Driver to drive?

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:6d17eb3f-c1e7-4a84-ad6b-064a3a8cc6e9
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 8, 9:40�pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:
Shall we bring back segregation too? ďż˝[snip]
� � �This woman is dangerous.....

Oh yeah, that's gonna work....

I har this a lot:
"It can't be 'the way God makes then' becasue God doesn't make junk, so it
has to be a lifestyle choice".

Huuuuuh....?

What about the concept that maybe some poeple are born with problems as a
lesson in *compassion*?

Then too, why did God make the Malaria parasite, *and* a mosquito delivery
system for it? And critters with two heads?

I really think these folks are waaaaay too obsessed with what other people
might do with their pleasure centers. Personally, that's not somehting i
want to know =:-o ... OR think about =8-O

OK, Eskimos on the left, Oil Company Executives on the right.
(Fire the rest.)

Maybe her little dip-shit baby will grow up to be gay.

I have to admit, never before thought about what percentage of Down's
Syndrome people are gay...

Then we can claim that's god's punishment for her being such a
sarcastic little bitch.

If American hires this woman, they totally get what they deserve.

-mpm

I must also say, for the first time in this Election cycle, I'm
concerned that the Republicans are finally getting some traction.
Maybe it will be termporary, but if the bounce holds through to the
election, they might actually have a winning shot... ??

It will be very interesting to see what happens in MN, OH and FL.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:35?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fact is, in 100 years from now, people will not be flying around in
things that are essentially 2008 Cessna's with new paint and the
latest Garmins. ?All those who think that it is naive and childish
will most likely be dead. But there will be a new group of pilots,
comfortable with what might be considered beyond bleeding edge today,
saying the same thing that you are now, about the not-yet-hear
futuristic technology.

Childish, fantasy nonsense.

To make that happen would require the technology of Star Trek impulse
engines and anti-gravity to be invented.

Are you 100% certain of this statement?

Since subsonic aerodynamics is a very mature technology and there is no
way known to science to self propel an object in the air other than
accelerating mass, yes.

The only way to make airplanes significantly different than the airplanes
that already exist is to invent an "engine" entirely different than that
which exists now.

Absent that, airplanes will still have wings or rotors and an engine that
accelerates air with a fan of some sort.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:55?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:35?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

Except for the part about insurance, I disagree.

So, how much real world experience in design and manufacture to
government specifications do you have that leads you to that
conclusion?

I have designed parts of both hardware and software systems that have
been used by DoD.

But never an entire system? How about ROI calculations? Do you have
any clue what the term "burdened labor rate" means?

But again, I would aim for the experimental category.

That means you get to build 1.

And, with your vast piloting experience, name some things that a fly-by-wire
Cessna 172 could legally do that a cable and pulley Cessna 172 could not.

At no point did I ever say that I would attempt to design a fly-by-
wire C172.

You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in news:35310af6-ffcf-4d2f-927a-bab578c9ad80
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

Tim Williams wrote:
So? And what's wrong with communism? I mean, really, what's wrong?

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
It's based on theft and coercion.

In Communism, man exploits man.
In Capitalism, it's the other way around.

<LOL!>

Heh


[snip]

 

[JohnF]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

JohnF wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@pergamos.net> wrote:
mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:
"The Large Hadron Collider is a symptom of America's decline in
particle physics and, some fear, in science overall"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157514
Ah well... best wishes to the Europeans

I can't recall a single technologically useful result it's
generated since about Fermi's day
The argument seems to be that we have to keep dumping
our limited physical science budgets into accelerators
to avoid falling behind in a field that doesn't produce anything
useful

Before radios, telegraphs, electric motors, etc, etc, Queen Victoria
once asked British physicist Michael Faraday of what use his
studies in electricity and magnetism were. He famously replied,
"Madam, of what use is a baby?"

That's an old chestnut, and proves nothing. Particle physics
has had big bucks poured into it for what, 60 years now? (Not counting
the Manhattan Project--nuclear has produced useful things.) When the
Faraday effect was 60 years old, it was powering half the world.
Somebody pointed out long ago that the further the energy scale gets
from kT, the fewer the useful results.

