#networkanalyzer

[gis2080]

Network Cable Tester Market 🔌📈 – Doubling from $1.2B to $2.4B by 2034! 7.2% CAGR ahead!

Network Cable Tester Market is projected to grow from $1.2 billion in 2024 to $2.4 billion by 2034, at a CAGR of 7.2%. As the demand for efficient network infrastructure and seamless connectivity rises, cable testers are becoming indispensable in IT, telecommunications, and industrial automation.

To Request Sample Report : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/request-sample/?id=GIS23007 &utm_source=SnehaPatil&utm_medium=Article

Market Insights & Growth Trends

Top Segments:

Copper cable testers lead the market (45% share), valued for their cost-effectiveness in traditional network setups.

Fiber optic testers follow (35% share), driven by increasing fiber optic deployments for high-speed internet and data centers.

Coaxial testers account for 20% of the market, supporting broadcast and surveillance networks.

Regional Overview:

North America dominates with strong technological infrastructure and heavy investments in network expansion.

Europe follows, with stringent regulations and rising fiber optic adoption fueling growth.

Asia-Pacific is an emerging hotspot, led by rapid industrialization, urbanization, and smart city initiatives in countries like China and India.

Key Players: Fluke Networks, Ideal Industries, and Klein Tools are at the forefront, focusing on advanced testing technologies, automation, and connectivity solutions.

Future Market Outlook

By 2028, market volume is expected to grow from 12 million to 20 million units, propelled by IoT, smart technologies, and increasing data consumption. Advanced digital, wireless, and automated testers are set to transform network infrastructure testing.

#networkcabletester #telecomindustry #fiberoptictesting #itnetworking #connectivitysolutions #cabletesting #datacenters #networkexpansion #highspeedinternet #coppercable #fiberoptic #wirelessnetworking #networktools #itprofessionals #telecomsolutions #smartcities #industrialautomation #networkanalyzer #digitaltesting #telecomtech #broadband #wirelesstechnology #techinnovation #networkinstallation #iot #cybersecurity #datacenterinfrastructure #cabletester #businessconnectivity #enterpriseit #testingtools #futureofconnectivity #networkreliability #cloudcomputing #internetinfrastructure #networktroubleshooting #fiberdeployment #networksolutions #digitaltransformation #broadbandexpansion #connectivitysolutions #advancedtechnology #itmanagement #networkengineer #signaltesting

[sa8die]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by sadie ann marcinniak (@sa8die)

#technology #networkanalyzer #tech #techjobs #sa8die #sa8dieelectron #electronics https://www.instagram.com/p/CRbwGGynhM7/?utm_medium=tumblr

[spiengineers]

[cytoscape-publications]

Differential Connectivity in Colorectal Cancer Gene Expression Network. Fereshteh Izadi, Iran Biomed J. 2019 Jan; 23(1): 34–46.

CytoNCA is available from the Cytoscape App Store.

[americanfreighttrucking]

Keysight Technologies Launches Next Generation Integrated Network Analyzers

Keysight Technologies Launches Next Generation Integrated Network Analyzers

New offering delivers reliability and repeatability with best-in-class dynamic range, trace noise and temperature stability

SANTA ROSA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–lt;a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/networkanalyzer?src=hash" target="_blank"gt;#networkanalyzerlt;/agt;–Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS), a leading technology company that helps enterprises, service providers and…

[neverendingaudit]

conspiracy theorist John Mashey

One of the rare times the Auditor mentions Mash, as he usually ignores when due diligence is paid to his social network.

[spiengineers]

The MaxTester 635G (MAX-635G) is a complete DSL & copper test set featuring the latest in ADSL2+, VDSL2, and G.fast chipset based connectivity technologies. The MAX-635G offers everything a technician needs to complete jobs efficiently. If you want to buy MAX-635G so, visit here- https://www.spiengineers.com/ & Call us- 011 - 6211351 / 352

[spiengineers]

EXFO offers a complete range of high-performance test solutions, covering the entire converged network—from RAN to IMS. By mimicking real-world customer behavior in lab environments, our solutions allow mobile operators and equipment manufacturers to verify their wireless networks before deployment. If you want to buy so, click here - https://bit.ly/31ABf1v & Call us- 011 - 26211351 / 352

[spiengineers]

PowerHawk Pro - Multi-user Live Network Analyzer

Enables effective network service optimization and live network troubleshooting to assure the subscriber’s true quality of experience (QoE) in a multi-technology environment. SPI Engineers Authorized Dealer in India. If you want to buy so, Please Contact me- 011 - 26211351 / 352 & visit here- - https://bit.ly/31pAkkz

[spiengineers]

FTBx-88400NGE Power Blazer module

It offers a complete suite of 400G testing capabilities that can transition smoothly from lab to field. In addition, when portability is needed, the FTBx-88400NGE can be inserted into the FTB-4 Pro for the most compact 400G solution on the market. For more info, visit here - https://bit.ly/2OHEUsW & Call us- 011 - 26211351 / 352

[spiengineers]

The MaxTester 720C (MAX-720C) provides first-time-right fiber characterization thanks to its short dead zones and effective dynamic range. This compact quad unit is optimized for singlemode and multimode field testing for data centers, private/enterprise networks, FTTA and fronthaul deployments. For more info, click here- https://www.spiengineers.com/exfo/ & Contact Us- 011 - 26211351 / 352

[spiengineers]

Available in all EXFO platforms for all OTDRs:

CWDM

DWDM

LAN/WAN access

PON FTTx / MDU

Metro / Long-haul

For more information, click here- https://www.spiengineers.com/exfo/ and

Contact Us- 011 - 26211351 / 352

[cytoscape-publications]

Blubber transcriptome response to acute stress axis activation involves transient changes in adipogenesis and lipolysis in a fasting-adapted marine mammal. Khudyakov et al, Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 42110.

Cytoscape cited!

[cytoscape-publications]

Regulatory network analysis of Epstein-Barr virus identifies functional modules and hub genes involved in infectious mononucleosis. Poorebrahim et al, Arch Virol. 2017 Feb 2.

All apps used are available at the Cytoscape App Store.

[neverendingaudit]

Judge Judy’s Cites

golf,

You might be newer here than I presumed earlier.

Your question indicates you haven’t clicked on the link leading to the Contrarian Matrix:

http://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/

This website lists most if not all of the best arguments energy think tank money or emeritus status can buy. If you know of an argument I missed, let me know. A URL to the resource would suffice. If it makes the cut, I’ll thank you in my Colophon.

Now, how do you think I could create such Matrix? By having a steady diet of contrarian crap. My first comments at Judy’s date back to the creation of the website in 2009. The very idea of creating the Contrarian Matrix comes from a challenge by GaryM, a Denizen at Judy’s. So I think it’s safe to say that my diet might be more varied than yours.

Please beware your wishes.

For starters, we could look at Judy’s Congressional testimonies, which she says best summarize her views:

https://judithcurry.com/about/

In her latest one, she cites:

– her tag “scientific method” (which gets quite philosophical)

– Curry & Webster 2011 (on the uncertainty monster, or Mr T)

– Curry 2017 (on stoopid modulz)

– Moshpit & Groundspeeker’s political hit job

– a random Nature article on biases

– Sarewitz’s foreword to his book

– Kelly 2005 and 2008, from a Princeton philosopher

– Chamberlain 1965, an old Science article

– the famous APS transcript, the source of the now famous “it’s not science, but it’s important”

– the Climate Dialogue website, where I’ve taken JamesA’s comment earlier

– Curry 2011b, again on Mr T

– Curry 2011c, on hypothesis testing

– some newsies on Scott Pruitt

– Oreskes 2007, on the consensus

– Johnson 2010, a law professor from Yale

– two blog posts by Andrew Dessler

– NAP 2006 on temp recons

– Curry et al 2006, on hurricanes

– the UNFCC Treaty

– Curry 2017, again

– a NAP report to reinforce that we should spend more money on the kind of stuff her own company produces

– Mooney 2005, on the Republican war on science

– Cairney 2016, on how to influence policy-making, a topic dear to Judy

– the March for Science movement

– some newsie on teh Donald

As you can see, the citations alone suffice to show that there’s very little scientific content in Judy’s testimony. The little there is goes Curry all the way down. Just like what we can observe from Pielke Senior.

If it is true that this represents her views on AGW, we can safely say that her views are mostly political.

(via BartV's)

[neverendingaudit]

A note on how prejudices about expertise may indicate academic protectionnism.

to be considered an expert in any professional scientific field requires the author to have published extensively on that field in the peer reviewed literature.

There's a few bits missing here, JeffH.

First, to be considered by whom? I suppose the professionals of that scientific field. True enough, although I'm sure one can find exceptions:

https://twitter.com/JohnFM49/status/938475301839015936

Second, which field? The domain covered in your paper seems to have 92 papers. Overall. For comparison's sake, there's more than one article published on Plato per day. What you studied looks more like a tiny topic than a field.

Third, how many publications is considered extensive? In your small bibliography, a few names appear more than once. No one seems to have ten papers on polar bears, at least as lead author.

Fourth, how many expert researchers are there in that field? If I take 4 as a minimum for "extensive" in your bibliography, there's Amstrup, Derocher, Regher, Rode, Stirling, and... that's it. So according to that criteria, there are five experts in that field.

Fifth, if there are five polar bear experts and they are the ones who decide who are the experts, we're not talking about a professional scientific field, but a fishing club. I'm being generous here: fishing clubs usually have more than five members. This is a close knit, too close and small for its own good.

Sixth, by your very own criteria, almost everybody who worked on polar bears in your bibliography are not even experts.

Seventh, there are many kinds of expertise, and many theories of expertise. Without having to claim any expertise on expertise, I can cite the work of Harry Collins and Robert Evans. They created a hierarchy or a classification of expertise, the two ones important here are interactional expertise and contributory expertise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactional_expertise

The main difference is between being able to do things and being able to talk about things. Harry Collins learned to talk particle physics, but he can't claim being able to conduct experiments.

Your criteria is stricter than Collins & Evans' concept of contributory expertise. Being able to contribute in a field is certainly not the same as having a track record of many published contributions.

Eight, claiming that one is an expert is not the same thing as being portrayed as an expert. The distinction matters here: your paper mentions Heartland Institute's blurb, not what SusanC says about herself. Which is a good thing, as in her request for retraction, she explicitly says never having claimed having field expertise on polar bears. So even she agrees with you in a way, depending on how far you are willing to push your fishing club thing.

Ninth, you talk about requiring to publish. I agree that it's an administrative requirement: professors are expected to publish, at least when they get grants to do so. What happens when they don't? Many professors don't publish, the vast majority of them in fact. Sure, there are a few conference papers here and there, but that doesn't count, does it? They take less time to write than the number of hours I've spent in this thread alone.

Does that mean that most (if not all) professors in all the universities in the world are teaching courses in which they can't claim any expertise? I hope not.

Tenth, your "peer reviewed" lichurchur requirement excludes one of the most important discovery of the 20th century: Grigori Perelman proved the Poincaré conjecture by putting an article on ArXiV. According to your criteria, GrigoriP is a passable expert in geometry, and only because he published less than ten papers in secondary journals.

Eleventh, nothing in what I said so far in this thread is undermined by that criteria. This note is only there to warn you of some of the consequences your expertise criteria compel you to accept. If you can live with them, more power to you, and more power to academic protectionnism.