Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Cerebus]

Am I the only one here who sees the recent cal (provided it is from a reputable source) as having at least some value worth considering...? 

mnem
 

Yes. It's an oscilloscope, not a 6.5 digit DMM

 

So you see no value in having at least one recently-cal'd scope in your lab...?

mnem

If you've a half decent signal generator, and a decent voltmeter plus some sort of frequency reference to check the signal generator with, then you have all you need to do your own scope calibration. Most scopes are 3% stated accuracy on voltage and 10ppm on timebase. Getting scopes independently calibrated and that calibration certified is strictly for people who need the paper trail. If you just want as much accuracy as you're likely to get, you're better off doing it yourself. Relying on an 'official cal' on a scope to provide yourself with any added measurement certainty would be a false economy - spend the money on getting your best DVM calibrated instead.

That is exactly not what I was talking aboot. 

But, but, that seems to be exactly what you were talking about.

Am I the only one here who sees the recent cal (provided it is from a reputable source) as having at least some value worth considering...? 

mnem
 

Sorry, I really don't see how get how you get to "That is exactly not what I was talking aboot." from there.

You were asking about the perceived value in the cal, as an additional factor to consider, or at least that's how you've presented it and that's all I'm commenting on.

[Cerebus]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

In terms of whether fixed or dynamic IP addresses present bigger risks? No. It has nothing to do with the value of company data - that's a question of motivation, not a technical barrier to hacking.

[mnementh]

Erm, exactly. 50km is not a movie scenario where the comely blonde female detective says "Can you track his IP address?" and the geek with the Goth/RPG fixation says "Sure" and their computer zooms in on a map with a street address and the IP address next to a flashing beacon and the geek says "They're in the back southeast corner of the 3rd floor apartment at 123, 45th Street.".

That only happens if the IPv4 address is from the Hollywood allocation block, starting with 320.0.0.0/8 and up. (Of course an 8-bit byte can reach a value of 300+ in decimal. In the USA everything is bigger, so their bits hold much more data! 

Stay the fuck away from my bits widdat scope, ya perv!!! 

mnem
oh, okay... maybe just a little ...   

Guys, can someone get out the extra-large Probulator? The fireproof one.

And the extra-high voltage TENS unit please...   

mnem
*tzzzzt*

[Cerebus]

Do as the man says; strap the electrodes to the probulator.

What's that?

Yeah, you're probably right.

Bring the spare generator truck too!

[DC1MC]

Regarding the TDS scopes, after a bit of soul searchin' , considering te opinions expressed regarding the calibration and the old brittle plastic of the fascias plus the pain of maneuvering them, that reminded me strongly why I've reduced the boot anchors buying procedure  I've decided to flip them all, together with other boot anchors.

Great reset is coming you heavy mofos, go to younglings !!!

So I'm taking orders for an impeccable TDS520A (no, seriously) and a good featured TDS724A, both 2+2 channels, you've heard it here first, most likely it doesn't make sense to ship them outside Germany, but for EU if you support the costs, I promise to pack them reasonable well.

Feel free to ask and make offers, everyone is considered and soon they will show on "Buy, Sell, Want" when I'm arsed to make some pictures.

 Cheers,
 DC1MC

[ch_scr]

So now the moment you  were all waiting for, due to the small apartment where I'm living one of the TDS scopes HAS to go, there is literally no place for it, so I'm dong this poll of what should I do, please answer in your comment with the number of the option:

- 1) Change the attenuator board to the TDS724A  and flip the TDS520A with reduced price (eventually sponsor a student/forum member for a token plus shipping, PM me in this situation, I have the packaging saved, tomorrow it cold leave to you).

- 2) Flip the TDS520A as a perfectly working device for some extra shekels and wait another nine years until a ceramic section will be available.

- 3) Flip them both in the most profitable configuration, you have enough scopes.



Cheers,
DC1MC

Seems obvious to me, but maybe we have different criteria for such things. Fix the 724, flip the 520.

The 724A has a colour screen, 1Gs/s, 4 channels, bigger sample memory, 50kpts basic, up to 4Mpts with the 2M option.
The 520A has mono screen, 500Ms/s, 2 channels, 50kpts because it has the 1M option.

The only possible advantage I can see for the 520 is the 12-bit adc in Hi-Res mode (is that real 12-bit or some interleaving trick with the 8-bit adc's for 2 channels?).

I'd say in the spirit of "not enough space for more TE" repair the 724A with a hybrid from the 520A, and sell both!
With the money buy a modern scope that has a lot more capability in a fraction of the space. Fill the void with more different TE.
Yes these can be valid if in a pinch because price per performance is still ok but let's be real, if you can spare some more money, the performance per volume is not competitive at all with something even 10 years more modern.

PS: See you are already convinced

[Zucca]

Regarding the TDS scopes, after a bit of soul searchin' , considering te opinions expressed regarding the calibration and the old brittle plastic of the fascias plus the pain of maneuvering them, that reminded me strongly why I've reduced the boot anchors buying procedure  I've decided to flip them all, together with other boot anchors.

Great reset is coming mofos, go to younglings !!!!

So I'm taking orders for an impeccable TDS520A (no, seriously) and a good featured TDS724A, both 2+2 channels, you've heard it here first, most likely it doesn't make sense to ship them outside Germany, but for EU if you support the costs, I promise to pack them reasonable well.

Feel free to ask and make offers, everyone is considered and soon they will show on "Buy, Sell, Want" when I'm arsed to make some pictures.

 Cheers,
 DC1MC

Maybe next time do not write with 14pt so my eyes do not keep watering...

[Zucca]

I really enjoyed the discussion regarding ip static dinamic and security.
Knowledge is power, I think those who take economic advantages about ignorance should burn in hell.

"That ain't workin'
Money for nothing, chicks for free"

[mnementh]

Am I the only one here who sees the recent cal (provided it is from a reputable source) as having at least some value worth considering...? 

mnem
 

Yes. It's an oscilloscope, not a 6.5 digit DMM

 

So you see no value in having at least one recently-cal'd scope in your lab...?

mnem

If you've a half decent signal generator, and a decent voltmeter plus some sort of frequency reference to check the signal generator with, then you have all you need to do your own scope calibration. Most scopes are 3% stated accuracy on voltage and 10ppm on timebase. Getting scopes independently calibrated and that calibration certified is strictly for people who need the paper trail. If you just want as much accuracy as you're likely to get, you're better off doing it yourself. Relying on an 'official cal' on a scope to provide yourself with any added measurement certainty would be a false economy - spend the money on getting your best DVM calibrated instead.

That is exactly not what I was talking aboot. 

But, but, that seems to be exactly what you were talking about.

Am I the only one here who sees the recent cal (provided it is from a reputable source) as having at least some value worth considering...? 

mnem
 

Sorry, I really don't see how get how you get to "That is exactly not what I was talking aboot." from there.

You were asking about the perceived value in the cal, as an additional factor to consider, or at least that's how you've presented it and that's all I'm commenting on.

Oh, come on C... are you deliberately tweaking my tail on this one...? 

As always, context is everything.

The context you laid out was one of actually spending considerable money on having a scope cal'd. In that context, I agree there are definitely better ways to spend your money unless you are in some business where it needs to be cal'd for... reasons.

The context we were originally discussing is whether it is not worth considering the value of that already-paid-for cal on a scope that is in good nick and was bought at a bargain price, when deciding whether to part it out to maybe fix a scope of somewhat higher value and some better specs.

I think in that context, it is definitely worth considering.

mnem
 

[mnementh]

Do as the man says; strap the electrodes to the probulator.

What's that?

Yeah, you're probably right.

Bring the spare generator truck too!

oooooh... big diesel go vroom. 

*climbs on and spanks it on the backside*

mnem
*twitch... twitch... twitcha-twitch...*

[DC1MC]

I'd say in the spirit of "not enough space for more TE" repair the 724A with a hybrid from the 520A, and sell both!
With the money buy a modern scope that has a lot more capability in a fraction of the space. Fill the void with more different TE.
Yes these can be valid if in a pinch because price per performance is still ok but let's be real, if you can spare some more money, the performance per volume is not competitive at all with something even 10 years more modern.

