Driver to drive?

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:00:57 GMT, "John Smith"
<kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote:

Should I stay clear of digitizing scopes? How are they different from just
digital scopes?

I would be grateful for any other pointers on scope selection you have to
offer.

I saw a pointer to a site the other day here that outlined all the
various types of scopes available and what they're best suited for.
Perhaps some kind soul will repost the link for you.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Tim Wescott wrote:

BFoelsch wrote:

"sjcma" <ma@removethis.canada.com> wrote in message
news:E_6dnXTsXooJXAvcRVn-1Q@rogers.com...

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can enlighten me on the definition(s) of a
Colpitts oscillator. I've seen many circuits diagrams that show a
Colpitts oscillator, but they don't always look the same.

Assuming an NPN device, some show the capacitive feedback from
collector to emitter, some show the capacitor feedback from emitter
to base, and some show the tap between the 2 tank capacitors
grounded. I've seen circuits that are common base, common emitter,
and common collector all claming to be Colpitts.

What's the common link between all these circuits besides tapping the
tank in between two capacitors and connecting it somewhere
(sometimes, even ground!).



Nothing. The "tapped tank capacitance," as you call it , is the
definition of a Colpitts oscillator. If you take the same circuit, but
tap the inductor, you have a Hartley oscillator.

Both oscillators may be common emitter, base, or collector.
Oscillators like that are identified by the AC circuit, where the
circuit happens to be grounded or how the power is applied is irrelevant.


If someone feels like typing a lot, perhaps a quick explanation of
the advantages of each topology would be nice



Maybe in the morning, I'm pooped right now.


Thanks in advance.

sjcma


The best illustration of this I've seen is to draw the circuit without
bias networks, like this:


.-------o----------.
| | |
| --- |/
| --- .---|
C| | | |
C| o----' |
C| | |
| --- |
| --- |
| | |
| | |
'-------o----------'
created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

Now ground whichever node you want, add power and bias, and Presto! you
have a working amplifier circuit! (if you want an oscillator you'll
have to try to make a stable amplifier).

@#$%! See Kevin Aylward's comments -- I got my transistor in there
wrong. All other comments apply.


.------o------.
| | |
| --- |
| --- |
C| | ---
C| o-----v \--.
C| | |
| --- |
| --- |
| | |
'------o----------'
created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de


--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:08:18 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:08:26 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


JeffM wrote:


::o you know the difference between a battle and a war?
::irk Bruere
:::

I do.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:LZRfLYD-gR8J:www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html+The-Congress-shall-have-Power+To-declare-war

Yes. I also know that one can win all the battles and still lose the war.
The US is an expert in this.


---
Only lately, and only because we've let others talk us out of the win.
We really do need to stop listening to wimps.

ie your own electorate.
Don't worry - Bush is going to fix that 'democracy' problem you have.

---
Not by listening to the likes of pukes like you, and that's for
sure...

--
John Fields

 

[Charles Schuler]

This might be too basic for you, but:
http://www.picotech.com/applications/oscilloscope_tutorial.html

I have used lots of oscilloscopes over the years and still prefer several of
the older Tektronix analog oscopes. My current oscope is a THS730A and
though I like its small size and some of its features, I often wish I had an
anaolog oscope. I would now buy an oscope that combined the best features
of both worlds and they are out there (but bigger than mine).

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

sorry to take so long replying; I'm trying to puzzle out a
paper on the death of some interpretations of QM

Somehow, I find this exceedingly pleasing. Well, hell, not
"somehow" - I could describe to you in intimate detail exactly
why I find this so pleasing - in fact, I can do it in a few
words - iconoclasm. Wow! One! I guess this Higher Consciousness
stuff really works! In real-time!

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:06:04 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
They're all old familiar saws because every person
ever born has to make the relevant decisions.
I'd go even deeper. There's only one story, and all
....
Yup. OTOH once you get the central theme, having the
mapping functions takes all the fun out of hearing the
stories as you know how they'll turn out.

Your quoting is simultaneously confusing and convenient.
Nobody, not even God and Mother, yet know how the story is
going to turn out, other than it's going to be total healing,
and fun to the aleph sub googleplex power more than anyone
has ever conceived yet.

I've skipped ahead and read the last page. Life wins. ;-)

I'm channeling God right now, but the weirdest thing of all
is, that it doesn't make any difference. "channeling God"
is indistinguishable from just sitting here being aware
of what I'm aware of. Like, everything there _is_ is a
"message from God." So, in the big picture, "channeling
God" is irrelevant.

OTGH you are able

On the Green Hand? ;-)

to recognize when you're immersed in somebody else's story
and have the opportunity to rewrite the script on the fly...

Well, that's what Free Will is all about. With true Free
Will,
everybody is making up their own story on the fly all the
time,
everybody is immersed in everybody else's story, it's all
improv, and everything works because each instant is seen
_and_ _felt_ for what it really is _right now_, so every
action
is appropriate.

