Cat5e vs Cat6

[Hatem Nassrat]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ian Campbell <ian@...> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:12:23PM -0400, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes the network wiring itself may contribute to the speed. I
>> recently found out that to use Gigabit one should use cat6e wiring.
>
> cat5e, although you can certainly use cat6 if you want.

Yeah I was still confused, hence my mention of the imaginary cat6e.
After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
topics) I found out that cat5e works up to 1000Base-T
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair#Cabling)
Ethernet, but to get to 10Gbit Ethernet
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet) you would need Cat6
Cables (and there is a max length limit of 55m of cable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable#Maximum_Length)

--
Hatem Nassrat
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Daniel Morrison-2]

I'm glad you mentioned the max length limit. I was going to say that
regular cat5 will also run gigabit at shorter cable run lengths. I've
seen cat5 behave a bit oddly (blinking link lights) but still transfer
masses of data just fine even when the twisted pairs are mis-wired,
again, at shorter than 100m cable runs. For very short patches, I'd
bet even cat3 would work (not that I'd recommend it, of course).

-D.

2009/11/1 Hatem Nassrat <hnassrat@...>:

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ian Campbell <ian@...> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:12:23PM -0400, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes the network wiring itself may contribute to the speed. I
>>> recently found out that to use Gigabit one should use cat6e wiring.
>>
>> cat5e, although you can certainly use cat6 if you want.
>
> Yeah I was still confused, hence my mention of the imaginary cat6e.
> After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
> topics) I found out that cat5e works up to 1000Base-T
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair#Cabling)
> Ethernet, but to get to 10Gbit Ethernet
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet) you would need Cat6
> Cables (and there is a max length limit of 55m of cable
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable#Maximum_Length)
>
> --
> Hatem Nassrat

_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Hatem Nassrat wrote:

> After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
> topics)
(Snip)
> --
> Hatem Nassrat

***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
truths, and has no pertinent omissions.

  Richard
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Daniel Morrison-2]

2009/11/1 Richard Bonner <ak621@...>:

> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
>
>> After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
>> topics)
> (Snip)
>> --
>> Hatem Nassrat
>
> ***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
> truths, and has no pertinent omissions.

Tell me you'd rather not have it then.

I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.

-D.
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Ian Campbell-9]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:43:52PM -0300, Daniel Morrison wrote:

> 2009/11/1 Richard Bonner <ak621@...>:
> > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
> >
> >> After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
> >> topics)
> > (Snip)
> >> --
> >> Hatem Nassrat
> >
> > ***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
> > truths, and has no pertinent omissions.
>
> Tell me you'd rather not have it then.
>
> I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.

Don't you hate pants?
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[mike.lifeguard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Bonner wrote:
 > ***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
> truths, and has no pertinent omissions.

There is a reason we allow anyone to edit.

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkruZRIACgkQst0AR/DaKHuG0QCfY0qhd5+J45biVQO6lB7jK6HV
ws4AoLHjs9Gj2G4snbHa3bcJZyWqJnfI
=ADH7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Mike Spencer]

Daniel Morrison <draker@...> wrote:

> I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.

Anecdote: a couple of days ago, I was talking to a guy who has a
couple of thousand hits on Google, viz. very minor media celeb (but,
for purposes of comparison, way, way more of a celeb than, say, I am.)

He has a Wikipedia page.  He cheerfully recounted to me how:

   + His friends had created it.

   + Other friends had edited it to add some personal info that was
     quite plausible but false and mildly embarassing.

   + Yet another friend had used his web page in a classroom context
     to demonstrate the risks of believing Wikipedia.

Of course I had to go look at the page and sure enough, it says
something about him that can instantly be verified as untrue by seeing
him in person but otherwise would be very hard to validate or
discredit.

Nice object lesson.  OTOH, if I want to get a quick backgrounder on,
say, Caroline of Ansbach or the 30 years' war, I'm not going to be
thrown very far off track if there's an error or even a plausible but
meretricious insertion.


- Mike

--
Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~.
                                                           /V\
mspencer@...                                     /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/                        ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Ian Campbell-9]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:49:39AM -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> Daniel Morrison <draker@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.
>
> Of course I had to go look at the page and sure enough, it says
> something about him that can instantly be verified as untrue by seeing
> him in person but otherwise would be very hard to validate or
> discredit.

That problem isn't unique to Wikipedia. That's why journals,
newspapers etc. publish retractions.

> Nice object lesson.  OTOH, if I want to get a quick backgrounder on,
> say, Caroline of Ansbach or the 30 years' war, I'm not going to be
> thrown very far off track if there's an error or even a plausible but
> meretricious insertion.