PS: See you are already convinced

Yup, I will pretend that I'm protecting the calibration of the 520 and don't do anything  , procrastination wins and don't want to split those guys open again and see some shitty incompatibility and also in the process destroy what's left of both calibrations, who ever will get them can do the firmware upgrade, play with the mode resistors and capacitors and whatever, , replace the attenuator on the sick channel (I'll provide the saved piece for relays and eventually the chip) I'll offer them as virgin as possible .
Also all the above stuff when is not for you, it looks too much like work  .

 Cheers,
 DC1MC

[Specmaster]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

In terms of whether fixed or dynamic IP addresses present bigger risks? No. It has nothing to do with the value of company data - that's a question of motivation, not a technical barrier to hacking.

Nope, I never implied that it was a technical barrier to hacking, what I was saying that so far all the research online I have done, seems to suggest that businesses are the ones that gain most from having a static address for a raft of reasons and that having a static address can make a hackers life easier as they will already know their targets IP address and know that will not change for the foreseeable future.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/static-ip-address-advantages-disadvantages/

[Cerebus]

Oh, come on C... are you deliberately tweaking my tail on this one...? 

As always, context is everything.

The context you laid out was one of actually spending considerable money on having a scope cal'd. In that context, I agree there are definitely better ways to spend your money unless you are in some business where it needs to be cal'd for... reasons.

The context we were originally discussing is whether it is not worth considering the value of that already-paid-for cal on a scope that is in good nick and was bought at a bargain price, when deciding whether to part it out to maybe fix a scope of somewhat higher value and some better specs.

I think in that context, it is definitely worth considering.

mnem
 

No, no, I'm trying very hard not to, and to appear not to too. You say one thing, then you say it's exactly not what what you're saying. Context? I'm not ignoring it, I even restated what I understood it to be:

You were asking about the perceived value in the cal, as an additional factor to consider, or at least that's how you've presented it and that's all I'm commenting on.

If you're trying to be clear about what you're saying, saying "one thing" and then saying that, with context, spread back over several messages, not even included in the quoted string when you originally said "one thing", you meant exactly not "one thing", you're sewing lack of understanding from the very beginning.

I don't think it's too much to claim confusion when someone says "A" and then says they really meant "not A". If I were the writer, then I think I would have to claim the blame for lack of clarity there. Not trying to start an argument here, just saying you could have been a lot clearer in what you meant.

[mnementh]

I'd say in the spirit of "not enough space for more TE" repair the 724A with a hybrid from the 520A, and sell both!
With the money buy a modern scope that has a lot more capability in a fraction of the space. Fill the void with more different TE.
Yes these can be valid if in a pinch because price per performance is still ok but let's be real, if you can spare some more money, the performance per volume is not competitive at all with something even 10 years more modern.

PS: See you are already convinced

Yup, I will pretend that I'm protecting the calibration of the 520 and don't do anything  , procrastination wins and don't want to split those guys open again and see some shitty incompatibility and also in the process destroy what's left of both calibrations, who ever will get them can do the firmware upgrade, play with the mode resistors and capacitors and whatever, , replace the attenuator on the sick channel (I'll provide the saved piece for relays and eventually the chip) I'll offer them as virgin as possible .
Also all the above stuff when is not for you, it looks too much like work  .

 Cheers,
 DC1MC

I'll admit I've fuxxored myself exactly that way more times than I care to say. So many times I've collected 2 or 3 of a "similar thing" expecting to be able to kit-bash them into one working thing, or do some much bally-hoo'd "upgrade hack", only to find that the specific whatevers I have are somehow not going to work or will require "copious Dremeling/added expensive bits & bobs I don't have/firmware hacking I can almost grok in fullness"...

I've learned the hard way to try and err on the "DON'T!!!" side of making all 3 of those hypothetical "similar things" useless for anything except scrap.

Glad the argument I posited over "keeping the cal" gave you a wanted excuse to limit your exposure similarly. 

mnem
*long out of calibration*

[AVGresponding]

Mine also passed such testing while I was building the soldering station... however after a few days it failed without warning, and shorted Vin to Vout exactly as stated. And if you click the link, you'll see this was evidently a well-known fail at the time.

If I were you, I wouldn't trust that module to power anything I give a damn aboot.

mnem
*tzzzt*

I'll give it a soak test. Would a week running at 1.5A make you happy? I'm guessing you were running yours pretty hard if it was in a soldering iron station.

Seems the alignment isn't the best when you get close up...   

I was running it a couple volts under max Vin, but small enough current draw it never got "hot to the touch" even running for extended periods. My point was aboot the failure mode; which, at the time, several others in this thread warned me was a known issue and suggested I was better off harvesting passives from the remaining ones rather than implementing them for anything.

Honestly, I mean no disparagement; I was just trying to Pay It Forward and save you the misery I suffered. 

mnem
 

Ok, I set it up to run 14.4V on the i/p as that's the highest I'll likely use any of them at, the o/p is set at 5V and I'm loading it to 1600mA. It's been running for 30 minutes or so and all is tickety-boo.

The reg ic is at 67°C, the input diode 72°C, and the load resistors at 107°C.  Hmm, cup of tea anyone..?   

Oh, and all the hot parts are sitting in a big Pyrex bowl, just in case...

[Cerebus]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

In terms of whether fixed or dynamic IP addresses present bigger risks? No. It has nothing to do with the value of company data - that's a question of motivation, not a technical barrier to hacking.

Nope, I never implied that it was a technical barrier to hacking, what I was saying that so far all the research online I have done, seems to suggest that businesses are the ones that gain most from having a static address for a raft of reasons and that having a static address can make a hackers life easier as they will already know their targets IP address and know that will not change for the foreseeable future.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/static-ip-address-advantages-disadvantages/

OK, just to be clear then. You're saying, as a typical end user, you would prefer an ISP who provides dynamic addresses (which is where all this started out) because they make targeted attacks a tiny bit harder. So you consider you're a likely victim of targeted attacks?

You realise that you've just outed yourself as a high value target? Your cover story as a retired electrical engineer is blown and now we all know that, and more importantly the Chinese government now know, that you were really \$003\frac{1}{3}\$ in a former life. 

The bottom line, as far as the original "Can I safely pick an ISP that hands out static addresses?" question is concerned is "Yes, you can. There is no disadvantage to the typical domestic Internet user of having a fixed address. There may be some advantages in edge cases that probably do not concern you."

[bd139]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

Avast got caught selling your personal data via Jumpshot.

[mnementh]

Oh, come on C... are you deliberately tweaking my tail on this one...? 

As always, context is everything.

The context you laid out was one of actually spending considerable money on having a scope cal'd. In that context, I agree there are definitely better ways to spend your money unless you are in some business where it needs to be cal'd for... reasons.

The context we were originally discussing is whether it is not worth considering the value of that already-paid-for cal on a scope that is in good nick and was bought at a bargain price, when deciding whether to part it out to maybe fix a scope of somewhat higher value and some better specs.

I think in that context, it is definitely worth considering.

mnem
 

No, no, I'm trying very hard not to, and to appear not to too. You say one thing, then you say it's exactly not what what you're saying. Context? I'm not ignoring it, I even restated what I understood it to be:

You were asking about the perceived value in the cal, as an additional factor to consider, or at least that's how you've presented it and that's all I'm commenting on.

If you're trying to be clear about what you're saying, saying "one thing" and then saying that, with context, spread back over several messages, not even included in the quoted string when you originally said "one thing", you meant exactly not "one thing", you're sewing lack of understanding from the very beginning.

I don't think it's too much to claim confusion when someone says "A" and then says they really meant "not A". If I were the writer, then I think I would have to claim the blame for lack of clarity there. Not trying to start an argument here, just saying you could have been a lot clearer in what you meant.