At that point though, the entire story becomes so obvious
there's no point in playing it out except for those that
like slow dancing. For my part, I wish we'd all get there
real soon so I can concentrate on more interesting things
than The Great Soap Opera, like whether any interpretations
of QM will end up holding water.

Well, once you get to the resolution of the Big story, you find
that now, we can all make up any stories we want,

and here is the big final answer:

THEY DON'T HAVE TO ALL BE THE SAME STORY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!

But that's just me.

This remains to be seen. ;-)

And sooner or later you're going to have to explain
exactly what you mean by "imprints", just so I can compare
with what _I_ think it means.

OK. I hope you don't regret flipping this particular "on" switch!

We've all heard the stories of the hatchling ducks that follow
the guy around because they think he's Mom, right?

That's an imprint - something you learn before you even know
that you're learning anything - yea verily, before you ever
even know that there is anything to be learned! It's almost as if
that first impression gets hard-wired into the brain. I haven't
done a lot of in-depth study in any particular field, but I'd
be willing to bet that it'd be difficult to retrain a duckling who
has imprinted on the biolgist, to consider another duck to be Mom.

So, what's the first thing a human sees when they're born?

Oy, vey - this is material for a whole nother book.

The one-dimensional answer (what's an imprint, not what's the
first thing a human sees) is, it's a meme, but deeper. A meme
is the program, an imprint is the wiring. The pattern of synapse
interconnections in your brain depends not only on the individuation
of action potentials, but also on the paths of the existing neurons'
dendrites and axons. There's even a genetic component, but that's a
whole nother level deeper yet.

Can I get back to you on this?

;^j
Rich
[Zepposnip]

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:24:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

This is weird; sometimes my browser/reader Netscape won't
display the content of a message in a group. Maybe it's
because I haven't configured it and ZoneAlarm properly, but
naturally it's intermittent. Whatever, I had to go to Google
Groups to see the text of your reply, which I copy/pasted
below. Go figure.

Guess we're about to find out if it's "worth the effort."

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:28:47 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

I kinda wanted to go look up "Hamlet's 'Soliloquy'",

snip

Now I _know_ I gotta read that puppy! These are all old
familiar
saws, which, duh, but there is something in my own inner 7-
dimensional hypertorus that wants to refute something in
there.

They're all old familiar saws because every person ever
born has to make the relevant decisions.

I'd go even deeper. There's only one story, and all the rest is
retellings. You just have to be able to see the mapping
function.

The nonviolence meme sometimes tries to take over
completely. Do not allow it to unless you believe you have
no right to survive.

I need to go into this in some depth, I think. From what I
understand of the nature of a meme, it has no choice but to
try to take over completely. But not letting it take over
completely doesn't necessarily mean discarding all of the
information that might be available there.

At this point, the discussion seems to be taking a couple of
directions simultaneously, which is why I've been labeling my
responses.

Something about ending troubles by opposing them. Don't most
sentient beings already know that "opposing," as in
"taking up arms against", might actually _exacerbate_ the
troubles in
the sea?

Note that I said "when appropriate", which may be
difficult to determine. I prefer to oppose violence by
getting out of the way or redirecting it so that nobody gets
hurt (Aikido), but sometimes that isn't an option like when
facing a gun sans cover, and the only options you have are
to shoot back or submit meekly. I never choose the latter
since I feel that I deserve to survive at least as much as
the hypothetical shooter. If he started it, I shoot to kill.

This is another place where I want to go into some depth, on
a couple of different subtopics, like violence/nonviolence,
meme/nonmeme, cause and effect, and that sort of thing.

Like, how would a given person know if they were playing
a particular meme? Or whatever the verb would be. Like executing
a program, or "acting out" a script, I guess.

Would he get pissed off if you offered contrary information?

On the other tack, how did I get myself into a situation where
somebody wants to shoot me? Maybe if we'd yelled and screamed
at each other for awhile, and maybe slap each other until
somebody gets knocked down, then go buy each other a beer?
Isn't that how "real men" do it? ;-)

Exacerbation is relative to how bad you think your
current difficulties are. To take an extreme example, if
you're a well-treated slave, freeing yourself will be
engender a certain amount of inconvenience, and you'll have
the opportunity to freely starve to death afterward, but you
have to decide if freedom is worth the inconvenience.

This is another of those issues where there's a spectrum,
from slavery to freedom. I'm in a situation right now where
moving would be very inconvenient, and I put up with what I
claim is a lot of BS from stupid and just plain insane people,
but from another POV, I'm sitting on the goose that's laying
the golden eggs. Well, in a manner of speaking. I guess she's
sitting next to me, or something. Maybe she's conceptual, like
the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus.

There really is a Santa Claus, however, and this is proven
by the fact that a couple of years ago he brought me an RV.
He was in the form of an ordinary man, of course, but when
you look at all the aspects of the situation, there is no
other possibility than that he was an earthly incarnation
of Santa Claus himself.

This has nothing to do with anything, which is why I try
to refrain from getting too too in-depth while so stoned
that it's difficult to play find-your-foot, or peek-a-boo.

Fighting back or even ducking an attack is an effort, and
might make an attacker go to greater lengths, but your only
other option is to meekly absorb the attack.