You might, look at the recent controversy over the Battle of
Agincourt. That has the potential to be 594 years of error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25agincourt.html

... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Hatem Nassrat]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Ian Campbell <ian@...> wrote:
> ... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
> encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.

[citation needed]

--
Hatem Nassrat
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Ian Campbell-9]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 06:07:23AM -0400, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Ian Campbell <ian@...> wrote:
> > ... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
> > encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.
>
> [citation needed]

"For God's sake, you’re in college; don't cite the encyclopedia."
-- Jimmy Wales
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Daniel Morrison-2]

2009/11/2 Ian Campbell <ian@...>:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:49:39AM -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Nice object lesson.  OTOH, if I want to get a quick backgrounder on,
>> say, Caroline of Ansbach or the 30 years' war, I'm not going to be
>> thrown very far off track if there's an error or even a plausible but
>> meretricious insertion.
>
> You might, look at the recent controversy over the Battle of
> Agincourt. That has the potential to be 594 years of error.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25agincourt.html

Not an error. More likely purposeful manipulation by government (of
Henry V). And not an issue with Wikipedia. And as Wikipedia is rapidly
edited, it already contains a section regarding the controversy over
the "outnumbering":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_agincourt#Modern_reassessment_of_Agincourt

Wikipedia even cites Britannica. Obviously, the printed Britannica in
your parent's basement has no such update.

> ... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
> encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.

I'm continually amazed at how many people don't get that.

Friend: "OMG I have a paper to write and I'm totally lost"
Me: "Go look it up on Wikipedia!"
Friend: "I can't do that, we're not allowed!"
Me: "I didn't say to cite Wikipedia in your paper, duh! I mean read it
to get oriented, then you know what to look for in papers that you CAN
cite!"

<sigh>

-D.
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Daniel Morrison wrote:

> 2009/11/1 Richard Bonner <ak621@...>:

>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Hatem Nassrat wrote:
>>
>>> After chilling on Wikipedia (great when researching non controversial
>>> topics)
>> (Snip)
>>> --
>>> Hatem Nassrat
>>
>> ***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
>> truths, and has no pertinent omissions.
>
> Tell me you'd rather not have it then.

***   I am sitting on the fence on that one. I'd prefer it if
it had knowledgeable editors overseeing the content as has a real
encyclopedia.


> I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.
>
> -D.

***   Sorry about that, but I am really annoyed with the people who
don't check Wiki's facts with legitimate sources and then tout the
information as having come from a reputable resource.

  Richard

_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Mike.lifeguard wrote:

> Richard Bonner wrote:
> > ***   Yeah, when it's actually right, has no misconceptions or half
>> truths, and has no pertinent omissions.
>
> There is a reason we allow anyone to edit.
>
> - -Mike

***   If that is a sarcastic remark, then I agree.  (-:

  Richard
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Mike Spencer wrote:

> Daniel Morrison <draker@...> wrote:
>
>> I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.
>
> Anecdote: a couple of days ago, I was talking to a guy who has a
> couple of thousand hits on Google, viz. very minor media celeb (but,
> for purposes of comparison, way, way more of a celeb than, say, I am.)
>
> He has a Wikipedia page.  He cheerfully recounted to me how:
>
>   + His friends had created it.
>
>   + Other friends had edited it to add some personal info that was
>     quite plausible but false and mildly embarassing.
>
>   + Yet another friend had used his web page in a classroom context
>     to demonstrate the risks of believing Wikipedia.
>
> Of course I had to go look at the page and sure enough, it says
> something about him that can instantly be verified as untrue by seeing
> him in person but otherwise would be very hard to validate or
> discredit.
>
> - Mike

***   A number of years ago in the U.S., Wikipedia was used to falsely
discredit some political rival. I don't remember the details, but
believe that some page on some politician was subtly altered to imply
negative things.

   Until they get complete control over it, there's a good reason I
call it "Why? Ki-pedia".

  Richard
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Ian Campbell wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 03:49:39AM -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
(Snip)
>> Of course I had to go look at the page and sure enough, it says
>> something about him that can instantly be verified as untrue by seeing
>> him in person but otherwise would be very hard to validate or
>> discredit.
>
> That problem isn't unique to Wikipedia. That's why journals,
> newspapers etc. publish retractions.

***   Does Why?-Ki publish them?


> ... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
> encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.

***   I wish more thought that way, Ian.

  Richard
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Richard Bonner]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Daniel Morrison wrote:

> Wikipedia even cites Britannica. Obviously, the printed Britannica in
> your parent's basement has no such update.