Well, if you're looking for practical results...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419404,00.html
Coincidentally, the LHC is scheduled to go online in just
a few hours, at 3:30am EDT Wednesday, 9/10/08, possibly
creating black holes that will destroy the Earth...
"Someone will spot a light ray coming out of the Indian
Ocean during the night and no one will be able to explain it,"
retired Professor Otto Roessler told London's Mail.
"Very soon the whole planet will be eaten in a magnificent
scenario if you could watch it from the moon. A Biblical
Armageddon. Even cloud and fire will form, as it says in
the Bible."
And we even have...
A pair of Russian scientists even think the LHC will be
the world's first time machine, and that we should expect
visitors from the future to arrive soon after it goes into
operation.
And, hey, don't tell me these guys are kooks until
you double-check what newsgroup you're posting to.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 5:25?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

Babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.

Do you even know what "fly-by-wire" means?

Do you know what turbulence is?

Obviously not.

For the first item, fly-by-wire means that the control surfaces are
not directly mechanically coupled to the controls but rather are
driven by motors and the controls provide command inputs to the
motors.

A device that "controls" an airplane absent human input is called an
autopiltot.

Autopilots for GA airplanes have been around for better than half a
century.

Autopilots connect into what ever drives the control surfaces and it
doesn't matter if the airplane is fly-by-wire or conventional cable
and pulley; they are two separate systems.

For the second item, turbulence is highly localized air movement and
mostly vertical in component.

The only thing that can be done to "minimize effects of turbulence"
other than avoiding it in the first place is to keep the airplane
straight and level and somewhat on altitude.

Most GA aircraft do not have enough power and are not rated for enough
G load to keep the aircraft exactly on altitude with anything but
the lightest turbulence.

Any off the shelf 3-axis autopilot from the last half century is more
than capable of doing everything that can be done about turbulence
within the power and stress ratings of GA aircraft and are very common
in aircraft that are flown single pilot IFR so the pilot can concentrate
on position instead of keeping the airplane right side up.

The question remains:

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[B. Peg]

I'm not voting for her either.

I like the idea of a Muslim like Obama in the presidency. In the long term,
it will acquiesce those longing to attack the USA. There are too many
Muslims in the world for the US to ignore.

Go Obama in '08!

B~

 

[DavidW]

B. Peg wrote:

a Muslim like Obama

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <48c6138c$1@news.auckland.ac.nz>,
Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.no.spam.ac.nz> wrote:

RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:00 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@pergamos.net
wrote:
mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
"The Large Hadron Collider is a symptom of America's decline in
particle physics and, some fear, in science overall"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157514
Ah well... best wishes to the Europeans
Tee hee.

Particle physics is well past its first youth, and I can't recall a
single technologically useful result it's generated since about
Fermi's day--or is there something I've missed? It's primarily an
aesthetic activity.

There are lots better ways to spend a billion or two dollars on
science than building ever larger colliders. If we really have to
find the Higgs boson, maybe support work on wake field accelerators
or other new methods, because keeping on turning the same old crank
has got us way, way into the diminishing returns region.

The argument seems to be that we have to keep dumping some obscenely
large fraction of our limited physical science budgets into
accelerators to avoid falling behind in a field that doesn't produce
anything useful...or to avoid losing the expertise of the field
because there's no new data...come again? There's really no sense in
encouraging that many smart people to pour their careers down a rat
hole like that, data or no data.

I'm all for the search for origins and so on, but it's only worth
spending so many billion bucks on such a brute force approach to a
primarily aesthetic goal, particularly when it's in competition with
much more valuable work that could train lots more people for lots
less money.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
Phil, I totally agree! There's way too much hype for the refurbished
LHC. The only thing I'm expecting out of this hugh machine is the
mass of the Higgs boson. It harldy seems worth it. I expect more
exciting results to come from astronomy/ cosmology. The particle
physics community has a great PR machine though...
George

So....the higgs bosen was invented to explain mass. So..how come it
has mass itself. Seems a bit like darkness to me...

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk


When something gets blown to "smithereens", are those sub-atomic particles?


smitherinos

I have those for breakfast.
Mmmmmmmmmm.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <pan.2008.09.08.22.52.17.337594@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:05:07 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:47:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:08:53 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Of what use is the ISS?

I don't know - what did Queen Victoria expect Columbus to find?

I doubt she ever met him.

Especially since Columbus had been dead a couple hundred years when
Victoria was born.

Well, whoever the hell it was that funded him. Isabella? Just 'cause I
got the wrong queen doesn't alter the fact that _SOMEBODY_ paid for his
expedition - whoever it was must have expected _SOMETHING_ back.

Columbus went to the Queen of Spain
To ask for ships and cargo.
He promised to kiss the Royal Arse
And bring her back Chicago.

--
Michael Press

 

[B. Peg]

"DavidW" wrote in message:
B. Peg wrote:
a Muslim like Obama
I can't tell if you're serious or not.

He made a Freudian slip on ABC TV Sunday with George Stephanopoulos about
"His Muslim faith." George brought him back to meaning "His Christian
faith." George is such a Democrat so you know it was meant in good faith.

It's on YouTube.

So what's wrong with a Muslim in the White House? With the world's largest
religion being Muslim, imagine how the detractors or terrorists would act
against the USA having a Muslim president in position? Even Moammar Kaddafi
of Libya in his speech in July 2008 also called on his Muslim brother Obama.
Moammar wasn't impressed with Ronald Reagan though for blowing up his
compound in the video.

All the video is on YouTube. Doesn't take much of a search in Google or
YouTube to find it.

His wife's doctoral thesis from Princeton is also on Snopes.com since that
was to be sequestered until after the election. So what if she's racist?
Better than being sexist.

Go Obama in '08!

B~

 

[DavidW]

B. Peg wrote:

"DavidW" wrote in message:
B. Peg wrote:
a Muslim like Obama
I can't tell if you're serious or not.

He made a Freudian slip on ABC TV Sunday with George Stephanopoulos
about "His Muslim faith." George brought him back to meaning "His
Christian faith." George is such a Democrat so you know it was meant
in good faith.

It wasn't necessarily a _Freudian_ slip. "Muslim faith" is a common term that he
would come across often and many people _think_ he's a Muslim, which was
probably on his mind, and he just made a mistake.

It's on YouTube.

God, he really said that?

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 8:25?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

Babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.

Do you even know what "fly-by-wire" means?

Yes.

It sure doesn't seem like it from anything you've said.

Do you know what turbulence is?

Obviously not.

Actually I do.

It sure doesn't seem like it from anything you've said

For the first item, fly-by-wire means that the control surfaces are
not directly mechanically coupled to the controls but rather are
driven by motors and the controls provide command inputs to the
motors.

Right.

A device that "controls" an airplane absent human input is called an
autopiltot.

Autopilots for GA airplanes have been around for better than half a
century.

And horrendously expensive compared to how they can be today, in 2008.

The cost of a certified system is irrelevant to the topic under
discussion and yet another puerile attempt to avoid the question.

As an aside, if you can build a certified autopilot and sell it cheaper
than the ones currently on the market, go for it.

Autopilots connect into what ever drives the control surfaces and it
doesn't matter if the airplane is fly-by-wire or conventional cable
and pulley; they are two separate systems.

The degree of control exhibited by cable and pulley cannot compete
with that allowed by fully-electronic servo motors.

Babbling nonsense.

The "fully-electronic servo motors" eventually wind up moving conventional
cable and pulley mechanisms.

You are so ignorant you are laughable.

Do you actually believe that servo motors can be directly, mechanically
connected to the flight surfaces without anything in between?

For the second item, turbulence is highly localized air movement and
mostly vertical in component.

Ok.

The only thing that can be done to "minimize effects of turbulence"
other than avoiding it in the first place is to keep the airplane
straight and level and somewhat on altitude.