Or even, and this is the wackiest of all, _cause_
them?

Your suspicion that opposition causes the troubles you're
trying to decide whether or not to struggle against is the
result of extreme Liberal propaganda falsely equalizing all
such struggles. It is a meme designed to convince you that
you have no right to survive.

Oh, boy. Did you intentionally word this this way to push _my_ "I
am not a meme" button? ;-) Once again, there are little struggles,
and big struggles. Differences of opinion are why there are horse
races. It's all a continuum, and picking one side or the other
and adamantly refusing to see the POV of the other side simply
limits one's own options.

This is, in my alleged mind, significantly different from seeing
both PsOV, and picking one because the other one simply sucks. ;-)

Mr. Shakespeare was obviously channeling a higher wisdom, but
when you look at the _really_ big picture, even his
inspiration
pales in comparison to the latest revelation extant,

No, it doesn't. "Outrageous fortune" is his way of
delineating those disruptive circumstances that stand out
from the usual run of intrusions Nature has always handed
us, like mosquitoes, gout, and bad weather. Some of them you
can prevent/control/mitigate beforehand, and some you can't.
Some you can affect after the fact, and some you just have
to avoid or run away from, like tornadoes.

OK, now, in one sense, we're talking about entirely different
things, if you're relating a tornado to the 9/11 attack.

Obviously, one could only say "I caused the tornado" if one
were god itself. But tornadoes do seem to preferentially
target trailer parks.

Have you ever heard of that ubiquitous character, The School
Bully? Have you ever heard the ULs about one of his victims
sneaking up behind him and sucker punching him right splat
in the nose with a carpenter's hammer?

Unless you believe that somebody went to all the trouble
of inventing the OBL tape from whole cloth, in which case,
what in the Universe could have been their motivation,
he says very clearly what the motivation for the 9/11
attack was. The neos all call him a liar, and call it
bullshit, but if that's the case, who did the tape, and
why?

But interpersonal (and international) relationships seem
very different because of the nature of the disruptive
agent; you seem to have trouble making distinctions between
_their_ justifications and yours. Simply ignore the fact
that the other side is human and look at the effects
directly; would you take a tornado on the chin, figuring it
was your fault because you didn't know you should have been
elsewhere?

Ah - this is the point I was talking about about a paragraph
or two ago. There's tornadoes, there's vandalism, there's
bloody mass murder, and there's war. Unless there was some
kind of official declaration of war, the 9/11 attack was no
more than a heinous criminal attack in precisely the same
manner as the McVeigh/OK City bombing, and the vandals should
have been arrested and prosecuted, except for the inconvenient
fact that they were all already dead.

It would certainly have done to at least have a freaking
_investigation_ before going charging off half-way across
the world with guns blazing, intending to kick ass and
take names later. Especially when "Kick ass" includes
the wanton slaughter of thousands of people who probably
hadn't ever even heard of the World Trade Center anyway!

The real issue here is the cause of the attack. You seem
to believe that 9-11 is justifiably the fault of America,
and I don't.

I never said "justifiable."

I'll thank you to refrain from supplying words while alleging
to quote me.

The "fault" of the airplane crashing into the building is
clearly the fault of the guy, now dead, who drove the airplane
into the building. So obviously, none of them was killed by
a drunk driver. Right?

But the underlying "cause" of the attack, AKA why did that
crazy barstid and his team hijack an airplane and fly it
into the building? According to one report, it was a pop
in the snoot in response to a decades-long pattern of
oppression, harassment, whatever you want to call it.

It was a response, unless you want me to stretch my mind
to encompass the possibility that somebody spent hunderds
of thousands of dollars, and sacrificed people, to perform
a simple mugging?

Just for the express purpose of pissing off the most powerful
destructive force ever known in the entire history of Existence?
Even the Japanese, after they found that the declaraiton of war
didn't get to the prez. on time, realized, "Uh-oh. We've
awakened a sleeping giant."

What purpose could that possibly accomplish?

You have been propagandized into failing to see this the
other way around;

Oh, I see. Now _I've_ been propagandized.

those who participated in that attack are
the ones who "exacerbated" the past low-key business in the
Middle East into actual warfare. This is of course exactly
what they wanted; they have an Armageddon Complex as
destructive as do Xtians.

How stupid have you been programmed to think these people are?
I guess I jumped the gun on this one too. Are you saying
that there was some "low-key business" and they just decided,
up out of the clear blue sky, "Hey, let's launch an unprovoked
assault on the Biggest Most Powerful And Destructive Military
Machine In All Of Creation, just to watch them bomb us back
to the stone age!"

Yeah! Sounds like a _real_ fun plan!

Not! (in case anyone was wondering.)

Oh, dear. The drugs are kicking in.

Piss-poor excuse. I'm stoned nearly blind right now on
good bud from Washington state. Spellcheckers are Good
Things. ;&gt

Can I get back to you on this?

Take your time. Just be sure you believe your survival is
worth the effort, or you might not be around to do so.

