Discussion:
Are we online patsies?
Add Reply
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 12:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.

<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
Peter Moylan
2018-09-05 13:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>
> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9

A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
don't know what it means.

In the popular mind, "technology" seems to mean things like Twitter or
Facebook or Microsoft Excel or a web site for sharing photos. (So the
many non-computer technologies are excluded from the outset.) Sure, the
designers had to use appropriate technologies to create these platforms,
but that's not what the abusers of the word have in mind. They're
talking about the _use_ of those platforms by people who have not the
faintest idea of how and why they work. So suddenly someone who knows
how to type a sentence into Facebook is a technologist.

Why does this bother me? Because it downgrades and hides the
contribution of the people who did the real work. The Twitter platform
is, apparently, something that exists by magic, or was created by a god,
or was always there before the creation of the universe. People are
discouraged from thinking about how it really was made. In particular,
school children are not given the message that they, too, can be
involved in the creation of new things.

There is a fashion nowadays for talking about STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics), and the people who are talking about it
are politicians who wouldn't know a scientific theory if they tripped
over one. I'm all in favour of the STEM meme if it encourages schools to
make science and mathematics more attractive, and universities to
produce more graduates in the growth areas. But I'm against it if it
tries to define "science" as "posting things to Instagram".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
charles
2018-09-05 15:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pmolne$kge$***@dont-email.me>,
Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> >
> > <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9

> A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
> what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
> don't know what it means.

> In the popular mind, "technology" seems to mean things like Twitter or
> Facebook or Microsoft Excel or a web site for sharing photos. (So the
> many non-computer technologies are excluded from the outset.) Sure, the
> designers had to use appropriate technologies to create these platforms,
> but that's not what the abusers of the word have in mind. They're
> talking about the _use_ of those platforms by people who have not the
> faintest idea of how and why they work. So suddenly someone who knows
> how to type a sentence into Facebook is a technologist.

> Why does this bother me? Because it downgrades and hides the
> contribution of the people who did the real work. The Twitter platform
> is, apparently, something that exists by magic, or was created by a god,
> or was always there before the creation of the universe. People are
> discouraged from thinking about how it really was made. In particular,
> school children are not given the message that they, too, can be
> involved in the creation of new things.

> There is a fashion nowadays for talking about STEM (science, technology,
> engineering, and mathematics), and the people who are talking about it
> are politicians who wouldn't know a scientific theory if they tripped
> over one.

A colleague, after having a'difficult' phone call said "Joe Public wouldn't
know the difference between a kiloHertz and a hard-boiled egg."

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
John Varela
2018-09-05 22:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:49:46 UTC, charles <***@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
>
> A colleague, after having a'difficult' phone call said "Joe Public wouldn't
> know the difference between a kiloHertz and a hard-boiled egg."

There was the cable TV installer who assured me that the set-top box
had "lots of megaHertz".

The applicant for a secretarial job who, when asked if she was
familiar with word processing (this was many years ago) responded
that she was "very user friendly".

Even more years ago, there was the high school student whose phone
call was directed to the Theoretical Propulsion section of the
aircraft factory where I then worked, and wanted to know the
power-to-weight ratio of a rocket engine. The engineer who took the
call told him "six and three quarters". When asked how he came up
with that number, he said it was his hat size.

The kid in that last one probably knew all about the power to weight
ratio of a Ferrari compared to a Corvette and didn't have a clue
about how rockets work.

--
John Varela
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-05 17:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:29:17 +1000, Peter Moylan
<***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>
>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>
>A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
>what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
>don't know what it means.
>
>In the popular mind, "technology" seems to mean things like Twitter or
>Facebook or Microsoft Excel or a web site for sharing photos. (So the
>many non-computer technologies are excluded from the outset.) Sure, the
>designers had to use appropriate technologies to create these platforms,
>but that's not what the abusers of the word have in mind. They're
>talking about the _use_ of those platforms by people who have not the
>faintest idea of how and why they work. So suddenly someone who knows
>how to type a sentence into Facebook is a technologist.
>
>Why does this bother me? Because it downgrades and hides the
>contribution of the people who did the real work. The Twitter platform
>is, apparently, something that exists by magic, or was created by a god,
>or was always there before the creation of the universe. People are
>discouraged from thinking about how it really was made. In particular,
>school children are not given the message that they, too, can be
>involved in the creation of new things.
>
>There is a fashion nowadays for talking about STEM (science, technology,
>engineering, and mathematics), and the people who are talking about it
>are politicians who wouldn't know a scientific theory if they tripped
>over one. I'm all in favour of the STEM meme if it encourages schools to
>make science and mathematics more attractive, and universities to
>produce more graduates in the growth areas. But I'm against it if it
>tries to define "science" as "posting things to Instagram".

In the UK is an organisation named "STEM Learning".
https://www.stem.org.uk/about-us

STEM Learning is the largest provider of education and careers
support in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
We work with schools, colleges and others working with young people
across the UK.

Supported by a unique partnership of Government, charitable trusts
and employers, we are dedicated to raising young people’s engagement
and achievement in STEM subjects and careers.

Just one part of what the organisation does is to provide "STEM
Ambassadors".

A problem with schools (primary/elementary and secondary/high) is that
the science teachers typically have little or no personal experience of
applying their knowledge to solve problems, i.e. engineering.

The STEM Ambassadors are applied scientists/engineers who are actively
involved in using their knowledge and skills:
https://www.stem.org.uk/stem-ambassadors/who-are-stem-ambassadors

STEM Ambassadors include people from a range of disciplines and
backgrounds, including engineers, designers, architects, scientists
and technicians. They help bring a new and inspiring perspective to
STEM lessons and career opportunities.

Our aim is to ensure that teachers, schools and colleges, as well as
youth and community groups, are able to access STEM Ambassador
support to inspire and engage young people with STEM subjects.

What do they do?

We work with over 30,000 STEM Ambassadors from more than 2,500
different employers. They volunteer their time, enthusiasm and
experiences to encourage and inspire young people to progress
further in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
subjects.

Through a range of activities, including presentations, mentoring
and careers talks, STEM Ambassadors play an essential role in
inspiring the next generation with the world of STEM subjects and
careers. Their support isn't just limited to the classroom...

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-05 20:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 13:29:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>
>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>
> A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
> what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
> don't know what it means.

Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the 9
o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish between
science and technology. Whenever they said there would a report from
"Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at least 90%
certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with science, but
would concern some new technological wonder.


--
athel
occam
2018-09-05 20:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/09/2018 22:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 13:29:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>>
>>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>>
>> A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
>> what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
>> don't know what it means.
>
> Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the 9
> o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish between
> science and technology. Whenever they said there would a report from
> "Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at least 90%
> certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with science, but
> would concern some new technological wonder.
>
>

Is that because the BBC only had only one correspondent - that of
Science? We should be thankful that he could himself to report on mere
technological matters ;-).
charles
2018-09-05 20:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 13:29:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> > On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> >>
> >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> >
> > A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
> > what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
> > don't know what it means.

> Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the 9
> o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish between
> science and technology. Whenever they said there would a report from
> "Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at least 90%
> certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with science, but
> would concern some new technological wonder.

a great many years ago, I had to visit the recently appointed Ceefax
editor. He was unable to get Ceefax on BBC 2 at home and therefore wanted
to abandon the Ceefax coverage of the upcoming General Election. His BBC2
picture was so "snowy" (noisy) that it was difficult to mak eout the
picture, let alone get Ceefax off it. " That's not a very good picture." I
said. "I wouldn't know, I'm only a journalist"

He must have seen decent pictures in TVC every working day, but, more
relevant to this thread, he'd been the BBC's Science Correspondent for a
number of years. I assume he got the job because he knew how to pronounce
the words.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 23:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 22:00:41 UTC+1, charles wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > On 2018-09-05 13:29:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> > > On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > >> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> > >>
> > >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> > >
> > > A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I know
> > > what the word means, but the word is used far too often by people who
> > > don't know what it means.
>
> > Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the 9
> > o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish between
> > science and technology. Whenever they said there would a report from
> > "Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at least 90%
> > certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with science, but
> > would concern some new technological wonder.
>
> a great many years ago, I had to visit the recently appointed Ceefax
> editor. He was unable to get Ceefax on BBC 2 at home and therefore wanted
> to abandon the Ceefax coverage of the upcoming General Election. His BBC2
> picture was so "snowy" (noisy) that it was difficult to mak eout the
> picture, let alone get Ceefax off it. " That's not a very good picture." I
> said. "I wouldn't know, I'm only a journalist"
>
> He must have seen decent pictures in TVC every working day, but, more
> relevant to this thread, he'd been the BBC's Science Correspondent for a
> number of years. I assume he got the job because he knew how to pronounce
> the words.
>

I fear you may have forgotten to turn on your Acme Irony Meter during
this exchange!
Peter Moylan
2018-09-06 06:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 06:59, charles wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 13:29:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>>> On 05/09/18 22:55, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>>>
>>>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>>>
>>> A misleading term that often irritates me is "technology". Yes, I
>>> know what the word means, but the word is used far too often by
>>> people who don't know what it means.
>
>> Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the
>> 9 o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish
>> between science and technology. Whenever they said there would a
>> report from "Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at
>> least 90% certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with
>> science, but would concern some new technological wonder.

It's slightly different with our national broadcaster. For them,
"science" always means medicine.

> a great many years ago, I had to visit the recently appointed Ceefax
> editor. He was unable to get Ceefax on BBC 2 at home and therefore
> wanted to abandon the Ceefax coverage of the upcoming General
> Election. His BBC2 picture was so "snowy" (noisy) that it was
> difficult to mak eout the picture, let alone get Ceefax off it. "
> That's not a very good picture." I said. "I wouldn't know, I'm only a
> journalist"

My father, who was a telephone technician, did some work on the side
fixing TV sets when TV first came to our town. One day I went with him
on such a service call. We walked into a room where the whole large
family was watching a picture that was rotated clockwise by twenty to
thirty degrees. "I see what your problem is", said Dad. "That picture is
really badly tilted". "Oh, is it tilted?" asked the man. "I never noticed."

> He must have seen decent pictures in TVC every working day, but,
> more relevant to this thread, he'd been the BBC's Science
> Correspondent for a number of years. I assume he got the job because
> he knew how to pronounce the words.

One of my brothers ran the French radio program up in north Queensland
for a while. His French was really atrocious, but apparently there were
no listeners who knew enough French to notice.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-09-06 08:53:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 08:24, Peter Moylan wrote:

>
> One of my brothers ran the French radio program up in north Queensland
> for a while. His French was really atrocious, but apparently there were
> no listeners who knew enough French to notice.
>

Ah, the 'French waiter' syndrome in non-French speaking countries. These
are the waiters who affect a French accent to bring a bit of
authenticity to the restaurant. Until, that is, they are faced with a
client who speaks more French than they do.
charles
2018-09-06 09:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 08:24, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >
> > One of my brothers ran the French radio program up in north Queensland
> > for a while. His French was really atrocious, but apparently there were
> > no listeners who knew enough French to notice.
> >

> Ah, the 'French waiter' syndrome in non-French speaking countries. These
> are the waiters who affect a French accent to bring a bit of
> authenticity to the restaurant. Until, that is, they are faced with a
> client who speaks more French than they do.

some yearsa go, a local restaurant had a wine waiter who spoke "Strine" -
"'cos all wine waiters are Australian, aren't they?"
He came from Swindon

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Mark Brader
2018-09-06 19:34:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan:
> My father, who was a telephone technician, did some work on the side
> fixing TV sets when TV first came to our town. One day I went with him
> on such a service call. We walked into a room where the whole large
> family was watching a picture that was rotated clockwise by twenty to
> thirty degrees. "I see what your problem is", said Dad. "That picture is
> really badly tilted". "Oh, is it tilted?" asked the man. "I never noticed."

So was this when picture tubes were still circular? Did the whole tube
have to be rotated, or just the yoke?
--
Mark Brader | "Forgive me if I misunderstood myself, but
Toronto | I don't think I was arguing in favour of that..."
***@vex.net | -- Geoff Butler
Peter Moylan
2018-09-07 04:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/18 05:34, Mark Brader wrote:
> Peter Moylan:

>> My father, who was a telephone technician, did some work on the
>> side fixing TV sets when TV first came to our town. One day I went
>> with him on such a service call. We walked into a room where the
>> whole large family was watching a picture that was rotated
>> clockwise by twenty to thirty degrees. "I see what your problem
>> is", said Dad. "That picture is really badly tilted". "Oh, is it
>> tilted?" asked the man. "I never noticed."
>
> So was this when picture tubes were still circular? Did the whole
> tube have to be rotated, or just the yoke?

No, the tubes were (approximately) rectangular, which should have made
the rotation even more obvious.

Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have known
how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you could get
a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you started fiddling
with the innards of a TV set.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2018-09-07 05:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan:
> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem...

Thanks for the information.
--
Mark Brader | "Youths steal funds for charity"
Toronto | --White Plains, NY, Reporter Dispatch
***@vex.net | February 17, 1982
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-07 05:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

>
> [ … ]

>
> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have known
> how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you could get
> a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you started fiddling
> with the innards of a TV set.

I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
about exactly that.

--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-09-07 05:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/18 15:27, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>
>>
>> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
>> known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you
>> could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you
>> started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
>
> I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> about exactly that.

The hazard was caused by a combination of two factors. Those CRTs
required a high voltage power supply, and the power supply circuitry
included large capacitors. When the power supply was turned off, there
was still a lot of energy stored in the capacitors.

By coincidence, I was reminded just this morning of another trap for the
unwary. Our smoke alarms are battery-operated, but the older models used
to be powered by mains power. There are two places in our house where
the old and new model are sitting on the ceiling side by side. The old
one is aesthetically unpleasing, but if I removed it I'd have a big hole
in the ceiling, and I'd have to hire a plasterer to fix it. But I
couldn't in conscience let the plasterer near the two bare wires that
are still connected to mains power, so I'd have to get an electrician as
well. At that point the whole exercise gets too expensive.

Of course I could do the whole job myself, but my wife no longer lets me
climb ladders.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-07 06:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 05:59:07 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

>
> [ … ]

>
> Of course I could do the whole job myself, but my wife no longer lets me
> climb ladders.

Mine neither. It's only a matter of time before I'm not allowed to
drive outside the city. I wanted to drive to Santander (stopping for
the night on the way), which would have been much cheaper, quicker,
less far and more convenient than going by train via Madrid, but that
idea was vetoed.


--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-07 07:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2018-09-07 05:59:07 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> >
> > [ - ]
>
> >
> > Of course I could do the whole job myself, but my wife no longer lets me
> > climb ladders.
>
> Mine neither. It's only a matter of time before I'm not allowed to
> drive outside the city.

Why? Driving outside the city is so much safer than inside.
All it takes is not falling asleep.

> I wanted to drive to Santander (stopping for
> the night on the way), which would have been much cheaper, quicker,
> less far and more convenient than going by train via Madrid, but that
> idea was vetoed.

Almost all motorway, about ten hours in all.
You would have to invent something to do on the way
for wasting the extra time,

Jan
Mark Brader
2018-09-07 06:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan:
> Our smoke alarms are battery-operated, but the older models used
> to be powered by mains power.

We have ones that work both ways. Makes sense to me.

http://www.amazon.ca/Kidde-i12060-Hardwired-Battery-Backup/dp/B00PC5SV2M

I see that the same company now makes one with a lithium battery that
doesn't need to be replaced for the 10-year life of the unit. Of course,
lithium batteries can be a fire hazard, so...
--
Mark Brader | ...roll the imaginary 60-meter sphere across the landscape
Toronto | (for safety reasons, do not use a real sphere).
***@vex.net | --Randall Munroe

My text in this article is in the public domain.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-07 07:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/09/18 15:27, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> >
> >>
> >> [ - ]
> >
> >>
> >> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
> >> known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you
> >> could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you
> >> started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> >
> > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> > about exactly that.
>
> The hazard was caused by a combination of two factors. Those CRTs
> required a high voltage power supply, and the power supply circuitry
> included large capacitors. When the power supply was turned off, there
> was still a lot of energy stored in the capacitors.
>
> By coincidence, I was reminded just this morning of another trap for the
> unwary. Our smoke alarms are battery-operated, but the older models used
> to be powered by mains power. There are two places in our house where
> the old and new model are sitting on the ceiling side by side. The old
> one is aesthetically unpleasing, but if I removed it I'd have a big hole
> in the ceiling, and I'd have to hire a plasterer to fix it. But I
> couldn't in conscience let the plasterer near the two bare wires that
> are still connected to mains power, so I'd have to get an electrician as
> well. At that point the whole exercise gets too expensive.
>
> Of course I could do the whole job myself, but my wife no longer lets me
> climb ladders.

Just do it when she isn't looking,

Jan
Tak To
2018-09-07 18:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 1:59 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> [...]
> Our smoke alarms are battery-operated, but the older models used
> to be powered by mains power. There are two places in our house where
> the old and new model are sitting on the ceiling side by side. The old
> one is aesthetically unpleasing, but if I removed it I'd have a big hole
> in the ceiling, and I'd have to hire a plasterer to fix it. But I
> couldn't in conscience let the plasterer near the two bare wires that
> are still connected to mains power, so I'd have to get an electrician as
> well. At that point the whole exercise gets too expensive.

In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
or something like that). There are plastic or metal covers that
can be attached to the junction box and covering up the hole.
These covers can be painted to match the color of the ceiling.

(Of course one has to take care of the bare wires first.)

> Of course I could do the whole job myself, but my wife no longer lets me
> climb ladders.

Now I see where the problem is.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 20:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> or something like that).

And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
in them at time-change, twice a year?

> There are plastic or metal covers that
> can be attached to the junction box and covering up the hole.
> These covers can be painted to match the color of the ceiling.
>
> (Of course one has to take care of the bare wires first.)
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 03:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>> or something like that).
>
> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?

Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different models.

We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
each time there's a change of Prime Minister.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RHDraney
2018-09-08 05:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>
>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>> or something like that).
>>
>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
>> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>
> Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
> models.
>
> We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> each time there's a change of Prime Minister.

I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
detector since 1967....r
Janet
2018-09-08 19:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
>
> On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >>> or something like that).
> >>
> >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >
> > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
> > models.
> >
> > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
>
> I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
> are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
> detector since 1967....r

Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
need changing.

Janet
John Varela
2018-09-08 20:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:33:37 UTC, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:

> In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
> >
> > On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > >>> or something like that).
> > >>
> > >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> > >
> > > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
> > > models.
> > >
> > > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> > > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> > > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
> >
> > I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
> > are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
> > detector since 1967....r
>
> Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
> need changing.

And I suspect that batteries are a lot longer-lasting than they were
when that every-six-months rule was formulated.

However, there is one problem with the wait-till-it-beeps system,
and that is that you may be traveling when it occurs and never hear
it.

--
John Varela
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 21:12:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-4, John Varela wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:33:37 UTC, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
> > In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
> > > On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> > > >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > > >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > > >>> or something like that).
> > > >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > > >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> > > > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
> > > > models.
> > > > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> > > > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> > > > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
> > > I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
> > > are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
> > > detector since 1967....r
> > Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
> > need changing.
>
> And I suspect that batteries are a lot longer-lasting than they were
> when that every-six-months rule was formulated.
>
> However, there is one problem with the wait-till-it-beeps system,
> and that is that you may be traveling when it occurs and never hear
> it.

It will happily beep for months. There was one in the apartment house next
door that you could hear out on the street ...
Peter Bennett
2018-09-08 22:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 Sep 2018 20:55:20 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:33:37 UTC, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
>> >
>> > On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>> > >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>> > >>> or something like that).
>> > >>
>> > >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
>> > >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
>> > > models.
>> > >
>> > > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
>> > > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
>> > > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
>> >
>> > I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
>> > are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
>> > detector since 1967....r
>>
>> Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
>> need changing.
>
>And I suspect that batteries are a lot longer-lasting than they were
>when that every-six-months rule was formulated.
>
>However, there is one problem with the wait-till-it-beeps system,
>and that is that you may be traveling when it occurs and never hear
>it.

Or the one in the bedroom (or one audible from the bedroom) starts
beeping at 2 AM.

--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI Vancouver BC
peterbb (at) telus.net
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vpsboat.com
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-08 23:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:48:07 -0700, Peter Bennett
<***@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

>On 8 Sep 2018 20:55:20 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:33:37 UTC, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
>>> >
>>> > On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> > > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> > >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>> > >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>> > >>> or something like that).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
>>> > >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>> > >
>>> > > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
>>> > > models.
>>> > >
>>> > > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
>>> > > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
>>> > > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
>>> >
>>> > I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
>>> > are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
>>> > detector since 1967....r
>>>
>>> Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
>>> need changing.
>>
>>And I suspect that batteries are a lot longer-lasting than they were
>>when that every-six-months rule was formulated.
>>
>>However, there is one problem with the wait-till-it-beeps system,
>>and that is that you may be traveling when it occurs and never hear
>>it.
>
>Or the one in the bedroom (or one audible from the bedroom) starts
>beeping at 2 AM.

And you haven't heard it for so long, you run around from gadget to
gadget trying to figure out what's beeping.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:53:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John Varela <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:33:37 UTC, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <***@news2.newsguy.com>, ***@cox.net says...
> > >
> > > On 9/7/2018 8:29 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > > >>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > > >>> or something like that).
> > > >>
> > > >> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > > >> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different
> > > > models.
> > > >
> > > > We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> > > > adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> > > > each time there's a change of Prime Minister.
> > >
> > > I follow the recommendation to change the battery every time the clocks
> > > are changed...accordingly, I've had the same battery in my smoke
> > > detector since 1967....r
> >
> > Smoke detectors here make a noise to indicate when the batteries
> > need changing.
>
> And I suspect that batteries are a lot longer-lasting than they were
> when that every-six-months rule was formulated.

