Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 20:55 In article <v0ucr5hd57sb5bdb2kiq7go3giq8hot71a(a)4ax.com>, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:45:03 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: > > >RogerN prays you hit no trees.. :P > > RogerN is a kind Christian and such would be expected. You're none of the > above so the expectations are equally obvious. I suppose you're praying that Larkin doesn't require a miracle on the mountain. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: John Larkin on 2 Apr 2010 20:59 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Mar 30, 8:58�pm, BigBalls ><BiggestBallsOf...(a)thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT), brent >> >> <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> > �My experience is the fist pass gets everyone to know what >> >it is they are building. >> >> � Lack of engineering prowess and experience. >> >> �It will come, if you strive toward it. �If you stifle it, it will not. > >I hope you work for my competition, because my products will >ultimately make it to market faster and be far more reliable in the >field and easier to produce. Because you screwed up a design three or four times, the last one is somehow better? I'd expect that the fourth spin still has bugs, because the only way you and your customers discover bugs is by accident. 90% of the time, when you have a problem on a first article, the problem points you directly to where you didn't check the design properly in the first case. If each of your three or four spins takes a month (and maybe a lot longer) and I spend a week checking and ship a bug-free rev A, who makes it to market faster? John
From: John Larkin on 2 Apr 2010 21:01 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:50:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:15:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>On Mar 31, 2:13�pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >>>wrote: >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >On Mar 31, 1:47�am, John Larkin >>>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >> >On Mar 30, 4:12�pm, 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. >>>> >>>> >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply >>>> >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. >>>> >>>> >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I >>>> >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very >>>> >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a >>>> >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. >>>> >>>> >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, >>>> >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive >>>> >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of >>>> >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks >>>> >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. >>>> >>>> >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. >>>> >>>> � Nice guesses, >>> >>>Have your read any of the recent papers on the subject? You might try >>>to plow through "Modularity" ISBN 0-226-73855-8. It was published in >>>2004, but the stuff coming out in the current "Proceedings of the >>>National Academy of Science" still seems to fit the same set of ideas. >>> >>>> but there is no conclusive proof for your claim either, >>> >>>Or so you'd like to think. >>> >>>> yet you tout it and yourself as being the only viable "observation", >>> >>>I do seem to know more about the subject than you or John Larkin - >>>which isn't much - but if either of you took the trouble to listen >>>somebody who has studied the subject at a respectable university (as >>>John Larkin claims that one of his kids has done) you could get an >>>even better informed opinion. >> >>My older daughter is a biology professor at University of the Pacific. >>She has her own office (with a window!) and her own 1200 square foot >>lab full of gene sequencers and stuff like that. And assistants to do >>the wet stuff. I discuss this stuff with her now and then, and she is >>finally starting to admit that I might not be crazy. >> >>She also has two kids and five motorcycles. >> >>John >> > > > Did SloDork ever spawn any of himself? I sure hope not. She also has a pickup truck. Her rule is "one beer per wheel." John
From: John Larkin on 2 Apr 2010 21:05 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:33:46 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Mar 31, 5:28�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Mar 31, 1:47�am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Mar 30, 4:12�pm, 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. >> >> >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply >> >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. >> >> >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I >> >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very >> >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a >> >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. >> >> >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, >> >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive >> >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of >> >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks >> >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. >> >> >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. >> >> You have no basis for that flat statement. To cling to 19th century >> classic Darwinism makes about as much sense as clinging to 18th >> century classic physics. > >It's straight-forward system engineering. The fact that you can't see >it is a little surprising - we know that you don't know much about >anything outside of electronics, but genetics and DNA regularly >explained in the semi-popular press. > >> YOU are refusing to be intelligent because you are, for emotional >> reasons, refusing to consider possibilities. That's why you don't >> design electronics, too. > >Typical Republican thinking. Invent the reality you'd like to beleive >in, then claim that's the things really are. > >> You are a creature of emotion pretending to be an intellectual to >> appease your ego. That's radically hilarious. > >I don't have to "pretend" to be an intellectual. The fact that you >claim not to recognise one when he's rubs your nose in your own >pretensions does say something about your own ego problems. Geez, what a fathead you are. > >Settle for the fact that you can design electronic circuits that work, >and learn to live with fact that you haven't learned enough about the >rest of the world to have useful opinions outside of electronics. If being an "intellectual" would do to me the damage it has done to you, I'll have none of it. John
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 21:26
In article <9t2dr5pitr83vc666ivi657dqpf72qnmvm(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:45:03 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >RogerN prays you hit no trees.. :P > > > > > > You're the second person in two days to warn me about skiing into > trees. The other one is a Fellow of United Technologies. > > John No no no no.... -- D from BC British Columbia |