> Before I throw this cable away, I am curious what it is and for what
> use?
>
> The cable is labeled: AWM 2919 E11932-J 30V VW-1 Low voltage
> computer cable copartner
Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
In article <k0lur7969bq3lk1t2d7girtnt4qvq5lfem@4ax.com>, wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>Before I throw this cable away, I am curious what it is and for what
>use?
>
>The cable is labeled: AWM 2919 E11932-J 30V VW-1 Low voltage
>computer cable copartner
>
>Anyone?
>
>xiexie
>
>Wei
Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:08 GMT, Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net
(GMAN) wrote:
>
>Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
Wow! I would not have thought that. The ends are not HDMI - to me
anyway. I am going to try to post two pics to the site noted in prior
post. First time for me, so I might have trouble.
wei@taiwan.com wrote in news:9rkvr7pl6jfdcrmc2dv78j7vsio1334287@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:31:40 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>
>>Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
>>storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
>
>
> OK - I tried. Here are my pics. They tell you anything?
>
> http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php
>
> I swear the ends look like PS/2, but not quite.
imageshack is trying to get me to login. I don't have an account with them
but I don't think it's necessary just to view what someone else links you
to.
--
-- I'm retired. I was tired yesterday. I'm tired again today --
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:31:40 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
>>storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
>
> OK - I tried. Here are my pics. They tell you anything?
>
> http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php
>
> I swear the ends look like PS/2, but not quite.
>
> xiexie
>
> Wei
Links to image files uploaded there do not go to PHP pages (server-side
scripts). They are a link to an actual file, as in:
Apparently ImageShack changed their upload requirements. As I recall
from past use, you could upload without having to create an account
(based on some valid e-mail address you provided to get the confirmation
e-mail). You could just upload and never have an account. When I just
tried, they force me to create an account. That sucks so I'll have to
find someplace better to upload publicly accessible pics.
Since you created an account, it now looks like you have to make that
file publicly accessible. When I go to the link you provided, the site
demands that I login to see your pic. I'm not bothering to create an
account to login to see what should've been publicly shared content.
See if you can make the picture so it is publicly accessible from your
account so other non-account users can see it. It that's not possible,
no one except ImageShack account holders will be able to see your pics.
tinypic.com appears to not require registration and account creation.
You can create an account there but you don't have to. As an
experiment, I uploaded a photo (http://tinypic.com/r/142r88o/6) and
there was no requirement to create an account.
> wei wrote:
>
>> Before I throw this cable away, I am curious what it is and for what
>> use? The cable is labeled: AWM 2919 E11932-J 30V VW-1 Low voltage
>> computer cable copartner
>
> Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
There are HDMI-to-DVI converter cables (since HDMI simply adds audio
transport that gets dropped in the conversion). They look like: http://pinouts.ru/Video/dvi_pinout.shtml
Do you have an example of a PS/2-looking connector that is an HDMI
connector? The only one that I recall that looks something like a PS/2
connector is the S-video or component video connectors. You find them
used on TVs to go to VCRs/DVRs and on [older AGP] video cards. They
look like http://tinyurl.com/78oux7a and http://tinyurl.com/7ca7jal.
VanguardLH wrote:
> wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:31:40 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>> Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
>>> storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
>> OK - I tried. Here are my pics. They tell you anything?
>>
>> http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php
>>
>> I swear the ends look like PS/2, but not quite.
>>
>> xiexie
>>
>> Wei
>
> Links to image files uploaded there do not go to PHP pages (server-side
> scripts). They are a link to an actual file, as in:
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/iceberga.jpg/
>
> You links to a script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Php) ends up
> redirected to:
>
> http://my.imageshack.us/registration/?error=8.
>
> Apparently ImageShack changed their upload requirements. As I recall
> from past use, you could upload without having to create an account
> (based on some valid e-mail address you provided to get the confirmation
> e-mail). You could just upload and never have an account. When I just
> tried, they force me to create an account. That sucks so I'll have to
> find someplace better to upload publicly accessible pics.
>
> Since you created an account, it now looks like you have to make that
> file publicly accessible. When I go to the link you provided, the site
> demands that I login to see your pic. I'm not bothering to create an
> account to login to see what should've been publicly shared content.
> See if you can make the picture so it is publicly accessible from your
> account so other non-account users can see it. It that's not possible,
> no one except ImageShack account holders will be able to see your pics.
>
> tinypic.com appears to not require registration and account creation.
> You can create an account there but you don't have to. As an
> experiment, I uploaded a photo (http://tinypic.com/r/142r88o/6) and
> there was no requirement to create an account.
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:31:40 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
>>>> storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
>>> OK - I tried. Here are my pics. They tell you anything?
>>>
>>> http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php
>>>
>>> I swear the ends look like PS/2, but not quite.
>>>
>>> xiexie
>>>
>>> Wei
>>
>> Links to image files uploaded there do not go to PHP pages (server-side
>> scripts). They are a link to an actual file, as in:
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/iceberga.jpg/
>>
>> You links to a script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Php) ends up
>> redirected to:
>>
>> http://my.imageshack.us/registration/?error=8.
>>
>> Apparently ImageShack changed their upload requirements. As I recall
>> from past use, you could upload without having to create an account
>> (based on some valid e-mail address you provided to get the confirmation
>> e-mail). You could just upload and never have an account. When I just
>> tried, they force me to create an account. That sucks so I'll have to
>> find someplace better to upload publicly accessible pics.
>>
>> Since you created an account, it now looks like you have to make that
>> file publicly accessible. When I go to the link you provided, the site
>> demands that I login to see your pic. I'm not bothering to create an
>> account to login to see what should've been publicly shared content.
>> See if you can make the picture so it is publicly accessible from your
>> account so other non-account users can see it. It that's not possible,
>> no one except ImageShack account holders will be able to see your pics.
>>
>> tinypic.com appears to not require registration and account creation.
>> You can create an account there but you don't have to. As an
>> experiment, I uploaded a photo (http://tinypic.com/r/142r88o/6) and
>> there was no requirement to create an account.
>
> Clear cookie cache, and try again.
>
> Then you won't need to create an account.
>
> Paul
Have you tried this?
I use Google Chrome which includes the Click&Clean extension which is
configured to discard cookies on exit. In Google Chrome, go to
chrome://chrome/settings/cookies to see what cookies you currently have.
Because of the cleanup on exit, I don't have any when I first load
Google Chrome so there are none to clear. I get the overlay frame
requiring me to give an e-mail address, and there is no "X" button to
get rid of the overlay so I can get at the URLs under the "Links to
share your image".
In IE8 with it configured to flush it TIF/cookie data on exit, and even
by using CCleaner that will delete all the TIF and cookie files, I see
behavior is different; however, in IE8, I used its InPrivate Filtering
(registry hacked to always be on) and an imported XML file to block
tracking sites and there are errors on that web page due to this. If I
exit IE8, use CCLeaner to get rid of any remnants after IE8 exited,
start IE8, and disable the InPrivate Filtering, I still see there is a
JSON error but now I see the same overlay window that I see in Google
Chrome which prevents me from getting at the URLs to copy them.
You know how to disable the CSS popup at that site?
Whether I use Google Chrome or IE8 to visit the OP's link, I still get
redirected to the "You must login" web page. The OP did not provide a
valid URL link from that site to the file there.
VanguardLH wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>> wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:31:40 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Take a picture of it, upload the picture to some free online file
>>>>> storage site (e.g., imageshack), and post a link here.
>>>> OK - I tried. Here are my pics. They tell you anything?
>>>>
>>>> http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php
>>>>
>>>> I swear the ends look like PS/2, but not quite.
>>>>
>>>> xiexie
>>>>
>>>> Wei
>>> Links to image files uploaded there do not go to PHP pages (server-side
>>> scripts). They are a link to an actual file, as in:
>>>
>>> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/iceberga.jpg/
>>>
>>> You links to a script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Php) ends up
>>> redirected to:
>>>
>>> http://my.imageshack.us/registration/?error=8.
>>>
>>> Apparently ImageShack changed their upload requirements. As I recall
>>> from past use, you could upload without having to create an account
>>> (based on some valid e-mail address you provided to get the confirmation
>>> e-mail). You could just upload and never have an account. When I just
>>> tried, they force me to create an account. That sucks so I'll have to
>>> find someplace better to upload publicly accessible pics.
>>>
>>> Since you created an account, it now looks like you have to make that
>>> file publicly accessible. When I go to the link you provided, the site
>>> demands that I login to see your pic. I'm not bothering to create an
>>> account to login to see what should've been publicly shared content.
>>> See if you can make the picture so it is publicly accessible from your
>>> account so other non-account users can see it. It that's not possible,
>>> no one except ImageShack account holders will be able to see your pics.
>>>
>>> tinypic.com appears to not require registration and account creation.