A bit, but the improvements are not dramatic.
It's still the same system. [1]

> However, there is one problem with the wait-till-it-beeps system,
> and that is that you may be traveling when it occurs and never hear
> it.

Nonsense. (at least for the ones I have)
The system self-tests every hour or so
by drawing a very short current spike.
If the battery can't supply enough current it bleeps loudy.
It will go on for at least a month doing that.

This causes an inverse problem:
I hear the beep once an hour,
but where did I put the thing?

Jan

[1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
They require a special steel for the casing,
and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
is the only place where it is made.
They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 13:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> They require a special steel for the casing,
> and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> is the only place where it is made.
> They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.

Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
between India and Netherlands.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 14:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> > They require a special steel for the casing,
> > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> > is the only place where it is made.
> > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
>
> Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> between India and Netherlands.

You have not understood how it works.
Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
(or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 16:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> > > They require a special steel for the casing,
> > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> > > is the only place where it is made.
> > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> >
> > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> > between India and Netherlands.
>
> You have not understood how it works.
> Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
> It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
> and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
> (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)

And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
price in NL how?

Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
only ones available in the US? Nonsense. The two heavily advertised brands
are Duracell and Eveready. Also widely available is Rayovac. (And at the
dollar store I can get 8 Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China, and they
don't last very long, but they're convenient when needed on the spot.)
charles
2018-09-09 17:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <0d25ea72-4b86-4c7a-b8cc-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit. They require
> > > > a special steel for the casing, and Tata Steel in the Netherlands
> > > > (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden) is the only place where it is made.
> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> > >
> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls
> > > commerce between India and Netherlands.
> >
> > You have not understood how it works. Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by
> > Tata Steel (India) It is a EU based company that produces in the
> > Netherlands, and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs. (or
> > rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)

> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> price in NL how?

> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are
> the only ones available in the US? Nonsense. The two heavily advertised
> brands are Duracell and Eveready. Also widely available is Rayovac. (And
> at the dollar store I can get 8 Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China,
> and they don't last very long, but they're convenient when needed on the
> spot.)

It's not Tata batteries, it's battery casings made of Tata steel. & where
did anyone suggest the cost of batteries in NL to go up?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 20:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <0d25ea72-4b86-4c7a-b8cc-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit. They require
> > > > > a special steel for the casing, and Tata Steel in the Netherlands
> > > > > (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden) is the only place where it is made.
> > > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> > > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls
> > > > commerce between India and Netherlands.
> > > You have not understood how it works. Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by
> > > Tata Steel (India) It is a EU based company that produces in the
> > > Netherlands, and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs. (or
> > > rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> > And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> > price in NL how?
> > Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are
> > the only ones available in the US? Nonsense. The two heavily advertised
> > brands are Duracell and Eveready. Also widely available is Rayovac. (And
> > at the dollar store I can get 8 Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China,
> > and they don't last very long, but they're convenient when needed on the
> > spot.)
>
> It's not Tata batteries, it's battery casings made of Tata steel. & where
> did anyone suggest the cost of batteries in NL to go up?

And his claim is that every battery in the world is made using steel that
comes from a single Indian-owned plant in NL? That beggars credibility.
charles
2018-09-09 20:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <cdf7b6b5-2c05-4122-9b03-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <0d25ea72-4b86-4c7a-b8cc-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit. They
> > > > > > require a special steel for the casing, and Tata Steel in the
> > > > > > Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden) is the only place
> > > > > > where it is made. They don't care, for they have no
> > > > > > competition, you will pay anyway. It is a good example of the
> > > > > > stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> > > > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls
> > > > > commerce between India and Netherlands.
> > > > You have not understood how it works. Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is
> > > > owned by Tata Steel (India) It is a EU based company that produces
> > > > in the Netherlands, and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump
> > > > Tarifs. (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> > > And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects
> > > the price in NL how? Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which
> > > I've never heard of) are the only ones available in the US? Nonsense.
> > > The two heavily advertised brands are Duracell and Eveready. Also
> > > widely available is Rayovac. (And at the dollar store I can get 8
> > > Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China, and they don't last very long,
> > > but they're convenient when needed on the spot.)
> >
> > It's not Tata batteries, it's battery casings made of Tata steel. &
> > where did anyone suggest the cost of batteries in NL to go up?

> And his claim is that every battery in the world is made using steel that
> comes from a single Indian-owned plant in NL? That beggars credibility.

he didn't say that

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-10 08:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <0d25ea72-4b86-4c7a-b8cc-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > > > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit. They require
> > > > > > a special steel for the casing, and Tata Steel in the Netherlands
> > > > > > (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden) is the only place where it is made.
> > > > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > > > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> > > > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls
> > > > > commerce between India and Netherlands.
> > > > You have not understood how it works. Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by
> > > > Tata Steel (India) It is a EU based company that produces in the
> > > > Netherlands, and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs. (or
> > > > rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> > > And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> > > price in NL how?
> > > Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are
> > > the only ones available in the US? Nonsense. The two heavily advertised
> > > brands are Duracell and Eveready. Also widely available is Rayovac. (And
> > > at the dollar store I can get 8 Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China,
> > > and they don't last very long, but they're convenient when needed on the
> > > spot.)
> >
> > It's not Tata batteries, it's battery casings made of Tata steel. & where
> > did anyone suggest the cost of batteries in NL to go up?
>
> And his claim is that every battery in the world is made using steel that
> comes from a single Indian-owned plant in NL? That beggars credibility.

You are making things up. Never said that.
Just the ones made in the USA.
BTW, Tata also owns the American factories
where the bulk rolled steel from IJmuiden (Corus)
is rolled into narrow strip for use in batteries.
<http://www.northamerica.tata.com/company/ProfilePage/Tata-Steel-Plating>
(one of the few surviving in the middle of the rustbelt)

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 20:12:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> > > > They require a special steel for the casing,
> > > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> > > > is the only place where it is made.
> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> > >
> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> > > between India and Netherlands.
> >
> > You have not understood how it works.
> > Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
> > It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
> > and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
> > (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
>
> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> price in NL how?

Depends, on where you buy your batteries from.

> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
> only ones available in the US? Nonsense.

Reading ability never was your strongest point, eh?
The USA is completely dependent on import (from Tata Steel)
for the special steel used in batteries.
So whatever brand you buy,
if it is American made you'll pay Trump Tarif on it.

Jan
Tony Cooper
2018-09-09 20:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 22:12:43 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
>> > > > They require a special steel for the casing,
>> > > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
>> > > > is the only place where it is made.
>> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
>> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
>> > >
>> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
>> > > between India and Netherlands.
>> >
>> > You have not understood how it works.
>> > Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
>> > It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
>> > and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
>> > (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
>>
>> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
>> price in NL how?
>
>Depends, on where you buy your batteries from.
>
>> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
>> only ones available in the US? Nonsense.
>
>Reading ability never was your strongest point, eh?
>The USA is completely dependent on import (from Tata Steel)
>for the special steel used in batteries.
>So whatever brand you buy,
>if it is American made you'll pay Trump Tarif on it.

I think this is going to be an ongoing problem in the way this is
discussed. We - the consumer - will not be paying tariffs. We
*will* be paying a higher price for products because of the tariffs.

We won't know, however, how much of that higher price is because of
the tariff.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-10 08:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 22:12:43 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> >> > > > They require a special steel for the casing,
> >> > > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> >> > > > is the only place where it is made.
> >> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> >> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> >> > >
> >> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> >> > > between India and Netherlands.
> >> >
> >> > You have not understood how it works.
> >> > Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
> >> > It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
> >> > and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
> >> > (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> >>
> >> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> >> price in NL how?
> >
> >Depends, on where you buy your batteries from.
> >
> >> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
> >> only ones available in the US? Nonsense.
> >
> >Reading ability never was your strongest point, eh?
> >The USA is completely dependent on import (from Tata Steel)
> >for the special steel used in batteries.
> >So whatever brand you buy,
> >if it is American made you'll pay Trump Tarif on it.
>
> I think this is going to be an ongoing problem in the way this is
> discussed. We - the consumer - will not be paying tariffs. We
> *will* be paying a higher price for products because of the tariffs.
>
> We won't know, however, how much of that higher price is because of
> the tariff.

Of course you pay all of it.
The importer pays the tariff,
and no matter how you spin it Americans pay it.
If not in consumer prices then in reduced profits
of some American company.

Jan
Tony Cooper
2018-09-10 13:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:58:07 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 22:12:43 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
>> >> > > > They require a special steel for the casing,
>> >> > > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
>> >> > > > is the only place where it is made.
>> >> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
>> >> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
>> >> > > between India and Netherlands.
>> >> >
>> >> > You have not understood how it works.
>> >> > Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
>> >> > It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
>> >> > and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
>> >> > (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
>> >>
>> >> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
>> >> price in NL how?
>> >
>> >Depends, on where you buy your batteries from.
>> >
>> >> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
>> >> only ones available in the US? Nonsense.
>> >
>> >Reading ability never was your strongest point, eh?
>> >The USA is completely dependent on import (from Tata Steel)
>> >for the special steel used in batteries.
>> >So whatever brand you buy,
>> >if it is American made you'll pay Trump Tarif on it.
>>
>> I think this is going to be an ongoing problem in the way this is
>> discussed. We - the consumer - will not be paying tariffs. We
>> *will* be paying a higher price for products because of the tariffs.
>>
>> We won't know, however, how much of that higher price is because of
>> the tariff.
>
>Of course you pay all of it.
>The importer pays the tariff,
>and no matter how you spin it Americans pay it.
>If not in consumer prices then in reduced profits
>of some American company.
>
The subtle difference has never been your strong point. When it is
said "You will pay the tariff", that suggests that the tariff will be
added to the price of the item separately like sales tax is or like
duty is added to an imported item.

The product's cost to the consumer will be increased because of the
tariff, but I very clearly stated that.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-10 15:12:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:40:22 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:58:07 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 22:12:43 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> >> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> >> >> > > > They require a special steel for the casing,
> >> >> > > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> >> >> > > > is the only place where it is made.
> >> >> > > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> >> >> > > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> >> >> > > between India and Netherlands.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You have not understood how it works.
> >> >> > Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
> >> >> > It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
> >> >> > and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
> >> >> > (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> >> >>
> >> >> And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> >> >> price in NL how?
> >> >
> >> >Depends, on where you buy your batteries from.
> >> >
> >> >> Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
> >> >> only ones available in the US? Nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >Reading ability never was your strongest point, eh?
> >> >The USA is completely dependent on import (from Tata Steel)
> >> >for the special steel used in batteries.
> >> >So whatever brand you buy,
> >> >if it is American made you'll pay Trump Tarif on it.
> >>
> >> I think this is going to be an ongoing problem in the way this is
> >> discussed. We - the consumer - will not be paying tariffs. We
> >> *will* be paying a higher price for products because of the tariffs.
> >>
> >> We won't know, however, how much of that higher price is because of
> >> the tariff.
> >
> >Of course you pay all of it.
> >The importer pays the tariff,
> >and no matter how you spin it Americans pay it.
> >If not in consumer prices then in reduced profits
> >of some American company.
> >
> The subtle difference has never been your strong point. When it is
> said "You will pay the tariff", that suggests that the tariff will be
> added to the price of the item separately like sales tax is or like
> duty is added to an imported item.

