Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Jan 2010 08:23 On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:51:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. Bwuahahahahah! Any old excuse in a storm, eh? Nope. You're on the idiot bus, and they have a seat with your name on it there.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Jan 2010 08:31 On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:51:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >Drinking a beer or being a bit tired raises the error rate without >actually disrupting the mechanism. When your IQ is only 20, as in the case with you, perhaps. > >I'm afaid that you need to recognise your own idiocy level, Bwuahahahaha! Be afraid... be very afraid. > rather >than making your idocy patent by making unjustified claims about other >people's performance. Your personality is the issue, and is blatantly apparent. That you missed that simple premise is yet another tell. It wasn't about performance, it is about the words you choose to lay down. The fact that you fail in both regards has no association between the two. NONE of our programmers introduce typos into ANY of their thousands upon thousands of lines of code. We perform mission critical services. It is not surprising that you would be beneath understanding such industrial safety mechanisms as simple as hiring competent personnel.
From: warm'n'flat on 27 Jan 2010 14:56 On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:20:42 -0800, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >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. > Mr Nymbecile, you are a septic tank and a dullard to boot. You are therefore in no position to pass comment on spelling or the use of the English language in general. > That usage has been the norm and correct term for a long time now. >Your term is archaic. > > You lose, again.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Jan 2010 23:55 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:09:02 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:46:45 -0800, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > > >> You lost all credibility when you declared one of the most commonly >>used chips in the world as being obsolete and no longer viable, when the >>fact is that the description you keep spewing about it fits *you*. > >--- >I like that one! :-) > >JF I found a site that not only has examples, they have physical examples! And cheap as a heathkit too! But already built! http://www.electronics-lab.com/blog/?tag=555
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 09:25
On Jan 27, 2:31 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:51:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >Drinking a beer or being a bit tired raises the error rate without > >actually disrupting the mechanism. > > When your IQ is only 20, as in the case with you, perhaps. It came out at around 140 when last tested, quite some time ago, which means that it is high enough that regular tests don't say anything more that that it is appreciably higher than average. Since I can read and write and construct coherent sentences, it has to be a lot hgher than 20, as you'd be aware if you had any idea of what you were talking about. > >I'm afaid that you need to recognise your own idiocy level, > > Bwuahahahaha! Be afraid... be very afraid. I'm much more nervous about the idea that someone as ill-informed as you are has anything to do with performing "mission critical services". > > rather > >than making your idocy patent by making unjustified claims about other > >people's performance. > > Your personality is the issue, and is blatantly apparent. That you > missed that simple premise is yet another tell. It wasn't about > performance, it is about the words you choose to lay down. The fact that > you fail in both regards has no association between the two. > > NONE of our programmers introduce typos into ANY of their thousands > upon thousands of lines of code. Of course they do. But they check their code, and explain successive small lumps of it to other programmers (walk-throughs)in order to find and correct these typos. The fact that you are unaware that this is going on tells us how willing you to pontificate on subjects where you are painfuly ill- informed. > We perform mission critical services. > It is not surprising that you would be beneath understanding such > industrial safety mechanisms as simple as hiring competent personnel. Since I'm well aware how the problem is dealt with, and you - equally clearly - are not, the lack of understanding is entirely yours, clown. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |