Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: John Tserkezis on 3 Apr 2010 05:07 JosephKK wrote: >> 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. Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant in the pricing. My intention was to say the lower model was around $650, and the higher model around $850. From what I've read here since posting that, my quoted pricing appears to be within a bull's roar of expected pricing. Certainly NOT the one quote that placed the higher model at double the price - which prompted my reply in the first place. > Go to ebay unaware and you can get fleeced. Good advice. Just blindly assuming that eBay is going to be cheaper can make your wallet very much lighter indeed. We virtually live on the Internet, so it's not hard to shop around.
From: Jon Kirwan on 3 Apr 2010 05:19 On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 20:07:38 +1100, John Tserkezis <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: > >>> 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. > > Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant in the pricing. My intention was >to say the lower model was around $650, and the higher model around $850. > > From what I've read here since posting that, my quoted pricing appears >to be within a bull's roar of expected pricing. Certainly NOT the one >quote that placed the higher model at double the price - which prompted >my reply in the first place. ><snip> I was working from two facts. DealExtreme sells the DS1052E for $404, free shipping to the US. I don't believe they sell the 1102. The best I've been able to find for the 1102 is a lot more than $200 above this. So the reality seems to be more like double the price. I would be very interested to see a case where the 1102 could be bought at $604, shipped, for example. If you know of one, I still stand corrected. Jon
From: John Fields on 3 Apr 2010 09:02 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:05:07 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >The best miracle is something impossible happening. > >How about an amputees legs growing back? >No one has claimed new legs or arms.. > >It's not a miracle when someone pops two aspirins and the headache goes >away. >It's not a miracle when someone recovers from cancer. >It's not a miracle when someone wins the lottery. >It's not a miracle when someone wins the lottery on their wedding day. >The about list is probable but in declining probability. > >I could be caught saying it's a miracle we're not dead yet from another >asteroid collision. >But here I try to make a mockery of the word miracle. --- Of course. If you don't understand it, deny its existence and ridicule it. Perhaps you should start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle JF
From: RogerN on 3 Apr 2010 09:43 "D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26202fa142a26bbb98976b(a)209.197.12.12... > 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. > The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml http://creationists.org/scientific-foreknowledge-in-the-bible.html http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#otIJmcNCMgXX http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/index.html RogerN
From: krw on 3 Apr 2010 11:18
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:55:34 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >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. Your supposition is up to you. Though, only an idiot would lose sleep over it. |