No, what JJ wrote was pretty clear and doesn't "suggest" what you say it
does. It's the underlying claim that every battery made in America -- how
many are? -- uses steel from a specific India-owned steel plant in NL
that's hard to swallow.

It's clear to everyone that Trump's tariffs will raise prices on consumer
goods in the US. I don't see how DollarTree will survive if they can't
sell all that Chinese stuff for $1 (such as a pack of 8 AAA or AA batteries
from Sunbeam). Incidentally, almost everything on their shelves is labeled
in English and French, so they also sell to the Canadian market.

> The product's cost to the consumer will be increased because of the
> tariff, but I very clearly stated that.
charles
2018-09-10 16:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <a020c3df-a2d8-4117-89f1-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter

[Snip]

> No, what JJ wrote was pretty clear and doesn't "suggest" what you say it
> does. It's the underlying claim that every battery made in America -- how
> many are? -- uses steel from a specific India-owned steel plant in NL
> that's hard to swallow.

It wasn't a claim that "every batery" used special steel - it was, if I
remember correctly, lithium batteries.

Lithium batteries have a record of catching fire. It is possible, and I
have not researched this, that Tata's Netherland steel is a type that
minimises the fire risk.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-10 19:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 1:05:55 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <a020c3df-a2d8-4117-89f1-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter

> > No, what JJ wrote was pretty clear and doesn't "suggest" what you say it
> > does. It's the underlying claim that every battery made in America -- how
> > many are? -- uses steel from a specific India-owned steel plant in NL
> > that's hard to swallow.
>
> It wasn't a claim that "every batery" used special steel - it was, if I
> remember correctly, lithium batteries.
>
> Lithium batteries have a record of catching fire. It is possible, and I
> have not researched this, that Tata's Netherland steel is a type that
> minimises the fire risk.

When did he switch from the 9-volt batteries in smoke detectors to lithium
batteries?
charles
2018-09-10 19:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7f41239f-dcdc-41b3-968d-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 1:05:55 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <a020c3df-a2d8-4117-89f1-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter

> > > No, what JJ wrote was pretty clear and doesn't "suggest" what you say
> > > it does. It's the underlying claim that every battery made in
> > > America -- how many are? -- uses steel from a specific India-owned
> > > steel plant in NL that's hard to swallow.
> >
> > It wasn't a claim that "every batery" used special steel - it was, if I
> > remember correctly, lithium batteries.
> >
> > Lithium batteries have a record of catching fire. It is possible, and I
> > have not researched this, that Tata's Netherland steel is a type that
> > minimises the fire risk.

> When did he switch from the 9-volt batteries in smoke detectors to
> lithium batteries?

probably during the discussion about battery life.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
s***@gmail.com
2018-09-11 01:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:51:48 PM UTC-7, charles wrote:
> In article <7f41239f-dcdc-41b3-968d-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 1:05:55 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > In article <a020c3df-a2d8-4117-89f1-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Peter
>
> > > > No, what JJ wrote was pretty clear and doesn't "suggest" what you say
> > > > it does. It's the underlying claim that every battery made in
> > > > America -- how many are? -- uses steel from a specific India-owned
> > > > steel plant in NL that's hard to swallow.
> > >
> > > It wasn't a claim that "every batery" used special steel - it was, if I
> > > remember correctly, lithium batteries.
> > >
> > > Lithium batteries have a record of catching fire. It is possible, and I
> > > have not researched this, that Tata's Netherland steel is a type that
> > > minimises the fire risk.
>
> > When did he switch from the 9-volt batteries in smoke detectors to
> > lithium batteries?
>
> probably during the discussion about battery life.

To which I'll add that I have in my possession a non-AC smoke alarm
(obtained from Home Depot)
with a battery life rated for 10 years.
IIRC, it's a lithium battery.

My experience with AC smoke detectors (1 apartment, my abode in part
of this decade) was that it was impractical to replace the battery
while the detector was on the ceiling (a logistics issue),
and once you detached them you couldn't re-attach,
as part of a no-tamper design.

Hence the battery unit with a 10-year life.

/dps
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-09 20:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >
>> > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
>> > > They require a special steel for the casing,
>> > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
>> > > is the only place where it is made.
>> > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
>> > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
>> >
>> > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
>> > between India and Netherlands.
>>
>> You have not understood how it works.
>> Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
>> It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
>> and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
>> (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
>
>And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
>price in NL how?

It could affect, reduce, the sales to the US. That might lead to a price
increase in NL to compensate for the loss of income.

>
>Are you suggesting that Tata batteries (which I've never heard of) are the
>only ones available in the US? Nonsense. The two heavily advertised brands
>are Duracell and Eveready. Also widely available is Rayovac. (And at the
>dollar store I can get 8 Sunbeam AAA's for $1 -- made in China, and they
>don't last very long, but they're convenient when needed on the spot.)

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-10 08:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > [1] BTW, the price of your batteries will go up a bit.
> >> > > They require a special steel for the casing,
> >> > > and Tata Steel in the Netherlands (formerly Hoogovens IJmuiden)
> >> > > is the only place where it is made.
> >> > > They don't care, for they have no competition, you will pay anyway.
> >> > > It is a good example of the stupidity of Trumps tarifs.
> >> >
> >> > Tata is an company in India. It's unlikely that Trump controls commerce
> >> > between India and Netherlands.
> >>
> >> You have not understood how it works.
> >> Tata Steel (IJmuiden) is owned by Tata Steel (India)
> >> It is a EU based company that produces in the Netherlands,
> >> and exports to the USA. So it pays Trump Tarifs.
> >> (or rather Americans pay them, for they have no alternative)
> >
> >And the price going up in the US (if that in fact happens) affects the
> >price in NL how?
>
> It could affect, reduce, the sales to the US. That might lead to a price
> increase in NL to compensate for the loss of income.

Well, yes, if you really believe Americans will reduce
their use of batteries because of a minor price increase,.

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 13:02:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:29:07 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/09/18 06:01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >> or something like that).
> > And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>
> Obviously, just as in this country, there are at least two different models.

It's the "typically" that chafes. Maybe in modern construction, the
smoke detectors are built into the house's infrastructure. But most of
our housing stock isn't that recent. (I watched about a season and a
half of *This Old House*, and never once did I see them installing
built-in smoke detectors, even with wholesale rewiring.)

> We're told we should change the battery at the same time as the seasonal
> adjustment of the clocks. Or, as someone recently suggested on Facebook,
> each time there's a change of Prime Minister.

That sounds like a waste of batteries.
Tak To
2018-09-08 07:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 4:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>> or something like that).
>
> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
> in them at time-change, twice a year?

No, that is not why. What made you think that?

>> There are plastic or metal covers that
>> can be attached to the junction box and covering up the hole.
>> These covers can be painted to match the color of the ceiling.
>>
>> (Of course one has to take care of the bare wires first.)

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 13:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:50:55 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 4:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >> or something like that).
> > And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
> > in them at time-change, twice a year?
>
> No, that is not why. What made you think that?

Ah! The Sheldon Cooper approach to sarcasm!

I deny that built-in smoke detectors are "typical" of US construction.
See previous reply to PM.
Tak To
2018-09-08 22:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 9:04 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:50:55 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/7/2018 4:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>>> or something like that).
>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
>>> in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>
>> No, that is not why. What made you think that?
>
> Ah! The Sheldon Cooper approach to sarcasm!
>
> I deny that built-in smoke detectors are "typical" of US construction.
> See previous reply to PM.

I did not refer to built-in smoke detectors; I referred to
built-in junction boxes.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 04:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 9:04 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:50:55 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> >> On 9/7/2018 4:01 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >>>> or something like that).
> >>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
> >>> in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >> No, that is not why. What made you think that?
> > Ah! The Sheldon Cooper approach to sarcasm!
> > I deny that built-in smoke detectors are "typical" of US construction.
> > See previous reply to PM.
>
> I did not refer to built-in smoke detectors; I referred to
> built-in junction boxes.

Look at the first line quoted above: "In the US, a ceiling smoke detector
is typically attached to a junction box that is hidden in the ceiling ..."
AFAIK, a junction box is a place where wires join, and US smoke detectors
are _not_ "typically" wired into the house's electrical system.

("Join" and "junction" share an etymon. Borrowed from French and Latin
respectively.)
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-08 08:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
> > In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > or something like that).
>
> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
> in them at time-change, twice a year?

Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,

Jan
charles
2018-09-08 17:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> > > > > > In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > > > junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > > > or something like that).
> > > And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > > battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >
> > Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
> > at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,

> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.

> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
> to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
> houses.

so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 19:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> > > > > > > In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> > > > > junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> > > > > or something like that).
> > > > And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> > > > battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> > > Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
> > > at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
> > Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
>
> > According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
> > to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
> > houses.
>
> so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?

Neither TT nor I said that. He said that houses "typically" have built-in
smoke alarms, and I said that that is not "typical."

(Actually, he said "buildings.")
Tak To
2018-09-09 06:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 3:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>>>>> or something like that).
>>>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
>>>>> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
>>>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
>>> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
>>
>>> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
>>> to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
>>> houses.
>>
>> so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?
>
> Neither TT nor I said that. He said that houses "typically" have built-in
> smoke alarms, and I said that that is not "typical."
>
> (Actually, he said "buildings.")

A summary of the regulations regarding smoke detectors in
47 states (as of 2010) are here
http://www.thewfsf.org/sap_usa_files/FEMA_StateSmokeAlarmRequirementsMay2010.pdf

Most of the states have guide lines for using AC powered
smoke detectors (with backup battery) in new constructions
or renovations that open up internal walls or ceilings.
However, it is not easy to find out how far the guide lines
go back. My impression is that AC powered smoke detectors
were readily available in the 70s.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 13:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 2:07:39 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 3:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >> In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> >> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >>>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >>>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >>>>>> or something like that).
> >>>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> >>>>> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >>>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
> >>>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
> >>> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
> >>> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
> >>> to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
> >>> houses.
> >> so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?
> > Neither TT nor I said that. He said that houses "typically" have built-in
> > smoke alarms, and I said that that is not "typical."
> > (Actually, he said "buildings.")
>
> A summary of the regulations regarding smoke detectors in
> 47 states (as of 2010) are here
> http://www.thewfsf.org/sap_usa_files/FEMA_StateSmokeAlarmRequirementsMay2010.pdf
>
> Most of the states have guide lines for using AC powered
> smoke detectors (with backup battery) in new constructions
> or renovations that open up internal walls or ceilings.
> However, it is not easy to find out how far the guide lines
> go back. My impression is that AC powered smoke detectors
> were readily available in the 70s.

The existence of "guide lines" or even guidelines means neither that they
are obligatory nor that they are "typical."

