🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Feb19.232959.28401@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1991Feb13.002236.8087@sj.ate.slb.com> jones@sjs.sj.ate.slb.com (Clark Jones) writes:
>>And the designers of this equipment, in their infinite wisDUMB, put the
>>on/off switches on the _BACK_ so you've got to get "up close and personal"
>>to turn the thing on or off!
>
>This in turn is a safety issue.  Keeping the 110VAC wiring in a tight little
>clump at the back makes it substantially easier to pass safety standards for
>shock hazard, especially when you can use a plug/fuse/filter/switch/etc.
>module built by somebody else instead of having to do all that high-hazard
>wiring yourself.
>-- 
>"Read the OSI protocol specifications?  | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>I can't even *lift* them!"              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Henry, have you forggotten entirely about the rather dangerous voltages that
these things require to work?  Furthermore, having to reach around to the
back _DECREASES_ safety (I rather suspect that you could get a U.L. engineer
to agree that reaching around a burning terminal to shut it off is not as
safe as being able to turn it off from the front ;-), not to mention the
increased danger of back strain from that reach and the chance of knocking
the whole box off onto the floor (have you ever seen a CRT implode?  Flying
glass _everywhere_, not a nice thing to be bending over).

But to really blow your argument out of the water, Henry, a quick check of
the two monitors on my desk (a 19" color from Sun and a DEC VT-100) reveals
that _neither_ of them make use of a third-party switch/fuse/plug/filter
module.  (The VT-100 does have a plug/filter/voltage-select module, but the
switch is separate.)

No, it is not a safety issue, just plain anti-ergonomics.

						Clark

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are mine and not those of Schlumberger
because they are NOT covered by the patent agreement!