Thanks,

Rich

 

[Quack]

I use a program called 'Get Data Back' which *can* recover overwritten
data.

No software solution can recover data once the physical bits on the
disk in the location of the file have been moved magnetically.
The disk itself has no mechanism for reading what a bit 'was', only
what it 'is', obviously.

I was just throwing my 2 cents in anyway , a little off the topic.

Alex

 

[Guy Macon]

Quack wrote:

No software solution can recover data once the physical bits on the
disk in the location of the file have been moved magnetically.
The disk itself has no mechanism for reading what a bit 'was', only
what it 'is', obviously.

You are mistaken.

http://www.astalavista.ch/media/security_archiv/text/security/gutmann.pdf
http://www.dataforensics.com/articles/scrub_scrub_scrub.pdf
http://www.secinf.net/uplarticle/4/part6.pdf

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 18 Nov 2004 23:47:49 -0800, alex+google@vuetec.com (Quack) wrote:

No software solution can recover data once the physical bits on the
disk in the location of the file have been moved magnetically.
The disk itself has no mechanism for reading what a bit 'was', only
what it 'is', obviously.

Wrong! I've used it for overwritten disks and it works fine.
Admittedly you practically need a pilot's licence to fly it, but
that's another matter.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80krp0lipt33u4gvi3l2cdsm150juqu44t@4ax.com...

On 18 Nov 2004 23:47:49 -0800, alex+google@vuetec.com (Quack) wrote:

No software solution can recover data once the physical bits on the
disk in the location of the file have been moved magnetically.
The disk itself has no mechanism for reading what a bit 'was', only
what it 'is', obviously.

Wrong! I've used it for overwritten disks and it works fine.
Admittedly you practically need a pilot's licence to fly it, but
that's another matter.
There are three different processes being talked about here. The first is

where data is 'erased' on a drive by deleting a file. This is relatively
easy to recover, with only the first character of the filename being lost.
Then, normal 'formatting' on a modern drive, does _not_ format the disk,
but merely clears the directory entries. At this point, the data is still
not 'overwritten'. Hence it is still relatively easy to have recovery
tools retrieve the data (but not the original directory structure), though
these then require quite a lot of work to rebuild the directory
structures. The third process though, is where the data itself is being
_overwritten_. Here recovery is a lot harder, and cannot be done without
very specialist tools. The commonest method, at present is to fractionally
'misalign' the read head over the tracks. Most drives retain a small
amount of 'historical' magnetisation in the gaps between the tracks, and
if data is overwritten once, you can retrieve the current data, and this
'history', and can in most cases rebuild the original contents. This is
both expensive (requires special drives which allow the heads to be
shifted like this), and a lot of work. The ability to retrieve in this way
plummets, once the data is overwritten more times. This is why packages
like 'wipedisk', physically overwite each sector three times, with
different data patterns, but is also why companies who require total data
security, run such a package, and then physically destroy the disks...

Best Wishes

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:34:20 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:36:43 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:55:16 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
...
I'm just waiting for Little Fallujah Horn.


Would you enjoy that? Civil war, chaos, a corrupt Taliban-like islamic
tyranny, women forbidden from education and being beaten in the street
for uncovering a wisp of hair? Would you enjoy seeing terror
destabilize a civilization so the the US can be humbled?

Would you enjoy that?

You got all this from "Little Fallujah Horn"?

What planet are you from again?

Ever heard of "Little Big Horn"? The way I understand it, Gen'l
Custer led a platoon or so of soldiers on what he thought was
going to be a raid, and they thought the battle was a walk,
until three hundred thousand eleventy jillion gazillion Indians
popped out of the woodwork and slaughtered them to a man.

That would be unfortunate for the soldiers, but they _did_ sign
up knowing that there are certain risks attendant to going into
battle.

It would not be fun to watch, but it would give me another
chance to say "I told you so!" <sticks out tongue

Other than that, thanks for another glimpse into the workings of
what's apparently a very troubled mind.

Good Luck,
Rich

I'll take that for a "yes."

John

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

sorry to take so long replying; I'm trying to puzzle out a
paper on the death of some interpretations of QM

Somehow, I find this exceedingly pleasing. Well, hell, not
"somehow" - I could describe to you in intimate detail exactly
why I find this so pleasing - in fact, I can do it in a few
words - iconoclasm. Wow! One! I guess this Higher Consciousness
stuff really works! In real-time!

Yeah, but we can only do so many things at a time...

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:06:04 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
They're all old familiar saws because every person
ever born has to make the relevant decisions.
I'd go even deeper. There's only one story, and all

Yup. OTOH once you get the central theme, having the
mapping functions takes all the fun out of hearing the
stories as you know how they'll turn out.

Your quoting is simultaneously confusing and convenient.

I was trying to keep it as linear as possible (for my
convenience; my consciousness keeps trying to take multiple
eigenstates simultaneously, which makes keeping track of a
conversation difficult). But as you know, no matter how we
try to linearize some subjects, important bits get shaved off.