The intermediary who flipped my house in 2004 provided smoke detectors
all over the place, their mounts simply screwed into walls or ceilings.

Here's what your document has to say, rather illiterately, about New Jersey:

"New construction – hard-wired A/C powered smoke alarms with battery back-
up connected to an alarm panel and central station monitoring. The smoke
alarms are required to be installed as follows; one in every sleeping room, one located outside of each sleeping area and on each additional floor
including basements, but not crawl spaces.

"Existing construction – at the time of re-sale rental or anytime a
building permit is required, battery operated smoke detectors are required
to be installed only each level of the dwelling."

(I don't know what "only each level" was supposed to mean, but there were
actually more than three. My house has three levels.)

"Existing construction" greatly outnumbers "new construction" in this
state. A few buildings survive from the 17th century.

Who'da thunk there's be a whole Wikiparticle about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_New_Jersey

"A few" is an understatement.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-09 14:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 02:07:32 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/8/2018 3:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>> In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>>> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>>>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>>>>>> or something like that).
>>>>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
>>>>>> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>>>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
>>>>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
>>>> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
>>>
>>>> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
>>>> to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
>>>> houses.
>>>
>>> so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?
>>
>> Neither TT nor I said that. He said that houses "typically" have built-in
>> smoke alarms, and I said that that is not "typical."
>>
>> (Actually, he said "buildings.")
>
>A summary of the regulations regarding smoke detectors in
>47 states (as of 2010) are here
> http://www.thewfsf.org/sap_usa_files/FEMA_StateSmokeAlarmRequirementsMay2010.pdf
>
>Most of the states have guide lines for using AC powered
>smoke detectors (with backup battery) in new constructions
>or renovations that open up internal walls or ceilings.
>However, it is not easy to find out how far the guide lines
>go back. My impression is that AC powered smoke detectors
>were readily available in the 70s.

PTD's objection to "typically (have)" is that he's referring to the
present situation including all residential structures. That includes
residential structures built before they started building residential
structures with junction boxes for smoke detectors, so he's right
about it not being "typical".

However, it's the usual aggressive response from PTD. Instead of
repeated objections to "typical", if the first reply would have been
"You mean typical of all new construction" Tak probably would have
agreed and that issue would have ended.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 16:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 02:07:32 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
> >On 9/8/2018 3:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <4480bfb0-36a1-444c-9d07-***@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> >>> T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >>>>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >>>>>>> or something like that).
> >>>>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt
> >>>>>> battery in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >>>>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
> >>>>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
> >>>> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
> >>>> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder
> >>>> to change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into
> >>>> houses.
> >>> so you have no houses that pre-date the invention of smoke alarms?
> >> Neither TT nor I said that. He said that houses "typically" have built-in
> >> smoke alarms, and I said that that is not "typical."
> >> (Actually, he said "buildings.")
> >A summary of the regulations regarding smoke detectors in
> >47 states (as of 2010) are here
> > http://www.thewfsf.org/sap_usa_files/FEMA_StateSmokeAlarmRequirementsMay2010.pdf
> >Most of the states have guide lines for using AC powered
> >smoke detectors (with backup battery) in new constructions
> >or renovations that open up internal walls or ceilings.
> >However, it is not easy to find out how far the guide lines
> >go back. My impression is that AC powered smoke detectors
> >were readily available in the 70s.
>
> PTD's objection to "typically (have)" is that he's referring to the
> present situation including all residential structures. That includes
> residential structures built before they started building residential
> structures with junction boxes for smoke detectors, so he's right
> about it not being "typical".
>
> However, it's the usual aggressive response from PTD. Instead of
> repeated objections to "typical", if the first reply would have been
> "You mean typical of all new construction" Tak probably would have
> agreed and that issue would have ended.

If he'd meant that, he would have said that. You're lousy at mind-reading.
Stop pretending to do it.
Tak To
2018-09-09 04:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 1:37 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>
>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>>> or something like that).
>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
>>> in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>
>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
>
> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
>
> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder to
> change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into houses.

Aren't you daft or what?

(1) A wired smoke detector is not "built into the house". It
is attached (and wired) to the house in such a way that it can
be removed and replaced with minimal fuss. In fact, one is
supposed to replace a smoke detector (wired or battery powered)
every 10 years.
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/img/outreach/infographic_2016_fpw.800x1035.jpg

(2) All wired smoke detectors have backup batteries, and the
batteries have to be replaced at regular intervals as well.
Thus, yes, owners of wired smoke detectors also need a
reminder. The recommended replacement interval is once a
year.

https://www.servicemasterofcharleston.com/know-when-to-change-batteries-in-smoke-detectors/.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-09 04:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 00:25:37 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/8/2018 1:37 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
>>>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
>>>>> or something like that).
>>>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
>>>> in them at time-change, twice a year?
>>>
>>> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
>>> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
>>
>> Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
>>
>> According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder to
>> change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into houses.
>
>Aren't you daft or what?
>
>(1) A wired smoke detector is not "built into the house". It
>is attached (and wired) to the house in such a way that it can
>be removed and replaced with minimal fuss. In fact, one is
>supposed to replace a smoke detector (wired or battery powered)
>every 10 years.
> https://www.usfa.fema.gov/img/outreach/infographic_2016_fpw.800x1035.jpg
>
>(2) All wired smoke detectors have backup batteries, and the
>batteries have to be replaced at regular intervals as well.
>Thus, yes, owners of wired smoke detectors also need a
>reminder. The recommended replacement interval is once a
>year.
>
>https://www.servicemasterofcharleston.com/know-when-to-change-batteries-in-smoke-detectors/.

All correct in this house. I recently replaced a wired-in smoke
detector. It's just a matter of disconnecting it from the junction
box and attaching the new one with screw-on wire connectors. It takes
just a little longer than changing a light bulb.

The back-up battery is needed in case the house's mains power is off
when smoke needs to be detected. That could happen when lightning
strikes.

It does seem like the battery has a longer life than a year. It's
like 10 years or something, but it emits a sound when low.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 04:50:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 1:37 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:23:55 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:50:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> In the US, a ceiling smoke detector is typically attached to a
> >>>> junction box that is hidden in the ceiling (and nailed to a joist
> >>>> or something like that).
> >>> And that would be why we're "typically" told to change the 9-volt battery
> >>> in them at time-change, twice a year?
> >>
> >> Over here the things will start complaining quite loudly if you don't,
> >> at first with bleeps, and if that doesn't work with a wail,
> >
> > Over Here, the beeps start out very far apart and become more frequent.
> >
> > According to TT, however, most US residents would never need a reminder to
> > change the battery because smoke detectors are "typically" built into houses.
>
> Aren't you daft or what?
>
> (1) A wired smoke detector is not "built into the house". It
> is attached (and wired) to the house in such a way that it can
> be removed and replaced with minimal fuss. In fact, one is
> supposed to replace a smoke detector (wired or battery powered)
> every 10 years.
> https://www.usfa.fema.gov/img/outreach/infographic_2016_fpw.800x1035.jpg
>
> (2) All wired smoke detectors have backup batteries, and the
> batteries have to be replaced at regular intervals as well.
> Thus, yes, owners of wired smoke detectors also need a
> reminder. The recommended replacement interval is once a
> year.
>
> https://www.servicemasterofcharleston.com/know-when-to-change-batteries-in-smoke-detectors/.

It is still not the case that what you are now calling "wired smoke
detectors" are "typical" of US houses.

If they're not built in, where do you plug in their power cord?
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-07 07:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> >
> > [ - ]
>
> >
> > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have known
> > how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you could get
> > a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you started fiddling
> > with the innards of a TV set.
>
> I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> about exactly that.

Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,

Jan
charles
2018-09-07 08:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> >
> > >
> > > [ - ]
> >
> > >
> > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
> > > known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you
> > > could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you
> > > started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> >
> > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> > about exactly that.

> Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,

No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good for you.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-08 07:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> > > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [ - ]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
> > > > known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you
> > > > could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you
> > > > started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> > >
> > > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> > > about exactly that.
>
> > Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,
>
> No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good for you.

Is that an evidence based opinion?

Jan
charles
2018-09-08 07:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [ - ]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't
> > > > > have known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is
> > > > > that you could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off,
> > > > > if you started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> > > > about exactly that.
> >
> > > Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,
> >
> > No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good for
> > you.

> Is that an evidence based opinion?

personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-08 10:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ - ]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't
> > > > > > have known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is
> > > > > > that you could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off,
> > > > > > if you started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being warned
> > > > > about exactly that.
> > >
> > > > Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,
> > >
> > > No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good for
> > > you.
>
> > Is that an evidence based opinion?
>
> personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks

I have felt the almost 100 kV from a Wimshurst machine.
(10 cm sparks)
The only adverse effect is a very small burn spot on the skin.
You need a good magnifying glass to see it,

Jan
charles
2018-09-08 11:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > > > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ - ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't
> > > > > > > have known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out
> > > > > > > is that you could get a nasty shock, even with the power
> > > > > > > turned off, if you started fiddling with the innards of a TV
> > > > > > > set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being
> > > > > > warned about exactly that.
> > > >
> > > > > Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,
> > > >
> > > > No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good
> > > > for you.
> >
> > > Is that an evidence based opinion?
> >
> > personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks

> I have felt the almost 100 kV from a Wimshurst machine. (10 cm sparks)
> The only adverse effect is a very small burn spot on the skin. You need a
> good magnifying glass to see it,

I suspect there a good deal more current behnd a CRT supply.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-08 14:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > > charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> > > > > <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [ - ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't
> > > > > > > > have known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out
> > > > > > > > is that you could get a nasty shock, even with the power
> > > > > > > > turned off, if you started fiddling with the innards of a TV
> > > > > > > > set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember being
> > > > > > > warned about exactly that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman mafia,
> > > > >
> > > > > No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not very good
> > > > > for you.
> > >
> > > > Is that an evidence based opinion?
> > >
> > > personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks
>
> > I have felt the almost 100 kV from a Wimshurst machine. (10 cm sparks)
> > The only adverse effect is a very small burn spot on the skin. You need a
> > good magnifying glass to see it,
>
> I suspect there a good deal more current behnd a CRT supply.

