Driver to drive?

[krw]

In article <elvmf4h3epcp9r6d87norksjhpk8rk4c2j@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:44:03 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <ng0kf4lvprc3j1n07s3q0sbj9l7s50r2t2@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net
wrote:

On Oct 17, 7:17 am, mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:12 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution

It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.

At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...

Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories.  :-0

I have no beef. I am just pointing out a problem. Some would say:
The constitution is silent on the subject of radio waves so that must
obviously be a power left to the states. Others would say: Radio
signals cross state lines so they are interstate commerce.


Radio signals are not commerce at all.

Really? Commercial time is free? Broadcasters do it for the
jollies?


The signals are not the commerce. The information transmitted is or can
be.

Wheat isn't commerce either. Of course, one doesn't expect you to
be right about *anything*, Dimbulb.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <8nvmf41hijet6j43l5obl6rd10qi6v0trr@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:45:04 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <nkvjf4trobgl87otc4ocooacallg3mob86@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:12?am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution

It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.

At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...

Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories. :-0

$5 fee EACH MONTH for EACH hard line phone in the country amounts to
several hundred million dollars a month. Likely for all the air phones
too.

Their operating costs are not several hundred million dollars a month.

Phone lines are free? You really do have a warped sense of
economics.

The phone lines are not operated by the FCC, idiot.

I didn't say they were, Dimmie.

The monthly fees I refer to are the FCC charges.

So what?

That is completely separate from the charges the folks that own the
lines have.

No one said anything about any "fees", Dimbulb.

Even then, the operating costs of the main infrastructure is also NOT
hundreds of millions of dollars a month.

AlwaysWrong, strikes again.

--
Keith

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


I've made one decision though. If one outfit wants me it'll be Group
Technical Director.

My advice would be to take the one where you're likely to do the least
damage.

You would think they already have a know it all janitor.

That's a bit low Michael.

its nt as low as the crap you've been spreading in these audio
threads.

The fact of the matter is that after something of
a drought (partly for health reasons) it's damn monsoon out there right now.
I don't know how I can satisfy both clients who both have very interesting
respectively moderately big and huge projects on right now.

Plus my back's still fucked.

Big deal. I'm sill 100% disabled, and I had a palsy in my good eye
four months ago that left me effectively blind. I still only have
limited use of that eye, after three months of not being able to see out
of it. I have sores on my legs that aren't healing, and I am scheduled
for some surgery to remove something from my right lower eyelid in about
two weeks. It has been growing rather fast, and I have to wait and see
if it will cause more problems. I have tripped, and banged into so many
things while blind that I am too sore to do much of anything.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

You make those claims and then, conveniently, fail to back them up
because of the restrictions you claim are placed upon you by copyright
and contractual limitations.

Exactly. I'm behaving professionally. Nor do I want to let all the Chinese see
how to do it right.

Fine. Pay me and I'll do something similar for you and you'll own the
copyright.

---
Pay you???

Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day!

Well, let's face it, you don't have the necessary skills.

---
Trying to start a pissing contest?

You haven't the skills and experience in this field.

Ain't gonna work.

I'm sure you're very good at other things.

This is what I meant. If you can't stand the heat, quit shoveling on
the burning coal.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Frank Buss]

James Waldby wrote:

movf mask,w ; (Only if mask is not in w already)
iorwf IND,r ; set bit
btfss updbyte, 5 ; check for set or reset
xorwf IND,r ; reset bit
continue nop

This is dangerous, if an interrupt is generated after the iorwf.

--
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

 

[Ulf Samuelsson]

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:48f9026f$1@clear.net.nz...

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:48f6d0de$1@clear.net.nz...

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
You can run a 2 bit counter at 100 MHz, that does not neccessarily
mean that you can run a 16 bit counter at 100 MHz.

Depends on the process, but you have already established the Xmega timer
can run at 128 MHz.


You have two bits which runs at 128 MHz, and the rest run at 32 MHz.

Now I am lost. If you are running PWM, then you surely need ALL
bits for a compare, so the granularity should be 7.8ns, and
smallest pulse is 7.8ns

No, you can run a 16 bit counter at 32 MHz, and when you get the
compare/match you add the resolution using a 2 bit counter running at 128
MHz.
I don't know exactly how it is implemented, so it might be done
in a different manner.

