Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Jan 2010 05:24 On Jan 26, 8:49 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:12:26 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 24, 11:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> > >wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:53:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> >You may have tried to persuade yourself that some kid that you helped > >> >actually soaked up your advice on caluclating inducatnaces and > >> >capacitances, but this is the sort of self-delusion that allows you to > >> >persuade yourself that knowing the 101 things a boy can do with the > >> >555 represents a currently valuable skill. > > >> --- > >> It's _way_ more than 101, (like _you'd_ know, you old reprobate) and > >> being able to post easy solutions, using 555s, to querants' hairy > >> problems _is_ a valuable skill. > > >You've missed another implication. "101 things a boy can do" is an > >idiom. > > --- > Had you surrounded it with quotes, initially, that would have been > clear. If you had normal competence in reading, that wouldn't have been necessary. <snipped the other consequences of your intellectual defects> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Jan 2010 05:26 On Jan 27, 1:44 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:15:00 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 26, 7:29 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:27:53 -0800, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >You are all hat and no horse. *DO* something. > > >> All our boys rely on MY gear. > > >The ADE651 bomb detector? > > snipped retarded link. > > >The story has been picked up by more respectable news sources, so I > >guess we can believe that basic facts, incredible as they may seem. > >I've heard of audiofools, but securityfools is a new (if not > >unexpected) catagory. > > You're an idiot. That item has nothing to do with what I make. > > Every bird, boat, ship, and ground station relies on my hardware, and > will for the next 30 years. If the world shifts by then, so will the > hardware, but for now, that is what every allied force in the world uses. Any fool can make such a claim. Since you are obviously exceptionally foolish, one is obliged to treat it with exceptional scepticism. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Jan 2010 05:30 On Jan 27, 2:01 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:43:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 26, 9:07 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:22:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jan 26, 5:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> Nonsense. > > >> >> Being bereft of humor you saw no joke but merely the statement you > >> >> didn't know was erroneous and chose to support at the time. > > >> >He did go to the trouble of tagging it as a joke with a smiley. That > >> >you managed to miss the implications of that particular symbol speaks > >> >volumes about your reading disability. > > >> --- > >> Being bereft of humor, you obviously missed the humorous reference being > >> applied to the incongruity of stealing power from the power company, not > >> to the method and the fallacy surrounding it. > > >> As a matter of fact, when I asked him if he knew why it would be > >> impossible to steal it that way, he responded with an answer pertaining > >> to the legality of it, not to the physics involved, which you were also > >> in the dark about, cheater. > > >His actual answer > > >"Because the federales would get you?" > > >doesn't strike me as being a serious response about the legality of > >the action, but rather as a continuation of the joke. > > --- > Since he wrote "federales" (a slang term for the Mexican Federal Police) > one can only infer that he was referring to legal authorities, if only > in a jocular vein. So you concede the point. <snipped the subsequent quibbling> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Jan 2010 05:51 On Jan 27, 1:46 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:22:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >He did go to the trouble of tagging it as a joke with a smiley. That > >you managed to miss the implications of that particular symbol speaks > >volumes about your reading disability. > > ><snipped the rest of the rubbish> > > >-- > >Bill Sloman, > > Said the idiot that cannot even spell the word "category". > > Let google be your spell checker, SloTard. TRY to type "catagory" > into google, and it will suggest the right spelling and your idiocy level > to you. My wife tells me that I am a paradoxical bad speller - which reflects a particular reading strategy, which is associated with a very high reading rate. It's not any kind of indication of idiocy - quite the reverse. The second vowel in "category" is unstressed, which means that what one hears is a "schwa" which would be the same whatever vowel was present in the orthographic representation. A google search on "catagory" throws up 2,260,000 hits, which makes it a pretty popular error. The correct spelling throws up 1,110,000,000 hits, so "catagory" isn't actually an acceptable variant, and to that - very limited - extent your comment has merit. Grown-ups don't get excited about typos, and people who understand how the brain works are aware that typos don't reflect any kind of underlying problem - the brain, like any other signal processing system, has to make a compromise between error rate and the time spent on error checking, so normal human performance is tpproduce some kind of error of action roughly every half hour. For programmers, that is roughly one error per thirty lines of code. Drinking a beer or being a bit tired raises the error rate without actually disrupting the mechanism. I'm afaid that you need to recognise your own idiocy level, rather than making your idocy patent by making unjustified claims about other people's performance. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Jan 2010 08:20
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:26:59 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 27, 1:44�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:15:00 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jan 26, 7:29�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >> >wrote: >> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:27:53 -0800, John Larkin >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >You are all hat and no horse. *DO* something. >> >> >> � All our boys rely on MY gear. >> >> >The ADE651 bomb detector? >> >> snipped retarded link. >> >> >The story has been picked up by more respectable news sources, so I >> >guess we can believe that basic facts, incredible as they may seem. >> >I've heard of audiofools, but securityfools is a new (if not >> >unexpected) catagory. >> >> � You're an idiot. �That item has nothing to do with what I make. >> >> � Every bird, boat, ship, and ground station relies on my hardware, and >> will for the next 30 years. �If the world shifts by then, so will the >> hardware, but for now, that is what every allied force in the world uses. > >Any fool can make such a claim. Of course. When that is what happens. Some idiot the other day claimed one of the most commonly used chips in the world to be obsolete. That guy is foolish. Oh... that's right... YOU are that foolish idiot. The difference being that I am not a fool, and my claim is factual. The difference in the case of your claims is that you are a foolish, worn out, old, engineer wanna be that never had the competency required, an you do claim a great chip to be obsolete. Essentially my remarks and claims about me are true, and my remarks and claims about you are true. > Since you are obviously exceptionally >foolish, one is obliged to treat it with exceptional scepticism. You cannot keep up with modern word usage. The term, in our modern world, you dumb turkey, is SKEPTICISM. You'll never make it out of the hole you dug for yourself, and you are still down there, digging it deeper. That usage has been the norm and correct term for a long time now. Your term is archaic. You lose, again. |