A computer driving a servo system can do that far better than a
computer driving [insert whatever here] driving cables and pulleys.

Babble yet again.

How the hell do you think the "servo system" connects to the control
surfaces?

Guess what, it is through cables and pulleys.

Most GA aircraft do not have enough power and are not rated for enough
G load to keep the aircraft exactly on altitude with anything but
the lightest turbulence.

That does not mean that light turbulence could not be counteracted.

Well, duh.

Do you understand the difference between keeping the airplane straight
and level and holding altitude in an up/down draft that exceeds the
capability of the airplane?

Automobiles have been using active suspension for a while now. The
same mathematics used in those systems could be employed in aircraft,
but not with cables and pulleys.

Airplanes don't have suspension systems; airplane fly in the air.

Any off the shelf 3-axis autopilot from the last half century is more
than capable of doing everything that can be done about turbulence
within the power and stress ratings of GA aircraft and are very common
in aircraft that are flown single pilot IFR so the pilot can concentrate
on position instead of keeping the airplane right side up.

Those autopilots are typically not designed for counteracting the
effects of "light" turbulence.

Babbling nonsense.

The *ONLY* thing possible to do to "counteract" turbulence is to keep
the airplane straight, level, and at altitude.

Autopilots keep the airplane straight, level, and as close to altitude
as the airplane performance allows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_suspension

Irrelevant as once again, airplanes don't have suspension systems,
they are flying through the air.

If I didn't know you had to be older to get a student pilot certificate,
I would guess you are about 12 years old from the stuff you say.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[B. Peg]

"DavidW" wrote in message:
He made a Freudian slip on ABC TV Sunday with George Stephanopoulos
about "His Muslim faith." George brought him back to meaning "His
Christian faith." George is such a Democrat so you know it was meant
in good faith.

It wasn't necessarily a _Freudian_ slip. "Muslim faith" is a common term
that he would come across often and many people _think_ he's a Muslim,
which was probably on his mind, and he just made a mistake.

It's on YouTube.

God, he really said that?

See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

I don't know, seems Freudian to me - although a little disturbing.

Go look for his wife's doctoral thesis from Princeton too (Snopes.com). Is
she racist? You decide.

Fwiw, I was leaning to the star power of Obama, but all this latest stuff is
a bit unsettling since "HE" is saying it. Sort of pieces together portions
of his pastor's church being racist - if not outright Muslim in belief.
When the rest of the world wants him, you should wonder why with 1.1 billion
being of Muslim faith..

If the Dems continue to attack Palin, it may do more harm than good.

Still, having a Muslim president may be a good tactical diversion for the
US, no?

B~

 

[Jenn]

In article <GhIxk.20872$cW3.16468@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"B. Peg" <bent_peg69@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

"DavidW" wrote in message:
He made a Freudian slip on ABC TV Sunday with George Stephanopoulos
about "His Muslim faith." George brought him back to meaning "His
Christian faith." George is such a Democrat so you know it was meant
in good faith.

It wasn't necessarily a _Freudian_ slip. "Muslim faith" is a common term
that he would come across often and many people _think_ he's a Muslim,
which was probably on his mind, and he just made a mistake.

It's on YouTube.

God, he really said that?

See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

I don't know, seems Freudian to me - although a little disturbing.

Go look for his wife's doctoral thesis from Princeton too (Snopes.com). Is
she racist? You decide.

Fwiw, I was leaning to the star power of Obama, but all this latest stuff is
a bit unsettling since "HE" is saying it. Sort of pieces together portions
of his pastor's church being racist - if not outright Muslim in belief.
When the rest of the world wants him, you should wonder why with 1.1 billion
being of Muslim faith..

If the Dems continue to attack Palin, it may do more harm than good.

Still, having a Muslim president may be a good tactical diversion for the
US, no?

B~

Good God. If this is the depth of thinking of the average voter, we're
doomed. We get the government that we deserve.