When it is on, sure.
Not when it has been off for some time,

Jan

PS Perhaps you are confusing it with a microwave oven,
which does contain a fat HV capacitor?
Peter Moylan
2018-09-09 02:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/09/18 00:34, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
>> <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J.
>>>> Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>>> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J.
>>>>>> J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ - ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't have known how to do that. What a lot of
>>>>>>>>> people did find out is that you could get a nasty
>>>>>>>>> shock, even with the power turned off, if you
>>>>>>>>> started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember
>>>>>>>> being warned about exactly that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman
>>>>>>> mafia,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not
>>>>>> very good for you.
>>>>
>>>>> Is that an evidence based opinion?
>>>>
>>>> personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks
>>
>>> I have felt the almost 100 kV from a Wimshurst machine. (10 cm
>>> sparks) The only adverse effect is a very small burn spot on the
>>> skin. You need a good magnifying glass to see it,
>>
>> I suspect there a good deal more current behnd a CRT supply.
>
> When it is on, sure. Not when it has been off for some time,

In my experience, it could still give you a painful kick half an hour
after the power had been turned off. It has a lot to do with how much
impedance is in the circuit. In this case, how quickly you discharge the
capacitor.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/09/18 00:34, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> >> <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J.
> >>>> Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>>>> charles <***@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J.
> >>>>>> J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-07 04:49:31 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [ - ]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people
> >>>>>>>>> wouldn't have known how to do that. What a lot of
> >>>>>>>>> people did find out is that you could get a nasty
> >>>>>>>>> shock, even with the power turned off, if you
> >>>>>>>>> started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't know how well known it was, but I can remember
> >>>>>>>> being warned about exactly that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Those dangers were greatly exaggerated by the repairman
> >>>>>>> mafia,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No - a shock of 10kV, or even greater for colour, is not
> >>>>>> very good for you.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is that an evidence based opinion?
> >>>>
> >>>> personally, I've managed to avoid such shocks
> >>
> >>> I have felt the almost 100 kV from a Wimshurst machine. (10 cm
> >>> sparks) The only adverse effect is a very small burn spot on the
> >>> skin. You need a good magnifying glass to see it,
> >>
> >> I suspect there a good deal more current behnd a CRT supply.
> >
> > When it is on, sure. Not when it has been off for some time,
>
> In my experience, it could still give you a painful kick half an hour
> after the power had been turned off. It has a lot to do with how much
> impedance is in the circuit. In this case, how quickly you discharge the
> capacitor.

Ancient ones from year zero, perhaps.
Later ones had bleed resistors to discharge automatically.

Jan
CDB
2018-09-07 19:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 12:49 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:

>>> My father, who was a telephone technician, did some work on the
>>> side fixing TV sets when TV first came to our town. One day I
>>> went with him on such a service call. We walked into a room where
>>> the whole large family was watching a picture that was rotated
>>> clockwise by twenty to thirty degrees. "I see what your problem
>>> is", said Dad. "That picture is really badly tilted". "Oh, is it
>>> tilted?" asked the man. "I never noticed."

>> So was this when picture tubes were still circular? Did the whole
>> tube have to be rotated, or just the yoke?

> No, the tubes were (approximately) rectangular, which should have
> made the rotation even more obvious.

> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
> known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that you
> could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if you
> started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.

Hard folks to convince. I made a similar discovery, with no more
advanced equipment than an old tube radio.
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 03:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/18 05:13, CDB wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 12:49 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Rotating the yoke fixed the problem, but most people wouldn't have
>> known how to do that. What a lot of people did find out is that
>> you could get a nasty shock, even with the power turned off, if
>> you started fiddling with the innards of a TV set.
>
> Hard folks to convince. I made a similar discovery, with no more
> advanced equipment than an old tube radio.

Vacuum tubes used in radios often had a "grid cap" where the grid
connection was at the top of the tube rather than on one of the pins at
the base. A common quick-and-dirty trick when fault-finding was to touch
the grid cap with a finger, which should produce some noise in the
speaker. Then some bastard of a valve manufacturer came out with one
where the top cap was not the low-voltage grid connection, but for one
of the higher-voltage elements. I've forgotten the tube number, but I
haven't forgotten the shock.

Still, that was a standard hazard of adolescent electronics
experimentation. I also managed to start a fire in the bedroom curtains,
with the aid of a soldering iron which was resting near the window when
the wind blew the curtains in.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-09-06 14:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>Something that used to irritate a lot more when I used to watch the 9
>o'clock News on the BBC was their inability to distinguish between
>science and technology. Whenever they said there would a report from
>"Our Science Correspondence" I could be sure, with at least 90%
>certainty, that the report would have nothing to do with science, but
>would concern some new technological wonder.

At least the BBC News web page has separate tabs for "science" and
"tech".

-- Richard
Harrison Hill
2018-09-05 14:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>
> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9

"...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably
meant to be a joke?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 14:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 15:36:06 UTC+1, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> >
> > <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>
> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably
> meant to be a joke?

If it is then I'm not getting it!
Peter Moylan
2018-09-05 15:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> wrote:
>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>
>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>
>>
https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>
> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> to be a joke?

I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madhu
2018-09-05 16:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter Moylan <pmora1$oc9$***@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:04:32 +1000:
> On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
>> to be a joke?
> I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.

The origin and engineering intent of the word is the same, the opinion
making investment machine that came up with "smart cities", and in each
case it is a device for removing control and ownership from the user and
depositing that in the investor owned infrastructure.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-09-06 01:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 02:15:32 UTC+10, Madhu wrote:
> * Peter Moylan <pmora1$oc9$***@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:04:32 +1000:
> > On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> >> to be a joke?
> > I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> > meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
>
> The origin and engineering intent of the word is the same, the opinion
> making investment machine that came up with "smart cities", and in each
> case it is a device for removing control and ownership from the user and
> depositing that in the investor owned infrastructure.

Yes, that is the big unsaid in all the small flats you can buy in the impressive complexes with lots of overheads. It seems to work for certain people, those on the go. For the elderly, it also works as you don't have to move around too much. "Smart" comes from apps relating to what food should be brought to you, how to make bookings for whatever facility required, networking, better use of space, energy efficiency, etc.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-05 16:46:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:04:35 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > wrote:

> >> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> > "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> > to be a joke?
>
> I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.

Doesn't it simply mean '[attached to the internet and hence] susceptible
to hacking'? This morning Brian Lehrer talked to the author of a new book
warning against that menace, who referred to a hacker who took over a
smart car and first played with the wipers, then with the brakes. (It
was a controlled experiment invited by the manufacturer.)

Last night's BBT rerun (from the first or second season) had Sheldon sewing
RFID labels into his clothing so he could keep track of them, listing them
in presumably something like an Excel document. Same idea, a decade ago.
occam
2018-09-05 19:09:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/09/2018 17:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>> wrote:
>>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>>>
>>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>>
>> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
>> to be a joke?
>
> I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
>

Not meaningless, just a matter of degree.

All the technologies we know at present as 'smart' are designed by us.
So a 'smart toaster' is a simple switch which switches the toaster off
when done. A self-driving car is 'smarter' in that it has to figure out
obstacles, avoid them and still get you to your destination through GPS
navigation. When things go wrong, we can stop the process and examine
the reasons why they went wrong.

The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
very close, 10 years max.) When this happens, and things are doing
'smart' decisions which are no longer comprehensible to us, we will have
two choices:
- obey the instructions (as I do with my GPS, when I am driving in
unfamiliar territory)
OR
- switch the thing off (by dismissing it as stupid or dumb).

When the latter happens you are immediately at a disadvantaged position
of not knowing whether the advice was no good, or that you were not
smart enough to comprehend it. (


Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?

(For more on Deepmind see:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
)
John Varela
2018-09-05 23:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:09:31 UTC, occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:

> On 05/09/2018 17:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> >> wrote:
> >>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> >>>
> >>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> >>
> >> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> >> to be a joke?
> >
> > I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> > meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
> >
>
> Not meaningless, just a matter of degree.
>
> All the technologies we know at present as 'smart' are designed by us.
> So a 'smart toaster' is a simple switch which switches the toaster off
> when done. A self-driving car is 'smarter' in that it has to figure out
> obstacles, avoid them and still get you to your destination through GPS
> navigation. When things go wrong, we can stop the process and examine
> the reasons why they went wrong.
>
> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> very close, 10 years max.) When this happens, and things are doing
> 'smart' decisions which are no longer comprehensible to us, we will have
> two choices:
> - obey the instructions (as I do with my GPS, when I am driving in
> unfamiliar territory)
> OR
> - switch the thing off (by dismissing it as stupid or dumb).
>
> When the latter happens you are immediately at a disadvantaged position
> of not knowing whether the advice was no good, or that you were not
> smart enough to comprehend it. (

Two true stories:

I used the GPS to go to the place outside the Beltway where
hazardous materials are deposited for recycling. On wanting to
return home, the GPS directed me to an on-ramp to the Interstate.
Unfortunately, that ramp was for High Occupancy Vehicles (of which I
was not driving one) and was open only for the morning rush (it was
after noon), and there were no unrestricted ramps at this
intersection. My map was in the back-seat map pocket and cars
behind me were waiting so I had to move on. When I did get out the
map, it took a while to figure out where I was.

On a different occasion, I used the GPS to get to a party in a house
in a gated retirement community. The gate it took me to was for
residents only; you had to have a transponder or something to get
through. This was in a different town (Williamsburg, to be precise)
where I had no street map of the area. Luckily a resident came
along and directed me to the guest entrance.

If I had been in a driverless car that, like the GPSes (one was a
Garvin and the other a TomTom) in these two instances, insisted it
knew the best route, I would have had to take over and drive it
manually. That tells me that a driverless taxi is not a safe place
to put a child alone, or anyone who doesn't know how to drive. But
if all normal driving is done driverless, in a few years there will
be many adult passengers who don't know how to drive and will be
unable to take over from the machine.

> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>
> (For more on Deepmind see:
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> )


--
John Varela
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 23:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:20:02 UTC+1, John Varela wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:09:31 UTC, occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:
>
> > On 05/09/2018 17:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> > >>>
> > >>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> > >>
> > >> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> > >> to be a joke?
> > >
> > > I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> > > meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
> > >
> >
> > Not meaningless, just a matter of degree.
> >
> > All the technologies we know at present as 'smart' are designed by us.
> > So a 'smart toaster' is a simple switch which switches the toaster off
> > when done. A self-driving car is 'smarter' in that it has to figure out
> > obstacles, avoid them and still get you to your destination through GPS
> > navigation. When things go wrong, we can stop the process and examine
> > the reasons why they went wrong.
> >
> > The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> > self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> > very close, 10 years max.) When this happens, and things are doing
> > 'smart' decisions which are no longer comprehensible to us, we will have
> > two choices:
> > - obey the instructions (as I do with my GPS, when I am driving in
> > unfamiliar territory)
> > OR
> > - switch the thing off (by dismissing it as stupid or dumb).
> >
> > When the latter happens you are immediately at a disadvantaged position
> > of not knowing whether the advice was no good, or that you were not
> > smart enough to comprehend it. (
>
> Two true stories:
>
> I used the GPS to go to the place outside the Beltway where
> hazardous materials are deposited for recycling. On wanting to
> return home, the GPS directed me to an on-ramp to the Interstate.
> Unfortunately, that ramp was for High Occupancy Vehicles (of which I
> was not driving one) and was open only for the morning rush (it was
> after noon), and there were no unrestricted ramps at this
> intersection. My map was in the back-seat map pocket and cars
> behind me were waiting so I had to move on. When I did get out the
> map, it took a while to figure out where I was.
>
> On a different occasion, I used the GPS to get to a party in a house
> in a gated retirement community. The gate it took me to was for
> residents only; you had to have a transponder or something to get
> through. This was in a different town (Williamsburg, to be precise)
> where I had no street map of the area. Luckily a resident came
> along and directed me to the guest entrance.
>
> If I had been in a driverless car that, like the GPSes (one was a
> Garvin and the other a TomTom) in these two instances, insisted it
> knew the best route, I would have had to take over and drive it
> manually. That tells me that a driverless taxi is not a safe place
> to put a child alone,

So putting a child alone in a taxi with a driver is?