>>> You can create an account there but you don't have to. As an
>>> experiment, I uploaded a photo (http://tinypic.com/r/142r88o/6) and
>>> there was no requirement to create an account.
>> Clear cookie cache, and try again.
>>
>> Then you won't need to create an account.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Have you tried this?
>
> I use Google Chrome which includes the Click&Clean extension which is
> configured to discard cookies on exit. In Google Chrome, go to
> chrome://chrome/settings/cookies to see what cookies you currently have.
> Because of the cleanup on exit, I don't have any when I first load
> Google Chrome so there are none to clear. I get the overlay frame
> requiring me to give an e-mail address, and there is no "X" button to
> get rid of the overlay so I can get at the URLs under the "Links to
> share your image".
>
> In IE8 with it configured to flush it TIF/cookie data on exit, and even
> by using CCleaner that will delete all the TIF and cookie files, I see
> behavior is different; however, in IE8, I used its InPrivate Filtering
> (registry hacked to always be on) and an imported XML file to block
> tracking sites and there are errors on that web page due to this. If I
> exit IE8, use CCLeaner to get rid of any remnants after IE8 exited,
> start IE8, and disable the InPrivate Filtering, I still see there is a
> JSON error but now I see the same overlay window that I see in Google
> Chrome which prevents me from getting at the URLs to copy them.
>
> You know how to disable the CSS popup at that site?
>
> Whether I use Google Chrome or IE8 to visit the OP's link, I still get
> redirected to the "You must login" web page. The OP did not provide a
> valid URL link from that site to the file there.
The OP has not succeeded in posting a picture yet.
So following his link is a waste of time at the moment.
*******
I can do a test run, and prove it still works.
First, I'll clear cookies on my browser. And use the dialog as a
test image, for fun.
You click the image after the "Upload successful" step. Eventually,
you get an image you can take a URL from, and then you have your
desired result. As in this. I usually attempt to get a raw
URL to the image, so there's no advertising for the intended
recipient.
Now, if I wanted to post another picture, my first step
would be clearing cookies again.
I don't have an account there, and have posted quite a few images.
None of which I can remove, edit or otherwise change.
I've occasionally run into one of their "test servers", where
the thing is quite insistent on applying for an account. And
in such cases, dropping my IP address and getting a new address,
clearing cookies, and I'm "on the road again".
On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:17:21 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>Links to image files uploaded there do not go to PHP pages (server-side
>scripts). They are a link to an actual file, as in:
>
>http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/iceberga.jpg/
>
>You links to a script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Php) ends up
>redirected to:
>
>http://my.imageshack.us/registration/?error=8.
>
>Apparently ImageShack changed their upload requirements. As I recall
>from past use, you could upload without having to create an account
>(based on some valid e-mail address you provided to get the confirmation
>e-mail). You could just upload and never have an account. When I just
>tried, they force me to create an account. That sucks so I'll have to
>find someplace better to upload publicly accessible pics.
>
>Since you created an account, it now looks like you have to make that
>file publicly accessible. When I go to the link you provided, the site
>demands that I login to see your pic. I'm not bothering to create an
>account to login to see what should've been publicly shared content.
>See if you can make the picture so it is publicly accessible from your
>account so other non-account users can see it. It that's not possible,
>no one except ImageShack account holders will be able to see your pics.
>
>tinypic.com appears to not require registration and account creation.
>You can create an account there but you don't have to. As an
>experiment, I uploaded a photo (http://tinypic.com/r/142r88o/6) and
>there was no requirement to create an account.
There was a way to make the pictures 'public', which I did. I
thought that would make them universally accessible, but I guess not.
I'll look things over again.
On Sat, 26 May 2012 03:51:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>The OP has not succeeded in posting a picture yet.
>So following his link is a waste of time at the moment.
Hi once again Paul.
I thought and think I did succeed in posting three pictures.
Else how could I have set them 'public', and get to them via the URL I
provided? I'll look at things again - Nothing is ever easy.
xiexie
Wei
>
>*******
>
>I can do a test run, and prove it still works.
>
>First, I'll clear cookies on my browser. And use the dialog as a
>test image, for fun.
>
>You click the image after the "Upload successful" step. Eventually,
>you get an image you can take a URL from, and then you have your
>desired result. As in this. I usually attempt to get a raw
>URL to the image, so there's no advertising for the intended
>recipient.
>
>http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2429/cookiebegone.gif
>
>Now, if I wanted to post another picture, my first step
>would be clearing cookies again.
>
>I don't have an account there, and have posted quite a few images.
>None of which I can remove, edit or otherwise change.
>
>I've occasionally run into one of their "test servers", where
>the thing is quite insistent on applying for an account. And
>in such cases, dropping my IP address and getting a new address,
>clearing cookies, and I'm "on the road again".
>
> Paul
> There was a way to make the pictures 'public', which I did. I
> thought that would make them universally accessible, but I guess not.
> I'll look things over again.
>
> xiexie
>
> Wei
On imageshack.us , there is nothing to adjust. It's a matter,
at some point, of right-clicking the image as it appears on their
web page, and copying the URL of the image. And then posting that.
For example, when I uploaded an image, selected "Do not resize",
and right-clicked on the resulting image a copied the URL, I got this
On Sat, 26 May 2012 05:50:04 -0400, wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>
>Hi once again Paul.
>I thought and think I did succeed in posting three pictures.
>Else how could I have set them 'public', and get to them via the URL I
>provided? I'll look at things again - Nothing is ever easy.
>
>xiexie
>
>Wei
>
Sorry -
I uploaded the three pics again, as they seem to gone this morning.
Maybe they are still in bed? Anyway, try these links -
A bit fuzzy but it looks like you have a 4-pin S-video only component
video cable. See the 3rd link in my reply to Paul in another subthread
here. It shows 3 different component video connectors. Also see:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:00:44 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>A bit fuzzy but it looks like you have a 4-pin S-video only component
>video cable. See the 3rd link in my reply to Paul in another subthread
>here. It shows 3 different component video connectors. Also see:
>
>http://pinouts.ru/Home/SVideo_pinout.shtml
>
>Could be it's a remnant cable you originally received with a TV, VCR,
>DVD player, or an old video card.
You are so smart! I guess that is why they pay you the big bucks.
I pulled my DVD player out and tried the cable - it fit the S-Video
plug exactly. I looked at the pin-out in the above URL - looks
S-Video all right.
In article <74kvr7tvvpmdoaikvcg7fo11kr4sblh481@4ax.com>, wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:08 GMT, Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net
>(GMAN) wrote:
>>
>>Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
>
>Wow! I would not have thought that. The ends are not HDMI - to me
>anyway. I am going to try to post two pics to the site noted in prior
>post. First time for me, so I might have trouble.
>
>xiexie
>
>Wei
Just A$$umed it was HDMI via some pic i found by typing in the specs you
gave. I was in a hurry and didnt stop to think that the same cable could be
used for many other uses. My bad.
In article <jpptjp$dn7$1@news.albasani.net>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>GMAN wrote:
>
>> wei wrote:
>>
>>> Before I throw this cable away, I am curious what it is and for what
>>> use? The cable is labeled: AWM 2919 E11932-J 30V VW-1 Low voltage
>>> computer cable copartner
>>
>> Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
>
>HDMI connector (cable end):
>http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...or-diagram.gif
>
>There are HDMI-to-DVI converter cables (since HDMI simply adds audio
>transport that gets dropped in the conversion). They look like:
>http://pinouts.ru/Video/dvi_pinout.shtml
>
>None of those are small round connectors that look like a PS/2
>connector, as shown here:
>http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/PS2Mouse_pinout.shtml
>http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/KeyboardPC6_pinout.shtml
>
>Do you have an example of a PS/2-looking connector that is an HDMI
>connector? The only one that I recall that looks something like a PS/2
>connector is the S-video or component video connectors. You find them
>used on TVs to go to VCRs/DVRs and on [older AGP] video cards. They
>look like http://tinyurl.com/78oux7a and http://tinyurl.com/7ca7jal.
I ASSumed via the cable info he posted before he posted the pics that it was
an HDMI cable. That same AWM2919 spec he gave isused in a HDMI cable i found
online. Once he posted the pic showing it was a Y/C cable, then the issue was
solved. What was the point in your response to me, an attempt to make me look
bad? All i was trying to do was help with what little info the OP posted.
> I ASSumed via the cable info he posted before he posted the pics that it was
> an HDMI cable. That same AWM2919 spec he gave isused in a HDMI cable i found
> online. Once he posted the pic showing it was a Y/C cable, then the issue was
> solved. What was the point in your response to me, an attempt to make me look
> bad? All i was trying to do was help with what little info the OP posted.
The part number printed on the cable, could be for the raw cable itself. If
the cable came in 1000 foot spools, that number could be printed on it every
couple of feet for the entire length of the spool.