 

[Den]

"Piglit" <mobyxena@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:953bb461-aceb-4d3d-9209-aa2720f529a6@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

I notice that if you boot 'Trax under XP, and it cannot find the
design you were working on previously (ie you have deleted it), the
program will hang. The only way of reviving it is to quit out and edit
the config file to point to any valid PCB file. Anyone know any better
way around this so that if it cannot find a valid .pcb file, it will
open as a new (blank) file ?.
cheers
M

I dont know if this in any way relates to your problem but I had similar
issues running 99SE under XP. The problem was related to file permissions
set by our PITA company IT guys............

 

[Phil Allison]

"JosephKK"

( snip the cretin's mindless personal abuse )


** Go drop dead - you autistic pile of dung.

Then your rotting corpse will match your brain.





...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"George Herold"

** Learn how to trim - George

And do NOT answer TWO people the same post.

Very rude.


Oh and Phil, by changing the postion of the capacitor and resistor at
the noninverting input of the second opamp, you can make the second
"all pass filter" of the noniverting type. Then you don't need the
tirhd inverting op-amp stage.


** Then you do not have the 3 needed signals for the fourth op-amp stage
which cancels the THD.

You are a fool to mess with that circuit.


You have to then add some gain control
to one (or both) of the all-pass stages, but this is easy! So at the
end of the day yesterday I had an oscillator running from 2 to 20 kHz
with quadrature outputs and -35dB of third harmonic. (The third
harmonic is all from the diode limiting and should go away as soon as
my FETs arrive.)


** Got news for you - pal.

JFETS are *highly non-linear * devices, so you will have lots of second
harmonic if you use one as a gain control element with any more than 50mV of
signal across it.

You have FAILED to see how elegant, foolproof and FAST the diode limiting is
compared to other methods.


So I'll reserve judgment on Phil,

** Yawnnnnnnnnn ....

and also note that good idea's can come from anywhere.


** But you are no respecter of persons or a recogniser of good ideas.




....... Phil

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in news:6iolrbFr25uuU3
@mid.individual.net:

Eeyore wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

And one might suppose that people investing $300m actually look at the
tech in some detail.
Which Nanosolar refuse to provide to anyone else.
And why should they?

And why shouldn't they ?

Because they want to keep their competitors guessing instead of dumping
all their R&D into similar thin film tech?

Exactly. Most companies that deal with innovation require employees to sign
a condifentiality agreement, and keep their proprietary info confidential.
It's called "competitive edge".

Plus, I'm sure that some folks here have filed for patents and have worked on
projects that were confidential - if you come up with a good idea, you want
to have first dibs at making money from it.

Companies are the same.

A hell of a lot of money goes into research, and a company (and its
investors, usual;ly including employees) have a right to make that back.
They can't do that if they just give their work away willy-nilly.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in
news:566f7eac-c94d-4eb1-8bdc-4bd85124c290@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 9, 1:57 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:

Going back to what you'd mentioned - again, I'm in no way a scholar of
the Constitution, so all I can say is that I've heard it argued that
Soc. Sec., and some other forms of entitlement payments, are justified
by the phrasing of "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the
general Welfare".

I don't have time for detail.

That's OK, I'll be reading and learning more about this topic, as I think
it's important for me to ahve a better understanding.

But these interpretations of "promoting
general welfare" as essentially amounting to a grant of plenary powers
to the federal government is utter nonsense promoted by people who
view the constitution as something to be worked around rather than
what it is: a chaining of power by enumerating the limits of those
powers.

Good point.

I'll give a little question on the matter for you to ponder:

If the founders and ratifiers intended to grant broad interpretive
based powers to the federal government based on "general welfare," why
didn't they just stop right there? Why did they go on at length on
the enumeration of powers if the powers, in effect, were not
enumerated, but essentially plenary?

Ah-ha, definitely a good point. The Preamble isn't a description of the
gov.t's powers, it basicalyl says, "These are the reasons we're writing this
enumaeration fo gov.t powers". Yes, that's an interesting thing to keep in
mind.

Lots to learn