Am I the only one here who sees the recent cal (provided it is from a reputable source) as having at least some value worth considering...? 

mnem
 

Yes. It's an oscilloscope, not a 6.5 digit DMM

 

So you see no value in having at least one recently-cal'd scope in your lab...?

mnem

If you've a half decent signal generator, and a decent voltmeter plus some sort of frequency reference to check the signal generator with, then you have all you need to do your own scope calibration. Most scopes are 3% stated accuracy on voltage and 10ppm on timebase. Getting scopes independently calibrated and that calibration certified is strictly for people who need the paper trail. If you just want as much accuracy as you're likely to get, you're better off doing it yourself. Relying on an 'official cal' on a scope to provide yourself with any added measurement certainty would be a false economy - spend the money on getting your best DVM calibrated instead.

That is exactly not what I was talking aboot. 

DC1MC already has a TDS520A he bought for a pittance with 2020 cal and compliance testing stickers, and near as he can see, it is in great nick and fully functional. The discussion was aboot whether to scrap it to potentially fix a 724A with similar memory depth.

Myself, I'd keep it intact for that value and cut my losses on the 724A he's been clinging to for 9 years and still hasn't found the parts.

mnem
What's it worth...? Keeping, that's what. 

Mmmokay. I'll try and be clearer in the future. I guess I didn't try hard enough to clarify my point here.

mnem
 

[Specmaster]

Display is not worn out and all digits/segments of even brightness, not like in the picture - camera tends to fool one here.

You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them.

I'm convinced that's what got me my 53132A cheaply - other people looked at the display being 'wrong' in the listing and passed it by, not realising that the apparent error was exactly what happens when a multiplexed display and camera shutter interact. That let it sit there for a few days rather than getting snapped up as it ought to have been. Mine came to a total of £400 plus change including carriage and import costs. Mind you, there was no way of anybody knowing from the listing that mine was going to come with the ultra stable oscillator option inside but disconnected and fully functional once it had a single tantalum cap replaced (now fully working and showing drift better than the data sheet spec.).

I may have a budget brand of mobile phone, but I have a good camera that provides a wealth of control over the various settings of the camera, ISO, shutter speed, Exposure, Focus mode and white balance and many more settings, so the above is not strictly correct.

Both my phones are budget ones, a Samsung J5(2016) and Huawei P Smart 2019, both were sub £200, and both have the same control over the camera, so yes, neither would ever replace a DSLR or a decent prosumer camera, but equally they are far more capable than what you seem to be implying.

[cyclin_al]

4x dc-dc buck convertor modules, 2.5A, 4-30V in, 1.5-30V out (that must be a typo, it has a minimum 1.5V drop so 28.5 would be the max output) @£1.29 each shipped, only ordered them yesterday afternoon! These are for making some usb charger ports in places that don't have them.

That reminds me that I need a few of those, the smaller size the better.
Do you mind sharing how they work out, since the price was so cheap, and the seller?

Well it's a UK drop-shipper, you might have to click through a few links on ebay to find a Canadian one. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154308593100

The module itself is based on the LM2596, and measures 21mm x 43mm and change. The highest component is actually the adjustment screw on the multi-turn cermet at just under 14mm. The decoupling caps are a little over 12mm high.
It has the obligatory annoyingly bright blue status LED.

Supplying it with 10V and setting the output for 5V, I loaded it up with 5W 10R resistors, adding one at a time. By the time I had 5 of them in parallel, giving an indicated 1.98A, the output had sagged from ~5.02 to 4.88 volts.
After a good few minutes the ic was up to just over 80°C, with the input diode a couple of degrees hotter still. The resistors were having a hotter time of it though, hitting 97°C.
The claimed efficiency is 92% but with the setup I was using it's more like 80%.
The output is short circuit protected...   



EDIT: Adding in the equipment used for testing.
          Input: Siglent SPD3303X, cross checked with Fluke 289
          Output: HP 3478A (voltage), Fluke 289 (current)
          Thermals: Cat 61S integrated FLIR

Thanks for that!
Good to know for the current ratings ... a lot of these are advertised as 3A, which sounds extremely optimistic based on your results.

I found a Canadian seller by the name phillipjfry78 "Philip J Fry Canada's Hobby Guy".
Except the real Philip J Fry is this guy:

[mansaxel]

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

No, we're realists. The threat landscape basically has 2 kinds of threats:

• The determined, nation-state cracker who tries to get into other nations assets or compromise dissidents. This is what we see in the movies. They do exist, and they're good, and they mostly don't care for you, unless you can be monetised or used as blame target, and in those cases it will be at random; the value being that you aren't them. This is the kind of people you probably can't stop. They have tools at their disposal that will be next years panic bugs.
• The bottom feeders. These are the ones that are a possible problem to you. They scan the Internet for unpatched Windows and Linux boxes, and through known exploits install remote control programs that are persistent (no, closing the web browser does not help, as we've told you) and sell computer time using your computer and broadband as muscle to mine crypto currency and throw DoS attacks for money at people. If you missed Cerebus' lecture on "How to be a pervert, discretely", they might publish your photos, for fun.

The antivirus vendors sell product using threat #1 while basically ignoring #2 (not completely, but.) which is good because #2 can be stopped by patching your OS, mostly. (and, installing a Cyrillic keyboard driver, actually)

Of course this is a gross simplification, and as noted it is an observed fact that #1 often hides behind #2, but still with the "it's not you, it's your computer resources" modus operandi in effect, so it is indistinguishable from the real #2.

Edit: I actually wrote "the virus vendors" and it seemed OK so it remained until I'd looked at the post twice and realised that I meant the "antivirus vendors". I think this does a fair bit of explaining how I feel about them and their added value.

[Specmaster]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

In terms of whether fixed or dynamic IP addresses present bigger risks? No. It has nothing to do with the value of company data - that's a question of motivation, not a technical barrier to hacking.

Nope, I never implied that it was a technical barrier to hacking, what I was saying that so far all the research online I have done, seems to suggest that businesses are the ones that gain most from having a static address for a raft of reasons and that having a static address can make a hackers life easier as they will already know their targets IP address and know that will not change for the foreseeable future.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/static-ip-address-advantages-disadvantages/

OK, just to be clear then. You're saying, as a typical end user, you would prefer an ISP who provides dynamic addresses (which is where all this started out) because they make targeted attacks a tiny bit harder. So you consider you're a likely victim of targeted attacks?

You realise that you've just outed yourself as a high value target? Your cover story as a retired electrical engineer is blown and now we all know that, and more importantly the Chinese government now know, that you were really \$003\frac{1}{3}\$ in a former life. 

The bottom line, as far as the original "Can I safely pick an ISP that hands out static addresses?" question is concerned is "Yes, you can. There is no disadvantage to the typical domestic Internet user of having a fixed address. There may be some advantages in edge cases that probably do not concern you."

What I was looking for is advice with real verifiable tangible benefits for having either kind of address that would make supplier A therefore worthy of a premium over supplier B. Reading their sales blurb does not make it easy to say one way or another and when you're about to lock yourself into a 2-year contract and have to pay activation fees as well, I want to be well as well-informed as I can be to avoid sleep walking into vipers nest. I read all kinds of reports that this company is good, then I see another report that suggests that company is not that good after all and suggests that they are one of the most complained about suppliers. It is a real minefield out there, but I do want a company that actually delivers what they say they will, not a hyped up speed that in theory is achievable but in reality is more likely to be 50 or less than the headline speed etc etc.

EDIT.
An example of hyped speed is from I can glean from Zen's website is just such an example.

Whereas VM quote M350 Mbs and I always 362Mbs.

[mnementh]

4x dc-dc buck convertor modules, 2.5A, 4-30V in, 1.5-30V out (that must be a typo, it has a minimum 1.5V drop so 28.5 would be the max output) @£1.29 each shipped, only ordered them yesterday afternoon! These are for making some usb charger ports in places that don't have them.

That reminds me that I need a few of those, the smaller size the better.
Do you mind sharing how they work out, since the price was so cheap, and the seller?

Well it's a UK drop-shipper, you might have to click through a few links on ebay to find a Canadian one. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154308593100

The module itself is based on the LM2596, and measures 21mm x 43mm and change. The highest component is actually the adjustment screw on the multi-turn cermet at just under 14mm. The decoupling caps are a little over 12mm high.
It has the obligatory annoyingly bright blue status LED.

