Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 12 Mar 2007 13:03 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <et39ee$8ss_002(a)s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <et18sk$ki3$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <et0nu2$8qk_001(a)s776.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <esuq2s$ds3$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>[....] >>> >>>>>has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater >>>>>voltage on tubes. >>>> >>>>Now think about that over time. >>> >>>Suddenly, you are arguing exactly my case and agreeing with me but putting >>>the above as a preface to it. >> >>I wasn't agreeing to anything. By stripping the post to make it >>appear that I was talking about a 5V factoid is blatant intellectual >>dishonesty. > > > No, it was nothing of the sort. It was taking a section of what you said > without changing its meaning and pointing out that you had said "now think > about" in front of statements by you that agreed what what I had earlier > said. Holy Innocents, Batman! > You followed this with some other stuff that was so old hat it didn't need > a reply. We have beaten to death the topic of being compatible with the > installed base. > >
From: nonsense on 12 Mar 2007 13:12 Dan Bloomquist wrote: > MassiveProng wrote: > >> >> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" was the requisite defining element. As usual, when beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift the goalposts. That's another version of what amounts to the Godwin alert, the discussion (as intended) is dead. Next they'll argue I'm the one shifting the goalposts, and I misunderstood. The record indicates otherwise. > No, it is, 'Jihad needs scientists' If we had to rely on some of the participants in this thread for anything then the Jihadists would surely win.
From: Eeyore on 12 Mar 2007 12:37 "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > Dan Bloomquist wrote: > > > MassiveProng wrote: > > > >> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. > > Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" > was the requisite defining element. As usual, when > beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift > the goalposts. It was nothing to do with 6.3 V AC either. Graham
From: nonsense on 12 Mar 2007 15:04 Eeyore wrote: > > "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" wrote: > > >>Dan Bloomquist wrote: >> >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Note that TTL was the requisite defining element. >> >>Actually "the reason TTL was designed for 5 volts BCC" >>was the requisite defining element. As usual, when >>beaten to a logical pulp, one side attempted to shift >>the goalposts. > > > It was nothing to do with 6.3 V AC either. Good Grief!
From: MassiveProng on 12 Mar 2007 19:52
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:34:47 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <45F4CF7A.BD6428AD(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >[....] >>So Mr Expert. Why isn't TTL made on a 40 Volt process ? > >Thats obvious. Its so there is a market for MOSFET drivers. I still want >a PIC made with Supertex's HV CMOS. > Tell us, oh masterTARD, what would the maximum clock be on a 40 volt logic swing. Do you even know what slew rate is? The reason it was 5 volts is because it was a reasonable voltage that could be slewed to at a decent rate. NOW, we are at 3.3 volts and even 1.2V. The reason is slew rate, and the fact that we can transition much faster at those swings than we ever could at 5V. There would be no GHz+ Pentiums if we were still at 5 Volt logic levels. Getteth thyself a clue. |