Soundy

Tell ya what, you do you, and Imma do me, and I'll just keep using the method that I've found to be faster, cheaper, easier, and MORE RELIABLE. KISS principle.

Should work fine, just remember that you want the two adapters to be on the same power phase, or you'll have extremely limited speed.

Of course not. But wouldn't you agree it should at least mean "done 95% of the time", or some similarly large majority of the time? Why would you *not* want to follow basic best practices? Until recently, nobody told me what "best practices" were... so I've been doing it wrong all these years without serious issue. I see no reason to change now. And as I've noted before, I've done jobs using these "best practices" just because terminating to a keystone and finishing with a patchcord suited the particular installation best... frankly, I've had more reliability issues with those than with simply slapping on an RJ45 plug. I've seen the 110 contact blades in a keystone (and in patch panels) get weak and not contact the wire properly... meantime I've never had the blades in an RJ45 plug work themselves loose. But I'm to believe "best practices" calls this a better connection? It's more time consuming and more expensive to complete, and in my experience, more problematic in the long run... so thanks, but WHAT WORKS BEST FOR ME is what I consider to be my "best practices"... not what someone else tells me should THEORETICALLY be so.

You know something, you make a very good point: RJ-type connectors are, by their very nature, quite flimsy and inherently prone to the possibility of connection issues, including (from my experience) but not limited to: corroded contacts, bent contacts, contacts that have lost their spring, and broken or soft locking clips. Getting all bent out of shape about "best practices" in using these connectors, and even suggesting that it's a waste of time to terminate them in any other fashion, to me just smacks of the proverbial "polishing a turd".

Sure it is - it's still got that silly, obviously-military-inspired name

Not sure how well this would work... first of all, I see this is a PTZ camera; realize that the polarization angle will change depending on your angle of view of the water, so you'll only get the full polarization effect in one direction of view, unless you find a way to rotate the filter remotely (it will still help as you move the camera around, but not as much). Remember that a polarizer will reduce light transmission by up to two stops (1/4 the amount of light getting through) so it may adversely affect your image. All that said... you'd probably have to get a piece of polarizing glass (maybe from a pair of sunglasses) and find some way to actually attach it to the front of the lens structure. Or you might see if you can find somewhere that will add a polarizing film to the camera's bubble itself...

Sending via GMAIL requires encryption as well (TLS, if memory serves)... if your DVR doesn't have the option, it probably won't work. https://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=78799 Outgoing Mail (SMTP) Server - requires TLS: smtp.gmail.com (use authentication) Use Authentication: Yes Use STARTTLS: Yes (some clients call this SSL) Port: 465 or 587

You might be able to use VLC to capture an output stream and re-stream it for the TV... there are instructions floating around the 'net on setting it up as a DLNA server.

"BEST practice" does not mean "ONLY practice"

I have a little four-channel USB capture box that came with some basic DVR software, and works quite well (for the price, that is). Cost me something like $7 from miniinthebox.com (same kinda site as dealextreme.com, who I think has similar offerings, too). You could use the All-in-Wonder, but the software that's included isn't really suited to surveillance recording, and I don't know how it would work with other software. The drivers do conform to WDM, so it SHOULD work with any suitable software that supports WDM devices.

I don't see a problem with it, but you'd probably want to PM larry just to be safe (I don't know how often he sifts through the threads).

Sounds more to me like he didn't read the manufacturer-provided information, spec'd the wrong camera for a job, and lost an unhappy customer when the camera didn't perform the way he'd promised it would. At least, that's the way it reads to me...

If Box is anything like Dropbox, the links *as provided by the system* always default to https. Changing them to http requires manual editing in the post. Sure it's a small thing to do, but why should he be bothered just to cater to your broken browser? For that matter, why should he be bothered to accommodate someone who consistently calls him a spammer and accuses him of ripping off his customers? Back to the personal jabs, eh? Classy.

It's a bit of a leap from "this is best practices" to "anything else is something you shouldn't be doing anyway"...

Rent your own lift, have your own control. Most warehouses I've worked in have a manlift of some sort on-site... typical scissor type or small boom that you control yourself, so you're not reliant on another operator. I've also worked from baskets slung from cranes, 50' up or more... that's one case I'd definitely trust the operator's safety sense more than my own, as they have specific training and extensive procedures to follow.

We have both 12' fiberglass and 10' aluminum ladders that I can rack on top of my van... what I like about the articulating ladder is that I can fold it up and carry it inside the van. I also have one of these that rides inside: http://www.coscoproducts.com/eng/Products/Work-Platforms/All/Details/2759-11003ABL2-Cosco-Worlds-Greatest-Step-Stool-Three-Step-Aluminum-Work-Platform - very nice, with a big tray and a number of slots for screwdrivers and tools in the handle They do have some pretty tall models... http://www.littlegiantladder.com/little-giant/skyscraper.html "The SkyScraper is indeed the world's tallest a-frame ladder with a maximum height of 21-feet, making ceiling-height work simple and safe." Rory's right, a lift of some kind is appropriate past a certain level... especially if you have to take an assortment of tools and equipment up with you. Most areas, in fact, a lift is *required* over a certain height, except for specific conditions (eg. an extension ladder that can be tied off at the top). Worksafe BC mandates no higher than 3m (feet from ground) on a stepladder without fall protection; the oil companies in Canada have a stricter limitation of 1.5m

I think I'd be a little leery of one that extended up like that... doesn't seem like there'd be a lot of strength to that section, with no upper support. I'd love one of these, personally: http://www.littlegiantladder.com/ - I know several trades that have them and swear by them. My co-worker and I have a couple different designs of articulating ladders (this style: http://www.rona.ca/shop/~articulated-ladder-featherlite-64698_!ladder_shop), similar styles but with different locking mechanisms... both are a pain to work with, and one of them has round rungs that are painful to stand on for more than about 5 minutes, unless you're wearing construction boots with thick, hard soles. Still, handy to be able to fold it up to a 3' height to go in the back of a van or car.

I avoid them as well, but I don't have the appropriate crimper and the few times I've used one because it's all I had, I've had to trim the ends with a knife. Then again, I have no problem putting the regular RJ45s together.

What make/model cameras are they? Sounds like you're using indoor-only cameras.

Found the manual here: http://www.fitch.ca/word/Kalatel/ktd_405_man.pdf "5.2.8 PROGRAMMING A DVMRe/MULTIPLEXER CAMERA SEQUENCE" starts on page 40.

I think that's what we're talking about: terminating solid-core bulk wire into a keystone jack... ...then using a ready-made patch cable between that and the camera

I've actually had MORE problems with keystones than with simply terminating the wire myself (including a particular toolless keystone design that let the ends of the wires touch, thus feeding full PoE power into the camera's data pins, frying the camera). If I do need to use a keystone in a housing, I'll just use a pre-made 12"-or-so patch cable from there to the camera. At the head end, I'll usually try to bring everything into a patchbay, although that's not always the optimal solution either. Personally, I don't find it difficult at all to terminate with an RJ45 plug... YMMV. I suppose if you can't remember your T-568x color codes, it's handy to have the keystones as they usually have the colors marked on the terminals. There are plug/tool systems that make it easier: (Combined with a special crimper that has a cutting blade to chop the ends off... and obviously this sample doesn't follow any T-568x spec!)

OK, thanks. So, if a site does not have a certificate, or if it does have a certificate and your computer is out of date, either way, you just click to ignore, and view the image, right? If you don't trust the site to be who they say it is for what ever reason, just don't enter any private information, right? In other words, no matter the reason for the warning about the certificate, if all you want to do is view an image, this is much ado about nothing, is that right? Best, Christopher Pretty much, yeah. Most secure sites (those using https) will offer their own certificate, which you can accept and install, so your browser won't ask anymore for that site. Normally there are bulk updates of "root certificates" that your system should install automatically... box.com has been around for a while so if you don't already have a valid cert for it, you probably haven't updated your system in a long time.

There's been talk about it ever since the first LotR movie was such a huge success. http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/12/21/funny-facebook-fails-the-hobbit-movie-an-obvious-ripoff/

Lots of threads on this very subject: clicky clicky