TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: Dent Cermak on September 11, 2008, 10:59:53 AM
-
http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ (http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/)
-
If this were truly about Standards one would not need to BUY the manual to implement the standard.
Further most do not use it as it stands. Because the NCS documentation Should be included in any application that attempts to foster said standard, or be provided FREELY on the web as is the XML standards, or the SDTS. Either STOP giving us files that use this standard or give us the documentation that fully explains that standard you are promoting.
-
If this were truly about Standards one would not need to BUY the manual to implement the standard.
Further most do not use it as it stands. Because the NCS documentation Should be included in any application that attempts to foster said standard, or be provided FREELY on the web as is the XML standards, or the SDTS. Either STOP giving us files that use this standard or give us the documentation that fully explains that standard you are promoting.
We had to buy the NFPA, IBC, IRC, etc... cost of doing business.
Many jobs require you to furnish your own tools. I bet no one here has to pay for their computer.
Many jobs have uniforms and you end up buying them.
-
We had to buy the NFPA, IBC, IRC, etc... cost of doing business.
Sorry .. you have been duped ... did you know that it is unlawful for the government to charge you for access to the law, especially if you are supposed to follow it?
-
We had to buy the NFPA, IBC, IRC, etc... cost of doing business.
Sorry .. you have been duped ... did you know that it is unlawful for the government to charge you for access to the law, especially if you are supposed to follow it?
So where'd you get yours?
-
I have no issue with a guy needing to furnish his own Hammer, tool belt, etc.
However when some agency, committee is going to say here is the standard for using those tools that you should follow.
And then they do not actually provide FREE and ready access to the how and the why of that standard of how to use those tools, I have an issue with that.
Here let's try this in your office:
A new hire sits down and starts to perform CADD tasks.
You, approach the new hire and inquire, "Are you using Our Company Standard?"
The new guy says, ""ell, I'm just trying to sort of match the stuff that was already in this file, uh why?"
"Well you need to use our standard" is your reply
"How do I get this Standard?"
And then you tell him he has to pay you $50 before you will give him the standard.
New Guy.... :-o
-
Here let's try this in your office:
How is that different than
"Hey, are you wearing the company uniform?"
"No, just figured I'd dress appropriately."
"well you have to wear the uniform... btw, $25/shirt"
?
-
Here let's try this in your office:
How is that different than
"Hey, are you wearing the company uniform?"
"No, just figured I'd dress appropriately."
"well you have to wear the uniform... btw, $25/shirt"
?
could be why I don't work in an office.... :lmao:
-
We had to buy the NFPA, IBC, IRC, etc... cost of doing business.
Sorry .. you have been duped ... did you know that it is unlawful for the government to charge you for access to the law, especially if you are supposed to follow it?
So where'd you get yours?
Online
Here let's try this in your office:
How is that different than
"Hey, are you wearing the company uniform?"
"No, just figured I'd dress appropriately."
"well you have to wear the uniform... btw, $25/shirt"
?
Me - Screw you jack .. I'm outta here
Actually I have worked numerous places where I had to wear a uniform, and not one of them has ever charged me for the priviledge of wearing them.
I did have one job where I paid $8 per week for uniforms, but it was for cleaning ... If I had taken them to the cleaners myself it would have cost $15 per week, so it was a bargain. If I didn't have them cleaned, I didn't have a bill ... how easy is that?
-
Personally; I like a comany that subversively makes you wear the uniform.
Bunch of shirts, and caps, and flair for sale. And most of the long term employees wear the logo.
So sheepishly you too buy a polo shirt here and there, and then they GIVE you one for
being there a year. then they give you a Mug, another shirt. Well the next thing you know YOU are wearing The Uniform Too!
I like that a lot better....
-
I like uniforms because then I don't have to worry about what to wear to work... did I wear that shirt yesterday? Does that shirt go with these pants?
Keith, god forbid you ever ended up as a mechanic, maintenance tech, machinist, or skilled laborer of any kind... I think you'd have a heart attack when you heard of the requirements most employers have on tools.