> or anyone who doesn't know how to drive.

How is an adult in this situation 'not safe'?

>But
> if all normal driving is done driverless, in a few years there will
> be many adult passengers who don't know how to drive and will be
> unable to take over from the machine.
>

Yes, probably. Which is why nowhere in the world has got even close to
'normal driving' being driverless. Until the technology is foolproof and the
infrastructure adjusted to fully accommodate driverless vehicles nowhere
will.
John Varela
2018-09-06 19:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:33:43 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:20:02 UTC+1, John Varela wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:09:31 UTC, occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/09/2018 17:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
> > > >>
> > > >> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
> > > >> to be a joke?
> > > >
> > > > I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
> > > > meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not meaningless, just a matter of degree.
> > >
> > > All the technologies we know at present as 'smart' are designed by us.
> > > So a 'smart toaster' is a simple switch which switches the toaster off
> > > when done. A self-driving car is 'smarter' in that it has to figure out
> > > obstacles, avoid them and still get you to your destination through GPS
> > > navigation. When things go wrong, we can stop the process and examine
> > > the reasons why they went wrong.
> > >
> > > The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> > > self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> > > very close, 10 years max.) When this happens, and things are doing
> > > 'smart' decisions which are no longer comprehensible to us, we will have
> > > two choices:
> > > - obey the instructions (as I do with my GPS, when I am driving in
> > > unfamiliar territory)
> > > OR
> > > - switch the thing off (by dismissing it as stupid or dumb).
> > >
> > > When the latter happens you are immediately at a disadvantaged position
> > > of not knowing whether the advice was no good, or that you were not
> > > smart enough to comprehend it. (
> >
> > Two true stories:
> >
> > I used the GPS to go to the place outside the Beltway where
> > hazardous materials are deposited for recycling. On wanting to
> > return home, the GPS directed me to an on-ramp to the Interstate.
> > Unfortunately, that ramp was for High Occupancy Vehicles (of which I
> > was not driving one) and was open only for the morning rush (it was
> > after noon), and there were no unrestricted ramps at this
> > intersection. My map was in the back-seat map pocket and cars
> > behind me were waiting so I had to move on. When I did get out the
> > map, it took a while to figure out where I was.
> >
> > On a different occasion, I used the GPS to get to a party in a house
> > in a gated retirement community. The gate it took me to was for
> > residents only; you had to have a transponder or something to get
> > through. This was in a different town (Williamsburg, to be precise)
> > where I had no street map of the area. Luckily a resident came
> > along and directed me to the guest entrance.
> >
> > If I had been in a driverless car that, like the GPSes (one was a
> > Garvin and the other a TomTom) in these two instances, insisted it
> > knew the best route, I would have had to take over and drive it
> > manually. That tells me that a driverless taxi is not a safe place
> > to put a child alone,
>
> So putting a child alone in a taxi with a driver is?

Just so the taxi is not a gypsy. but run by a known and respectable
company. I rode alone in taxis when I was 12 or 13. One of my
grandsons rides Uber all the time. Of course, he is 15 years old,
5'11", weighs 265 pounds, and is a first-string guard on the high
school football team. That does make a difference, I suppose.

> > or anyone who doesn't know how to drive.
>
> How is an adult in this situation 'not safe'?

I guess I did suggest that. The child would be unsafe. The adult,
except in a Bonfire of the Vanities situation, would just be
stranded. Which could be very uncomfortable situation for the
elderly or infirm.

> >But
> > if all normal driving is done driverless, in a few years there will
> > be many adult passengers who don't know how to drive and will be
> > unable to take over from the machine.
> >
>
> Yes, probably. Which is why nowhere in the world has got even close to
> 'normal driving' being driverless. Until the technology is foolproof and the
> infrastructure adjusted to fully accommodate driverless vehicles nowhere
> will.
>


--
John Varela
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 21:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6 Sep 2018 19:14:43 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 23:33:43 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:20:02 UTC+1, John Varela wrote:
>> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:09:31 UTC, occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 05/09/2018 17:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > > > On 06/09/18 00:36, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> > > >> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 13:55:56 UTC+1, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>> Scientific American article on what Internet metaphors hide.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > > https://tinyurl.com/y7bxylq9
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "...smart car, smart clothing, smart toaster..." is presumably meant
>> > > >> to be a joke?
>> > > >
>> > > > I doubt it. The intent was to point out that "smart" is essentially
>> > > > meaningless, because it has different meanings in each of those cases.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Not meaningless, just a matter of degree.
>> > >
>> > > All the technologies we know at present as 'smart' are designed by us.
>> > > So a 'smart toaster' is a simple switch which switches the toaster off
>> > > when done. A self-driving car is 'smarter' in that it has to figure out
>> > > obstacles, avoid them and still get you to your destination through GPS
>> > > navigation. When things go wrong, we can stop the process and examine
>> > > the reasons why they went wrong.
>> > >
>> > > The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>> > > self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>> > > very close, 10 years max.) When this happens, and things are doing
>> > > 'smart' decisions which are no longer comprehensible to us, we will have
>> > > two choices:
>> > > - obey the instructions (as I do with my GPS, when I am driving in
>> > > unfamiliar territory)
>> > > OR
>> > > - switch the thing off (by dismissing it as stupid or dumb).
>> > >
>> > > When the latter happens you are immediately at a disadvantaged position
>> > > of not knowing whether the advice was no good, or that you were not
>> > > smart enough to comprehend it. (
>> >
>> > Two true stories:
>> >
>> > I used the GPS to go to the place outside the Beltway where
>> > hazardous materials are deposited for recycling. On wanting to
>> > return home, the GPS directed me to an on-ramp to the Interstate.
>> > Unfortunately, that ramp was for High Occupancy Vehicles (of which I
>> > was not driving one) and was open only for the morning rush (it was
>> > after noon), and there were no unrestricted ramps at this
>> > intersection. My map was in the back-seat map pocket and cars
>> > behind me were waiting so I had to move on. When I did get out the
>> > map, it took a while to figure out where I was.
>> >
>> > On a different occasion, I used the GPS to get to a party in a house
>> > in a gated retirement community. The gate it took me to was for
>> > residents only; you had to have a transponder or something to get
>> > through. This was in a different town (Williamsburg, to be precise)
>> > where I had no street map of the area. Luckily a resident came
>> > along and directed me to the guest entrance.
>> >
>> > If I had been in a driverless car that, like the GPSes (one was a
>> > Garvin and the other a TomTom) in these two instances, insisted it
>> > knew the best route, I would have had to take over and drive it
>> > manually. That tells me that a driverless taxi is not a safe place
>> > to put a child alone,
>>
>> So putting a child alone in a taxi with a driver is?
>
>Just so the taxi is not a gypsy. but run by a known and respectable
>company. I rode alone in taxis when I was 12 or 13. One of my
>grandsons rides Uber all the time. Of course, he is 15 years old,
>5'11", weighs 265 pounds, and is a first-string guard on the high
>school football team. That does make a difference, I suppose.

I wasn't a taxi passenger until I was an adult, but I took the city
bus - unaccompanied - to my grandparent's house when I was as young as
six.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-06 16:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
> [...]
> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> very close, 10 years max.)

They have been saying that for decades.

> [...]
----- -----

> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>
> (For more on Deepmind see:
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> )

I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 16:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 18:30:36 +0200, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> said:

> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>> [...]
>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>> very close, 10 years max.)
>
> They have been saying that for decades.

A bit like machine translation. At least since the 1950s they've been
predicting that really good machine translation was about five years in
the future. Now we do seem to be making progress: Google Translate is
now vastly better at French and Spanish than it was even a few years
ago (though it's long been remarkably good at Hausa).
>
>> [...]
> ----- -----
>
>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>>
>> (For more on Deepmind see:
>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
)

I
>>
> don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.


--
athel
John Varela
2018-09-06 19:16:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:39:26 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2018-09-06 18:30:36 +0200, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> said:
>
> > On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> >> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> >> very close, 10 years max.)
> >
> > They have been saying that for decades.
>
> A bit like machine translation. At least since the 1950s they've been
> predicting that really good machine translation was about five years in
> the future. Now we do seem to be making progress: Google Translate is
> now vastly better at French and Spanish than it was even a few years
> ago (though it's long been remarkably good at Hausa).

And fusion power has been what? 20 years away for how long?

> >
> >> [...]
> > ----- -----
> >
> >> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> >> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
> >>
> >> (For more on Deepmind see:
> >> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> )
>
> I
> >>
> > don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
>
>


--
John Varela
occam
2018-09-06 16:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>> [...]
>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>> very close, 10 years max.)
>
> They have been saying that for decades.

Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.

>
>> [...]
> ----- -----
>
>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>>
>> (For more on Deepmind see:
>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
>> )
>
> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
>

That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-06 21:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:53:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
> > On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> >> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> >> very close, 10 years max.)
> >
> > They have been saying that for decades.
>
> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.

No great shakes. It's still playing a game which has finite possibilities,
precise goals, and no surprises. It's still a world away from making real
world life and death decisions and further still from forming an opinion!

>
> >
> >> [...]
> > ----- -----
> >
> >> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> >> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
> >>
> >> (For more on Deepmind see:
> >> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> >> )
> >
> > I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
> >
>
> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.

A significant part of diagnosis is in the recognition of a mass
of information that is nothing to do with symptoms or test
results. Anyone willing to bypass experienced doctors and be
treated by AI wants their head examining ... by a real doctor
obviously!
Tak To
2018-09-07 18:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 5:30 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:53:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>>>> very close, 10 years max.)
>>>
>>> They have been saying that for decades.
>>
>> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
>> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
>> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
>> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
>
> No great shakes. It's still playing a game which has finite possibilities,
> precise goals, and no surprises. It's still a world away from making real
> world life and death decisions and further still from forming an opinion!
>
>>
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>> ----- -----
>>>
>>>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
>>>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>>>>
>>>> (For more on Deepmind see:
>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
>>>> )
>>>
>>> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
>>>
>>
>> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
>> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
>> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.
>
> A significant part of diagnosis is in the recognition of a mass
> of information that is nothing to do with symptoms or test
> results. Anyone willing to bypass experienced doctors and be
> treated by AI wants their head examining ... by a real doctor
> obviously!

I think medical diagnostics is a basically a rather
straight forward process. The main issue is in triaging
the candidate tests, so to speak. This is a process that
is highly sensitive to the values of thousands of weighing
factors, very few of which can be determined objectively.
No one in the medical profession wants to take the
responsibility of setting these values, or even acknowledges
the inherently subjective nature of medical diagnostics.

