Re: Radio Shack?
- From: "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:37:26 GMT
Karl Uppiano wrote:
Wikipedia is very good about disambiguation. When I did a Wikipedia search
on "DB9 connector", I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB9
DB9 or DB-9 may refer to:
Aston Martin DB9 British sports car.
DE-9 connector, a common type of D-subminiature electrical connector
(often mistakenly called DB-9).
I think that is *exactly* the correct response. That is how salespeople at
high tech outlets should be trained to respond.
They are trained to smile and run the register. Nothing more. Its
nothing new. I started seeing these problems at electronic distributors
about 30 years ago. A clerk yelling at me that I didn't know what the
hell I was talking about, that the part had never been made. When he
finally shut up I asked him to turn around and "Give me that thing with
the red label that's on the wall right behind you".
Tell me the truth. If you had several people applying for a job. One
knew the proper names of a pile of components spread out on the table,
wouldn't you think they knew more of what they were doing, and that they
could be taught new things easier than the vague type who says "Its a
got a couple thingamajigs, and fourteen doohickeys?"
I'm not a terminology nazi. I would not disqualify a candidate if they
called a DE-9 a DB9, if on balance, they knew their stuff. They get extra
points if they say "It's a DE-9, often mistakenly called DB-9".
So you would give preference, if all other things are equal?
Any day you don't learn SOMETHING, was wasted.
I have no problem with that.
We had 14 differed DE-9 connectors in stock for different products,
and to service older generations of equipment. We used metal and
plastic, machine screw, jack screw, and snap lock types. Different body
depths for different PC boards,
It was an engineer to order telemetry company with base product
models that were built to the customer's demanding requirements. We had
no choice but to teach the employees and purchasing about components.
We had to watch purchasing, because distributors would try to sub a
similar part "At a better price", but the part was on the list as a
qualified component.
Do you have any idea of the damage to your company's reputation if
NASA has to return your product for service if it fails on the space
station, or aboard a shuttle. Even worse: If one of the command
destruct receivers failed, and a rocket can't be destroyed after it goes
off course?
As far as the newsgroups go, more people should say, "Oh, you're
looking for a ..." and continue to use the proper terminology.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Karl Uppiano
- Re: Radio Shack?
- References:
- Radio Shack?
- From: Paul Bunion
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Alison
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Michael A. Terrell
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Karl Uppiano
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Michael A. Terrell
- Re: Radio Shack?
- From: Karl Uppiano
- Radio Shack?
- Prev by Date: Re: Radio Shack?
- Next by Date: Re: Radio Shack?
- Previous by thread: Re: Radio Shack?
- Next by thread: Re: Radio Shack?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|