If a manufacturer was large enough, they might be able to get spools of cable
made, without ratings printed on them. Or other distracting information. But
if the manufacturer is smaller, then the cable jacket could come with that
mumbo-jumbo printed every couple feet.
> In article <jpptjp$dn7$1@news.albasani.net>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>GMAN wrote:
>>
>>> wei wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before I throw this cable away, I am curious what it is and for what
>>>> use? The cable is labeled: AWM 2919 E11932-J 30V VW-1 Low voltage
>>>> computer cable copartner
>>>
>>> Its an HDMI cable, capable of supporting up to HDMI 1.3 specs.
>>
>>HDMI connector (cable end):
>>http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...or-diagram.gif
>>
>>There are HDMI-to-DVI converter cables (since HDMI simply adds audio
>>transport that gets dropped in the conversion). They look like:
>>http://pinouts.ru/Video/dvi_pinout.shtml
>>
>>None of those are small round connectors that look like a PS/2
>>connector, as shown here:
>>http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/PS2Mouse_pinout.shtml
>>http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/KeyboardPC6_pinout.shtml
>>
>>Do you have an example of a PS/2-looking connector that is an HDMI
>>connector? The only one that I recall that looks something like a PS/2
>>connector is the S-video or component video connectors. You find them
>>used on TVs to go to VCRs/DVRs and on [older AGP] video cards. They
>>look like http://tinyurl.com/78oux7a and http://tinyurl.com/7ca7jal.
>
> I ASSumed via the cable info he posted before he posted the pics that it was
> an HDMI cable. That same AWM2919 spec he gave isused in a HDMI cable i found
> online. Once he posted the pic showing it was a Y/C cable, then the issue was
> solved. What was the point in your response to me, an attempt to make me look
> bad? All i was trying to do was help with what little info the OP posted.
>
> http://pjcomputers.net/copartnere119...-10ftlong.aspx
No, not to make you look bad. Since he said it looked like a PS/2 cable
and because those are round, and because you thought it might be an HDMI
cable, I was wondering if there was such a thing as a round HDMI cable.
I've never seen one. If you had seen one then I was interested in
knowing about it.
Do you know of a round PS/2-looking HDMI cable? If so, can you show a
pic of it? I've never seen one and would like to see one.
I was curious. It seemed you saw something I had not.
>Just A$$umed it was HDMI via some pic i found by typing in the specs you
>gave. I was in a hurry and didnt stop to think that the same cable could be
>used for many other uses. My bad.
>I ASSumed via the cable info he posted before he posted the pics that it was
>an HDMI cable. That same AWM2919 spec he gave isused in a HDMI cable i found
>online. Once he posted the pic showing it was a Y/C cable, then the issue was
>solved. What was the point in your response to me, an attempt to make me look
>bad? All i was trying to do was help with what little info the OP posted.
>
>
>http://pjcomputers.net/copartnere119...-10ftlong.aspx
On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:19:57 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>The part number printed on the cable, could be for the raw cable itself. If
>the cable came in 1000 foot spools, that number could be printed on it every
>couple of feet for the entire length of the spool.
>
>If a manufacturer was large enough, they might be able to get spools of cable
>made, without ratings printed on them. Or other distracting information. But
>if the manufacturer is smaller, then the cable jacket could come with that
>mumbo-jumbo printed every couple feet.
>
> Paul
Paul always knows, and he always responds with useful info.
On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:16:07 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>No, not to make you look bad. Since he said it looked like a PS/2 cable
>and because those are round, and because you thought it might be an HDMI
>cable, I was wondering if there was such a thing as a round HDMI cable.
>I've never seen one. If you had seen one then I was interested in
>knowing about it.
>
>Do you know of a round PS/2-looking HDMI cable? If so, can you show a
>pic of it? I've never seen one and would like to see one.
In article <n575s799kil4o9fhra4kebo525np8e5nhv@4ax.com>, wei@taiwan.com wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:19:57 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The part number printed on the cable, could be for the raw cable itself. If
>>the cable came in 1000 foot spools, that number could be printed on it every
>>couple of feet for the entire length of the spool.
>>
>>If a manufacturer was large enough, they might be able to get spools of cable
>>made, without ratings printed on them. Or other distracting information. But
>>if the manufacturer is smaller, then the cable jacket could come with that
>>mumbo-jumbo printed every couple feet.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>Paul always knows, and he always responds with useful info.
>
>xiexie
>
>Wei
Yeah, Wikipedia is a usefull thing.
e11932 
Linear Mode