-
...a mechanic, maintenance tech, machinist, or skilled laborer of any kind... I think you'd have a heart attack when you heard of the requirements most employers have on tools.
Yes, however without those tools, they could not effectively do their jobs.
Without the ncs, one can still produce drawings that meet yours, and the clients needs.
-
...a mechanic, maintenance tech, machinist, or skilled laborer of any kind... I think you'd have a heart attack when you heard of the requirements most employers have on tools.
Yes, however without those tools, they could not effectively do their jobs.
Without the ncs, one can still produce drawings that meet yours, and the clients needs.
Depends on if the client is demanding that standard or not, now doesn't it?
-
And they would be charged accordingly. :evil:
-
And they would be charged accordingly. :evil:
That's absolutely correct! But you would still pay for the standard :) even if the buck is passed.
-
And they would be charged accordingly. :evil:
That's absolutely correct! But you would still pay for the standard :) even if the buck is passed.
And would not like it any more, than if it wasn't.
-
I like uniforms because then I don't have to worry about what to wear to work... did I wear that shirt yesterday? Does that shirt go with these pants?
Keith, god forbid you ever ended up as a mechanic, maintenance tech, machinist, or skilled laborer of any kind... I think you'd have a heart attack when you heard of the requirements most employers have on tools.
Already did it ... 3 years ... I had my own tools and then the shop had tools. If I needed something that I didn't have, I checked it out of the tool room, then checked it back in when I was done with it.
Remember, you make your own deal .. if your boss insists you buy your own tools and you agree, you made the deal. If a client says that I have to abide by whatever standard, then the client gets to pay for those standards .. period ..
-
Keith, et. al.
I've just been all over California.gov looking for the free building codes (for Cali, it is Title 24 to the International Building Code published by International Code Council).
It is "available for purchase or may be viewed at Depository Libraries".
Bob G.
-
Everything in the California law is available here (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22public.resource.org%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22administrative%20code%22%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts&sort=title) except Title 24. Maybe an email will get it posted.
-
Everything in the California law is available here (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22public.resource.org%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22administrative%20code%22%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts&sort=title) except Title 24. Maybe an email will get it posted.
I wouldn't trust an internet archive site to be 100% up to date.
-
Title 24 is the building code for California. All the stuff posted on that website is the stuff written by the State government. All the stuff that's written by the International Code Council costs.
Straight and to the point: I will mail $100 cash to anyone that can direct me to a free copy of the International Building Code, 2006 Edition, as published by the International Code Council. Not a library copy (that has already been purchased) but one that I can keep in my office for ready reference. I have counted out 5-$20 dollar bills and I have put them in a blank envelope. Tell me where I can get the free code, send me your address, and after I confirm my free copy, this envelope is on it's way to you.
Bob Garner
-
Title 24 is the building code for California. All the stuff posted on that website is the stuff written by the State government. All the stuff that's written by the International Code Council costs.
Straight and to the point: I will mail $100 cash to anyone that can direct me to a free copy of the International Building Code, 2006 Edition, as published by the International Code Council. Not a library copy (that has already been purchased) but one that I can keep in my office for ready reference. I have counted out 5-$20 dollar bills and I have put them in a blank envelope. Tell me where I can get the free (read as $100) code, send me your address, and after I confirm my free copy, this envelope is on it's way to you.
Bob Garner
Well.... it still wouldn't be "free", now would it?!? :wink:
*note* The only links I've seen are for pay-to-download versions. Except this one^^
EDIT: Removed Linkage
-
I'm not looking for overall free to me per se, but free to John Q. Public. I don't think the code is free, and I'm puttin' me money where me mouth is. Any takers? I just put a stamp on the envelope. Overseas takers O.K., too. I can put on more postage.
-
I'm not looking for overall free to me per se, but free to John Q. Public. I don't think the code is free, and I'm puttin' me money where me mouth is. Any takers? I just put a stamp on the envelope. Overseas takers O.K., too. I can put on more postage.
so you want one more free than the one he linked to???
