OT: Friction within Corporation as society moves along

I only read the original post.


I had a conversation with and Emerson tech/slars giy a few years ago as I was working on synching two motors/conveyors on two different machines. Long story short he made a point of telling that he could not use those terms and preferred leader-follower or something like that. I remember thinking, are you ****ing kidding me, that's what's going to end slavery and make up for hundreds of years of slavery. People are being mistreated and pretty much are enslaved today, here in Canada and everywhere else on the planet. Maybe not being whipped and hung but they are abused and worked to death.
You want to change that, start by opening your eyes everytime you consume something because it is very likely was made by a slave.
 
Showing results for synonym for master/slave

When you combine some of these various suggestions together, some fully formed master-slave terminology alternatives might include:

agency and operatives.
captain and conscripts.
master and masons.
hive and drones.
schemer and patsies.
primary and replicas.
scripture and prophets.

Straight off the internet. Copy and Paste. Promise!

Throwing my hat in for Schemers and Patsies

Captain and Conscripts a close second
 
I agree that the term is opressive but not racist.
There has been slavery for thousands of years with people of same races. Maybe as a (northern) european we don't connect the two automatically.



Perhaps Main/Sub?
 
From now on I'm definitely going to start using "Modbus Prophet" in my documentation.

"This routine initiates communications with the Modbus Prophet, blessed be the 16 bit integers and let us pray for a valid CRC".
 
Kalabdel's comments concerning an Emerson tech's use of LEAD/FOLLOWER is accurate. But not for the reason you might think, Emerson has used that terminology since the days of their Spectrum drive. That predates this Woke nonsense by at least 3 decades.
 
HR - Horrendous Retards!!! I will not even talk to them let alone pay homage to them. IT either!!! Lucky I work for myself I guess. Smick chicks just out of Uni with a brand new piece of paper - not even a coffee stain on it LOL.
 
The expectation of this company's human resource department may be unrealistic if they expect every document, HMI, SCADA screen, etc., that mentions master/slave terminology be corrected. As pointed out, many legacy technologies use this M/S terminology. Fortunately it seems some companies have moved forward (long before the word woke existed by the way), as Rockwell and Siemens did when changing the master/slave terminology to scanner/adapter and controller/device, respectively, when they transitioned from DeviceNet to ControlNet and EtherNet/IP, and from PROFIBUS to PROFINET, respectively. People involved in education may have experience teaching PLC courses in which some of the students are themselves descendants of slaves, which I would find ackward if I was the instructor (never been in this situation as I do not live in the US).

The video below from Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight in 2019, around at minute 5, shows a video clip from the fifties explaining how technology was succeeding in making "mechanical slaves" in an interesting tone. I would not be surprised that people who first coined such terminology decades ago had some kind of mindset that was part of those day's zeitgeist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h1ooyyFkF0
 
There are so many dual robot welding cells that I can't think of what else even sounds good


Gru robot / Minion robot
Client robot / Server robot
Marshal robot / Soldier robot
Primary robot / Secondary robot



Nothing else suggested on this thread fits either.


And no one in any factory in the world would know what they meant
 
Master/Slave Client/Server Consumer/Producer Scanner/Adaptor are not all free-choice interchangeable terms for the same relationships. A server can serve multiple clients at the same time with several open socket connections. A Producer can be sending data that dozens of machines or no machines are listening to. The 'master' determines what content the 'slave' is supposed to transmit by specifying register address. The scanner receives data from the adaptor but the modules wired to that adaptor determine the content.

Maybe the people that got away from the Master/Slave terminology didn't do it because of social concern - maybe they wanted terminology that more accurately represented what was going on over their network.

This can slide into all sorts of pointless arguments. As for me and my house, its a Normally Open or Normally Closed Contact and not an XIC or and XIO. Why do we argue about it? Because we agree on one thing - seeking clarity in understanding and explaining how it works. That's all of our goal but we sure can quarrel amongst ourselves as to how to get there.

Allowing nontechnical people into the discussion because of their understanding of what words are acceptable and what words are not really muddies up the water. They are not agreed with us on the need for precision in the language and they have no way to judge the precision of that language in the configuration that it describes.

I still think the term Master/Slave is very applicable as it was originally described in an RS-485 multidrop situation where a computer is sending queries and getting replies from PLCs. It's not so good for a peer TCP Ethernet thing.

Anybody that cannot distinguish people and communicating CPUs from the context of the wording is too stupid to be a part of the discussion. What's next? Who publishes the list of words that we must rush to change? Should Square D start painting their motor control centers a different color as a part of some blue/gray thing?

I feel for the programmers that have corporate handcuffs. I'm fortunate that I don't. I'm keeping the old terms in my documentation where they make sense and seeking others when they are better for the purpose.
 
Related idea - Conference Papers

I did a part-time adjunct professor thing at a college for one semester. I was encourage to submit a paper to an engineering education conference. I submitted one on the use of PLCs in engineering education. I have a passion for brand-agnostic teaching about PLCs from a digital logic perspective, not teaching somebody Brand X keystrokes. Been teaching PLCs in various forms for 35 years.

I paid my $150 to go to the conference. Submitted the paper for 'peer' review. They came back with two things. The first was that I used the term 'He' in the proper gender-inclusive way which is no longer acceptable. I had to change to gender neutral pronouns. I guess I could maybe swallow that one.

The second was that I did not have any footnoted reference sources. The idea of 'peer review' being some sort of commentary from a grad student that hasn't set foot out of the classroom was something I could not swallow. I could accept DRBitBoy, Ken Roach, Alfredo Q, and others from this forum as being very valid and welcome peer review but I couldn't sit still for this.

I told them that I didn't need to cite anybody since I was an original source.

Told them to send me my $150 back. They did. That was the end of my time submitting papers.

- - - -

In my time hanging around the engineering college I found a couple of PHDs that are humble and a joy to be around. They respect my profession that the electricians that I work with. When they mix with them on jobsites there is a two-way exchange of information that enriches both sides.

Then there's the other PHDs. One of them was lecturing on discrete input modules based upon the specs from a manufacturer. He was complaining about how much current it was drawing and the waste of power. I piped up that I wished the current draw was higher - noise immunity, switch contact whetting, operation of 2-wire sensors, etc. I never yet met a customer running 100+ horsepower motors that complained about the power consumption of his input modules. This guy was one of the PHDs that you need to avoid - too bad the students can't avoid him.

Thanks for listening. Old guys need to vent sometimes.
 
ODVA Language

I guess somebody needs to hound the ODVA for referring to a scanner that is the 'owner' of the adaptor. That's the device that is determining the status of the outputs. Others can read the inputs but they don't get to change the outputs.

I hope nobody takes my suggestion seriously - the ODVA is a fine organization that is trying to advance the state of the art just as the Modbus people were trying to do 50 years ago. Neither one deserves to be beat up on language.
 

Similar Topics

Hi, all! I have a 1768-L45 CompactLogix PLC with a couple of 4-20 temperature transmitters connected to it. I have the temperature scaling...
Replies
6
Views
443
I'm new to PLCs and ladder logic. I'm trying to learn how to setup and control a PowerFlex 525 through a CompactLogix PLC. Things were going well...
Replies
3
Views
1,192
I am needing to transfer some prod_cons tags where the data type is a string[10]. Can you move a String data type? Thanks in advance RM
Replies
18
Views
3,399
I have a 5069-L320ERS2 that has the scrolling LCD screen on the front. Is there any way for me to see what message is being displayed on that...
Replies
2
Views
1,721
Hello, I'm writing an interface program to a machine and because the bit data is packed into 16 bit variables, it's nicer to create an UDT to...
Replies
16
Views
4,857
Back
Top Bottom