Chip with simple program for Toy

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Sorry but I'm right .

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

I saw it live on TV. They collapsed vertically. Not imploded. There was a
stunningly good BBC documentary about how they analysed the failure mode
using computer modelling. Sorry I can't recall the name of it now.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

In engineering there are always 'first times' when the unexpected happens.

And there have been plenty of skyscrapers for a very long time now,
and that is the first time that has been observed to happen with them.

Nobody flew a widebody jet at high speed into any skyscaper before.

<snip>

Those towers had only ever been designed to accept the
impact of a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft of its day.

They were always designed to survive more than just the current aircraft.

Simply plain untrue.

Nope.

Cite ? I dare say the design engineers added a fudge factor to make it just a little bit more tough,
knowing engineers, but the fundamental problem wasn't impact but fire.

Read the specs. 757s and 767s are VASTLY larger than a 60s 707.

Irrelevant to what those particular towers were designed to withstand.

Plus they were FULL of fuel.

No they werent.

CITE ? Neither standard models are designed as ultra long range aircraft and would have been almost
brimming their tanks for an E-W coast journey. And they wouldn't have burnt much of it by the time they
were hijacked.

As much as something getting on for 60-100 tons IIRC.

Irrelevant to what those particular towers were designed to withstand.

How can it be irrelevant ?

You've gone quite nuts now.

You should see what a dropped cigarette did to Kings Cross Tube Station. NO smoking on the tube any more.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

They imploded vertically.

You must have a very odd dictionary.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree
with.

In case you weren't aware John, 'Rod Speed' is known to be a
reknowned troll.


Worse. See "The Rod Speed Virus" thread.

From some of the intelligent comments he made in this thread re:
technology I thought he may have been mispresented. I'll leave you
to make your own decision.

Intelligent comments ? You mean about biodiesel ? Did he answer your
question about how much biodiesel we can actually produce, and how
much land we need for that ?
My guess is he did not.

I didn't see that post. My guess is that we can't
'bio-diesel' or bio-ethanol our way out of anything,

Guess again, the Brazillians are already doing it.

Nothing like the population density of Europe AIUI plus they can grow sugar
cane which is ideal and we can't.

although both may prove useful as stop-gaps..

Biodiesel is a lot more than a stop gap.

Demand for biodiesel has already over doubled the price of ordinary veg
cooking oil in the UK in under 6 months. Food cost inflation is currently
running at ~ 17%. In some countries people are starting to starve as a result
of food price inflation whilst tropical rain forest is being cut and burnt to
provide room for more palm trees to supply the demand. Estimated recovery
time for atmospheric CO2 ~ 200 years.

It certainly makes more sense for most of the rest of the world to use
electricity from nukes to heat with instead of wasting the CNG and LPG
on that and to use that in gasoline engines instead of using bio ethanol.

I have no objection to modern nukes.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:41:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

In case you weren't aware John, 'Rod Speed' is known to be a reknowned troll.

From some of the intelligent comments he made in this thread re: technology I
thought he may have been mispresented. I'll leave you to make your own decision.

---
Thanks for the heads-up, and to the earlier one from Rob.

I agree with you and, originally, I thought it may have been a
misrepresentation as well.

However, with the onset of his verbal gymnastics and gratuitous
name-calling it's become abundantly clear that we _do_ have a troll in
our midst.

Not a particularly clever one in that he tries to attribute to himself
values made in statements by others which clearly refute his earlier
stated position(s), (and are easily recalled for evaluation, BTW) but
a somewhat tricky devil, nonetheless, in that he tries to transfer his
losses to the knight what unhorsed him, even though his own lance has
been broken and he's yelling and screaming something about being
undefeated while supine.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:54:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

Wasnt that what I was saying myself a few posts back ?

Nope, I meant that whatever you fry it in, is bad for you.

Could have been phrased more carefully.

---
Yup.
---

The problem is that whatever you fry it in, some of that ends up in the food you
fried, and that its better for your health to grill it or bake it or poach it instead.

---
Nope.

You need fat in your diet and if you know what you're doing and get
some (or all) of it from food that you've fried, then that's good for
you.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:54:50 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:0f5u84t05n5u532mc991qk9e83pd54r9lv@4ax.com...
...
Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

---
True, but the error was.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent

JF

English is not my native language, but I should have known better anyway.
Thanks for pointing out the (other) error.

---
My pleasure.

BTW, your English is excellent.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:01:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament
and fooled absolutely no one at all, as alays.

---
As "alays"?

Lern to spel, idoit.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:03:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects
when you fry them and thats bad for you.

Vegetable (esp olive) oil is bad for you ?

When its used for frying, yep.

Essentially because breaks down too quickly when heated.

---
Breaks down into what, and what kind of temperatures are you talking
about?

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
...
Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

---
True, but the error was.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent

JF

English is not my native language, but I should have known better anyway.
Thanks for pointing out the (other) error.

---
My pleasure.

BTW, your English is excellent.

Probably better than some English school leavers in fact. I'd never have guessed.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:07:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Not with busses it aint.

---
Have you never heard of "The Grid"?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:08:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

---
Order?

You have no authority.

Imploding?

Try "collapsing".

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to
any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the
problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the
food when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's
the problem,

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

---
Duh.
---

so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Nope, not when you get a clue about how long you do it for.

---
Duh.

I already made that point.
---

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in
carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

I meant that whatever its fried in is bad for you, stupid.
LOL,

Village eejut imitations cut no mustard, stupid.

you can't even make your meaning clear

Clear from the context, stupid.

and _I'm_ stupid?

Yep.

And, anyway, you're wrong about fried foods.

Nope.

Your body needs fat so,

Doesnt have to come from fried foods, stupid.

as I stated in another post, the trick is to use oil to fry with that's good for you

No such animal, stupid.

and not to use too much of it.

It always gets absorbed by the food you are frying, stupid.

Besides, fried foods are yummy.

Irrelevant to whether they are bad for you, stupid.

You tell 'em Rod!

Don't take no guff from these guys!

Tell 'em they're pathetic. That'll teach 'em!

 

[Bret Cahill]

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree
with.

In case you weren't aware John, 'Rod Speed' is known to be a
reknowned troll.

Worse. See "The Rod Speed Virus" thread.

From some of the intelligent comments he made in this thread re:
technology I thought he may have been mispresented. I'll leave you
to make your own decision.

Intelligent comments ? You mean about biodiesel ? Did he answer
your question about how much biodiesel we can actually produce,
and how much land we need for that ?
My guess is he did not.

I didn't see that post. My guess is that we can't
'bio-diesel' or bio-ethanol our way out of anything,
Guess again, the Brazillians are already doing it.
Nothing like the population density of Europe AIUI

Irrelevant.

plus they can grow sugar cane which is ideal and we can't.

You can grow other things that are fine for producing ethanol.

Even you should have noticed that there is quite a bit of bio ethanol production in Europe already.

although both may prove useful as stop-gaps..
Biodiesel is a lot more than a stop gap.
Demand for biodiesel has already over doubled the price
of ordinary veg cooking oil in the UK in under 6 months.

Just because the production of veg oil hasnt kept up with demand.

Food cost inflation is currently running at ~ 17%.

Mostly for other reasons.

In some countries people are starting to starve as a result of food price inflation

Nope. No one is starving and if someone is actually that stupid, they should eat potatoes.

whilst tropical rain forest is being cut and burnt to provide room for more palm trees to supply the demand.

That was happening long before the hike in the price of diesel.

Estimated recovery time for atmospheric CO2 ~ 200 years.

Trivially fixable to using nukes for electricity generation.

Even the frogs managed to do that.

Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

It certainly makes more sense for most of the rest of the world to use
electricity from nukes to heat with instead of wasting the CNG and LPG
on that and to use that in gasoline engines instead of using bio ethanol.
I have no objection to modern nukes.

Those do should be summarily excuted for the common good.

Rod, everyone respects you for being an articulate thoughtful
knowledgeable imaginative thinker.

In fact, you are too good for us.

You need to go to Yahoo's chat groups.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:19:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

they blew up, among other things, embassies, ships,

Yes.

and the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

---
Nope. Implosion is what happens when an evacuated volume pulls in its
walls when they're rendered unstable.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:10:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

Wasnt that what I was saying myself a few posts back ?

Nope, I meant that whatever you fry it in, is bad for you.

Could have been phrased more carefully.

Yup.

What I meant was obvious from the context.

You cant manage that ? Your problem.

---
Backpedaling while trying to make it seem like it's my fault that you
made the mistake?

It won't work.
---

The problem is that whatever you fry it in, some of that
ends up in the food you fried, and that its better for your
health to grill it or bake it or poach it instead.

Nope.

Yep.

---
Nope.
---

You need fat in your diet

Much better for you to get that fat without heating it first when frying.

---
Sez who?
---

and if you know what you're doing and get some (or all)
of it from food that you've fried, then that's good for you.

Not when everyone gets enough fat from other non heated fat.

---
Oh, Gawd!

Now you're an authority on everyone's eating habits?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:11:17 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects
when you fry them and thats bad for you.

Vegetable (esp olive) oil is bad for you ?

When its used for frying, yep.

Essentially because breaks down too quickly when heated.

Breaks down into what,

Look it up for yourself.

---
It doesn't work like that.

You're the one who made the claim, so if it's challenged you're the
one who has to back it up.
---

and what kind of temperatures are you talking about?

What is used for frying.

---
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Seems to me you've gone from the frying pan into the fire!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:49:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

Order?

Yep, order.

You have no authority.

Wrong, as always.

Imploding?

Yep.

Try "collapsing".

Try letting go of your dick.

---
Let go of it???

LOL, It's so far up your ass I can't even touch it!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:51:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Not with busses it aint.

Have you never heard of "The Grid"?

Tad unlikely I havent seeing as I have used that term a number of times.

---
Whoooooosh...

The grid _is_ a "buss", Mr. Clever.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:06:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com
desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

---
Well, you managed to correct the spelling so now all you have to do is
work on accuracy.

JF