If your system is doing that, I'd call that a 128MHz, 16 bit counter.
ie able to sync count and do 16 bit compare, at 128Mhz

- or are you saying that is not the
case with the xmega, when PWM clocked at 128Mhz ?


Q: Can it hook into the Event System at that speed ?



The event system is clocked at 32 MHz.

OK. So that makes a 100MHz NXP device (with 32 bit timers), 3 times as
precise.

Yes.

-jg

--
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 19 okt, 19:35, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 15 okt, 13:18, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Since you seem to be planning on building a valve amplifier for your
guitar, you presumably don't have a clear idea of what you are doing.

On the contrary, you Bill are as usual the one without a clue.

More of Graham's usual clueless abuse. He's snipped what I wrote -
without marking the snip - thus attempting to make it appear that my
own comment is as gratuitious and unsupported as his own, rather than
the conclusion of the kind of logical argument that he appears to be
incapable of constructing.

You are both blowhards.

Since John Larkin advertises his own brilliance on a fairly regular
basis, not to mention the brilliance of the products he designs and
sells, he qualifies as a fairly impressive blowhard on his own
account.

You talk about how smart you are, or used to
be, with zero evidence.

Even Eeyore has been known to identify stuff that he has designed, and
I've pointed to stuff that I've designed from time to time. John
Larkin presumably doesn't consider this evidence that that we are - or
were ever - smart since he seems to think that his designs are the
only schematics which could prove that the designer was clever, but
his claim of "zero evidence" is somewhat fatuous.

I will post the schematic of an original, probably unique, practical,
just-invented audio amp output stage topology if both of you will
agree to do the same.

Which means that John thinks he has invented something new and
exciting - again. If he spent a little more time learning about what
other people had done, he might waste a little less time boasting
about his latest reinvention of the wheel.

I'll take that for refusal. I suspect nobody is surprised.

I'd be surprised if Bill ever did anything 'useful'.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Robert Lacoste]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 48F8AE46.BEB2F973@hotmail.com...

Robert Lacoste wrote:

"Eeyore" a écrit

Me ? A PIC ? You must think I'm going mad !

No, it's for someone else I may work on a project with and he's into
PICs. He wants a little 8 pin jobbie with an onboard A-D. Currently
he's
looking at a 16F220 IIRC. That only has an 8 bit A-D.

I reckon we need 12 bits off the top of my head but 16 would be nice.

Any suggestions ? I'm totally unfamiliar with their range and he's off
on dog-sitting holiday for 2 weeks.

Why not a PSoC from Cypress ? You can implement a 14 bit ADC in its
analog
configurable blocs, and there are 8-pin devices in the family.

You mean semi-custom ?

We don't have those quantities.

No, the PSoC is a family of user-configurable mixed signal devices.
Somethink like a microcontroller plus an "analog fpga" in the same chip, and
as cheap as the majority of 8-bit micros. WIth the PSoC-Designer tool you
can simply drag & drop blocks like ADC, PGA, filters, etc. Give it a try...

Cheers,
Robert

 

On Oct 17, 6:13 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Damon Hill"



The vexation I experienced with low-level distortion measurements
with the few designs I could measure with a Tektronix set was that
noise predominated the measurements.  I'm not an engineer, and
design for low noise to match distortion levels is beyond me...
as is the price of an AP system.

** It can be very useful to have a digital storage scope when measuring THD
residuals.

Most digital scopes have an "averaging" feature, so as long as you have the
time-base locked to the fundamental, the harmonic residual signal will add
to itself as many times as the scope allows while noise and any AC supply
harmonics tend to disappear from the trace as they are not correlated to the
fundamental sine wave.

Nowadays, many folk like to use a PC with a 24/96 sound card and FFT to do a
spectrum analysis -  makes harmonics stand out like dogs balls.

But at such low distortion levels, is it worth it?

** Better ask someone like Halcro ( an Aussie manufacturer).

http://www.halcro.com/home.asp

They have been making a fortune selling $40,000 amps with 0.0005 % THD to
New York's fattest & dopiest Jews.

