Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 15 Jul 2010 15:26 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:58:50 -0700, AM <thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>I avoided the military because I was afraid it would wreck my >>creativity, which in my experience it tends to do. > > "I avoided..." and "in my experience..." > > I think that qualifies as "mutually exclusive". > > In your experience??? AFTER "You avoided", you want to claim >"experience"? Do you even look at what you write before you post it? > > Bwuahahahahahaha! --- Excellent! :-)
From: John Fields on 15 Jul 2010 15:33 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:59:47 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > > >> I was wondering if all the gun-totin' firefight wisdom was practical >> or theoretical. > >Don't know. IIRC you are from N.O. originally ? > >> How many people here have ever been in a real-live-ammo, >> life-and-death gun fight, miliraty or otherwise? > >I have seen two murders, one suicide, myself been held at gun point, >been robbed twice (once at knife point), and once beaten to knock out >for fun. --- Geez, one would think you'd move away from Washington, D.C. ;)
From: John Larkin on 15 Jul 2010 15:39 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:58:50 -0700, AM ><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>I avoided the military because I was afraid it would wreck my >>>creativity, which in my experience it tends to do. >> >> "I avoided..." and "in my experience..." >> >> I think that qualifies as "mutually exclusive". >> >> In your experience??? AFTER "You avoided", you want to claim >>"experience"? Do you even look at what you write before you post it? >> >> Bwuahahahahahaha! > >--- >Excellent! :-) > And stupid, as usual. As I explained, I've interviewed and hired a number of ex-military folks. And done a goodly amount of military systems design, including stuff that flew or went to sea. And spent a week as a guest of the Navy, which was a lot of fun [1] but convinced me that it wasn't something I'd enjoy doing for years. John [1] I didn't have to follow orders, they couldn't court-martial me, and we got to go out on ships and shoot guns off the fantail and stuff like that.
From: John Fields on 15 Jul 2010 15:45 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:46:06 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:58:50 -0700, AM ><thisthatandtheother(a)beherenow.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>I avoided the military because I was afraid it would wreck my >>>creativity, which in my experience it tends to do. >> >> "I avoided..." and "in my experience..." >> >> I think that qualifies as "mutually exclusive". > >Not so. I've interviewed and hired a number of ex-military techs, and >I found them to be universally rigid, rule-bound, and inflexible. And >I did spend a week as a guest of the Navy, in Charleston, in a program >that was designed to make me want to be a naval officer; it had the >opposite effect. Even at the age of 16, it was obvious that these guys >had, by my standards, serious masculinity problems. --- They were more like men than you wanted them to be? --- >And I've designed lots of military electronics, --- How can you reconcile that statement having previously posted: "I *was* in the Navy for a week, sort of, and that convinced me that I'd be [better off avoiding the military,] in business or in real life." ? (Brackets mine) --- >enough to know that I prefer to do less >constrained stuff. --- The reason military stuff is as constrained as it is is because people's lives depend on it, and you, basically, like to play fast and loose and get away with as much as you can.
From: John Fields on 15 Jul 2010 16:03
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:33:34 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >We once worked with a guy who was always chewing on parts. So somebody >left a charged electrolytic cap on his desk. --- "so"? As if it were an inescapable, preordained consequence? And "Somebody"??? Hmmm... |