Nobody, not even God and Mother, yet know how the story is
going to turn out, other than it's going to be total healing,
and fun to the aleph sub googleplex power more than anyone
has ever conceived yet.

I've skipped ahead and read the last page. Life wins. ;-)

I'm channeling God right now, but the weirdest thing of all
is, that it doesn't make any difference. "channeling God"
is indistinguishable from just sitting here being aware
of what I'm aware of. Like, everything there _is_ is a
"message from God." So, in the big picture, "channeling
God" is irrelevant.

Insert something about x lbs. of whatever in our x-y lb.
bags...

OTGH you are able

On the Green Hand? ;-)

Oops... "On The Gripping Hand". Sci-Fi reference to
three-armed aliens who see all arguments three ways; two
gracile right hands for the usual Yin-Yang crapola (you
know, "on the one hand" vs. "on the other hand"), and a
robust left hand (the "gripping" hand) for grasping the
essence of the thing.

I did a lot of SF back in the day (still do, but I'm
pickier these days) which is why I still use words like
"grok". That's from Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_,
and means approximately what happens when you use your
Gripping Hand.

to recognize when you're immersed in somebody else's story
and have the opportunity to rewrite the script on the fly...

Well, that's what Free Will is all about. With true Free
Will,
everybody is making up their own story on the fly all the
time,
everybody is immersed in everybody else's story, it's all
improv, and everything works because each instant is seen
_and_ _felt_ for what it really is _right now_, so every
action
is appropriate.

At that point though, the entire story becomes so obvious
there's no point in playing it out except for those that
like slow dancing. For my part, I wish we'd all get there
real soon so I can concentrate on more interesting things
than The Great Soap Opera, like whether any interpretations
of QM will end up holding water.

Well, once you get to the resolution of the Big story, you find
that now, we can all make up any stories we want,

and here is the big final answer:

THEY DON'T HAVE TO ALL BE THE SAME STORY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!

Sure, but in a finite _physical_ universe, there can be
only so many variations on the Central Theme, which is to me
the "Great Soap Opera". I just find it boring, and don't
wanna play.

But that's just me.

This remains to be seen. ;-)

Yes, I know, We're just arguing with Ourself. But what
else is there to do, besides untangling QM?

And sooner or later you're going to have to explain
exactly what you mean by "imprints", just so I can compare
with what _I_ think it means.

OK. I hope you don't regret flipping this particular "on" switch!

Well, I did ask.

We've all heard the stories of the hatchling ducks that follow
the guy around because they think he's Mom, right?

Yup. Grokked.

That's an imprint - something you learn before you even know
that you're learning anything - yea verily, before you ever
even know that there is anything to be learned! It's almost as if
that first impression gets hard-wired into the brain. I haven't
done a lot of in-depth study in any particular field, but I'd
be willing to bet that it'd be difficult to retrain a duckling who
has imprinted on the biolgist, to consider another duck to be Mom.

So, what's the first thing a human sees when they're born?

Oy, vey - this is material for a whole nother book.

The one-dimensional answer (what's an imprint, not what's the
first thing a human sees) is, it's a meme, but deeper. A meme
is the program, an imprint is the wiring. The pattern of synapse
interconnections in your brain depends not only on the individuation
of action potentials, but also on the paths of the existing neurons'
dendrites and axons. There's even a genetic component, but that's a
whole nother level deeper yet.

You are aware that we have a whole sub-lobe of the brain
hardwired for human facial recognition, right? And that a
specific part of it _already_ knows what our parents' faces
look like before we're born?

Can I get back to you on this?

I'm in no great hurry.

Oh, if you have time/interest, here's some stuff on the
QM issue:

http://users.rowan.edu/~afshar/

The link on that page:

Experimental Test of Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity

shows a picture of the setup, and:

John Cramer’s Analog article

goes to a "popularized" explanation of it. Mind you it's
written by a guy promoting his own (Transactional)
interpretation of QM, so he may be somewhat biased.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

sorry to take so long replying; I'm trying to puzzle out a
paper on the death of some interpretations of QM

And every time I come back and reread for new things to respond to,
I get reminded how much I still want to go into the edges of QM...

See my other reply in this subthread for yet another
diversion.

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

[a bunch of stuff]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:06:04 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

[a bunch of other stuff]

Nonviolence as a default strategy for dealing with
unexpected violence is useful in coping with children.
But overweighting it means you don't survive.
This is either a total non-sequitur or totally
bass-ackwards.
??? Failing to apply violence when appropriate means
eventually you'll get hurt or killed when you didn't have to.

I think this is another point where I lost track, and I'm remided
to have another toke now... (and I did nonviolence in another FU)

Thanks, don't mind if I do.

Your survival is built-in. The problem was when people
started
thinking and meming, they started making up stuff,
thinking their brand-new intellect could do a better job of
surviving
than what Body has had a billion years' experience learning.

Survival is indeed built in, and the fact that it can be
overridden just goes to show how powerful certain memes can
be.

Well, I knew that you already knew that, I think. I wonder if
Kevin really appreciates the depth of this little factoid? i.e.,
Kevin Aylward is Right, Memes are Insidious!