-
I'm not looking for overall free to me per se, but free to John Q. Public. I don't think the code is free, and I'm puttin' me money where me mouth is. Any takers? I just put a stamp on the envelope. Overseas takers O.K., too. I can put on more postage.
so you want one more free than the one he linked to???
rapidshare is a user-run peer-share network and not an official distribution.
-
I tried the rapidshare link and what finally downloaded was not the IBC. Should I qualify my offer - it has to be legit (I know I can get a free copy in Hong Kong).
-
From what I saw doing a quick search, you can't get that for free. The cheapest I saw was $84-ish on the Barnes & Noble site.
-
mmmmm...here we go again........
In Aus.....well...we can play with changes a bit.......mmmmmmm
-
I just don't see why people complain about a standard costing money?
IBC, IRC, NFPA... all cost money if you want a conveniently bound, personally owned, privately accessed copy. That's the cost of doing business. Keith, as usual, you have no backup to your extraordinary claims and instead provide a moot counterargument regarding law, so I'm not inclined to believe you that you got a full copy for free until proven otherwise.
The project I'm doing right now demands that the contractor follow MUTCD standards for signage and markers for temporary traffic control. You think I'm gonna rubber-band a copy of this standard for him? No, he's a bridge and roadway contractor, he can dang well go buy the book himself... any contractor worth a crap would because any competent and professional individual working in the specific business/industry is going to do so.
If you don't have the money to get into business, then don't get into business in the first place... no one is going to PAY YOU to have your own tools and resources. You get paid for your product. I am darn sure that everyone charges an "overhead" rate per hour. That overhead includes the "cost of business" and $50 or whatever it is... is a drop in the bucket not even worth whining about.
-
Josh,
Here's my secret. Don't tell anyone. In my major construction specs, I add the clause, "Contractor shall have on the jobsite at all times, copies of all codes referenced in the construction documents. In addition, Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with all copies of codes referenced in the construction documents. A list of the code documents referenced in the contract documents shall be provided to the contractor and such codes shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to start of the work. Purchase of code documents shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the work and no additional payment will be made for these documents."
I haven't had to pay for a code book for years. In the end, our clients pay the contractor for these code books. Otherwise, their cost would be included in our fees so nothing's really different.
Bob G.
-
Josh,
Here's my secret. Don't tell anyone. In my major construction specs, I add the clause, "Contractor shall have on the jobsite at all times, copies of all codes referenced in the construction documents. In addition, Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with all copies of codes referenced in the construction documents. A list of the code documents referenced in the contract documents shall be provided to the contractor and such codes shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to start of the work. Purchase of code documents shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the work and no additional payment will be made for these documents."
I haven't had to pay for a code book for years. In the end, our clients pay the contractor for these code books. Otherwise, their cost would be included in our fees so nothing's really different.
Bob G.
In the end you do not really want to pay for those codes then either, do you?
-
As Josh notes, in the end, it's the cost of doing business. Whether it is included in our overhead or in the construction cost, the owner pays, and ideally reaps the benefits of the application of these codes in a safe, reliable structure for his use.
I do pay personally for educational books - I just dropped $152 this morning for books on the application of the new 2006 wind and seismic codes. So my Mr. Wallet doesn't ride for free in my pants.
Bob G.
-
...doesn't ride for free in my pants.
Insert joke here ^^
-
I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business. And lets be completely honest; if some nurb draws an element in a cad file on the wrong layer, with or without the wrong line type no one dies, the building doesn't collapse, and the clients check clears the bank.
As to those other standards drug into the fray, if one specifies the wrong joist on hangerrs, etc then the integrity of the building will suffer and someone might die. In regards MUTC even properly applied those barricade diagrams can STILL get people killed unless a lot of logic is applied on top of the guidelines listed for sign type, size, and spacing per design speeds.
The 'standard' in question does not serve any purpose than to forward the agenda of the committee involved in making it, and then selling it. This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them. In regards those other 'standards' they too should be free, so that they would encourage easier compliance, and inspection. However as some or most of the money from the sale of those publications, goes back into safety research, and education, I'm OK with that.
-
I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business.
This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.
So why have CAD standards... at all? Ever?
-
I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business.
This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.
So why have CAD standards... at all? Ever?
That is a topic for a whole other discussion.
As we can hint at in this brief: Standards foster ease of use and or interoperability within an organisation.
However no one dies, and thus one should NOT be forced to buy in to follow this particular one.
In the OLD primitive days of cadd if one wanted to work well with another firm, you agreed to and shared a common standard for that job. It works even today, and no one is forced to buy the standard to use it, because it is a given that using one is better than not. Paying for such a standard that is not a life, or safety related burden on the cost of doing business is a waste. Think about it, if I want our job to go smoothly together, we are going to discuss the standard we will use on that job, and i doubt you will be charging me for it, because you know the benefit of having me use your standard if that is the one we decide to use.
-
I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business.
This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.
So why have CAD standards... at all? Ever?
That is a topic for a whole other discussion.
As we can hint at in this brief: Standards foster ease of use and or interoperability within an organisation.
However no one dies, and thus one should NOT be forced to buy in to follow this particular one.
In the OLD primitive days of cadd if one wanted to work well with another firm, you agreed to and shared a common standard for that job. It works even today, and no one is forced to buy the standard to use it, because it is a given that using one is better than not. Paying for such a standard that is not a life, or safety related burden on the cost of doing business is a waste. Think about it, if I want our job to go smoothly together, we are going to discuss the standard we will use on that job, and i doubt you will be charging me for it, because you know the benefit of having me use your standard if that is the one we decide to use.
Your life/death argument is ridiculous! What the heck does that have to do with the origin of costs? You think standards manuals grow on trees? This is an independent organization that got together to formulate these standards as a product to sell because there's obviously a demand for it. I can either spend hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars having a relatively high-wage employee formulate our OWN standards that we distribute freely, or I can spend $50 or whatever... and go by an already formulated and thorough standard that's already completely documented and easily transmitted for a minuscule fee.
It's business... not life or death.
Why life or death has ANYTHING to do with this topic, I have no idea. It's just completely irrelevant.
-
do you follow this particular standard?
-
do you follow this particular standard?
Relevance?
-
do you follow this particular standard?
Relevance?
At this point we ask that You be characterized as a hostile witness, and you must answer yes or no questions....with only Yes or No, and that sir is a simple yes or no question:
Do you or does your company strictly follow the standard in question?
-
haha
no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason. Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.
Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.
But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.
-
haha
no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason. Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.
Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.
But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.
So, whereas those other standards are designed and instituted to maintain public safety, and this one is pretty much irrelevant, you still want to pay for it, even though you do not follow it.
I think you make my case for me.
Someone throw the book at him......
-
haha
no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason. Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.
Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.
But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.
stricken from the record. :-P
<flinging book, thusly>
-
Like usual, you fail to read.
Thanks though.
-
Like usual, you fail to read.
Thanks though.
I read what you typed.
Through yours and your company's behavior you demonstrate the irrelevance of this particular thing that poses as a standard by that fact that you do not follow it. Am I clear on that?
My argument, and I think you miss it is; this standard would be more widely used and adopted if one did not need to literally 'buy-in' to use it. And that is my argument against charging for it. Most notably due to the fact it does nothing to protect life or property, thus rendering it nonessential. And as you and that other company clearly demonstrate irrelevant, and unnecessary to doing business.
Thus IF autodesk would include full documentation for a standard they imply to support it would gain acceptance.
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/mattw/popcorn.gif)
-
Like usual, you fail to read.
Thanks though.
My argument, and I think you miss it is; this standard would be more widely used and adopted if one did not need to literally 'buy-in' to use it. And that is my argument against charging for it. Most notably due to the fact it does nothing to protect life or property, thus rendering it nonessential. And as you and that other company clearly demonstrate irrelevant, and unnecessary to doing business.
Money isn't property?
-
Like usual, you fail to read.
Thanks though.
