Op Amp Calculations
in [Design]
|
From: keith on 22 Oct 2005 12:39 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:28:00 +0200, Fred Bartoli wrote: > > "Jim Thompson" <thegreatone(a)example.com> a ?crit dans le message de > news:ppokl190h87fvntp3813bnlh51h08hiur1(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:00:01 +0200, "Fred Bartoli" >> <fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli(a)RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >(Notwhithstanding it's not nice to kick a guy when he's down. ;-> ) >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Cheers! >> >> >> >Rich >> >> >> >> >> >> Win is so leftist he can't be rational ;-) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Does being right wing makes you Real? >> >> >> >> Right on the positive real axis ;-) >> >> >> > >> >So... unstable... and unimaginative? >> >> We produce power instead of sucking it ;-) >> > > Hence right wingers are responsible for global warming. > That's very nice of you to finally admit it :-) AFAIK, the right has never laid claim on creating the Sun. -- Keith
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2005 13:25 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:37:25 -0400, keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:06:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> On 22 Oct 2005 03:20:11 -0700, Winfield Hill >> <Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>>keith wrote... >>>> >>>> How come we get all the leftists on the right coast? >>>> Blue-nosed red-statist leftists, at that! ;-) >>> >>> You think it's funny to smear other group members, but >>> George Bush is an idiot, pure and simple, and is doing >>> us all more damage than we should put up with. That's >>> not the least bit funny. I can't understand how you >>> right-wingers put up with him. When are y'all going to >>> wake up, clear your eyes, and see him for what he is? >> >> Part of the reason is that a largish number of Americans actually want >> ineffective Federal government... I sure do... so if they accept Bush >> as inept, that's fine with them. And if they accept him as a >> politically-skilled conservative, that's just about as good. > >The problem is that he ISN'T conservative. ...but far better than the >other choices available! Voting is rarely about "for", rather than >"against". > >> Liberals, meaning people who want lots of government involvement in >> everything, assume that a successful, activist President is desirable. >> Lots of people disagree, which is why we so often elect a President from >> one party and a Congress from the other, or why we so seldom elect >> Senators or VPs or policy wonks to the Presidency. > >Congress gets their power by bring bacon home. To do so they collaborate >to divy up the pork. The presidency is seem as more of a manager. >Congress critters are seen to have no management credentials. Presidents >usually come from the ranks of govenors (similar function). > >> And I don't personally see what damage he's causing, especially if you >> compare him to train-wreck administrations like Johnson, Carter, or >> Clinton. > >Exactly, but I'd throw Ford into that wreck too. > Ford got soundly trashed for taking the swine flu thing seriously, preparing for a pandemic that never happened. Deja vu all over again. And SNL had a running theme of portraying him as clumsy, when he was in fact a good athlete. >> If you refer to whining by Europeans, that ain't damage. > >...or whining by leftist right-coast blue-nosed red-statists. I just love >it when the idiot Howie Dean opens his mouth. They sure picked a leader >there! Their own worst enemies, they are. If they can't make coherent progress against Bush, who certainly offers lots of material to work with, they are in deep, dark, fundamental doo-doo. John
From: keith on 22 Oct 2005 22:04 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:25:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:37:25 -0400, keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:06:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On 22 Oct 2005 03:20:11 -0700, Winfield Hill >>> <Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>keith wrote... >>>>> >>>>> How come we get all the leftists on the right coast? >>>>> Blue-nosed red-statist leftists, at that! ;-) >>>> >>>> You think it's funny to smear other group members, but >>>> George Bush is an idiot, pure and simple, and is doing >>>> us all more damage than we should put up with. That's >>>> not the least bit funny. I can't understand how you >>>> right-wingers put up with him. When are y'all going to >>>> wake up, clear your eyes, and see him for what he is? >>> >>> Part of the reason is that a largish number of Americans actually want >>> ineffective Federal government... I sure do... so if they accept Bush >>> as inept, that's fine with them. And if they accept him as a >>> politically-skilled conservative, that's just about as good. >> >>The problem is that he ISN'T conservative. ...but far better than the >>other choices available! Voting is rarely about "for", rather than >>"against". >> >>> Liberals, meaning people who want lots of government involvement in >>> everything, assume that a successful, activist President is desirable. >>> Lots of people disagree, which is why we so often elect a President from >>> one party and a Congress from the other, or why we so seldom elect >>> Senators or VPs or policy wonks to the Presidency. >> >>Congress gets their power by bring bacon home. To do so they collaborate >>to divy up the pork. The presidency is seem as more of a manager. >>Congress critters are seen to have no management credentials. Presidents >>usually come from the ranks of govenors (similar function). >> >>> And I don't personally see what damage he's causing, especially if you >>> compare him to train-wreck administrations like Johnson, Carter, or >>> Clinton. >> >>Exactly, but I'd throw Ford into that wreck too. >> > > Ford got soundly trashed for taking the swine flu thing seriously, > preparing for a pandemic that never happened. Deja vu all over again. Ford got trashed for far more than that. He was a do-nothing when he was House minority-leader (IIRC) and did absolutely nothing as president, while the economy was screwing itself into the ground. The mid-'70s weren't good times. > And SNL had a running theme of portraying him as clumsy, when he was in > fact a good athlete. Sure, as he explained his tee shots into the crowds later; he wasn't a pro-golfer, but they insisted he play pro courses with the usual crowds. That doesn't change the fact that he did nothing, in the House or as President. ...though perhaps that was best, considering the times. > >>> If you refer to whining by Europeans, that ain't damage. >> >>...or whining by leftist right-coast blue-nosed red-statists. I just >>love it when the idiot Howie Dean opens his mouth. They sure picked a >>leader there! > > Their own worst enemies, they are. If they can't make coherent progress > against Bush, who certainly offers lots of material to work with, they > are in deep, dark, fundamental doo-doo. They don't understand that hate will kill them, both figuratively and literally. You can see it here (Win, et. al.). They've gone off the left edge. -- Keith
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2005 22:48 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:04:44 -0400, keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>>> And I don't personally see what damage he's causing, especially if you >>>> compare him to train-wreck administrations like Johnson, Carter, or >>>> Clinton. >>> >>>Exactly, but I'd throw Ford into that wreck too. >>> >> >> Ford got soundly trashed for taking the swine flu thing seriously, >> preparing for a pandemic that never happened. Deja vu all over again. > >Ford got trashed for far more than that. He was a do-nothing when he was >House minority-leader (IIRC) and did absolutely nothing as president, >while the economy was screwing itself into the ground. The mid-'70s >weren't good times. > The influence a President has on the economy, during his term, is virtually nil. By the time he's elected (or maybe even by the time he's born) bigger forces are in motion. >> And SNL had a running theme of portraying him as clumsy, when he was in >> fact a good athlete. > >Sure, as he explained his tee shots into the crowds later; he wasn't a >pro-golfer, but they insisted he play pro courses with the usual crowds. >That doesn't change the fact that he did nothing, in the House or as >President. ...though perhaps that was best, considering the times. > Yup. But he was an excellent skiier, and they only showed him falling on the news. >> >>>> If you refer to whining by Europeans, that ain't damage. >>> >>>...or whining by leftist right-coast blue-nosed red-statists. I just >>>love it when the idiot Howie Dean opens his mouth. They sure picked a >>>leader there! >> >> Their own worst enemies, they are. If they can't make coherent progress >> against Bush, who certainly offers lots of material to work with, they >> are in deep, dark, fundamental doo-doo. > >They don't understand that hate will kill them, both figuratively and >literally. You can see it here (Win, et. al.). They've gone off the left >edge. Right, ironic that liberalism is so tangled up with anger and hate, and conservatives seem to laugh a lot. Hey, Pride and Prejudice (Greer Garson, 1940) is on TV next! Beats typing manuals. John
From: Jim Thompson on 22 Oct 2005 22:54
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:48:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [snip] > >Hey, Pride and Prejudice (Greer Garson, 1940) is on TV next! Beats >typing manuals. > >John What channel? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |