There is a thread on rec.pets.dogs.behavior that has drifted from my original intent to provide an on-line dog license application with fee adjustments based on weight and aggression history:
formatting link
Some comments were relevant to the discussion, but there are some who seem to have a need to oppose and belittle everything I post, and one of the regulars started a thread drift by criticizing my JScript code:
> I went ahead and took a look at Paul's source code
> (control-U in Firefox) and it just reinforced why an
> education is a good idea. It was nicely formatted, which is
> worth a lot (it makes it readable), but it was obviously
> written by someone who hasn't learned basic control flow
> constructs, how to handle data structures like arrays well,
> and how to write a procedure. I may joke about too many
> parameters, but if you're not going to have any you better
> not be dinking with global variables. Stuff like "if then if
> then if then if then if then" (hint: "switch") and overall
> klutziness in control flow lead me to think that if Paul has
> had a programming course it was Fortran IV 35-40 years ago.
> This kind of stuff would not fly in a modern shop.
>
> Screw the "switch" - the right thing is a for loop over the
> array with an array of multipliers, if you *must* alert all
> over the place (and you really mustn't) throw it in there,
> too, although you're better off with an explanation at the
> bottom of a results page.
>
> in LOLCODE it would look like:
>
> HOW DUZ I ComputeTotal
>
> I HAS A TotalFee ITZ 0
>
> [ snip ]
> IM IN YR loop UPPIN YR i WILE (i < 5)
> Form1.HumanBiteType[i].checked, O RLY?
> YA RLY, VISIBLE "IM IN UR FORM, UPPIN UR FEES"
> TotalFee R PRODUKT OF Form1.Weight.Value AN multiplier[i]
> OIC
> IM OUTTA YR loop
> [ snip]
>
> IF U SAY SO
>
> You can learn basic programming stuff like this in an
> introductory programming course pretty much anywhere.
And then Matt, who claims to be an EE, chimed in:
> I'm a hardware guy, though my EE degree was in communications
> theory (hey, I like math). In the ten years before my
> retirement I wrote a ton'o'code for microcontoller-based
> products. I was able to structure code, forgo most globals,
> and still write stuff which was maintainable by others. All
> with extremely limited resources (512 bytes RAM, some flash,
> some ROM).
>
> Sometimes one needed to use shortcuts (reused code!) but that
> was not the norm except in the most cost-conscious products,
> of which I have no experience - I simply migrated to the next
> best controller. The stuff I designed sold for the price of a
> Kia.
>
> I've looked at Paul's code (my self-taught html ain't much
> better), but structure is structure and he doesn't have it.
> FWIW, I had assumed Paul was an engineer because that's what
> he called himself. I'm really disappointed that, in addition
> to everything else, he also lied about his livelihood. I'm
> not sure what the law is in the States, but in Canada,
> mislabelling himself as an egineer would get him into serious
> doo doo.
After more discussion, about the high current breaker test sets I design and work on, I wrote the following:
High current at low voltage is fairly safe, although some effects can be
> startling, like jumping wires, flying tools, and loud noises. High
> voltage
> is what can make your hair literally stand on end. I have not done so
> much
> with that.
>
> Some good movies of electrical power system tests and failures with
> impressive arcs can be found at:
>
formatting link
I don't get involved
> with
> that sort of equipment directly, but that is the industry that uses test
> equipment I have designed and built. I have known people who were injured
> (and even killed) doing electrical testing. It is not something to be
> trifled with.
To which Matt replied:
"Paul E. Schoen" said in
> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>
>> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
>
> Backwards.
>
> --
> --Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
I followed with:
Certainly if the high current is going through your body, especially your
> heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz into the heart can cause
> fibrillation and death. But I'm talking about the current going through a
> low impedance like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
> voltage as a car battery. It takes a certain amount of voltage to deliver
> a
> dangerous current into the body, and it varies greatly depending on skin
> resistance and location of the electrodes. Body resistance is typically
> about 10 kOhms from one hand to the other, so 120 VAC would produce 12
> mA.
> However, the resistance can drop due to sweating, and the current can
> quickly reach dangerous levels of 20-50 mA.
>
> Higher voltages cause proportionally more current, so they are more
> dangerous (unless greatly limited in current). Above 5000 volts, which is
> technically the lower threshold of "high voltage", there is the
> additional
> danger that merely being close to the voltage source can cause it to arc
> through the air, so you don't even need to touch it. Typical air
> breakdown
> is about 10 kV per inch. You also have electrostatic fields, which are
> what
> cause your hair to stand on end, and corona, which is a visible effect,
> particularly on sharp pointed metallic objects. You can check the Wiki or
> do more scholarly research to learn more. High voltage is not my area of
> expertise. I know enough to stay the hell away from it. It is scary
> enough
> working with 480 or 600 VAC, which is technically "low voltage", but
> capable of immense damage as can be seen in the 480 VAC blast on
>
formatting link
>
> The low voltage that I consider safe is up to about 24 VAC. Telephone
> circuits operate on 48 VDC, which is also considered safe, but it can
> give
> you a nasty shock. Being DC, and limited to about 20 mA, it is rarely
> fatal, but the ring signal is about 100 VAC, which is enough to be
> dangerous, although the 25 Hz is less likely than the "ideal" 50-60 Hz to
> cause fibrillation.
>
> Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know whereof you
> speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
>
> Paul
Then, this response:
"Paul E. Schoen" said in
> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>
>>> "Paul E. Schoen" said in
>>> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>>>
>>>> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
>>>
>>> Backwards.
>
>> Certainly if the high current is going through your body,
>> especially your heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz
>> into the heart can cause fibrillation and death. But I'm
>> talking about the current going through a low impedance
>> like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
>> voltage as a car battery.
>
> You've gone all AC-DC. Do you know the difference?
>
>> It takes a certain amount of
>> voltage to deliver a dangerous current into the body,
>
> How much? The correct answer is little to none. Norton
> rules.
>
>> and
>> it varies greatly depending on skin resistance and location
>> of the electrodes.
>
> Natch.
>
> Dele elementary non-whitespace circuit theory.
>
>> Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know
>> whereof you speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
>
> You're wrong. Deal with it.
>
> --
> --Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Then I replied:
> Matt, it's hardly the best, but this reference might at least be easy for
> you to comprehend, if you can handle the truth:
>
>
formatting link
>
And I looked into his weird reference to Norton, to which I replied (to "Shelly" , who only googled it):
formatting link
's_theorem
> So, did you understand what it said, or do you still have no concept? If
> you have any idea what this means (which I learned in basic EE classes at
> Hopkins in 1966, as Thevenin Equivalent), then please explain how this
> justifies Matt's stupid quip. Otherwise, go back to something you can
> perhaps discuss intelligently, such as dog behavior.
>
> As I was saying, wtf does the calculation of an equivalent circuit have
> to
> do with the current and voltage required to cause a dangerous electrical
> shock? The human body, at any instant, has a "Norton Equivalent" circuit,
> but the important distinction of the portion of current flowing through
> the
> heart is lost when you lump all the parameters together. Anyone who fails
> to understand this, and tries to misapply it as a measure of safety with
> respect to human electrical shock, is negligent and irresponsible, and
> has
> no business being an electrical engineer. It was a truly scary revelation
> by Diddy that Matt indeed represents himself as being of this profession.
> Either he is incredibly incompetent, or he is attempting to be a troll by
> deliberately posting misinformation.
Sorry for the long post, but I want to know what people here think of this. Note that Matt says his EE degree was in Communications Theory, which may not have required much understanding of electrical shock hazards. But his criticism seems to involve a very basic misunderstanding of the concepts of current and voltage, and it is disturbing that a degreed engineer could be so wrong (IMHO).
I will invite him to post here, if he dares, as this discussion is much more appropriate for electronics experts than dog trainers.
Paul