[OT] vs. OT:

G

Guy Macon

Guest
When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:
 
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:htWdnfKl0YU4WzXdRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net...
When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the title of this thread be [OT:] [OT] vs. OT: ?
 
Richard Henry wrote:

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:htWdnfKl0YU4WzXdRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net...

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:


Shouldn't the title of this thread be [OT:] [OT] vs. OT: ?
Click to expand...
No, because that would violate his proposed standard, which would be
[OT]: [OT] vs. OT :)

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> says...
Richard Henry wrote:

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:htWdnfKl0YU4WzXdRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net...

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:


Shouldn't the title of this thread be [OT:] [OT] vs. OT: ?

No, because that would violate his proposed standard, which would be
[OT]: [OT] vs. OT :)
Click to expand...
That's actually how I wrote it at first, but then decided that I
could compress itbthrough overlayint the [OT] operator. :)

We are close to critical mass. If a few more of us start using my
proposed marking scheme, positive feedback will do the rest.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 07:05:44 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:
Click to expand...
I already told you that [OT]: could be mangled by some news/mail
readers so use [OT:]


vs. OT: ?
Click to expand...

No, because that would violate his proposed standard, which would be
[OT]: [OT] vs. OT :)
Click to expand...
See, someone already stuck a colon on the end. "[OT]" should be
"[OT:] because "[OT]" could denote a legit optional two characters.
"[OT:] is less likely to be used.

Chances are, any form of OT within brackets will work and wrtiring
just a few filters is not hard. It's the lack of brackets that will
f up 'cause filtering on it would as you said filter out legit
stuff.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message
news:10ahm40r9pk3n44@corp.supernews.com...
Richard Henry wrote:

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:htWdnfKl0YU4WzXdRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net...

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:


Shouldn't the title of this thread be [OT:] [OT] vs. OT: ?




No, because that would violate his proposed standard, which would be
[OT]: [OT] vs. OT :)
Click to expand...
I belive you mistyped, or the last : wandered over to your smiley.

Choose one:

[OT:] [OT] vs. OT:
[OT]: [OT] vs. OT:
[OT} [OT] vs. OT:
OT: [OT] vs. OT:
 
Guy Macon wrote:

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.
Click to expand...
Personally, hot = black makes intuitive sense to me
because "too hot = burnt black", but I never understood why
circuit ground is black. Seems it ought to be brown or
green. ;>)

There is no good reason for requiring users to filter on two
different strings. We are engineers. We know about picking a
standard and sticking with it.
Click to expand...
Well, what do you do when going from circuit power to
mains power? Right; use a transformer!

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:
Click to expand...
No matter what you do, somebody will do it the "other
right way", so I don't see how to avoid multiple filters.

Or, you can just ignore them.

Mark L. Feregrson
 
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> says...
Guy Macon wrote:

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

Personally, hot = black makes intuitive sense to me
because "too hot = burnt black", but I never understood why
circuit ground is black. Seems it ought to be brown or
green. ;>)
Click to expand...
....but I am sure that you agree that having the standard color be other
than makes intuitive sense to you is better than having some people
doing what makes intuitive sense to you and other people doing what
doesn't make intuitive sense to you.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:

No matter what you do, somebody will do it the "other
right way", so I don't see how to avoid multiple filters.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that, as engineers, we can agree on a standard way
of labeling off-topic posts. If someone does it the other way, the first
reply by a *real* engineer will have a subject line that is edited to
conform to the "[OT]" standard. Simple solution: if you reply to a
mislabeled post (no matter how it is mislabeled), correct the label
and all future posts in the thread become standard-compliant.
 
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:Qxrqc.69488$Fl5.1839@okepread04...
Guy Macon wrote:

When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

Personally, hot = black makes intuitive sense to me
because "too hot = burnt black", but I never understood why
circuit ground is black. Seems it ought to be brown or
green. ;>)
Click to expand...
Think "Car Battery." :)

Please use [OT] instead of OT:

No matter what you do, somebody will do it the "other
right way", so I don't see how to avoid multiple filters.

Or, you can just ignore them.
Click to expand...
Horrors! That implies thinking for oneself, rather than having the
machine do their thinking for them. Can't have any of that!

Cheers!
Rich
 
Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Horrors! That implies thinking for oneself, rather than having the
machine do their thinking for them. Can't have any of that!
Click to expand...
We could just let each person decide whether to think for himself
or have the machine (with a bit of help from the folks who label
their posts) do their thinking for him. It's not hard to meet the
needs of both groups.
 
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:JYudneB7i8PLWTfdRVn-tA@speakeasy.net...
Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Horrors! That implies thinking for oneself, rather than having the
machine do their thinking for them. Can't have any of that!

We could just let each person decide whether to think for himself
or have the machine (with a bit of help from the folks who label
their posts) do their thinking for him. It's not hard to meet the
needs of both groups.


Fuck you. Figure out for yourself if my post is on topic or not.
Click to expand...
I'm not your nanny, dimwit.

Good Luck!
Rich
 
Guy Macon wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> says...

Guy Macon wrote:


When deciding what color to label hot and return wires, it would be OK
if everybody used black for hot like the electricians do, and it would
be OK if everybody used black for return like the electronic technicians
do, but having different people use different standards is worse than
either standard.

Personally, hot = black makes intuitive sense to me
because "too hot = burnt black", but I never understood why
circuit ground is black. Seems it ought to be brown or
green. ;>)


...but I am sure that you agree that having the standard color be other
than makes intuitive sense to you is better than having some people
doing what makes intuitive sense to you and other people doing what
doesn't make intuitive sense to you.
Click to expand...
Not really, as long as it's stated clearly at the
beginning, or reference is provided. One can keep multiple
definitions in mind, with training.

OT: can be found as a substring in actual english sentences.
[OT] is not a substring in an actual english sentence unless
you go out of your way to invent a way to shoehorn it in.

Please use [OT] instead of OT:

No matter what you do, somebody will do it the "other
right way", so I don't see how to avoid multiple filters.


I disagree. I think that, as engineers, we can agree on a standard way
of labeling off-topic posts. If someone does it the other way, the first
reply by a *real* engineer will have a subject line that is edited to
conform to the "[OT]" standard. Simple solution: if you reply to a
mislabeled post (no matter how it is mislabeled), correct the label
and all future posts in the thread become standard-compliant.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase you:

"But I am sure that you agree that having the standard
labeling be other than makes intuitive sense to you is
better than having some people doing what makes intuitive
sense to you and other people doing what doesn't make
intuitive sense to you."

No matter what you think is "right", somebody else will
insist that their way is "right". There isn't any current
standard for exactly that reason.

Symbols are not the things they represent.

Mark L. Fergerson
 
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> says...

No matter what you think is "right", somebody else will
insist that their way is "right".
Click to expand...
I am optimistic. I think that most engineers understand the concept
of choosing the most popular of two arbitrary choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top