Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 20:42 In article <731dr5hth1vs8ea7nb4v70u8vvksfu15t9(a)4ax.com>, OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:29:49 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >Yes.. It's my aim to get a response. The more difficult it is, the > >stronger the data point. > > > > > In this thread, idiot, you have made a grand total of ZERO points. I suspect what one believes leaks out. IF so does Christian beliefs leak into engineering. For example.. You often call people idiots.. This is your belief. What I'm claiming is that this belief can manifest itself to all people. You may not even be able to control yourself. You will be capable of calling your kids idiots, you wife an idiot, calling your parents idiots, calling your friends idiots..etc.. iows... what you believe makes you capable of acting from those beliefs. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: Archimedes' Lever on 2 Apr 2010 20:45 On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:48:45 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:43:42 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >wrote: > >>In article <64vbr5hut4e92q09eho894cm15conhsdat(a)4ax.com>, >>jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>> >>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >If you really want to make me look stupid then agree with krw that >>> >Larkin wrote what religion he is in. >>> >>> --- >>> Since _you've_ already made yourself look plenty stupid, why bother? >>> --- >>> >>> >And then quote the part where >>> >Larkin specifies what religion. >>> >That'll make me look more stupid than just picking on semantics or my >>> >bad wrighting. >>> >>> --- >>> Again, why bother when it's so easy watching you do it all by yourself? >>> >>> JF >> >>Can you call me stupid for being ineffective at getting Larkin to >>specify his religion? > >--- >Yes, of course, since that ineffectiveness is based on the fact that >you're too full of your stupid self to realize that no matter how much >you squeal, you'll _never_ get that information out of Larkin if he >doesn't want to grace you with it. > >Plus, you're so abysmally stupid that you don't know how stupid you are >and had to have defined for you how your ineffectiveness is related to >your stupidity. > >Not that I expect you to understand that... > > >JF The idiot(s) that think that I "refused to accept" some retarded Usenet twit's "math challenge" needs to whopped upside the head with this same retort.
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 20:46 In article <e41dr5h3hbedink4kn50j061i69bhpor6s(a)4ax.com>, OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:31:00 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >In article <d2tbr5lnp7aondg4bkpgptm9u96g1gfj40(a)4ax.com>, > >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >> > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:40:50 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <4llar5p9f943cv0rt0jjfn90avjo5utqb2(a)4ax.com>, > >> >OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >The bible would certainly be of interest if physics,chemisty and biology > >> >> >books quoted the bible on gravity theory, atomic theory and genetics. > >> >> > > >> >> >Those mid east bronze age bible writing desert monkeys didn't even know > >> >> >they were breathing nitrogen. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Whouda thunk that all those times I called you an idiot that it was > >> >> actually spot on!? > >> > > >> >Maybe you can help me out and explain what you found wrong in my post. > >> > >> --- > >> The Bible is certainly of interest, but it isn't a science book. > >> > >> Consequently, references to gravity theory, atomic theory and genetics > >> won't be found there, and your denigration of its authors as well as the > >> book itself is disingenuous. > >> > >> JF > > > >Thank you making the point that the bible isn't a science book.. > > > Thank you for showing us all that you are so goddamned stupid that you > cannot figure out that it is not supposed to be one, nor was it ever. > > You are absolutely pathetic. iirc RogerN claimed the bible has scientific content. The bible doesn't contain any scientific content.
From: John Larkin on 2 Apr 2010 20:49 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Mar 30, 6:08�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:52:01 -0700 (PDT), brent >> >> >> >> <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> >On Mar 30, 7:12 am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >D from BC wrote: >> >> >> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >> >> >> Time for another mega-troll. >> >> >> >> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >> >> >> >There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability >> >> >are mutually exclusive. >> >> >> >Dave. >> >> >> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, >> >> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't >> >> lie to yourself about anything. >> >> >> John >> >> >Anyone that thinks they can get any meaningful new board design done >> >in one pass is delusional. >> >> We do it most of the time, namely ship complex designs with uPs, >> FPGAs, analog stuff, power conditioning. We go from paper designs to >> multilayer PC boards, formally release the rev A documentation, let >> manufacturing build the first articles, and make them work. We don't >> prototype and don't breadboard and usually ship rev A. >> >> This is a spectroscopy controller. The board on the left side of the >> plate is a Kontron SBC. On the right is our board: PCI express, BGA >> FPGA, BGA DRAM, fast ADC, two 128 MHz arbs, power supplies, lots of >> slower analog and digital i/o. Off to the side is the operator >> interface and a couple of option boards. First etch it all works. >> >> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/First_Light.jpg >> >> Here it is packaged: >> >> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/First_box.jpg >> >> Anyone who usually screws up the first pass is sloppy. >> >> John > >Your design looks very nice. > >I have had to fight the "one pass design" mentality in my business for >15 years. My experience is the fist pass gets everyone to know what >it is they are building. We write the manual first, and use it as the design definition. We also try to have a few potential customers review it before we get very far into the design. There will be integration issues that will >never be thought of ahead of the first pass. That seldom happens to us. We think and check a lot before we Gerber. The second pass will get >you close and the third pass will be required to get the boards >perfect. > >If the project is familiar to the organization a two pass design can >happen but I consider it a real victory. We usually ship rev A and have some longterm products that are still A. But we often rev it to B before we buy more boards. Sometimes manufacturing wants to change something, sometimes we have a blue wire, or we want more test points, or we think of a better way to do things. But if we can't ship rev A we consider that to be a blunder. If you expect to not ship the first etch, you won't develop the habit of being careful, and you may not ship the second or the third. The easier it is to spin things, the more spins it will take to get it right. Average bridge, building, dam: 1 Average PC board: 3 Average FPGA: 10 Average program: 100 John
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 20:52
In article <c4ucr59hikr9m6ha8h6u7gttfh30omanrt(a)4ax.com>, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:26:38 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: > > >KRW made an easter egg hunt that Larkin specified his religion in this > >thread. > >Who's smart enough to find it! > > I did no such thing. I said that you're illiterate and stupid. I stand by > that analysis, as you continue to prove it. If your Chrisitan, what does your analytical mind come up with as why to believe there's a God? -- D from BC British Columbia |