***   No, but at least it had editors overseeing every scrap of
information going into it.

  Richard
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Ben Armstrong]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:23:03 -0400 (AST)
Richard Bonner <ak621@...> wrote:
>    Until they get complete control over it, there's a good reason I
> call it "Why? Ki-pedia".

So when large, monopolistic software companies exercise "complete
control" they're evil, but when encyclopedists do, it's good?

Why do you hate freedom? :)

Ben
--
 ,-.  nSLUG    http://www.nslug.ns.ca   synrg@...
 \`'  Debian   http://www.debian.org    synrg@...
  `          [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[mike.lifeguard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Bonner wrote:
>> I'm getting really annoyed at people pissing on wikipedia.
>>
>> -D.
>
> ***   Sorry about that, but I am really annoyed with the people who
> don't check Wiki's facts with legitimate sources and then tout the
> information as having come from a reputable resource.

Luckily, you're both right. Not fact-checking is wrong (sources are
generally cited, making it ridiculously easy) -- but so is mindlessly
complaining about reliability (when in reality, the content is pretty
good, and easily checked, and editable when it is wrong, and you
shouldn't be citing it for most purposes anyways).

In either case, you're of course invited to become an editor, if you
haven't already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Login/signup

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrvDJMACgkQst0AR/DaKHu+/gCdHT2RNxGHBywiubXuTr/coEJY
z38An0t+nbWviveEoVMdMerhGreEk+68
=UPcG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[Daniel Morrison-2]

2009/11/2 Richard Bonner <ak621@...>:
> ***   A number of years ago in the U.S., Wikipedia was used to falsely
> discredit some political rival. I don't remember the details, but
> believe that some page on some politician was subtly altered to imply
> negative things.
>
>   Until they get complete control over it, there's a good reason I
> call it "Why? Ki-pedia".

But who is "they"? And... if "they" had complete control over it, it
wouldn't be wikipedia, would it? It would be another commercial
encyclopedia, and it wouldn't be free. I'm not saying Wikipedia is
perfect. There is a price to pay for a comprehensive, free, modern
knowledge database.

> That problem isn't unique to Wikipedia. That's why journals,
> newspapers etc. publish retractions.

***   Does Why?-Ki publish them?

Um, it's called the "history" tab, which shows every change ever made
to any article. Also, there is the "talk" page, wherein there is
discussion regarding changes. Far more accessible than a tiny "oops we
made a mistake" in some future edition of a print publication.

> Wikipedia even cites Britannica. Obviously, the printed Britannica in
> your parent's basement has no such update.

***   No, but at least it had editors overseeing every scrap of
information going into it.

You just don't get it, do you. There is an editor overseeing^H^H^H
creating every scrap of information going into wikipedia. There is, in
fact, orders of magnitude more of them. They're called "the public".
Granted, they may have fewer scruples and more bias or blatant bad
intent then many scholars. But there are no guarantees in life. Do you
believe everything written in Britannica? You shouldn't. How about
everything in the Chronicle Herald? Yeah, right.

Again: Wikipedia isn't perfect. But it's an incredibly large and
diverse public database of information that is freely accessible to
everyone. No, you shouldn't blindly believe everything written in it.
But you shouldn't blindly believe anything written by someone else. If
you want guarantees that your information is 100%, there is only one
way: research the topic yourself.

> ... anyway. It's an encyclopedia. There's a reason you don't cite
> encyclopedias, they're just a starting point.

***   I wish more thought that way, Ian.

So do I. But if I were forced to make a choice between waking people
up to critical thinking with regard to Wikipedia, or their local
newspaper, I would pick "local newspaper" first, no question.

-D.

PS: + what Mike.lifeguard just said. Agreed.
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug

[mike.lifeguard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Bonner wrote:
> ***   A number of years ago in the U.S., Wikipedia was used to falsely
> discredit some political rival. I don't remember the details, but
> believe that some page on some politician was subtly altered to imply
> negative things.

Biographies are an area of great concern to Wikipedians, there is
currently a rather large effort to organize better ways to raise the bar
on introducing libel - both in the software, and socially. I don't edit
Wikipedia, so I can't explain any specifics.

>    Until they get complete control over it, there's a good reason I
> call it "Why? Ki-pedia".

Who is "they"? Perhaps you don't understand how the wiki actually
works... Daniel's recent reply is a good intro, and there are a
multitude of recorded talks (google "Wikimania" for a sampling) which
can provide a more detailed explanation of how things do and don't work.

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrvDc4ACgkQst0AR/DaKHtzSQCff9TaNFvDIodL1QxC5UvOCpoV
EjgAn3/9zbTBWm0eq3mqNMVet9uUfqU7
=OarT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
nSLUG mailing list
nSLUG@...
http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug