Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 06:59 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:31:43 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> Like that the 555 is obsolete, > >Most people see this an undeniable fact. You choose to differ. Most people? Your declarations of statistical facts are 100% invalid. All one needs do is examine the source. You chose to be an absolute idiot because you refuse to admit that you were wrong then, and are now as well.
From: John Fields on 26 Jan 2010 11:09 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
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 11:20 On Jan 26, 12:46 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:46 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 25, 6:17 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:06:55 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jan 24, 7:09 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:17:41 -0600, John Fields > > >> >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:10:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> >> ><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> <snip> > > >> >> >>Your idea of documenting an achievement is to post something on U- > >> >> >>tube. Getting one's name on a patent is a little more difficult. > > >> >> >--- > >> >> >BTDT: US Patent #4,937,519. > > >> >> >Have you documented anything on YouTube? > >> >> >--- > > >> >> >>It > >> >> >>doesn't necessarily imply mastery of a field - krw has boasted about > > >> >> What a sick loser, Slowman! I "boasted" about my patentS (eight, BTW) > >> >> because YOU specifically ASKED ME if I had and patents, implying that > >> >> I did not and therefore you were somehow a superior being. > > >> >After I'd seen your "patents", I knew I was a superior being. > > >> Two fatal flaws. You claiming to know something, and you claiming to > >> be superior to anything. > > >Fatal to whom? I'm not dead, so it obviously isn't me. > > It is called a colloquialism, you obviously brain dead ditz! A well-known evasion. Dimbulb posts an inspecific claim, then complains that I didn't interpret it in the way that would suit him. <snipped the rest of the loser's rantings> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 11:24 On Jan 26, 5:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:46:45 -0800, Archimedes' Lever > > <OneBigLe...(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! :-) You would. It doesn't make the 555 any less obsolete, and the endorsement comes from the least impressive individual to post here regularly, but you has can't afford to reject any support, no matter how embarrassing. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 12:15
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? http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/2010/01/2010125869373242.html 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. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |