Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Chris Jones]

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com
wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com
wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here -- if they try to save 2 cents
and make products that they KNOW do not perform their intended
purpose, then making substandard products is intentional on their
part.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.
Because they are looking to screw ME by selling products that do not
perform their intended purpose (and by forcing manufacturers to make
such via abusive methods). I do not like such capitalists and to not
want to give them any of my business. I would rather pay 3x more to
businesses such as McMaster-Carr, or Bosch, etc, to get a product that
actually works.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most of the
products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

i

I just recently bought a hand-held spothight with a 6V valve-regulated
lead-acid battery. (bought at Lidl in the UK.) It is Osram brand but who
knows who actually designed or made it. Out of curiosity I opened it up
and measured the voltage as it was charging the battery. The 6V (3 cell)
battery gets charged to about 8.5V with the supplied charger so that would
kill the battery pretty quickly. The proper charging voltage is even
marked clearly on the Chinese-made battery. The charger is basically just
a resistor and an unregulated power supply. I know that say a LM317 would
be too expensive for these guys but there would surely be a cheaper circuit
e.g. with a zener diode and a transistor that could clamp the charging
voltage to a sensible limit, for 10c or less. In my own case, I will
charge it with a regulated power supply instead, but it makes me sad to
think that the rest of these things will be destroyed quite soon by
overcharging, and since the battery is not easily removable from the casing
of the torch, I guess that approximately none of them will be recycled when
they stop working. Even if they were "recycled", I have heard some bad
things about the way lead-acid battery recycling is done these days, so it
would be much better if someone had at least been able to use it for a few
years first.

That is one good thing about lithium batteries, the appliance manufacturers
are so shit-scared of abusing the batteries, causing a fire and getting
sued that they usually do put a half-decent charger in the products, even
if that does cost them the extra 10c.

Chris

 

[lsmartino]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson ha escrito:

JR North wrote:
In addition to the other suggestions, if the USB port are V1.0, and the
printer/drivers req USB V2.0, They won't work properly.

Computer: HP Pavilion (has been upgraded with intel chip)
Operating System: Windows 98
Printer: Lexmark Z600

Windows 98 NEVER supported USB 2.0 and without special patches does not
support at all USB. IMHO if you must run Windows 98, upgrade to the second
edition (Windows 98/SE) or Windows ME.

Officialy the first version of Windows that supported USB 2 was
Windows XP at the SP/2 (service pack 2) level. There were third party
drivers for their USB ports for Windows 2000, and XP, but it would be
an exaguration to say they worked.

Geoff.
--

Besides that, most USB 2.0 devices work fine when plugged into USB 1.0
ports. They can be a tad slow, but they work.

 

[Don K]

"Ignoramus16071" <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote in message
news:K4Wdnf4rj4vj2TDYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@giganews.com...

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

Obviously you got the wallet intended for tightwads.

I got a new wallet for Christmas wherer some compartments were
a bit too tight when I loaded them with the various assorted plastic
cards, ATM, credit, membership, insurance, driver's license, etc.

I ended up trimming some of the cards with scissors.
Now they fit ok. No harm done to the cards.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

There's your problem! A single-fold wallet is a lot less bulky.
I had a 3-section wallet and hated it. It felt like I was carrying
a baseball in my pocket.

Don

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

JR North wrote:

In addition to the other suggestions, if the USB port are V1.0, and the
printer/drivers req USB V2.0, They won't work properly.

Computer: HP Pavilion (has been upgraded with intel chip)
Operating System: Windows 98
Printer: Lexmark Z600

Windows 98 NEVER supported USB 2.0 and without special patches does not
support at all USB. IMHO if you must run Windows 98, upgrade to the second
edition (Windows 98/SE) or Windows ME.

Officialy the first version of Windows that supported USB 2 was
Windows XP at the SP/2 (service pack 2) level. There were third party
drivers for their USB ports for Windows 2000, and XP, but it would be
an exaguration to say they worked.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

 

[Rod Speed]

Some stupid wog claiming to be
lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
just the puerile shit you'd expect from a stupid wog.

 

[lsmartino]

It has been found that the subject under study, in this case Rod Speed
has a compulsion to answer to anything, even to himself :-D


Rod Speed ha escrito:

Some stupid wog claiming to be
lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
just the puerile shit you'd expect from a stupid wog.

Says SFA about your pathetically childish remark. (R. Speed trademark
quote)




See you never, loser... hehehehehehehehe!

 

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:06:48 -0800, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
That'll be $21.99, sir.
Thank you for using Jiffy Lube. See you in 3 months or 3000 miles."

He make shis living changing oil. What do you expect him to say?


What's the better experience?
You got your stories, I got mine.

The better experience is my own evaluation of my own driving habits and
conditions as well as reading what the manufacturer of the engine and
testing laboratories conclude. Short distance driving in cold weather?

Yes, if you _only_ do short distances, you build up moisture in the oil
system which doesn't get vaporized by engine heat. But short trips with
occasional longer trips and freeway driving gets rid of that moisture.

All the experts agree that 3000 mile oil changes are almost always
unnecessary for normal service.

Oh sure. They all agree.

Except for my owner's manual.

Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[Rod Speed]

Some stupid wog claiming to be
lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
just the puerile shit you'd expect from a stupid wog.

 

[kip]

Why dnt you fuck off...

"Cash Cow" <michelina_canada@yahoo.com> wrote in message newsOTsh.774843$R63.527415@pd7urf1no...
http://zamzupport.blogspot.com/ - Horny Chicks must see videos

 

[Andrew VK3BFA]

lsmartino wrote:

It has been found that the subject under study, in this case Rod Speed
has a compulsion to answer to anything, even to himself :-D

I am starting to wonder about this - remember the "Turing Test" for AI
- you have a conversation, via a teleprinter, with the "robot" in
another room. If you cant distinguish the reply from that of a person,
then it passes the Turing Test.

Your testing seems to show that Rod might, indeed, be a robot. A bloody
good one - had me fooled for along time.

But the inability, or unwillingness, to answer ANY direct questions
seems to suggest it is an AI program. Probably someones thesis, and
they are keeping track of how much "conversation" Rod manages to
continue.

If its a good one, it should have some sort of adaptive learning
algorithm built in......

Interesting.

Andrew VK3BFA.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Andrew VK3BFA <ablight@alphalink.com.au> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door.

Even Telecom had noticed what a completely unemployable dud it was.

 

[SMS]

Alan Moorman@visi.com wrote:

Oh sure. They all agree.

Except for my owner's manual.

LOL.

"Especially since normal city driving is, according to your
owner's manual "extreme service" and they recommend you
change your oil every 3,000 miles. . . ."

At least you no longer believe that everyone else's owner's manual is
like yours.

So what kind of vehicle do you have, and/or what does your owner's
manual say? I've never seen an owner's manual that defined severe
service as any service that included short trips, unless there were
never any longer trips (which heat up the engine and oil hot enough to
vaporize the moisture).

Toyota:
------
"Repeated short trips (less than 8 km) in freezing conditions."

Nissan:
------
"Repeatedly driving short distances."

Honda:
-----
"Driving less than 5 miles (8 km) per trip or in freezing temperatures."


Don't fall for the oil industry's attempt to redefine "severe" service
to fit their own agenda.

 

[Eregon]

"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote in
news:1169437781.034593.303350@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

But the inability, or unwillingness, to answer ANY direct questions
seems to suggest it is an AI program.

Isn't "AI" the acronym for "Annoying Idiot"? <grin>

 

[Dr. Anton T. Squeegee]

In article <tqBsh.21719$yC5.2651@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
nospam@sbcglobal.net (known to some as nospam@sbcglobal.net) scribed...

"Jim Land" <RrrrFfffTttt(NO)@(SPAM)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns98BEDAD02E333RrrrFfffTttt4396hotm@216.168.3.44...
doc@sympatico.ca wrote in news:1169348263.349379.159780@
51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

While attempting a home-charge of a set of NiCd batteries, they were
left unattended and consequently exploded (relatively high current was
flowing through them). The basement area in which the explosion took
place is currently being ventilated overnight.

<BigSnip>

The potassium hydroxide (35%) is the worst component
in NiCd batteries. Rinse splattered areas with as much
water as you can.

And, in times to come, it might be wise to follow the battery
manufacturer's recommendations for charging procedures, especially the
current level.

If you're paranoid, you can rig a sort of "charging chamber" with
some hollow-center cinder blocks. That will at least confine the damage
if it happens again.

I'm guessing no one was hurt.

Keep the peace(es).

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 20 Jan 2007 15:08:40 -0800, "moonlite" <elect21st@aol.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Ok, I know this is an old computer but it has been upgraded not long
ago and I use it for very basic stuff like reading discs only. It comes
on and seems to work just fine but the problem I'm having with it is: I
can't get it to work with my printer to print.

Computer: HP Pavilion (has been upgraded with intel chip)
Operating System: Windows 98
Printer: Lexmark Z600

I installed the driver several times so that's not the problem. When I
try to print, I always get a message that printer is not connected to
the correct port...or something like that. The printer's literature
says it must be connected via a USB cable. It is connected just fine
and I have two USB ports on the back of my computer. I tried them both.
When I go into my Device Manager to see to which port the printer is
set to print, I can only find ports COM1 and LPT1. I do not see the USB
port option listed there so I can't choose it and that's where my
problem is - I think. Why isn't the computer seeing my two USB ports ?
What can I do to fix this problem ? I hate to throw away this thing as
it is working just fine otherwise and I use it very little. Thank you
so much for any help.