Yup.

And I strongly doubt that our pre-conscious ancestors
killed their children for biting or kicking.

I doubt if they had to do much disciplining at all.

We can extrapolate somewhat from the parenting behavior
of gorillas etc. They have to, because their young are as
ignorant as ours.

Even mother
cats don't kill their kittens for biting them. But let the
mother cat think you're threatening one of her kittens and
see what you get.

Hey, you don't have to tell me about Mother! They'll even try
to protect their offspring from the spermdonor, who usually
seems to not recognize them as beings deserving of respect,
but some kind of property.

That's just a gene-propagation thing, and seems to vary
with the particular strain of cat. Some toms make really
good daddies for any kittens at all, some just sniff kittens
to make sure they're his. If they're not, mom better be
nearby, or he'll kill them. It sucks from one point of view,
but the tom's genes know there's only room for so many cats
in the world. Other critters do this too, not just felines.

Memes are the natural enemy of discretion, and vice versa.

I guess things were going OK before people got gods and
stuff,
huh? ;-)

I wouldn't know; I wasn't there. However, I do fairly
well without them.

You'd be surprised, but I think not as much as the rest will be. ;-)

Gods are such pathetically limited things; more so by far
that we are.

At this point, the discussion seems to be taking a
couple of
directions simultaneously, which is why I've been
labeling my
responses.

It may seem that way to you, but ISTM that there's a
central theme, namely Survival and its potential
subordination to many outside influences.

Yeah. I'm still talking about the BIG HUGE big picture.
I've changed the subject out from under you here, but
couldn't stop myself from expounding. Or, well, ok,
didn't want to stop. - Rich the Proofreader

Not really, see below.

Envision the classical "torus." It looks like an inner tube.

Envision another inner tube sitting next to it.

Now, imagine cutting the new inner tube along a major radius,
i.e. make it a 'C'. (in "beginning topology," that turns it
into a sphere, but that's OK - well be un-cutting it after
going around the other)

Open the C, and "clamp" it through the hole in the other
torus. Link the two links a la chain.

You now should have two linked toruses.

Have you ever linked your fingers of one hand with the
fingers of the other? Like two hooks - or two links
of a chain, who only make contact at one point, but that
point is well-defined, if they're nice, mathematical
toruses. Are you with me so far? Two inner tubes, one
cut and patched to go through the hole of the other,
touching at the one point which I don't know how to
name it, but I hope you get the picture. That point
where they touch, -

The Panama Canal! Perfect example of the sense I'm going
for - the Atlantic to the west, and the Pacific to the
east, within that little short isthmus - that's the
situation of our little intertorus point, from the exercise.

OK - wanna take a quantum leap of consciousness?

Those two toruses are seven-dimensional. The point that they have in
common, their mathematical intersection, is Our Universe. All Four
Dimensions. All of Space, and All of Time. All the hopes and dreams,
all the aspirations, all the pain, all the glory, all the triumph, all
the computers, all the internets, all the people and their relationships,
Everything There Is, contained in that one, four-dimensional point in the
seven-dimensional manifold of What Could Be.

This is partly why I could qualify as nuts.

Nah, just start a church, make money, die happy. Oh,
wait; you too are afflicted with Ethics.

And QM is at the entirely other end of that same spectrum
of dimensionality, and they all map one-to-one on each
other. The quantum foam is just little teeny tiny reiterations
of that same Grand Merry-Go-Round, vibrating little tiny
realities, and making up everything as they go along.

Oh, yeah. Those two toruses are God and Mother. They're
Electricity and Magnetism.

Now, this is an image I think is really, really cool-

Take our two linked inner tubes, these two intersecting
seven-dimensional toruses that I've so graciously projected
for you on to one dimension, and do this thought experiment:
make one of them be made of iron, and the other of copper.

Anything look familiar here?

Like, a magnetic "line of force" and a current path?

What happens if you swap the iron and the copper?

Is a toroid just a curly solenoid?

I could point out that what maps into fourspace as
"Survival" is the interplay of "persistence of current" in
one torus and "inductance" in the other. We're still talking
about the same Big Huge big picture.

A hint - the sound of one hand clapping has nothing to do
with acoustics.

As a Buddhist, I already knew that, thank you anyway.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[John Smith]

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:daednbHlK_LSowDcRVn-sg@comcast.com...

This might be too basic for you, but:
http://www.picotech.com/applications/oscilloscope_tutorial.html

I have used lots of oscilloscopes over the years and still prefer several
of the older Tektronix analog oscopes. My current oscope is a THS730A and
though I like its small size and some of its features, I often wish I had
an anaolog oscope. I would now buy an oscope that combined the best
features of both worlds and they are out there (but bigger than mine).

I needed some of that basic info, Charles. Thanks for the link.

