Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 18:23 On Jan 26, 8:09 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > BS > Why do you think I call him Jim-out > BS > -of-touch-with-reality-Thompson? > BS >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > Sloman, In the USA you would be considered > to be "kook left" even by the mainstream left. The US academics that my wife and I socilaise with from time to time would presumably be close to your idea of US mainstream left, and they don't seem to regard me as any kind of kook. > I am not entirely convinced that you are > not one of our US kook misfits who is so > disaffected that they wish they lived near > Amsterdam. > > Many of our US pot smoking burnout > misfits dream of living in or near the > drug Mecca of Amsterdam. Nijmegen is about as far from Amsterdam as you can get in the Netherlands - have a look at a map sometime - and while we do have contact with American expatriates, they are all successful and respectable academics who don't seem to be in the least interested in taking advantage of the local "coffee shops" where you can buy and consume canabis, if you fancy it. > I still wonder if you're not just one of those > kooks claiming your fantasy on-line. > (Possibly using a remailer located there). No. I'm an Australian. I was exposed to canabis when I was much younger, and it never did anything for me except to make me feel distinctly lethargic the following morning, so I was never tempted to repeat the experience. > Your past intense excitement regarding > US HEALTH CARE seemed to support > this nagging suspicion. It's not excitement about US health care per se, but irritation at the fatuous nonensense that out right-wing nitwits post on the subject. Listening to them you'd never know that US heath care costs half as much again per head as the most expensive of the other national systems while failing to deliver universal health care or competitive national average life expectancies or perinatal mortality. > Your animus toward Jim also fits this > outside hypothesis. Such disaffected > misfits generally resent all other views > and WISH that they could elevate the > popularity of their own. I don't resent Jim's views. I just think that they a largely disconnected from reality and driven by particularly peurile ideological prejudice. > Coincidentally, Ultraliberals within the > US seem to have severely overestimated > the popularity of their proposals. Or under-estimated the capacity of the US health insurance industry to fund geurilla propaganda aimed at preserving their grotesque extravagances. > US citizens have TRILLIONS of indications > as to which views are "out-of-touch-with-reality" > and the backlash is only beginning. The Democrats have been slow to recognise the nature of the US health nsurance industy response, but they too have their own propagandists - as you say, the backlash is only just beginning, though I doubt if you meant the backlash agains the lying propaganda. > It seems that the Fabian Society and their > "gradual socialism" might have hit a snag. The people who think they own your country are fighting a vigorous rear-guard action against more nearly universal health care. Whether their efforts are potent enough to constitute "a snag" remains to be seen. The employing class in the US has a long history of getting away with spending less than their European equivalents on keeping their working class healthy and educated, but it costs them - appreciable chunks of the US "working class" aren't healthy enough or educated enough to be much use as workers. This has been fine for as long as you have been able to export the work to China, but this hasn't done a thing for your long-standing negative trade balance. One euro now buys $1.40716. A few years ago, it wouldn't buy a single dollar. Despite this substantial devaluation, you are still running pretty much the same huge trade deficit. It may be too early to start talking about failed states, but your current situation isn't sustainable. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 19:13 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:12:26 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > I'd certainly be >aware that I'd lost something. What a hilarious remark! > It hasn't happened yet. Even more hilarious!
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 19:25 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:20:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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> The phrase "it was his fatal flaw" is quite common and has many variations. Most of which rarely refer to actual fatality. Since you are indeed brain dead, and were already at the time I made the remark, it also presents an impossible feat. Nonetheless, your remarks are what "dug your mental, social, scientific, and associative grave". Your mental skills hover at nil. Your social skills slightly higher than that, though you cannot even spell category, so I have doubts in the depth of your social prowess as well. Your scientific skills are obvious by the bellering you do here. You have "Tiger Woods Disorder", which is a coupling of factitious disorder and the inability to admit that you were wrong about something and move on. Your skills with working with associates are obviously nil as well, since you have no one here that will back you in your pathetic argument(s), hence 'no associates'. You also seem to have huge problems recognizing common colloquialisms, much less what they refer to in the context in which they were used. Pretty sad, actually. Do they have any tall bridges in Nijmegen? You could make an event of it and raise some money for Haiti and actually go out with a splat! THEN, you would be remembered. maybe. You are certainly not going to find your Worhol moment here, however.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 19:40 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:06:56 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >A slightly more brilliant idea would have been to send different >binary sequences down each conductor, which would have allowed you to >identify the individual conductors a little faster, given the same >bandwidth. Unless you are aware of the implications presented to the remainder of the system, you cannot state what outcome any given methodology would incur. Different methods pose differing issues with the continued use of the conductor for its originally prescribed utility. It isn't about bandwidth.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 19:44
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:15:00 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(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. |