|Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] in the hands of god, we are all...
Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> I'm relly struggling right now with funerals and kernels, but I thought
> that it would be obvious that the reason for an off button was so you
> could turn it off.... like when you are COOKING, and then turn it ON...
> say like when you are sleeping and need extra protection.
This isn't an answer to my question.
> It is about bending the device to the WILL of the user so that the user
> doesn't use the thing like a frizbee because he didn't get layed the
> night before and is hung over when the thing goes off after his toast is
This isn't an answer to my question.
> In houses the overwhelming number of deaths happen at night when people
> are asleep...
> So you make it a routine. Turn off the lights, lock the door, turn on
> the fire detector?
(Smoke detector, not fire detector.)
You don't actually have a need to turn off the smoke detector at all,
at any time, as far as I can tell. Moving the one nearest the kitchen
(while cooking) a bit lower so that it stops complaining suffices, or in
extreme cases opening a window for a while.
If there's a scenario that makes switching them off, let alone switching
off _every single one_ in a house, a sensible plan of action, I haven't
yet heard it.
I've asked, and you've consistently ignored my question and
hyperventilated with the usual, please to excuse the expression,
If you ever feel like addressing the question, I'm still here.
> First Alert Model No SC9120B
Docs claim this is supposed to be an AC-powered combo smoke/CO2
detector, with a 9V battery as failover power. We've just talked on the
telephone, and say your particular unit lacks terminal connectors in the
battery compartment, hence yours ends up being AC-only with _no_
failover during power outages.
Which suggests that the First Alert model SC9120B is a _very_ badly
designed unit for starters, and that yours is somehow defective from the
factory: Badly designed because plugging into AC limits where you can
place it and gives you a disincentive to annually replace the battery.
Defective because, without terminals and wires, the intended
battery-failover function obviously cannot work at all.
To save time: You said one of your places is (was?) an apartment, and
the other is (was?) a house, and that NYC regulation requires that
apartments deploy smoke detectors from an approved list of models. If I
lived in an apartment and the legally-mandated model was crap, I'd
replace it with a non-crap approved model if any exists. If all of the
approved models were crap, I'd replace it with a non-crap substitute
outside the approved list and hide the evidence.
In a house, I'd just summarily toss the crud smoke detector and get a
reasonable non-AC replacement.
Having five smoke detectors, as the building-management firm doubtless
ensured for my family house while it was a rental property between 1966
and 2006, strikes me as excessive. One near the kitchen and one in
living space might be (minimally) enough redundancy -- though three is
probably better insurance for the same reasons that _all_ of you domain
owners make sure you have minimum three, maximum seven authoritative
nameservers the way RFC2182 section 5 recommends.
( Of course, many of you habitually get by on _two_ because you
are feeling lucky and because you ignore standards written by the people
who engineered DNS in the first place -- which negligence you'll get
away with until, of course, suddenly you don't.)
By the way, is there a reason why you quote my _entire_ prior post
including all the parts you're ignoring and not even pretending to
respond to? Can I interest you in some good open-source MUA software
for Linux? Or would you consider trimming quotations to just what
you're responding to, the way old-school Unix users expect?