Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:54:20 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:


Nope and leds aint PV collectors anyway.

---
Really?

Connect a voltmeter across an LED, then take it outside and point it
at the sun. What does your voltmeter say?

Pity about the power, fuckwit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Larkin"

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

** You mean like:

" Computer Science "

" Climate Science "

" Rocket Science"


etc.......


...... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Larkin"
"Phil Allison"

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

** You mean like:

" Computer Science "

" Climate Science "

" Rocket Science"



Political Science.

Social Science.

Library Science.

Veterinary Science.

Nanoscience.

** How about:

Home Science

Culinary Science

Christian Science

Science Fiction




....... Phil

 

[Joe]

In article <6ffi3tFb0f5lU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"John Larkin"
"Phil Allison"

Some bright person recently observed that any field fs study that
includes the word "science" in its name isn't one.

** You mean like:

" Computer Science "

" Climate Science "

" Rocket Science"



Political Science.

Social Science.

Library Science.

Veterinary Science.

Nanoscience.


** How about:

Home Science

Culinary Science

Christian Science

Science Fiction




...... Phil

Philthy also seems to disdain

ConScience

Put that in your jeans, McMouth!

--- Joe

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

All you are doing is putting out CO2.

Plants arent creating IP and are absorbing CO2, stupid.

Thats what most of the vegys in here are...

 

[Phil Allison]

"THE BORG"

Incidentally as regards who you term nutcases or nut jobs - humans are
seriously considering research into these kind of people.
The view on illness such as "schizophrenia" is that they can see and hear
and sense far more than the ordinary human.

** For sure - God often speaks to directly with schizos, so too does Satan
and numerous Space Aliens.

In some societies they are revered as Shaman - teachers - Medicine Men.

** While non primitive societies have far more sense.

There has even been talk of "evolution" in that those who have this
illness are some kind of improvement or higher level of human - and this
is actually evolution in progress toward a higher level of human.

** Only other schizos think any such thing.

BTW Many born deaf people like being deaf and the same goes for the blind
as well.

It goes with the territory.

So do not knock nutcases!
THE BORG

** Think this loopy dude has his self interest at heart ?



...... Phil

 

[R.Wieser]

Hello Phil,

** While non primitive societies have far more sense.

Like you are a member of I assume ?

It goes with the territory.

Funny that you recognise that "normal" is mostly whatever environment you
are in and even write it down, but are merrily rejecting other
points-of-view because they do not match your own.

What is the chance that *you* are a member of an abnormal group stuck in its
own believes (and most likely will venomely and off-hand denounce that idea)
?

R.Wieser


Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
6ffodqFbef72U1@mid.individual.net...

"THE BORG"

Incidentally as regards who you term nutcases or nut jobs - humans are
seriously considering research into these kind of people.
The view on illness such as "schizophrenia" is that they can see and
hear
and sense far more than the ordinary human.


** For sure - God often speaks to directly with schizos, so too does
Satan
and numerous Space Aliens.


In some societies they are revered as Shaman - teachers - Medicine Men.


** While non primitive societies have far more sense.


There has even been talk of "evolution" in that those who have this
illness are some kind of improvement or higher level of human - and this
is actually evolution in progress toward a higher level of human.


** Only other schizos think any such thing.

BTW Many born deaf people like being deaf and the same goes for the blind
as well.

It goes with the territory.


So do not knock nutcases!
THE BORG


** Think this loopy dude has his self interest at heart ?



..... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the solver’s
expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying
specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another purpose.

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.

It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species.

Nope, nothing like.

There comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.

Pity about GM, child.

The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more similar,
at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances aren't as great.

Another silly claim plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.

More of your desperate wanking.

The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one "ID",
to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v ID etc.

Not even possible.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in message news:...

"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:aev594loahqaig3lgt85i77u254gjdf5rc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:45:35 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:


"Flark" <flarkino@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50bf58e6-8c66-463a-b849-e814529616bd@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Could this be duplicated by anyone with basic electronics knowledge
and the right metals?

From the article:

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and
it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to
work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Get some salt water and put an electrical current generated by your
solar
cells. Capture the O2 and H then use at night by burning the hydrogen in
oxygen to run your steam engine.

The article in the URL given is no good. The author is one of those
journalists who think *everything* is _amazing_. I found a slightly
better description of Dr. Nocera's catalyst here:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2008/07/30/nocera-solar-power-biz-energy-cz_jf_0731solar.html

This appears to be just a non-battery way of storing electrical energy.
But the "invention" makes only a passing reference to a "photovoltaic",
as if that was something trivially cheap and efficient. When you consider
the 20% efficiency of converting light to electricity, and then maybe 40%
efficiency creating hydrogen and oxygen, and then some energy spent
compressing it and storing it, and then more energy converting it back to
mechanical motion or electricity, it just does not seem like a
breakthrough at all. Even batteries of present day technology are more
efficient than this, and a better way to convert solar may be to create
steam.

It is much more efficient to plant hundreds of trees, wait 20 years for
them to grow, cut them down, let the wood age for a year, then split the
wood, and either burn it to power a steam engine or use it to create
methanol for an ICE. Instead of wasting fossil fuels for chain saws and
log splitters, why not put young kids and unemployed adults to work using
bucksaws and other hand tools as were used 200 years ago. After 8-10
hours of hard labor, and a few dollars worth of food, these efficient
human engines will sleep peacefully rather than have their boredom tempt
them into criminal activity, so it will lower costs for police. Of
course, they will need to be well supervised to avoid mayhem with axes
and saws!

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:35?am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

Bret Cahill

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.


Bret Cahill



Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be sifted
by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally turned
into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell it to
people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the ideas out
there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell it
to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be sifted
by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally turned
into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

OK, you need please only yourself.

I didnt say that either. I JUST said that a particular idea is a worthwhile idea or not
regardless of whether anyone chooses to buy a product of yours that involves it.

I grew up playing a different game, namely one where
the value of a product is how well it works for others.

Different matter entirely to the ideas being discussed.

The advantage here is the wonderful variety of problems the customers
present, and the baseline of existing designs that beg to be topped.

Different matter entirely to the ideas being discussed.

 

[Rod Speed]

Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote

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

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
photography or movies or the PC or the net either.

Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.

Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.

Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.

Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal Institution

Doesnt mean that the discovery of electricity had anything to do with bookbinding tho.

- but way before that, I think it was a physician who came up with
the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric telegraph..

Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?

Nope. Thats just plant breeding and everyone ran the line that you couldnt
breed even a donkey and a horse and get any progeny that could reproduce.

Different matter entirely to establishing that evolution is what happened naturally.

Thats as silly as saying that Chas Darwin was involved with religion before he twigged to evolution.

Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I recall....

Still nothing to do with dissimilar fields, just the use of what worked
by someone who had enough of a clue to think of that approach.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
photography or movies or the PC or the net either.

Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.

Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.

Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.

Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal Institution

Doesnt mean that the discovery of electricity had anything to do with bookbinding tho.

According to reports Faraday read a lot of the books that came
into the shop where he worked. A lot of those books were science
oriented. Thus he received a leading edge education on the science
of the day. Of course he was very intelligent, that helped.

Thats not interdisciplinarity, just an unusual way of getting and education.

Then his particular religion was well suited for science investigation
and theorizing, different than Newton's, but had similar effects.

Still not interdisciplinarity, just his personal circumstances.

- but way before that, I think it was a physician who came up with
the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric telegraph..

Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?

Nope. Thats just plant breeding and everyone ran the line that you couldnt
breed even a donkey and a horse and get any progeny that could reproduce.

Different matter entirely to establishing that evolution is what happened naturally.

Thats as silly as saying that Chas Darwin was involved with religion before he twigged to evolution.

Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I recall....

Still nothing to do with dissimilar fields, just the use of what worked
by someone who had enough of a clue to think of that approach.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

InnoCentive found that "the further the problem was from the
solver's expertise, the
more likely they were to solve it," often by applying
specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
purpose.

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough
the more dissimilar the fields.

It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.

The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
aren't as great.

Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.

The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one "ID",
to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v
ID etc.

There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the sciences,

Nope, most obviously with the biological sciences early on, before electronics was even invented.

Ditto in spades with the physical sciences too.

all of technology,

Wrong again, most obviously with the industrial revolution and
military technology before electronics was even invented.

and nearly all the arts:

Wrong in spades before electronics was even invented.

electronics.

Fraid not.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell it to
people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the ideas
out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

OK, you need please only yourself.

I didnt say that either. I JUST said that a particular idea is a worthwhile idea or
not regardless of whether anyone chooses to buy a product of yours that involves it.

I grew up playing a different game, namely one where
the value of a product is how well it works for others.

Different matter entirely to the ideas being discussed.

The advantage here is the wonderful variety of problems the customers
present, and the baseline of existing designs that beg to be topped.

Different matter entirely to the ideas being discussed.

You have a real knack for the repetition thing. Yes, I know,
that's a different matter entirely to the ideas being discussed.

Pathetic.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

So you and your good idea get to die in the dark

Never said anything like that. You dont have to turn the idea
into a viable product yourself for it to be a worthwhile idea.

instead of getting proliferated for your good and that of all mankind?

Plenty of ideas are nothing like that.

That's pretty damned selfish, I'd say,

Have fun thrashing that straw man ?

since all you get if you do it that way is to suck
tour thumb and watch the world die around you.

Not if someone else chooses to use the idea.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

Like _you've_ got a clue?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

Tell us about your life in corporate America
and how you know that what you claim is true.

Dont need to have anything like that to see that that particular claim is true.

History is riddled with examples of footshot after footshot after footshot
where corporates have been too stupid to know a good idea when they
see one and where they ignore a good idea because it would cripple
the prospects for their current offers in the market etc.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell us about your experiences regarding
electronic circuit design and how you've made a difference, OK?

None of your business.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

Nope,

Yep.

unless all you care about it is for your own use.

Wrong, as always.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

That's not true in the private sector,

Wrong again. Most obviously when someone else uses a worthwhile idea.

where sales are validation.

Only for narrow focused fools that are pathetically insecure.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

And yet, here you are on USENET, running the race of your life
and trying to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys/pathetic excuse for a troll.

<reams of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys flushed where they belong>

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

I think not.

Thats the only thing you did manage to get right. Nothing to 'think' with.

They have the balls to believe they're the best

Or are drugged to the gills to try to cheat the system.

and aren't afraid to put it all on the line to prove it.

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.