Thus, comprehensive medical diagnostic programs remain
little more than thought experiments. OTOH, in specific
areas such as reading an EKG or a CAT scan for abnormality,
I think the software technology today, coupled with enough
statistical data, can easily out-perform any human doctor.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
David Kleinecke
2018-09-07 21:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/6/2018 5:30 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:53:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
> >> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
> >>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> >>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> >>>> very close, 10 years max.)
> >>>
> >>> They have been saying that for decades.
> >>
> >> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
> >> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
> >> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
> >> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
> >
> > No great shakes. It's still playing a game which has finite possibilities,
> > precise goals, and no surprises. It's still a world away from making real
> > world life and death decisions and further still from forming an opinion!
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>> ----- -----
> >>>
> >>>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> >>>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
> >>>>
> >>>> (For more on Deepmind see:
> >>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> >>>> )
> >>>
> >>> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
> >> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
> >> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.
> >
> > A significant part of diagnosis is in the recognition of a mass
> > of information that is nothing to do with symptoms or test
> > results. Anyone willing to bypass experienced doctors and be
> > treated by AI wants their head examining ... by a real doctor
> > obviously!
>
> I think medical diagnostics is a basically a rather
> straight forward process. The main issue is in triaging
> the candidate tests, so to speak. This is a process that
> is highly sensitive to the values of thousands of weighing
> factors, very few of which can be determined objectively.
> No one in the medical profession wants to take the
> responsibility of setting these values, or even acknowledges
> the inherently subjective nature of medical diagnostics.

Which is exactly why an AI approach is attractive. A neural
network, properly trained, could combine and optimize the
subjective responses of a vast number of diagnosticians.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 22:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 22:24:26 UTC+1, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
> > On 9/6/2018 5:30 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:53:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
> > >> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
> > >>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
> > >>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
> > >>>> very close, 10 years max.)
> > >>>
> > >>> They have been saying that for decades.
> > >>
> > >> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
> > >> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
> > >> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
> > >> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
> > >
> > > No great shakes. It's still playing a game which has finite possibilities,
> > > precise goals, and no surprises. It's still a world away from making real
> > > world life and death decisions and further still from forming an opinion!
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>> ----- -----
> > >>>
> > >>>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
> > >>>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (For more on Deepmind see:
> > >>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
> > >>>> )
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
> > >> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
> > >> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.
> > >
> > > A significant part of diagnosis is in the recognition of a mass
> > > of information that is nothing to do with symptoms or test
> > > results. Anyone willing to bypass experienced doctors and be
> > > treated by AI wants their head examining ... by a real doctor
> > > obviously!
> >
> > I think medical diagnostics is a basically a rather
> > straight forward process. The main issue is in triaging
> > the candidate tests, so to speak. This is a process that
> > is highly sensitive to the values of thousands of weighing
> > factors, very few of which can be determined objectively.
> > No one in the medical profession wants to take the
> > responsibility of setting these values, or even acknowledges
> > the inherently subjective nature of medical diagnostics.
>
> Which is exactly why an AI approach is attractive. A neural
> network, properly trained, could combine and optimize the
> subjective responses of a vast number of diagnosticians.

Or not! And how are you going to do this "training"? Trial and
error works perfectly for a game because the worst possible
outcome is losing. The same cannot be said for life and death
situations in the real world. Oops, I'm only learning, let's reset
the board and start again is not an option. You can't reverse
permanent organ damage or death and have another go.
Rich Ulrich
2018-09-07 23:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/6/2018 5:30 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:53:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
>> >> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
>> >>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>> >>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>> >>>> very close, 10 years max.)
>> >>>
>> >>> They have been saying that for decades.
>> >>
>> >> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
>> >> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
>> >> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
>> >> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
>> >
>> > No great shakes. It's still playing a game which has finite possibilities,
>> > precise goals, and no surprises. It's still a world away from making real
>> > world life and death decisions and further still from forming an opinion!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>> ----- -----
>> >>>
>> >>>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
>> >>>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (For more on Deepmind see:
>> >>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
>> >>>> )
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
>> >> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
>> >> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.
>> >
>> > A significant part of diagnosis is in the recognition of a mass
>> > of information that is nothing to do with symptoms or test
>> > results. Anyone willing to bypass experienced doctors and be
>> > treated by AI wants their head examining ... by a real doctor
>> > obviously!
>>
>> I think medical diagnostics is a basically a rather
>> straight forward process. The main issue is in triaging
>> the candidate tests, so to speak. This is a process that
>> is highly sensitive to the values of thousands of weighing
>> factors, very few of which can be determined objectively.
>> No one in the medical profession wants to take the
>> responsibility of setting these values, or even acknowledges
>> the inherently subjective nature of medical diagnostics.
>
>Which is exactly why an AI approach is attractive. A neural
>network, properly trained, could combine and optimize the
>subjective responses of a vast number of diagnosticians.

If we are optimizing based on the subjective responses
of diagnosticians, there will be better results from using
a smaller number of /excellent/ diagnosticians. However,
diagnosis-to-outcome might be less important than treatment-
to-outcome.

But the neural network approach would (I think) take a
restrospctive look: symptoms as predictors, using the eventual
outcomes as criterion - a pretty good "gold standard" when it is
used carefully. Then you see what the diagnosticians can add
to the most simple-minded approach, including the role of extra
testing. When you find the best path, you /might/ look at exact
diagnoses that were provided most often, in order to find a
useful diagnoistic label.


I exspect that the best AI systems for diagnoses (Watson?) are
already better than the majority of doctors for prescribing
what should come next, if you give the /full/ medical record
in properly digitized form.

After the record systems are that complete, every dx should
be checked by "the computer"; but, before that happens,
legal, social, and political problems will have to be solved.

--
Rich Ulrich
s***@gmail.com
2018-09-08 00:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:29:16 PM UTC-7, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> But the neural network approach would (I think) take a
> restrospctive look: symptoms as predictors, using the eventual
> outcomes as criterion - a pretty good "gold standard" when it is
> used carefully. Then you see what the diagnosticians can add
> to the most simple-minded approach, including the role of extra
> testing. When you find the best path, you /might/ look at exact
> diagnoses that were provided most often, in order to find a
> useful diagnoistic label.

That's the approach now being used, AFAICT.

> I exspect that the best AI systems for diagnoses (Watson?) are
> already better than the majority of doctors for prescribing
> what should come next, if you give the /full/ medical record
> in properly digitized form.


You're optimistic. Watson has a limited job in diagnostics, and a mixed track record.

<URL:https://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-bet-billions-that-watson-could-improve-cancer-treatment-it-hasnt-worked-1533961147>

(You shouldn't need a tinned earl for that one. Suck it up.)

/dps
Tak To
2018-09-07 15:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 12:53 PM, occam wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>>> very close, 10 years max.)
>>
>> They have been saying that for decades.
>
> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.

Part of what I said was, "they" have always been vague as to
exactly "smart stuffs" an AI system ("neural network, etc)
can do. Go has a very simple set of rules and modeling a Go
game is very straight forward. What else in the world is that
simple?

>>> [...]
>> ----- -----
>>
>>> Question: Who would you rather be advised by in your next move when
>>> playing 'Go'. A human master or DeepMind?
>>>
>>> (For more on Deepmind see:
>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/16495548/deepmind-ai-go-alphago-zero-self-taught
>>> )
>>
>> I don't want any advice, period. That takes away the fun.
>
> That may be true for playing 'Go' perhaps - but what about a potential
> diagnosis and treatment for a disease? Or financial advice for where to
> invest next? I suspect 'self-interest' trumps 'fun' in those circumstances.

Well, your question was about Go.

Remember /The Limits to Growth/? In not so many words: GIGO.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
occam
2018-09-08 08:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/2018 17:33, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/6/2018 12:53 PM, occam wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>>>> very close, 10 years max.)
>>>
>>> They have been saying that for decades.
>>
>> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
>> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
>> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
>> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
>
> Part of what I said was, "they" have always been vague as to
> exactly "smart stuffs" an AI system ("neural network, etc)
> can do. Go has a very simple set of rules and modeling a Go
> game is very straight forward. What else in the world is that
> simple?
>

The issue is not of just simple rules. The issue is one of quantifiable
measure of success at each step. Once you can assign a measure of
success (value) to each node of the search space, you have licked the
problem. (The process does not stop. It is iterative, and improvement is
continuous.)

Financial investment plans have 'simple' rules. If the difference
between the start and end of your (micro) investment is positive, you
are in a winning strategy. Repeat another million times, you are a rich man.

The problem gets more complex in medical diagnosis. There you rely on
thousands of past cases. Who has a better chance of picking patterns in
teradata, an AI or your medical expert? The added bonus is that *every*
new data that becomes available is added to the analysis of the AI. I
wish I could believe that human experts keep track of new developments
as they come online. They don't, because they cannot.
Tak To
2018-09-08 22:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 4:33 AM, occam wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 17:33, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/6/2018 12:53 PM, occam wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2018 18:30, Tak To wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2018 3:09 PM, occam wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The problem will come when real AI kicks in. With AI, the smart stuff is
>>>>> self-taught, without the intervention of a human. (I believe this to be
>>>>> very close, 10 years max.)
>>>>
>>>> They have been saying that for decades.
>>>
>>> Tak To, I am aware of the historical ever present "10-year horizon" of
>>> AI, since 1957. However, 2-3 years ago we had the breakthrough that was
>>> so far eluding us - the deep reinforcement learning with neural
>>> networks. This is what Deepmind's alphago program is based on.
>>
>> Part of what I said was, "they" have always been vague as to
>> exactly "smart stuffs" an AI system ("neural network, etc)
>> can do. Go has a very simple set of rules and modeling a Go
>> game is very straight forward. What else in the world is that
>> simple?
>
> The issue is not of just simple rules. The issue is one of quantifiable
> measure of success at each step. Once you can assign a measure of
> success (value) to each node of the search space, you have licked the
> problem. (The process does not stop. It is iterative, and improvement is
> continuous.)

"Rules" in my usage above refers to rules of the modeled, rather
than the rules of the model.

It seems that you are talking exclusively of modeling by
neural networks.

> Financial investment plans have 'simple' rules. If the difference
> between the start and end of your (micro) investment is positive, you
> are in a winning strategy. Repeat another million times, you are a rich man.
>
> The problem gets more complex in medical diagnosis. There you rely on
> thousands of past cases. Who has a better chance of picking patterns in
> teradata, an AI or your medical expert? The added bonus is that *every*
> new data that becomes available is added to the analysis of the AI. I
> wish I could believe that human experts keep track of new developments
> as they come online. They don't, because they cannot.

Outside of specific areas such as interpreting CT images,
medical diagnosis is *not* a matter of pattern recognition
and is better modeled by if-then rules than by neural
networks.

AI laymen are often enamored of neural networks, partly
because neural networks can be scaled easily as hardware
advances, and partly because it is often associated with
auto-learning. Reporters often neglect to ask the most
important questions: what is being modeled/emulated?
How? (I.e., what does each node mean?)

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Loading...