My argument, and I think you miss it is; this standard would be more widely used and adopted if one did not need to literally 'buy-in' to use it. And that is my argument against charging for it. Most notably due to the fact it does nothing to protect life or property, thus rendering it nonessential. And as you and that other company clearly demonstrate irrelevant, and unnecessary to doing business.
Money isn't property?
that property isn't yours until you earn it.
and from all appearances you nor your company use this standard you seem willing to construct straw men for
and not using it does not impact your ability to acquire that property
-
It impacts my ability to earn that money if we stubbornly refuse to use a standard if our client demands it.
However, more specifically, I refer to the money -saved- by not making an overhead-only employee spend dozens and dozens of likely charged hours preparing a ground-up standard, and instead paying a nominal fee for an already-prepared standard.
You look at this standard as if it's supposed to be some globally enforced standard in coming...
Look at it as a marketed product... because that's pretty much all it is. "Hey, don't waste time and money and billable hours doing something we'll sell you for cheap!"
You churn your own butter too?
-
It impacts my ability to earn that money if we stubbornly refuse to use a standard if our client demands it.
However, more specifically, I refer to the money -saved- by not making an overhead-only employee spend dozens and dozens of likely charged hours preparing a ground-up standard, and instead paying a nominal fee for an already-prepared standard.
You look at this standard as if it's supposed to be some globally enforced standard in coming...
Look at it as a marketed product... because that's pretty much all it is. "Hey, don't waste time and money and billable hours doing something we'll sell you for cheap!"
You churn your own butter too?
If access to milk and churns were easier, probably. However I eat little butter, and that isn't the discussion.
Your argument holds little credability. You state that a client asked that you use the standard, and you didn't. and it has not impacted your work with said client. So in fact you must be creating your own standard, and not using this one. You said that you were not.
I have never implied an irrational fear that this standard will infact consume the world cad market.
I have repeatedly stated it's adoption would be faster and easier for most IF they could use it without need to buy the stupid book, given that autodesk is already stuffing our templates full of those layer names, etc.
Wouldst thou use the standard and argue it's merits from that vantage point.
Or wouldst thou argue that given the standard were five or ten times more costly than all would readily adopt it?
-
Your argument holds little credability. You state that a client asked that you use the standard, and you didn't. and it has not impacted your work with said client. So in fact you must be creating your own standard, and not using this one. You said that you were not.
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/JoshNieman/citation-needed.PNG)
[1]I have never implied an irrational fear that this standard will infact consume the world cad market.
[2A]Wouldst thou use the standard and argue it's merits from that vantage point.
[2b]Or wouldst thou argue that given the standard were five or ten times more costly than all would readily adopt it?
1 - I got that impression (though I wasn't going as far as it being an irrational fear) because you compare this specific standard on equal grounds with other standards that ARE lawfully enforced by the government, trying to hold it to the same terms... so if it's apples to oranges, why must the apple be treated as an orange? Why else would every point you try to make be about the standard being more widely adopted?
2 - I have no idea what the crap you're saying. Would I use a standard and argue it's merits from what vantage point or would I argue that if the standard costs 5x or 10x as much it would be readily adopted? What?
-
haha
no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason. Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.
Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.
here is your citation, and I see that you choose to not use the standard. it was optional...
here is the deal, if you would use the standard then argue it's merits I'll wait.
otherwise my postion remains, IF they would not charge for this thing more people might use it.
-
no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason. Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.
Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.
here is your citation, and I see that you choose to not use the standard. it was optional...
They use it... they never required us to... they never asked... we just got wind of them using it, and the boss was curious about it, and asked me to look into it independently.
-
I have never implied an irrational fear that this standard will infact consume the world cad market.
If you guys keep trying to smash you ideologies together; you might just create a black hole that will consume the world cad market. :-P :-)
-
I have never implied an irrational fear that this standard will infact consume the world cad market.
If you guys keep trying to smash you ideologies together; you might just create a black hole that will consume the world cad market. :-P :-)
It could happen, as I think Josh has decided that irrespective of the discussion 'we' will disagree of late.