Supplying it with 10V and setting the output for 5V, I loaded it up with 5W 10R resistors, adding one at a time. By the time I had 5 of them in parallel, giving an indicated 1.98A, the output had sagged from ~5.02 to 4.88 volts.
After a good few minutes the ic was up to just over 80°C, with the input diode a couple of degrees hotter still. The resistors were having a hotter time of it though, hitting 97°C.
The claimed efficiency is 92% but with the setup I was using it's more like 80%.
The output is short circuit protected...   



EDIT: Adding in the equipment used for testing.
          Input: Siglent SPD3303X, cross checked with Fluke 289
          Output: HP 3478A (voltage), Fluke 289 (current)
          Thermals: Cat 61S integrated FLIR

Thanks for that!
Good to know for the current ratings ... a lot of these are advertised as 3A, which sounds extremely optimistic based on your results.

I found a Canadian seller by the name phillipjfry78 "Philip J Fry Canada's Hobby Guy".
Except the real Philip J Fry is this guy:   

I recognize that seller... I wonder why... 

*looks through history*

Nope... no purchases... 

EDIT: Looking at his store, I'm guessing it was a common hit when I was searching *duino bits to use with my CircuitPython dev boards.

mnem
damn, getting old sucks...

[Cerebus]

You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them.

I'm convinced that's what got me my 53132A cheaply - other people looked at the display being 'wrong' in the listing and passed it by, not realising that the apparent error was exactly what happens when a multiplexed display and camera shutter interact. That let it sit there for a few days rather than getting snapped up as it ought to have been. Mine came to a total of £400 plus change including carriage and import costs. Mind you, there was no way of anybody knowing from the listing that mine was going to come with the ultra stable oscillator option inside but disconnected and fully functional once it had a single tantalum cap replaced (now fully working and showing drift better than the data sheet spec.).

I may have a budget brand of mobile phone, but I have a good camera that provides a wealth of control over the various settings of the camera, ISO, shutter speed, Exposure, Focus mode and white balance and many more settings, so the above is not strictly correct.

Both my phones are budget ones, a Samsung J5(2016) and Huawei P Smart 2019, both were sub £200, and both have the same control over the camera, so yes, neither would ever replace a DSLR or a decent prosumer camera, but equally they are far more capable than what you seem to be implying.

Nah. You're inferring something that I didn't imply. In my experience shutter speed and aperture settings are absent on most phones or only accessible via third party apps. Not all, just most. I've certainly not had them on any of the camera phones I've had (using the native apps), from cheap to iPhone/iPad. What I did imply is that in the rare cases where they are present they are something that the average user neither finds nor considers using on a phone camera thus 'access to ... a thing of the past'.

[cyclin_al]

I therefore wonder why they didn't stress that a dynamic address is just as much of a risk as a static one which is precisely what you appear to be telling me  After all they are still offering for sale their VPN and their Advanced Internet Security packages, so why did they specifically offer both for static addresses and just the VPN for dynamic ones 

Because they're slimey fuckers trying to make customers feel good for having bought the cheaper alternative and therefore the customer will think  Avast cares for them.

Wow, you lot are just so cynical all the time  So it has nothing at all to do with companies may have very important data of a far higher commercial value than home users and therefore are going to be more of a magnet for hackers.

My experience with Avast when working for a large integrated ISD a few years back was that they are in fact Pirates selling insurance against Pirates.

They used the same "bundled malware" delivery practices as the worst of the bot-net scum... only difference is they bundled with legit installers for trial software you might actually want to pay money for as opposed to ones that were barely worth free. The only ones who were worse were MalwareBytes/Ad-Aware.

mnem
But hey... if it makes you feel more secure... sure, let them install a rootkit against you in your own PC.

SWMBO has always insisted on having some protection like this.
It is necessary, since some ISPs in the GWN are themselves infected.  Just getting connected to the ISP results in a barage of attack.

I have noticed that the Avast web browser is quite nasty in how it starts automatically and takes over.  Plus, the advertising for more services is no longer a distraction, but a major headache in itself.  It is getting worse and worse.

What is the reasonable protection to get today for Winbloze?  (certainly, the answer tomorrow is likely to be different...)