more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Apr 2010 22:50 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:18:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:19:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:40:49 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Fun? You must like dentists, too. ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Not me. I prefer an oral surgeon who knows what they are doing. > >> >> >Twice, I've had dentists who couldn't remove a damaged tooth and had to > >> >> >wait days to see an oral surgeon. :( > >> >> > >> >> You're lucky. My boss had a couple of dentists, here, try to save a tooth, > >> >> only to have to go to a surgeon to have it removed (and an implant inserted). > >> >> Each one charged like they saved the tooth. > >> > > >> > > >> > Lucky? They won't do the surgery if they don't see a severe > >> >infection & swelling. Some hurt for several years before they will cut > >> >it out. > >> > > >> > As far as trying to save teeth, I had seven root canals before > >> >finally getting someone to remove all my upper teeth. The wait allowed > >> >the infection to eat most of the bone ridge, so I can't wear an upper > >> >plate. > >> > >> Sounds like malpractice, to me. > > > > > > That's what they are afraid of. Too many people have had things > >done, then complained. > > They don't get "complaints" about multi-year infections? Not if they won't take you as a patient. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Bill Sloman on 18 Apr 2010 07:15 On Apr 16, 6:38 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 13, 9:58 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon..co.uk> > >> >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. > > >> >> >> > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html > > >> >> >> > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's > >> >> >> > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. > > >> >> >> > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the > >> >> >> > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having > >> >> >> > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would > >> >> >> > split off hydrogen is still under development. > > >> >> >> Humor. It's a higher function. > > >> >> >Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have > >> >> >been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for > >> >> >at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- > >> >> >conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and > >> >> >irrelevant joke. > > >> >> >As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely > >> >> >functional. > > >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require > >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different > >> >> perspectives. > > >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his > >> >idea of humour. > > >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. > > >Since your information about my design ability is defective, I don't > >see any reason to trust your opinion about his. Both are likely > >invented to make you feel better. > > >> And he has a great singing voice. > > >According to Edmund Crispin, the resonant space inside the head > >requried for a great singing voice uses up skull volume that could > >otherwise have been occupied by brains, and James Arthur's mindless > >endorsement of right-wing idiocies does imply that his skull is > >largely empy. > > >> And he's a pretty good cook. > > >Who isn't? > > >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. > > >I don't sing - not enough resonat spaces inside the skull - though I > >do play the piano (without much experise). I do cook. And I do design > >electronic circuits from time to time, despite your inability to > >process information to the contrary. > > >> >> You wouldn't understand. > > >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of > >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the > >> >mirror ... > > >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. > > >I've been trying to get another job for the past six years. It hasn't > >worked, but not for want of effort. You've needed to learn a bit more > >about the world outside electronics for a whole lot longer, and > >there's absolutely no evidence that you've realised this yet, let > >alone done something about it - the books you do claim to read are all > >neatly packaged misinformation designed to make Republicans feel happy > >about their favourite delusions - anytime now you will be quoting from > >Sarah Palin's text-book on international politics (which someone is > >probably ghosting for her even now). > > Wow, I never knew that Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope and P G > Wodehouse and William Shakespeare were Republicans. That's actually > comforting, and makes sense. They all understood how the world works. Since the books I was referring to were the ones that you had previously claimed - in this forum - to have read, which didn't include any of the authors listed above, you aren't entitled to claim that I think that any of the authors listed above are Republicans. P.G.Wodehouse mght well have voted Republican if he had the chance - when he was stuck in German-occupied France he did collaborate with the Nazi occupiers to the extent of making a radio-broadcast, which made him distinctly unpopular in the UK for the rest of his life. Jane Austen wasn't interested in politics at all, asdn while Trollope did - once - stand for Parliment, it was as a member of the Liberal Party. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/trollope.htm Shakespeare predates political parties, but since his view of the political process is entirely realistic, he obviously wouldn't have voted for the Republicans. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 18 Apr 2010 07:39 On Apr 18, 2:59 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:08:56 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 17, 3:58 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:44:19 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 16, 6:38 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 9:58 pm, John Larkin > >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi..demon.co.uk> > >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412..html > > >> >> >> >> >> > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's > >> >> >> >> >> > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the > >> >> >> >> >> > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having > >> >> >> >> >> > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would > >> >> >> >> >> > split off hydrogen is still under development. > > >> >> >> >> >> Humor. It's a higher function. > > >> >> >> >> >Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have > >> >> >> >> >been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for > >> >> >> >> >at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- > >> >> >> >> >conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and > >> >> >> >> >irrelevant joke. > > >> >> >> >> >As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely > >> >> >> >> >functional. > > >> >> >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require > >> >> >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different > >> >> >> >> perspectives. > > >> >> >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his > >> >> >> >idea of humour. > > >> >> >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. > > >> >> >Since your information about my design ability is defective, I don't > >> >> >see any reason to trust your opinion about his. Both are likely > >> >> >invented to make you feel better. > > >> >> >> And he has a great singing voice. > > >> >> >According to Edmund Crispin, the resonant space inside the head > >> >> >requried for a great singing voice uses up skull volume that could > >> >> >otherwise have been occupied by brains, and James Arthur's mindless > >> >> >endorsement of right-wing idiocies does imply that his skull is > >> >> >largely empy. > > >> >> >> And he's a pretty good cook. > > >> >> >Who isn't? > > >> >> >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. > > >> >> >I don't sing - not enough resonant spaces inside the skull - though I > >> >> >do play the piano (without much experise). I do cook. And I do design > >> >> >electronic circuits from time to time, despite your inability to > >> >> >process information to the contrary. > > >> >> >> >> You wouldn't understand. > > >> >> >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of > >> >> >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the > >> >> >> >mirror ... > > >> >> >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. > > >> >> >I've been trying to get another job for the past six years. It hasn't > >> >> >worked, but not for want of effort. You've needed to learn a bit more > >> >> >about the world outside electronics for a whole lot longer, and > >> >> >there's absolutely no evidence that you've realised this yet, let > >> >> >alone done something about it - the books you do claim to read are all > >> >> >neatly packaged misinformation designed to make Republicans feel happy > >> >> >about their favourite delusions - anytime now you will be quoting from > >> >> >Sarah Palin's text-book on international politics (which someone is > >> >> >probably ghosting for her even now). > > >> >> Wow, I never knew that Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope and P G > >> >> Wodehouse and William Shekespeare were Republicans. That's actually > >> >> comforting, and makes sense. They all understood how the world works. > > >> >I read them when I was lot younger than I am now. That you have only > >> >just got around to reading the classics doesn't really surprise me - > >> >you show all the other signs of a single-track education (excessively > >> >concentrated on electronics). I read Dickens (and Thomas Love Peacock) > >> >when I was running the Melbourne University computer (they only had > >> >one back then) at four in the morning - bitter experience demonstrated > >> >that I couldn't debug my programs at that time of night, so I read > >> >while my program ran, and when home when it has finished (or crashed, > >> >as it sometimes did). > > >> I have not "just got around" to reading great (and even silly) > >> literature. I transitioned from si-fi to more serious stuff in my 20s. > >> I like to reread the good stuff, often many times, because really > >> great writing is like really great food, worth repeating at decent > >> intervals. > > >Every couple of decades, perhaps > > I read P&P a bit more often than that. And "A Damsel in Distress", > possibly the most perfect book written in the English language. P.G. Wodehouse does have his virtues as a writer, but - like you - his education was