Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 21:26 I say more atheist engineers are open about being atheist than Christian engineers are open about being Christian (or other religion). -- D from BC British Columbia
From: brent on 2 Apr 2010 21:46 On Apr 2, 8:59 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT), brent > > > > <buleg...(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.... I screw up a lot. In my field I need to know when what I have is production worthy and I need to not pretend that something I have done that will not work can be pushed along so as to not make me look bad. My screwups will cost the company 100X more if I am not brutally honest about a flawed design up front. I do not pretend to be able to get my stuff right the first time and I do not get cowed or apologize for taking three times to get something ready for production. > 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. I always have a problem on the first article build (I need to say first pass). I predominantly design RF transmitters and receivers and my problems are rarely the things that a piece of software is going to detect as I model it prior to building it. Most of getting it right on the first try is based upon experience. The new stuff I try will never be right on the first try. And I don't apologize for that. I still have a job and my stuff has fared pretty well in production. > 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? > do your designs work from -55 degrees C to +85 degrees C? can they withstand harsh vibration? What type of RF susceptibility testing do they get? Does every single pin get blasted with 300 volts to determine if your product still works? What is the humidity that your product must operate in? Your design that you put into a bud box looks very nice, but if you shook that thing it would fly apart into a million pieces. And yet, what does it matter if a board needs to be re spun because of an electrical design flaw or because another screw must be put into the board to pass vibration? > John
From: Archimedes' Lever on 2 Apr 2010 22:25 On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:01:52 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 I was asking about SloDork, the guy that thinks he knows what others think or know.
From: Bill Sloman on 3 Apr 2010 02:46 On Apr 3, 3:05 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:33:46 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(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. The 'damage" exixts in your fertile and unrestrained imagination. You rejected your only - faint - chance to be an intellectual when you treated your university education as as a source of useful information about electronics, rather than systematically studying the information you were exposed to without rejecting the parts that weren't obviously and immediately relevant to your electronic interests. US engineering courses donn't exactly offer a liberal arts education, and few graduates emerge with any intellectual depth, but your approach to education pretty much guaranteed that you'd reject any opportunity to acquire any knowledge of the wider world. Your susceptibility to Republican propaganda is a telling example of how little you managed to learn about critical thinking. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: JosephKK on 3 Apr 2010 04:01
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:41:33 +1100, John Tserkezis <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it >> qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling >> the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. > > I was under the impression it was more like a ~$200 difference. I >briefly checked ebay for prices, and found ~$650-~$850 between the models. > That sounded fair to me, which made it a challenge to support my own >argument that it was the same hardware. > > Double price is another ball game altogether. They deserve what they get. From their normal retail channel the 100 MHz scope is under $800 and the 50 MHz is about $550. Go to ebay unaware and you can get fleeced. |