There is a utility on your Win98 CD called "usbview.exe". IIRC,
usbview will see any USB hardware even if the drivers are not loaded.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[jonpi]

if you are using plain 98 then find se and update...you want se

then install this bundled updater...
http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

there is a usb update for plain 98...but you want se

you have to see the usb ports in the device manager

oh yes, your whole problem might just be that the motherboard chipset
drivers are not installed...from intel or via or sis etc....

 

[jakdedert]

Rick Brandt wrote:

[Extraneous, excessive crosspost groups snipped]

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
In my opinon, it is a symptom of a larger problem....

My opinion as well.

Companies are setting up the situation that you are forced to buy new
versus repair the used applicance, car, electronics, computers, cell
phones....because they make a larger profit.

I firmly believe this is--in fact--true.

Only if the same company sells me the replacement. For the theory to work
entire industries would need to collude on this. I don't buy it.

Many of the 'companies' don't really exist. They are merely resellers

which brand products mostly made by a handful of OEM manufacturers. The
chances of buying from the same manufacturer are pretty significant
despite the product having a different brand name...especially the lower
on the totem pole one shops.

This is especially true of major appliances. If that Kenmore craps on
you and you decide to get a Fridgidaire or GE dryer the next time; you
may well find that you bought the same product in a different package.
In fact, many, if not most, of the parts will likely be interchangable.

The MBAs that are crafting the company policy are behind this.

Nah, cooking the books maybe, but not making design decisions.

Voting with their dollars....

The bean counters make sure that absolutely nothing gets made beyond the
lowest common denominator.

And the consumer is being left holding the bill...including paying for
the cost of disposal.

Your tax dollars at work....

Actually newer laws are holding manufacturers accountable for any "special"
disposal costs required of their products. That could put a whole new spin on
this topic.

That's almost a pipe dream on this side of the pond. It could happen,

but I'm not holding my breath.

jak

 

[jakdedert]

James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because it
is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's hardly
that the manufacturers are making things so they will break. The
consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how many
cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last "long enough".
It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're supplying what the average
consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it would
have been way out of range in terms of price. Because they'd have to
anticipate how much things would change, and build in enough so upgrading
would be doable. So you'd spend money on potential, rather than spending
money later on a new computer that would beat out what they could
imagine in 1979. And in recent years, it is the consumer who is deciding
to buy a new computer every few years (whether a deliberate decision or
they simply let the manufacturer lead, must vary from person to person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the cost
of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components were
showing their age.

Not to mention, the fact that by the time you decide to upgrade, the
architecture has changed. You decide to upgrade your processor: new
processor won't fit in the old socket. Same with memory and
peripherals. I've got a few series port products that won't even work
on newer computers, a pile of 30 and 72 pin SIMM ram sticks...floppy
drives, who wants 'em?

Anybody want a couple of AT power supplies?

jak


>

 

[jakdedert]

Art wrote:

Buy another power supply form the vendor.

Nope, IME, the best place is from eBay. Buy an OEM replacement if the
computer is more than a year or two old. Search on the model number to
see the quantity available.

Watch out for low 'Buy It Now' price coupled with outrageous shipping.....

jak

"ency" <erdemersan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169389062.036829.156390@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Well, my first charger was broken down a short time ago and i bought a
new one but it's also broken now. when i plug it, it doesn't work but
when i shake it strongly then starts to work. I checked the power
cable but it's ok, i also opened it and controlled all the soldered
parts but no problem. Only a sizzling from condenser. Checking the web
found that there might be a problem with SRC or condenser, i tried to
solder anode and cathode of the SRC ( i thought no problem will
accure) but there was a small explotion
I checked the circuit there isn't much damage. What can i do now?

 

[elkhound]

DeserTBoB wrote:

On 17 Jan 2007 16:05:23 -0800, "elkhound" <elkhound68@yahoo.com
wrote:

http://cgi.ebay<snip

This spam, from Charlie Nudo, 160 Bear Run Dr. of Drums, PA, aka
"66fourdoor" on eBay, violates eBay's rules regarding Usenet spamming:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/usenet_policy.html

It also violates Google's Terms of Service regarding spamming. Please
take a moment to forward this well documented spammer/fraudster's
spam, along with headers, to:

spam@ebay.com (be sure to include a link to their own Usenet policy,
above)
abuse@epix.net (main Epix account email address:
thenudofamily@epix.net)
groups-abuse@google.com

More information on this notorious fraudster and spammer can be found
on:

http://nudowatch.blogspot.com

this is a stretch- check D-Boob's profile- he's been banned from Google
Groups again, for the millionth time..

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=Ohn2FRMAAADKWt-YFW4KG3QbhQogR222h-kUg4S0n7nbF1Te82ZIng