge,
>> beyond COMMON SENSE!
>
>[...]
>
>Happy April!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455174

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 8:39:59 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> >
> >> Or, failing to change the DEFAULT password on the bits of kit they purchase?
> >
> >The manufacturers use default passwords because those are the very best.
> 
> Feynman (just reading his book now) has a really good story about this
> (default combinations).
> 
> >> Or, NOT opening attachments in email?
> >
> >If you don't open attachments they may fall off.  Which is bad, if you're
> >attached to something.
> 
> If someone went to the trouble of attaching stuff to the email, it
> must be important.  Not opening it would be rude.

+1 !

Cheers,
James Arthur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454183

On Thursday, 30 March 2017 02:38:27 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
> 
>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
> intuitively.
> 
>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
> 
>   "...proportionately."
> 
>   "...evenly."
> 
>   TIA
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

proportionate. It's not but they'll get that idea.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454186

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:03:53 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

> On Thursday, 30 March 2017 02:38:27 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume
>> knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some
>> idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the
>> circuit).
>> 
>>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>>   describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in
>>   the street will grasp
>> intuitively.
>> 
>>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>> 
>>   "...proportionately."
>> 
>>   "...evenly."
>> 
>>   TIA
>> 
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
> 
> proportionate. It's not but they'll get that idea.
> 
> 
> NT

"even", "proportionate", "not bunched up".  Take your pick.



-- 
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work!  See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454190

On 30/03/17 14:03, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 March 2017 02:38:27 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
>> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
>>
>>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
>> intuitively.
>>
>>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>
>>   "...proportionately."
>>
>>   "...evenly."
>>
>>   TIA
>>
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> proportionate. It's not...

It is actually... proportionate to perceived volume.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454195

On Thursday, 30 March 2017 05:08:09 UTC+1, Clifford Heath  wrote:
> On 30/03/17 14:03, tabbypurr wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 March 2017 02:38:27 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes  wrote:
> >> Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
> >>
> >>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
> >> intuitively.
> >>
> >>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
> >>
> >>   "...proportionately."
> >>
> >>   "...evenly."
> >>
> >>   TIA
> >>
> >>   Mark L. Fergerson
> >
> > proportionate. It's not...
> 
> It is actually... proportionate to perceived volume.

No, it might be if log pots were really log.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454191

On 03/29/2017 09:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>   Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa depending on the circuit).
>
>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in the street will grasp
> intuitively.
>
>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>
>   "...proportionately."
>
>   "...evenly."
>
>   TIA
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson
>

"The loudification effect will be more spread out instead of all the 
louds being concentrated at one end"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454192

On 30-Mar-17 12:16 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 09:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>   Suppose someone comes to you with a piece of audio gear with a
>> volume knob with all its response at one end. You immediately know
>> that some idiot subbed a linear pot for a log pot (or vice versa
>> depending on the circuit).
>>
>>   While trying to explain the cause and your solution, how do you
>> describe it? I'm looking for colloquial terms your average idiot in
>> the street will grasp
>> intuitively.
>>
>>   "The new control will operate more smoothly."
>>
>>   "...proportionately."
>>
>>   "...evenly."
>>
>>   TIA
>>
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>
> "The loudification effect will be more spread out instead of all the
> louds being concentrated at one end"


you win.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web