User talk:Jharris1993

Welcome and question about sources
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your edit to Jurat and I'm hoping you can provide a source for the idea that an electronic signature on a tax return, that has the same legal effect as an oath, is actually called a jurat. Also, is a source for the alternate spelling? --Gerry Ashton 00:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Source regarding crossover cables between old switches
In Ethernet crossover cable, you wrote that some old switches are sensitive as to whether or not pins 4 and 5 are crossed with pins 7 and 8 (while 10baseT/100baseTX only uses pins 1, 2, 3 and 6). This is a good thing to know, and is important enough that it deserves a reference, but I can't find one. Where would you recommending looking for a source? You can respond here. Thanks! — Elembis (talk · contribs) 07:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a known, provable fact, but I can't cite sources because they're out of print, (or never existed) - how do we play this?
Elembis,

Since I'm new to this "Wikipedia" stuff, I might be stumbling over my own two feet here.. :-)

The "citation" for the "fussiness" of older systems is not something I can specifically cite in some book somewhere - it's something I, (and many other), network/IT people have learned the hard way.

Viz:


 * My Intel Express 510T managed 24 port switch (newer equipment) doesn't care if just two pair, or all four pairs are swapped.


 * However, my Bay Networks Bay Stack 350T 16 port managed switch (older equipment) has absolute fits if all four pairs are crossed. (i.e. - it won't autosense speed, sometimes won't respond to that port, etc.) However, with just TWO pair crossed - and the others straight-through - it's as happy as a clam.

Here we have a dilemma:


 * This is an absolute and provable fact. I know it as certainly as I know gravity, and it's as easily proven. I can demonstrate this using my own equipment - and I've heard this from other tech's "around the water-cooler"
 * Unfortunately, these changes in technology often pass unnoticed, as it were, as a part of the natural evolution of the technology.
 * (Example) Where is the "citation" that tells us that older "home" router/firewall/NAT units sold eight or so years ago, top out at five-or-so megabit line rates - but newer units can easily handle the ten or even fifteen megabit broadband line-speeds that are available now.
 * When you stop and think about it - it makes absolute sense. Older home broadband equipment manufacturers didn't imagine fifteen-megabit-plus home broadband line speeds even in their NIGHTMARES, let alone *design* for it.
 * It's a fact. I have an older D-Link D-704 home broadband router that drove both me - and my broadband provider - absolutely CRAZY a month or so ago trying to find out why my broadband connection was apparently being throttled to five megabits when I was paying for ten megabit service...  It took over six hours for us to discover the problem - entirely by accident - while they were all but ripping their head-end servers apart trying to find the problem!
 * "citation:" Tech support call to Charter Business Broadband tech-support, (Central Ma.), on October 24, 2007. (Call time - Start: appx. 11:05 AM EDT - End: appx. 4:37 PM EDT)
 * My boss at work was TOTALLY MIFFED at me because I got eff-all done for the entire day
 * It was so unusual an issue, (as far as the broadband provider was concerned), that they wanted to write it up as an internal tech-note for future tech-support calls. However, I can't "cite" this, neither do I have access to it.  In fact, I can't guarantee they even WROTE the darn thing.


 * This kind of network cable/equipment quirkiness is something that many people either overlook, or don't know about, so I felt it should be included...


 * But I don't (can't?) cite a "source" because this information is "obsolete" and most manuals are already out-of-print, (and/or unavailable via the most diligent of web searches), so there's nothing to cite to. (Your own difficulty finding citations for this is a perfect example of the problem I face with a lot of this stuff...)

So - how do we play this?
 * Provide helpful information people may well need?
 * Or just let 'em rot in hell because we can't find some dusty 16th century Parlamentary precedent to cite?

IMHO - I'd rather provide the information - even if it's not absolutely citable - rather than let folks just squirm on the line, pounding their heads because nobody bothered to mention this.

What say ye?

Jharris1993 (talk)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)