restricted, and he didn't have a lot to write about. Terry Pratchett has the same level of comedic literary skill as Wodehouse, and understands a whole lot more of the world. His Discworld novels satirise large chunks of today's society. "Jingo" and "The Truth" aimed at Irak and Murdoch respectively, are well worth reading for the stairical content as well as the comedy. I really like Terry Pratchett's first and only science-fiction novel "Strata" in which the comdey is a little subdued, but he was still working out what he wanted to do back then. > >> You keep making up stuff you'd like to be true, but isn't. That sort > >> of disconnect is very bad for electronic design. > > >No, that's what you do. You've never exhibited any kowledge of classic > >literature here, so it was reasonable to imagine that you had only > >recently discovered it - going with the obvious hypothesis isn't > >"making up stuff you'd like to be true", it's just conforming to the > >implications of the discourse > > Umm, this is sci.electronics.design. We don't often discuss classic > literature. I admit that I have matured slowly, mentally and > physically, with regard to most everything but electronics. I admit I > spent my youth getting good at electronics. So what? Is being a sour > old fart a virtue at any point in life? Not doling out the copious flattery that you feel you deserve doesn't make me a "sour old fart", and more than it makes me a less than competent circuit designer. > >> There's something slow, even ponderous, about Dickens that puts me > >> off. He's not worth rereading often. I think his stuff was a social > >> revelation in his time but isn't universal enough to wear well. He > >> dealt with circumstances, the outer life, more than motivations, the > >> inner life. > > >He's certainly not my favourite author. Jane Austen is much better. > >Dickens novels were mostly originally published as serials in weekly > >and monthly magazines, and that may explain the slow and ponderous > >construction. > > >http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dickens/life_publication.html > > >Trollope also published a lot of his stuff as serials, but he never > >published a word until the whole story had been written, and his stuff > >does read better. > > We agree on something! > > Henry James puts me off, too. I start his books with the greatest of > intentions and can never make it through. I just retried EW's "Age of > Innocence", ditto. Never could stand him - I've read some of his short stories, but I've never been able to plow all the way through any of his novels. > I'm reading "The Big Short" about the mortgage meltdown. Cool stuff. One hopes that you get James Arthur to read and understand it - the reviews suggest that the author puts the blame firmly on the banks, where James Arthur seems to think that the US administration was at fault, somehow compelling the banks to make insanely irresponsible loans before selling them on a "securitised" bonds. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 18 Apr 2010 11:04 On Apr 18, 2:45 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:54:54 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 17, 9:56 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:18:53 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 17, 1:27 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> On Apr 16, 6:02 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> > On Apr 16, 8:41 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> > > On Apr 14, 3:41 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> > > > On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin <snip> > >> >> So, back to the question, why not start your own outfit, and do it > >> >> right? That's what makes the world a better place, people starting > >> >> cool companies and hiring folks to work in them. > > >> >My wife has been after me to do that for years. It does require > >> >inventing a product that could be developed without investing more > >> >capital than we've got, which could be sold to a significant number of > >> >customers without requring me to set up some kind of distribution > >> >network. > > >> >Since most of the work I've done has been on complex and expensive > >> >scientific instruments sold into the international market in small > >> >qunatities, my inspirations haven't yet met these criteria. > > >> That is precisely the market where a precision design could be sold in > >> modest quantities for big bucks, and where potential users are easy to > >> find. Scientific instruments often have horrible electronics. If you > >> can improve the s/n of a million dollar instrument by, say, 30 dB, it > >> will attract attention. And orders. > > >Getting far enough into a million dollar instrument to detect where > >you can raise the s/n by 15dB does take some contact with the users. > >Regular firms use the marketing department to make this more or less > >impossible for the engineers who could do it. > > Wrong. Marketing usually tries to sell what's already done. Not wrong. In fact the problem is that the marketing department tries to control the direction of new instrument development according to their understanding of what the customers want - lower prices, different color schemes and more shapely housings - and they don't want the engineers complicating their existence with innovations that they can't understand and don't want to have to learn