Chip with simple program for Toy

[stan]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:53:02 -0400, stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:46:43 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net
wrote:


I suppose "meaningless" is another way to say as "untestable."

I once got a differential equations test returned with a very similar
idea expressed.

I told my wife that I might have "put too much garlic" into a sauce.
She said "excuse me, but I don't know what those words mean."

LOL, I like that.

 

[stan]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:56:20 -0400, stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote:

Publius wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:66ota49ka1sndmcpi6pca3k3i7obmb0jd8@4ax.com:

What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
perceiving light of that wavelength.

You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it?

We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained
why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because
those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in
behavior.

Like cross-posting and trolling? I never thought of it like that. Maybe
all newsreaders should avoid reddish fonts.

Hey, it's fun to talk to philosophers and pizza delivery guys now and
then.

I know what you mean, I induldge myself every now and again. I am mildly
surprised at the s/n. Maybe usenetII should consider some sort of spread
spectrum technology.

Every so often I start to think that society is really going backwards
but then I have to remind myself we are definately producing much better
and persistent idiots that at any point in history. It's probably a
pendulum or a karma thing and were paying for the number and quality of
the physics genius alive from the 20's till WWII.

 

[stan]

Rod Speed wrote:

zinnic <zeenric2@gate.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zinnic<zeenr...@gate.net> wrote

Stop rattling your cage!

Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?

I checked with my anvanced quantum artificial intelligence computer
about this and got an interesting reply. OK, actually I checked with
eliza through emacs. Any any rate I believe it's possible to help but
first theres a small question.

Why do you say that?

 

[Phil Allison]

"jim evans"

Does anyone know if someone makes a cheap battery tester that simply
holds the battery, puts a light load on it and assumes you own a DVM
to measure the voltage?

** That MIGHT give you a fair indication of condition for the older kinds
of non-rechargeable cells and batteries.

But will not much use with alkalines nor any use with the rechargeable
types, with the possible exception of " sealed lead acid" or SLA types.

Cos the latter all hold their voltage very steadily over the discharge
cycle.


...... Phil

 

[SJF]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ef8a6134-940e-4907-aed3-c70d14c84eb9@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I hate to burst your bubble, but anyone can google "Bret Cahill" and
find out his real interests.

Bret Cahill

But they cannot look at your cartoon on www.bretcahill.com 'cos it's not
displayed anymore. Embarrassed by the comparison with John Larkin's site?


--
Stu Forrest

 

[SJF]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f86f200-0f0b-486a-9826-a62c7c1e3e55@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
it!

I hate to burst your bubble, but anyone can google "Bret Cahill" and
find out his real interests.

But they cannot look at your cartoon onwww.bretcahill.com'cos it's not
displayed anymore.

Not there anyway.

Embarrassed by the comparison with John Larkin's site?

Photographs of cards? What did that require? A camera?

Anyway you dodged the issue:

Anyone can google "Bret Cahill" and find out his real interests.

Trying to rewrite the public record is among the greatest of follies.

That's up there with bragging about a money making patent then being
too modest to post the patent number.

In fact, it falls under the same category as "trying to rewrite the
public record."

You can brag or you can be modest but if you do both in the same
thread all kinds of flags and alarms are going to go off.


Bret Cahill

No, no Brett. It's you who dodged my issue of why your cartoon is no longer
displayed on your site. Care to tell us why?

--
Stu Forrest

 

[Publius]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:9a03b4t1u52fao7ak36cr21lr0g5bbr5a0@4ax.com:

But weren't you attempting to create a foundationalist philosophy
based on a single, undeniable truth, the giveness of sense data which
you somehow believe is "fixed and assured"?


No, I attempt to design and sell electronic circuits. Since it almost
always works, I must understand something close to the way the world
operates.

Non-sequitur.

 

[PeterBP]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:49:37 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Genius isn't necessary to admit to a self evident truth but only a
complete moron would try to deny one.

Problem with that is it's often complete morons who subscribe to what
they think are self-evident truths.

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:

"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."

Try your best too clever by half word games and I'll milk them like
cows.

