Online Version Of Code

[George Stolz]

Re: Online Version Of Code

So, does anyone here not purchase the paper edition of the NEC?

This reminds me of my time working (in the mailroom) of a local newspaper. There was a meeting at which the ad director discussed the looming internet threat to the printing industry, and he addressed it pretty well.

These two publications mirror each other, in that the mobility of the printed word is still superior to how easily it is to update and store the digitized word.

People may purchase an expensive PDA that will store the NEC with no problem. But for everyone who does that, there are probably 100 people who purchase the printed word first, and augment it with a Handbook CD, or a online NFPA subscription.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The way the NFPA funds itself will have to expand to other means than it's current manner, if the proceeds from sale of copyrighted work decreases on the heels of public access to "code as Law".</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

I'd say when and if that happens, the NFPA will address it. Hopefully, they maintain their private sector roots in the process.

 

[iwire]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Originally posted by jimwalker:
"Then again maybe someone will compete with nfpa and the price will drop and perhaps a better written book.

You know Jim this is not even funny anymore, I for one am tired of reading your posts complaining it is such a poorly written code.

Have YOU put in any proposals to 'fix' the poorly written parts?

How much time have you spent with other codes?

Can you point out one that you think is well written code?

Take an OSHA class and try to make sense out of the OSHA statutes-.

Here is fairly typical OSHA statute that you should know.

1926.20(a)(1)

Section 107 of the Act requires that it shall be a condition of each contract which is entered into under legislation subject to Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267), as defined in 1926.12, and is for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, that no contractor or subcontractor for any part of the contract work shall require any laborer or mechanic employed in the performance of the contract to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to his health or safety.

Really read that and tell me that is written clearly without any room for interpretation.

Read the FL state laws and tell us if you think they are clearly written.

My point here Jim is I believe it is a lot harder to write a code then you are willing to admit. Considering you have not actually tried to improve the code how can you go on complaining about it?

[ April 24, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Bob,how often do we see posts on this forum that take hundreds of posts and days over wording that is poor ,and they end up unsolved ? No way will i ever say it is well written.As to fixing it, i am far too old to start that job.I do however buy a hard copy as i need it on the job site.To pay $70 for that is with in reason.But they offer no break in price for a CD that they can produce for under $1.

 

[iwire]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Originally posted by jimwalker:
As to fixing it, i am far too old to start that job.

Then if your not willing to help out quit complaining about it. :roll:

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Jim,

$1? You are so minimizing the efforts that go into it's production.

Surely you can see that?!?

Surely you can see how much better written the NEC is over the excerpt that Bob posted?

Bob,

IMO, Jim contributes to the NEC process, whenever he contributes his opinion on proposals that others draft. Even that is a contribution, don't you think?

C'mon, let's hug.

 

[iwire]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Even that is a contribution, don't you think?

In a small (get out the electron microscope) way I guess so. [/b][/quote]I have never been a 'group hug' kind of guy.

[ April 24, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Online Version Of Code

Let me correct the way i worded that.The $1 i am referring too is the actual cost of making the CD.It does not include the process of changing or writing codes.While it costs a lot in ink and paper for a hard copy the CD or online version is far far?less costly.When nfpa starts signing my paycheck i will start working for them.Seems like a negative thing to suggest they change the code so i can pay them to see my own work.Do we get a free copy if they use our ideas ? They don't want us as a member unless we pay them $135.You should feel insulted if someone wants your help for free but not want you as a member unless you pay.

 

[renosteinke]

Re: Online Version Of Code

This is an issue that has been brewing, and I am glad it has come up now.

The NEC is available on the web, for free, from a Japanese code site. I suspect that the link to this site has been poseted, and deleted as "illegal" by a moderator. Assuming that is true, there is no point in arguing his decision here, but I believe that it is permitted to say that this link can be found on other web sites that cater to the electrical community, especially Licensed Electricians.

As to the various arguments presented, and the reasoning behind them: I believe the "point is moot." The court has ruled. Re-invented a rejected argument is not going to change anything. "No man owns the law." We might as well try to argue the merits of having the black wire grounded, as is done on automobiles!

I would not worry about the NFPA. At least three publishers make quite a nice profit publishing works that are in the public domain (West, CCH, Thomas). Even the owner of this site make a nice living based upon the NEC- which he doesn't own, no matter how you look at it! The secret? While they may not "own" the source material, they DO own their commentaries, indicies, opinions, and artwork.

For those who wish to see standards-making gone awry, I reccomend the US Supreme Court case "Hydrolevel vs ASME." I. for one, am delighted to see these standards become more acessible; our very freedom is based upon the free flow of information.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Online Version Of Code

our very freedom is based upon the free flow of information.

Hear, hear!! Well said!!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Online Version Of Code

I believe the "point is moot." The court has ruled. Re-invented a rejected argument is not going to change anything.

The court ruling is only binding in the 5th Circuit (the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). There are conflicting opinions in the lower courts of other circuits.