John

 

[Spajky]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:40:46 +0800, "CK@@L" <kanglck1@singnet.com.sg>
wrote:

Hi, I was asked to referred to this newsgroup for some expert advise, can
anyone help pls!

http://www.active-undelete.com/
--
Regards, SPAJKY ÂŽ
& visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
"Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

 

[CBarn24050]

I personally still like analog scopes. Even analog storage scopes.
I'm not even sure they make new analog storage scopes, though, certainly
all the ones in the catalogs are digital now... I personally prefer
digital scopes that have knobs (not just buttons) if I'm going to use
them for any length of time. Then I see kids come through the lab and
they've never even seen a scope with a knob, and they have no problem
at all breezing through a bazillion menus on the pushbutton scopes.

Tim.

Tim,I saw a demo of a scope that responds to spoken commands not long ago.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:19:14 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
....
words - iconoclasm. Wow! One! I guess this Higher Consciousness
stuff really works! In real-time!

Yeah, but we can only do so many things at a time...
...
Your quoting is simultaneously confusing and convenient.

I was trying to keep it as linear as possible (for my
convenience; my consciousness keeps trying to take multiple
eigenstates simultaneously, which makes keeping track of a
conversation difficult). But as you know, no matter how we
try to linearize some subjects, important bits get shaved off.

Ah, yes! The old "Soap bubble through the eye of a needle"
dilemma. ;-)
....

OTGH you are able

On the Green Hand? ;-)

Oops... "On The Gripping Hand". Sci-Fi reference to
three-armed aliens who see all arguments three ways; two
gracile right hands for the usual Yin-Yang crapola (you
know, "on the one hand" vs. "on the other hand"), and a
robust left hand (the "gripping" hand) for grasping the
essence of the thing.

Well, I do remember one Motie looking confused when the
hero said, "On the other hand", but didn't remember that
they had a name for it.

I did a lot of SF back in the day (still do, but I'm
pickier these days) which is why I still use words like
"grok". That's from Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_,
and means approximately what happens when you use your
Gripping Hand.

Hmm - I very vaguely remember 3-handed Martians, but the
main thing I got from SIASL was "Thou art God." And, "Mike
knew he was food, but couldn't really say he knew how it
_felt_ to be food." He was my hero, until Mr. Spock. ;-)
And when Mr. Spock got high on the anti-Veritold rays
spores, his closing comment was, "For the first time in my
life, I was happy", escorting me directly to the vast
adventureland of drug abuse and alcoholism. ;-) That was
also the year I got drunk for the first time, and I
remember thinking, "I wonder how long I can keep this
up before my liver gives out?" It was the answer to my
prayers. It made the anxiety go away.

In case you're wondering, 35 years, except it's my pancreas. ;-)
....

THEY DON'T HAVE TO ALL BE THE SAME STORY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!

Sure, but in a finite _physical_ universe, there can be
only so many variations on the Central Theme, which is to me
the "Great Soap Opera". I just find it boring, and don't
wanna play.

Oh, that's the thing! You don't have to! Once you recognize
the Central Theme to EVERYTHING, you can make up any story
you want!

BTW, I've just identified the Fundamental Asymmetry.

Magnetism encompasses, Electricity flows through.

But that's just me.

This remains to be seen. ;-)

Yes, I know, We're just arguing with Ourself. But what
else is there to do, besides untangling QM?

Oh, I have such things to show you...

And sooner or later you're going to have to explain
exactly what you mean by "imprints", just so I can compare
with what _I_ think it means.

OK. I hope you don't regret flipping this particular "on" switch!

Well, I did ask.

We've all heard the stories of the hatchling ducks that follow
the guy around because they think he's Mom, right?

Yup. Grokked.

That's an imprint - something you learn before you even know
that you're learning anything - yea verily, before you ever
even know that there is anything to be learned! It's almost as if
that first impression gets hard-wired into the brain. I haven't
done a lot of in-depth study in any particular field, but I'd
be willing to bet that it'd be difficult to retrain a duckling who
has imprinted on the biolgist, to consider another duck to be Mom.

So, what's the first thing a human sees when they're born?

Oy, vey - this is material for a whole nother book.

The one-dimensional answer (what's an imprint, not what's the
first thing a human sees) is, it's a meme, but deeper. A meme
is the program, an imprint is the wiring. The pattern of synapse
interconnections in your brain depends not only on the individuation
of action potentials, but also on the paths of the existing neurons'
dendrites and axons. There's even a genetic component, but that's a
whole nother level deeper yet.

You are aware that we have a whole sub-lobe of the brain
hardwired for human facial recognition, right? And that a
specific part of it _already_ knows what our parents' faces
look like before we're born?

Well, yeah, we've got a little higher-level hardwiring. But
what worries me is that they've already decided if they're going
to be Republican or Democrat!

Can I get back to you on this?

I'm in no great hurry.

Oh, if you have time/interest, here's some stuff on the
QM issue:

http://users.rowan.edu/~afshar/

I have, and so I believe I will. Of course, I'll come back and
explain all of the areas in which it is deficient. ;-)

The link on that page:

Experimental Test of Bohr's Principle of Complementarity

shows a picture of the setup, and:

John Cramer's Analog article

goes to a "popularized" explanation of it. Mind you it's
written by a guy promoting his own (Transactional)
interpretation of QM, so he may be somewhat biased.

Mark L. Fergerson

;^j
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:46:30 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

I think this is another point where I lost track, and I'm remided
to have another toke now... (and I did nonviolence in another FU)

Thanks, don't mind if I do.

%-P
....

Kevin Aylward is Right, Memes are Insidious!
Yup.
And I strongly doubt that our pre-conscious ancestors
killed their children for biting or kicking.
I doubt if they had to do much disciplining at all.

We can extrapolate somewhat from the parenting behavior
of gorillas etc. They have to, because their young are as
ignorant as ours.

Yeah, it's that pesky forebrain, that needs all that stupid
training.

....

I guess things were going OK before people got gods and
stuff,
huh? ;-)

I wouldn't know; I wasn't there. However, I do fairly
well without them.

You'd be surprised, but I think not as much as the rest will be. ;-)

Gods are such pathetically limited things; more so by far
that we are.

No, no. I meant, you'd be surprised who was and wasn't "there."
But, I think because of your ability to grasp larger concepts, you
won't be 1/10^60 as surprised as _they_ are when _they_ find out!

At this point, the discussion seems to be taking a
couple of
directions simultaneously, which is why I've been
labeling my
responses.

It may seem that way to you, but ISTM that there's a
central theme, namely Survival and its potential
subordination to many outside influences.

Yeah. I'm still talking about the BIG HUGE big picture.
I've changed the subject out from under you here, but
couldn't stop myself from expounding. Or, well, ok,
didn't want to stop. - Rich the Proofreader

Not really, see below.

Envision the classical "torus." It looks like an inner tube.

Envision another inner tube sitting next to it.

Now, imagine cutting the new inner tube along a major radius,
i.e. make it a 'C'. (in "beginning topology," that turns it
into a sphere, but that's OK - well be un-cutting it after
going around the other)

Open the C, and "clamp" it through the hole in the other
torus. Link the two links a la chain.

You now should have two linked toruses.

Have you ever linked your fingers of one hand with the
fingers of the other? Like two hooks - or two links
of a chain, who only make contact at one point, but that
point is well-defined, if they're nice, mathematical
toruses. Are you with me so far? Two inner tubes, one
cut and patched to go through the hole of the other,
touching at the one point which I don't know how to
name it, but I hope you get the picture. That point
where they touch, -

The Panama Canal! Perfect example of the sense I'm going
for - the Atlantic to the west, and the Pacific to the
east, within that little short isthmus - that's the
situation of our little intertorus point, from the exercise.

OK - wanna take a quantum leap of consciousness?

Those two toruses are seven-dimensional. The point that they have in
common, their mathematical intersection, is Our Universe. All Four
Dimensions. All of Space, and All of Time. All the hopes and dreams,
all the aspirations, all the pain, all the glory, all the triumph, all
the computers, all the internets, all the people and their relationships,
Everything There Is, contained in that one, four-dimensional point in the
seven-dimensional manifold of What Could Be.

This is partly why I could qualify as nuts.

Nah, just start a church, make money, die happy. Oh,
wait; you too are afflicted with Ethics.

No, it's that money simply isn't where the happiness _is_.

Spending it is a Hell of a lot more fun than making it!

And QM is at the entirely other end of that same spectrum
of dimensionality, and they all map one-to-one on each
other. The quantum foam is just little teeny tiny reiterations
of that same Grand Merry-Go-Round, vibrating little tiny
realities, and making up everything as they go along.

Oh, yeah. Those two toruses are God and Mother. They're
Electricity and Magnetism.

Now, this is an image I think is really, really cool-

Take our two linked inner tubes, these two intersecting
seven-dimensional toruses that I've so graciously projected
for you on to one dimension, and do this thought experiment:
make one of them be made of iron, and the other of copper.

Anything look familiar here?

Like, a magnetic "line of force" and a current path?

What happens if you swap the iron and the copper?

Is a toroid just a curly solenoid?

I could point out that what maps into fourspace as
"Survival" is the interplay of "persistence of current" in
one torus and "inductance" in the other. We're still talking
about the same Big Huge big picture.

Cool! Wanna be my high priest? This is the closest anyone's
ever got!

B: Now, give the "magnetic field" volition. This is free will. ;-)

A hint - the sound of one hand clapping has nothing to do
with acoustics.

As a Buddhist, I already knew that, thank you anyway.

;^j

Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

While searching the web for pictures of a serrodyne package, I stumbled
upon this:
http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Along the way, I also found out why the sky is blue:
http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#blu

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:46:30 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:56 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

And every time I come back and reread for new things to respond to,
I get reminded how much I still want to go into the edges of QM...

See my other reply in this subthread for yet another
diversion.

Speaking of diversions, here's one:
http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/bspot.html

This proves that everybody has a blind spot in each eye. This
proves that just because you can't see something doesn't prove
that it's not there.

I know _you_ know this, Mark - I'm just staying on the thread
with my thing about blind spots.

Memes are mental blind spots. ;-) (as are politics and whatever
makes people buy crap that the teevee tells them to.)

;^j
Rich