Do you ever do anything useful?

You don't think logic is useful?

Not unless it's applied to something.

If a customer orders a "black box" do you think every vendor /
designer always demands to know how it's going to be used?

---
Red herring.
---

What's your day job?

Can you demonstrate some ability to focus on issues and be
functionally logical?

---
Red Herring
---

Here, we'll try again:

---
Why do you refer to yourself in the plural?
---

Schizoid perhaps.

We're

---
Again, why do you refer to yourself in the plural?

There's no Bret Cahill Brigade for whom you speak, there's just you
which, in truth, is fairly close to zero.
---

Idiots all too often think themselves superior in numbers while wise men
are all too aware of how few they themselves are.

waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:

"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."

---
Definitely: "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.", but
your parlor is disordered and dirty, and your proposition nonsensical,
so that's not an attractive offer.
---

This time no dodgin'.

---
"Do as I say, not as I do." ???

JF

--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

 

[PeterBP]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:49:37 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Genius isn't necessary to admit to a self evident truth but only a
complete moron would try to deny one.

Problem with that is it's often complete morons who subscribe to what
they think are self-evident truths.

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:

"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."

Try your best too clever by half word games and I'll milk them like
cows.

Do you ever do anything useful?

You don't think logic is useful?

Not unless it's applied to something.

If a customer orders a "black box" do you think every vendor /
designer always demands to know how it's going to be used?

What's your day job?

Can you demonstrate some ability to focus on issues and be
functionally logical?

Here, we'll try again:

We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:

"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."

This time no dodgin'.

---
Speakin' of dodgin', what's your day job?

JF

Do you enjoy trying to engage turnstiles in conversation?

Just askin'.

--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

 

[Rod Speed]

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
rlbell.ns...@gmail.com wrote
BobW <nimby_GIMME_SOME_S...@roadrunner.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
QuantumDot <d...@ohnoyoudont.co.za> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

This quote is usually self-applied by fools and kooks.
Those who are truly insightful are also wise enough
not to apply it publicly to themselves.

It's not true anyhow. Shakespeare; Feynman;
Einstein; Kovacs; Kelvin; all revered in their time.

Can anybody name a real genius who was attacked by all available dunces?

Galileo.

One of the Great Myths of modern times was that Galileo was
persecuted for describing the truth of the planets. He was in
fact lightly punished for being a tactless boor who could label
a friend he knew since childhood as an simpleton to advance
point (even if that was not what he meant to do). Unfortunately
for Galileo, that man he had known since childhood was the
pope, so Galileo was placed under house arrest in a luxurious
papal palace. It was not what he said, but how he said it.

How odd that Bruno got burnt at the stake.

Galileo's troubles was nearly fifty years after the papacy
started to sponsor astronomical research, in a big way.

And didnt like what that sponsoring produced.

The best way to describe Galileo is that, while he
was scientifically brilliant, he was sorely lacking in
the people skills needed for academic infighting.

He did manage to do pretty well in that regard, avoided getting burnt at
the stake and ended up with a reasonably comfortable existence instead.

It was not odd that Bruno got burnt at the stake.

Pity about his silly line that 'It was not what he said, but how he said it'

From Wikipedia, his heresies were:

* Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith

Galileo did that.

and speaking against it and its ministers.

And that.

* Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
* Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
* Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
* Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
* Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
* Dealing in magics and divination.
* Denying the Virginity of Mary.

Clearly was what he said, not how he said it.

It was not the catholic church that burnt him at the stake.

Wrong again.

He was convicted as a heretic and surrendered to the local secular authority for sentencing.

And the roman catholic church knew damned well what that sentance would be.

His heresy was equated with treason by the secular authoirities and he was punished as a traitor.

Wrong.

That he was also a mathematician and philosopher had little to do his heretical opinions.

But clearly he wasnt punished for how he said what he said, but for what he said.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. ?If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

The real poor in modern first world countrys dont work
at all, their entire income is welfare and handouts.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

Nope, they have enough of a clue to realise that its a stupid question.

They know supporting the precondition of free markets,
free speech, would cause free markets which would would
level wealth which is _exactly_ what would get them fired.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway

Not even possible.

because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite
letters by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

Who will just file it where it belongs, in the round filing cabinet under their desks.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

Where almost no one will even see them.

<reams of your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Fred Weiss <fredweiss@papertig.com> wrote

Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True.

Nope, the real poor in modern first world countrys dont do any
work at all, they just put their hands out for welfare and benefits.

To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc.,

The real poor in modern first world countrys dont get any wages
at all, they just put their hands out for welfare and benefits.

they are paid *too much*. (Which is precisely
why so many jobs have gone overseas).

That happens even with exportable jobs where the wages arent inflated
by union contracts, mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc.,

 

[Rod Speed]

Fred Weiss <fredweiss@papertig.com> wrote:

On Aug 24, 6:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
On Aug 24, 6:02 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting its most
productive participants - the rich? That's an absurd contradiction
and stolen concept if ever there was one.

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficulty in demolishing this delusion. One in fact doesn't even
have to be a "market economist". All one has to do is observe what
has happened in countries where such looting has occurred.

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to
loot others.

P.S.: Countries, such as those newly liberated from the shackles of
communism in Easter Europe and which have most aggressively adopted
free market policies along with low taxes (i.e. the exact opposite of
what Brat advocates), have experienced among the fastest growth rates
in recent years. Rather than leading to any "exploitation" of working
people, wages have in fact risen rapidly and they are experiencing a
*shortage* of workers, esp, skilled workers.

Bet you cant list even a single example of one of those.

Along with these rising wages is of course those who make it possible
- the very ones Brat wants to loot - the enterprising entrepreneurs,
small and large - from small-scale building contractors and store owners
to founders of large enterprises employing 100's, if not 1,000's, of workers.

Incidentally, in those countries, as here in the USA, the rich pay a vastly
disproportionate percent of the taxes - and a grossly unjust "progressive
income tax" is not what accomplishes it. In Eastern Europe the "flat tax"
has been widely embraced to encourage wealth creation

Like hell it has.

and it is *that* which results in rising tax revenues, not "progressivity".

The main reason for the rising tax revenues is actually the economy working.

 

[Rod Speed]

forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to
loot others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. I think
near equality of circumstances is required. Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when there is a shortage of those prepared to labor.

 

[stan]

Bret Cahill wrote:

This reminds one of perjury convictions. It's common to lie under
oath. The police do it all the time. The definition of perjury,
however, isn't lying but contradictory testimony under oath.

I have to ask. Can you read?

You can brag or you can be modest but if you do both in the same
thread all kinds of flags and alarms are going to go off.

. . .

It's perfectly appropriate to brag about being modest.

Somewhere Nietzsche debunks that one too but that's an entirely
different issue.

You were trying to garner respect by claiming you had a money making
patent and then you suddenly became too modest to post the patent
number.

Why are you obsessed with John's patent? Is ther something we can do to
help you. Maybe pass the hat to help with your medication? If you'll
just name the time and place I'm sure we can get you some technical help
to fix your news reader; it's stuck in a crossposting mode and it's
clear you're not up to fixing it yourself. About the only group you're
not posting to is alt.test. You might want to try it. I hear those guys
read anything.

Now ignoring what 99.999% of functional readers believe, that you are
a delusional loser and you have no money making patent, we still know
by your _own_ posting that you cannot make up your silly head:

Do you want respect for having a patent?

Or are you modest about your patent?

And _no_ being respected for being modest is _not_ the issue.

Carefull you're obsession is showing.

 

[Rod Speed]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 24, 2:17 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the
flow of money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always
exceeds any flow of money from the rich to the poor. viz. see
the studies by Saez and Pickety, for example.
That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?
Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the
poor don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.

How is that 'self evident'? What do you 'see'?

The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created.

One can be robbed by another, so, it is not the only way.

If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.

I'll stick to the observation. But to say the mechanics is 'wrong',
therefor the observation is wrong, is in poor form.

Properly is to accept the observation and work out the mechanics
from there.

It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

Poor does not equal 'none'. Your definition, premise, is wrong.

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation. There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

That completely mangles the history too. Part of the reason
the Raj was so successful was because of the taxes imposed
on the poor that the rich could avoid with complete immunity.

 

[Rod Speed]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote
On Aug 24, 2:17 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote
On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how
the flow of money from the many poor, towards the few rich,
always exceeds any flow of money from the rich to the poor.
viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety, for example.

That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?

Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the poor don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.

How is that 'self evident'? What do you 'see'?

The only way for the rich to get richer is for new wealth to be created.

One can be robbed by another, so, it is not the only way.

If you mean that the labor of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.

I'll stick to the observation. But to say the mechanics is 'wrong',
therefor the observation is wrong, is in poor form.

Properly is to accept the observation and work out the mechanics from there.

It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

Poor does not equal 'none'. Your definition, premise, is wrong.

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation. There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

That completely mangles the history too. Part of the reason
the Raj was so successful was because of the taxes imposed
on the poor that the rich could avoid with complete immunity.

The Raj was only successful at causing the worst famine
that ever happened outside of a communist country.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote

forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote
Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts, mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection,
etc., they are paid *too much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views without restraint in a forum of one's own. It
is not the right to loot others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

Power is force. It's not economic. You are equating economic
inequality with slavery. I do not think that is valid, and it ...
insults people's value and ability to be self-determined.

This is the Prime Mistake of Marxism.

Nope, the real prime mistake of marxism is the stupid assumption that more
than a tiny handful will continue to work for the system when what they get
out of the system has no relation to what work they put into the system.

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade.

Its completely irrelevant to it.

I think near equality of circumstances is required.

More fool you.

Then it's information-theoretic impossible. Since trade is *the* mechanism for people to *improve* their lot,

Not necessarily.

it casts them into an eternal subclass.

Nope.

Interchange by non-trade *is* force.

Nope. Interchange happens fine without any trade involved.

Any time people with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater power has the advantage. Nearly all
laborers need their jobs to survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner employee to survive.

All businesses do, very much. Now, the culture is decaying and tells people that they can "do it all", but the very
mother's milk of interdependency is trade.

Nope. It can be completely independant of trade.

 

[SJF]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f86f200-0f0b-486a-9826-a62c7c1e3e55@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

I hate to burst your bubble, but anyone can google "Bret Cahill" and
find out his real interests.

But they cannot look at your cartoon on www.bretcahill.com 'cos it's not
displayed anymore.

Not there anyway.

So tell us, where is it then? I bet you don't say.

Embarrassed by the comparison with John Larkin's site?

Photographs of cards? What did that require? A camera?

A camera, certainly, but that part is trivial. What is of more importance is
something worthwhile to photograph with the camera. You have nothing to show
us, absolutely nothing.

If you had no access to a camera there is still text that you could display.
John Larkin's site at www.highlandtechnology.com not only shows "Photographs
of cards" as you try to deride them but textual descriptions of their
operations and specifications.

You are a fraud with nothing to display. Why do you even have a website if
there is nothing there?


--
Stu Forrest

 

[Tom Biasi]

"TheRain" <collin.meyer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08c48ed4-5b0f-4a4d-ab2e-a45200e2cc8f@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

I work for a software company and recently we have had to start doing
some electronics testing in relation to our software.

The problem we are running into is that we have these mid-grade (~
$500) multimeters run out of batteries before the hardware we are
testing does, and the test we are running is to benchmark current draw
over the life of the battery. The multimeters run on 6 AA batteries
in series which should be about 9V if each one is 1.5V. When we
connect our Constant power supply to it's battery terminals and try to
run it with 9V, the meter does not turn on. I've tried overpowering
it a little by running 10V but this also did not work. Our CPS is 3A
so that should not be the problem.

I'm wondering, what could cause this? Is there a solution for it?

Any thoughts or advice would be very helpful!

Thanks,

Collin

A $500 dollar multi meter usually has an external power provision. If your
unit is truly 9 volts and you are supplying 9 volts with enough current I
can only guess that you are not connecting it properly. Make sure the supply
is not going into current limiting.

Tom