how to sell > Since you don't have a marketing department, they can't get in your way. I'm also short of customers to talk to. > Go to a library or online and find some instruments that might need > help. Now find some academic or scientific users. Email them and tell > them what you have in mind. Most will be interested and helpful. Tell > them that if you get something to work, you'll give them one for free. When I could get at acedemic libraries that still subscribed to them, I read Measurement Science and Technology and the Review of Scientific Instruments with exactly that in mind. All that that gave me was the profound impression that physicists don't know much about electronics. Review Scientific Instruments has published a few of my comments to that effect. As a source of potential customers it was a waste of time. > >> It takes very little capital to develop a small electronic gadget > >> these days. Test equipment, exotic parts, uP development boards, > >> multilayer pc boards... all are amazingly cheap and plentiful > >> nowadays. A decent oscilloscope used to cost as much as a new car; no > >> longer. This is a golden age in which one person can design important > >> electronics. > > >If you can get into contact with the people who need the gadget. When > >I first started posting on sci.electronics.design I hoped that it > >would provide a forum where this could happen. Pity about that. > > It's not hard if you try. You have a degree in p.chem, so tell them > that. Most people like to talk about what they do and like to help > make things better. Actually, it is a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, but it was conferred in 1970, which doesn't give it a lot of credibility at the moment. > Most of your creativity is directed towards making excuses for why you > can't get anything done. There's no creativity involved in recognising one's situation and explaining it to other people. There might be some creativity involved in suggesting practical ways in which I might get out of the hole I find myself in, but suggestions that come down to "try harder" aren't actually useful. > But maybe it's too late. It certainly looks that way from where I sit. I clearly need to find another point of view. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 18 Apr 2010 11:34
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Apr 18, 2:59�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:08:56 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Apr 17, 3:58�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:44:19 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Apr 16, 6:38�pm, John Larkin >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >On Apr 14, 2:01�am, John Larkin >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 9:58�pm, John Larkin >> >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's >> >> >> >> >> >> > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the >> >> >> >> >> >> > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having >> >> >> >> >> >> > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would >> >> >> >> >> >> > split off hydrogen is still under development. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Humor. It's a higher function. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have >> >> >> >> >> >been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for >> >> >> >> >> >at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- >> >> >> >> >> >conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and >> >> >> >> >> >irrelevant joke. >> >> >> >> >> >> >As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely >> >> >> >> >> >functional. >> >> >> >> >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require >> >> >> >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different >> >> >> >> >> perspectives. >> >> >> >> >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his >> >> >> >> >idea of humour. >> >> >> >> >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. >> >> >> >> >Since your information about my design ability is defective, I don't >> >> >> >see any reason to trust your opinion about his. Both are likely >> >> >> >invented to make you feel better. >> >> >> >> >> And he has a great singing voice. >> >> >> >> >According to Edmund Crispin, the resonant space inside the head >> >> >> >requried for a great singing voice uses up skull volume that could >> >> >> >otherwise have been occupied by brains, and James Arthur's mindless >> >> >> >endorsement of right-wing idiocies does imply that his skull is >> >> >> >largely empy. >> >> >> >> >> And he's a pretty good cook. >> >> >> >> >Who isn't? >> >> >> >> >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. >> >> >> >> >I don't sing - not enough resonant spaces inside the skull - though I >> >> >> >do play the piano (without much experise). I do cook. And I do design >> >> >> >electronic circuits from time to time, despite your inability to >> >> >> >process information to the contrary. >> >> >> >> >> >> You wouldn't understand. >> >> >> >> >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of >> >> >> >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the >> >> >> >> >mirror ... >> >> >> >> >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. >> >> >> >> >I've been trying to get another job for the past six years. It hasn't >> >> >> >worked, but not for want of effort. You've needed to learn a bit more >> >> >> >about the world outside electronics for a whole lot longer, and >> >> >> >there's absolutely no evidence that you've realised this yet, let >> >> >> >alone done something about it - the books you do claim to read are all >> >> >> >neatly packaged misinformation designed to make Republicans feel happy >> >> >> >about their favourite delusions - anytime now you will be quoting from >> >> >> >Sarah Palin's text-book on international politics (which someone is >> >> >> >probably ghosting for her even now). >> >> >> >> Wow, I never knew that Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope and P G >> >> >> Wodehouse and William Shekespeare were Republicans. That's actually >> >> >> comforting, and makes sense. They all understood how the world works. >> >> >> >I read them when I was lot younger than I am now. That you have only >> >> >just got around to reading the classics doesn't really surprise me - >> >> >you show all the other signs of a single-track education (excessively >> >> >concentrated on electronics). I read Dickens (and Thomas Love Peacock) >> >> >when I was running the Melbourne University computer (they only had >> >> >one back then) at four in the morning - bitter experience demonstrated >> >> >that I couldn't debug my programs at that time of night, so I read >> >> >while my program ran, and when home when it has finished (or crashed, >> >> >as it sometimes did). >> >> >> I have not "just got around" to reading great (and even silly) >> >> literature. I transitioned from si-fi to more serious stuff in my 20s. >> >> I like to reread the good stuff, often many times, because really >> >> great writing is like really great food, worth repeating at decent >> >> intervals. >> >> >Every couple of decades, perhaps >> >> I read P&P a bit more often than that. And "A Damsel in Distress", >> possibly the most perfect book written in the English language. > >P.G. Wodehouse does have his virtues as a writer, but - like you - his >education was restricted, and he didn't have a lot to write about. >Terry Pratchett has the same level of comedic literary skill as >Wodehouse, and understands a whole lot more of the world. His >Discworld novels satirise large chunks of today's society. "Jingo" and >"The Truth" aimed at Irak and Murdoch respectively, are well worth >reading for the stairical content as well as the comedy. > >I really like Terry Pratchett's first and only science-fiction novel >"Strata" in which the comdey is a little subdued, but he was still >working out what he wanted to do back then. > >> >> You keep making up stuff you'd like to be true, but isn't. That sort >> >> of disconnect is very bad for electronic design. >> >> >No, that's what you do. You've never exhibited any kowledge of classic >> >literature here, so it was reasonable to imagine that you had only >> >recently discovered it - going with the obvious hypothesis isn't >> >"making up stuff you'd like to be true", it's just conforming to the >> >implications of the discourse >> >> Umm, this is sci.electronics.design. We don't often discuss classic >> literature. I admit that I have matured slowly, mentally and >> physically, with regard to most everything but electronics. I admit I >> spent my youth getting good at electronics. So what? Is being a sour >> old fart a virtue at any point in life? > >Not doling out the copious flattery that you feel you deserve doesn't >make me a "sour old fart", and more than it makes me a less than >competent circuit designer. > >> >> There's something slow, even ponderous, about Dickens that puts me >> >> off. He's not worth rereading often. I think his stuff was a social >> >> revelation in his time but isn't universal enough to wear well. He >> >> dealt with circumstances, the outer life, more than motivations, the >> >> inner life. >> >> >He's certainly not my favourite author. Jane Austen is much better. >> >Dickens novels were mostly �originally published as serials in weekly >> >and monthly magazines, and that may explain the slow and ponderous >> >construction. >> >> >http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dickens/life_publication.html >> >> >Trollope also published a lot of his stuff as serials, but he never >> >published a word until the whole story had been written, and his stuff >> >does read better. >> >> We agree on something! >> >> Henry James puts me off, too. I start his books with the greatest of >> intentions and can never make it through. I just retried EW's "Age of >> Innocence", ditto. > >Never could stand him - I've read some of his short stories, but I've >never been able to plow all the way through any of his novels. > >> I'm reading "The Big Short" about the mortgage meltdown. Cool stuff. > >One hopes that you get James Arthur to read and understand it - the >reviews suggest that the author puts the blame firmly on the banks, >where James Arthur seems to think that the US administration was at >fault, somehow compelling the banks to make insanely irresponsible >loans before selling them on a "securitised" bonds. There was plenty of blame to go around. Several forces had to be present to create *and* ignore the dangers of the bubble, and the government was complicit in both. As regulators of the financial system, they had a unique responsibility that no single other party had, and they flubbed it big time. Goldman Sachs was a major player, not coincidentally the biggest corporate donor to Obama's campaign. John |