......   Phil

Or just feed the residual to a DSA. While it is interesting to see
what harmonics are present, looking at the residual relative to the
source is probably more useful. For instance, if the residual error
gets large at the crossover, you know where to tweak. The residual
could also get large at the peaks if the output stage is not beefy, or
some current source is out of compliance on large swings.

 

[David Brown]

krw wrote:

In article <6m187dFee7g6U1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...
krw wrote:
In article <6luv1iFe90meU1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...
JeffM wrote:
The official launch is Oct 13, but you can download it now.
http://distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/#extmirrors

For those of you struggling with folks sending you crap
saved in M$'s new lock-in/lockout file formats, here's the good news:

-- New stuff --
Can open files from M$Office 2007, Office 2008 for OS X
(.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.)

1024 Columns Per Sheet (was 256)
-- Excel 2007 will do 16,384 ! (x 1,048,576 !)

Support for (ISO standard) OpenDocument Format 1.2 (ODF)

Runs under OS X without X11

...and OOo has had some VBA support for a while now.

More details:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/
Just downloaded it.
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.
Because, unless you are doing trivial work, it isn't compatible with
the other 99.9% who would rather pay for software.

We've been using a mix of OOo (mostly the <http://go-oo.org/> version at
the moment) and MS Office at my company since OOo was still Star Office.
There are still a few machines that have MS Office, which is useful
for the odd difficult document (sometimes there are layout issues when
importing MS documents with complex tables or numbering, and word
documents with embedded excel spreadsheets don't work). But it's been a
good while since we bought any new MS Office licenses. We choose OOo
for a number of reasons:

It's a standard, and it uses standard document formats.

It's better than newer MS Office for working with older MS Office documents.

It works on any machine, any OS, any Windows version, any service pack.

We can upgrade when as and when *we* want, not when some other company
dictates. And the upgrade is independent of everything else on the system.

We don't have to install "security updates", or worry about macro
viruses (the only viruses we've had at our company were macro viruses).

We don't have to suffer a f***ed up software update system that can lock
up a PC for hours during automatic MS Office updates even though updates
were explicitly turned off.

We can work together with our customers and partners that use OOo as
well as those that use MS Office.

We can freely mix and match languages for the interface and for
dictionaries.

We can export to pdf directly from OOo, giving much better pdf's than
you can get from MS Office + Acrobat Distiller, much faster.

Employees can install OOo freely, legally, safely, and easily on their
home machines.

Oh, and it's free.

Even if OOo and MS Office were the same price, I'd still prefer OOo. I
have a number of licenses for MS Office (or at least MS Word) that came
"free" with PCs over the years - I've never bothered installing them.

Well, a number of governments think different.
^ly

So? The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$. It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.

And the way I heard it, it is MS who has been forced into compatibility
with ODF

Nonsense. M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.

You might have a typo there, but it's true that MS Office has poor
compatibility with older MS Office versions!

MS certainly don't *care* about compatibility with anything non-MS. But
they *do* care about large markets. ODF is an ISO standard, and is the
mandated standard for steadily more governments and official bodies
around the world. OOXML is a flop - MS are aware of how badly they
messed it up, and what a PR failure it was. The continuing process of
ISO ratification serves only to destroy ISO's reputation - it will not
make OOXML a real standard. Added to this, the OOXML quasi-standard at
ISO is not the same as the OOXML used by the latest MS Office versions.
In fact, MS sees it as easier to implement ODF support than to support
ISO-OOXML (perhaps because the former is a proper specified and
documented format). MS has made a tactical withdrawal on formats, and
wants people to standardise on ODF using MS Office (once they've got the
next version out, of course).

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:33:57 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <8nvmf41hijet6j43l5obl6rd10qi6v0trr@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:45:04 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <nkvjf4trobgl87otc4ocooacallg3mob86@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:12?am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution

It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.

At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...

Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories. :-0

$5 fee EACH MONTH for EACH hard line phone in the country amounts to
several hundred million dollars a month. Likely for all the air phones
too.

Their operating costs are not several hundred million dollars a month.

Phone lines are free? You really do have a warped sense of
economics.

The phone lines are not operated by the FCC, idiot.

I didn't say they were, Dimmie.

The monthly fees I refer to are the FCC charges.

So what?

That is completely separate from the charges the folks that own the
lines have.

No one said anything about any "fees", Dimbulb.

I did, you fucking retard, in the post you responded to!

 

[Juergen Beisert]

backon@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:

I'm in clinical research at a large medical school and a technician
who has designed a device for us needs help.

He's working with a FTDI UM245R USB development
module with a Microchip PIC microprocessor to input
ADC data to a Windows XP pc. The PIC chip, after initializing
handshaking with the UM245R, just dumps data to the port.
The USB port is configured as a serial port COM3. It worked OK
on a breadboard circuit, but now in a hard wired circuit, after
registering the USB port, the USB port shows only CTS (clear to send)
and null characters. What could the problem be?

I'm using the FT245BM FIFO. This device has an ugly behaviour. After each
byte you have to check the "FIFO Empty" (TXE#) line. But this line changes
its state about 300...500ns after the last byte was written! If you check
the line immediately after you have written a byte, and its low (=space
left in FIFO) the next byte you write will be lost! You must wait until
this line changes to high and then low again for each byte!

jbe

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Juergen Beisert wrote:

backon@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
I'm in clinical research at a large medical school and a technician
who has designed a device for us needs help.

He's working with a FTDI UM245R USB development
module with a Microchip PIC microprocessor to input
ADC data to a Windows XP pc. The PIC chip, after initializing
handshaking with the UM245R, just dumps data to the port.
The USB port is configured as a serial port COM3. It worked OK
on a breadboard circuit, but now in a hard wired circuit, after
registering the USB port, the USB port shows only CTS (clear to send)
and null characters. What could the problem be?

I'm using the FT245BM FIFO. This device has an ugly behaviour. After each
byte you have to check the "FIFO Empty" (TXE#) line. But this line changes
its state about 300...500ns after the last byte was written! If you check
the line immediately after you have written a byte, and its low (=space
left in FIFO) the next byte you write will be lost! You must wait until
this line changes to high and then low again for each byte!

jbe

Thanks for that tip!

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:25:41 -0700) it happened Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
<peQKk.5818$Ws1.5360@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
The free spaces between US digital TV stations can now be used for wireless services.
In spite of failed tests ;-)

In German:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/US-Regulierer-will-den-Weissen-Raum-oeffnen--/meldung/117556


That has been around since a long time. Our church uses wireless mikes
as a secondary UHF user. Of course we made sure that this doesn't bother
anyone. Love thy neighbor

DTV is a whole 'nother ballgame. It falls apart every other night around
here. And when it goes then most of the channels turn into a blocky
Picasso, not just one.

Now those wireless sets, that do not have a good antenna,
may decide there is no station at your digital TV transmitter's frequency,
and output some watts at that frequency, killing your last TV.
Or just next to it will likely do too.
They talk about sets with GPS and a list of transmitters for that location,
but that could consider 175 miles to be too far away...

I really think satellite is the only solution in large areas.
Here even the locals are on satellite these days.
It would probably be cheaper to rent some sat channel then build all
those transmitters, from a broadcaster POV.
And everybody needs to buy a converter anyways, may as well be a sat box.
In the big cities cable perhaps.
Would be good if the Americans could watch some other countries too,
might prevent confusion about their intentions, as in Iraq.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:47 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<7hpnf4tmvbjbies94aa7gb8obubrg2se2u@4ax.com>:>

Which means that John thinks he has invented something new and
exciting - again. If he spent a little more time learning about what
other people had done, he might waste a little less time boasting
about his latest reinvention of the wheel.


I'll take that for refusal. I suspect nobody is surprised.

John

But I still would like to see your design

 

On 20 okt, 08:33, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On 19 okt, 19:35, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 15 okt, 13:18, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

   I'd be surprised if Bill ever did anything 'useful'.

Mike isn't really equipped to know - like most good technicians, he's
convinced that he knows everything there is to know about the limited
range of stuff he actually got to work on, and doesn't know much about
electronics outside that rather specialised area.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On 20 okt, 02:59, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 12, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why are so many Americans so stupid ?

UK is 50 years ahead of us down the sewer
of socialism... now let us discuss further
this matter of intelligence...

"The sewer of socialism"?

RichD seems to be another American who has been suckered into thinking
that socialism is a bad thing.

Anytime now he will be telling us that socialism is a stalking horse
for communism (a delusion that the Communist Party has never shared)
which is an old-established lie put about by rich employers who object
to having to pay the same wages to everybody doing the same work,
amongst a bunch of other socialist practices which interfere with the
employers god-given right to brow-beat their employees into working
for starvation wages when the work is needed, and to toss them out to
starve when business goes off the boil.

Modern socialsim, as practiced in western Europe, isn't all that
wonderful, but it does seem to work somewhat better than Dubbya's free-
market capitalism - Dubbya is copying Gordon Brown's rescue plan to
save the world financial institutions from the mess created by the
collapse of the American sub-prime mortgage bubble, which does suggest
that there is some useful shit flow along the "sewer of socialism".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On 20 okt, 04:00, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 19 okt, 19:35, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 15 okt, 13:18, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Since you seem to be planning on building a valve amplifier for your
guitar, you presumably don't have a clear idea of what you are doing.

On the contrary, you Bill are as usual the one without a clue.

More of Graham's usual clueless abuse. He's snipped what I wrote -
without marking the snip - thus attempting to make it appear that my
own comment is as gratuitious and unsupported as his own, rather than
the conclusion of the kind of logical argument that he appears to be
incapable of constructing.

You are both blowhards.

Since John Larkin advertises his own brilliance on a fairly regular
basis, not to mention the brilliance of the products he designs and
sells, he qualifies as a fairly impressive blowhard on his own
account.

You talk about how smart you are, or used to
be, with zero evidence.

Even Eeyore has been known to identify stuff that he has designed, and
I've pointed to stuff that I've designed from time to time. John
Larkin presumably doesn't consider this evidence that that we are - or
were ever  - smart  since he seems to think that his designs are the
only schematics which could prove that the designer was clever, but
his claim of "zero evidence" is somewhat fatuous.

I will post the schematic of an original, probably unique, practical,
just-invented audio amp output stage topology if both of you will
agree to do the same.

Which means that John thinks he has invented something new and
exciting - again. If he spent a little more time  learning about what
other people had done, he might waste a little less time boasting
about his latest reinvention of the wheel.

I'll take that for refusal. I suspect nobody is surprised.

Why should they be? So John Larkin has thought up a "new" audio output
stage topology and wants an opportunity to boast about it. Why should
I be interested in giving him an excuse to show off?

I've though up a low distortion (less than 0.1%) variation on the
Baxandall class D oscillator. Is he going to volunteer to come up with
something better?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

In article <48fc31bc$0$25384$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>,
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...

krw wrote:
In article <6m187dFee7g6U1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...
krw wrote:
In article <6luv1iFe90meU1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...
JeffM wrote:
The official launch is Oct 13, but you can download it now.
http://distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/#extmirrors

For those of you struggling with folks sending you crap
saved in M$'s new lock-in/lockout file formats, here's the good news:

-- New stuff --
Can open files from M$Office 2007, Office 2008 for OS X
(.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.)

1024 Columns Per Sheet (was 256)
-- Excel 2007 will do 16,384 ! (x 1,048,576 !)

Support for (ISO standard) OpenDocument Format 1.2 (ODF)

Runs under OS X without X11

...and OOo has had some VBA support for a while now.

More details:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/
Just downloaded it.
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.
Because, unless you are doing trivial work, it isn't compatible with
the other 99.9% who would rather pay for software.

We've been using a mix of OOo (mostly the <http://go-oo.org/> version at
the moment) and MS Office at my company since OOo was still Star Office.
There are still a few machines that have MS Office, which is useful
for the odd difficult document (sometimes there are layout issues when
importing MS documents with complex tables or numbering, and word
documents with embedded excel spreadsheets don't work).

So you admit that OOo is incompatible with complicated M$O
applications, particularly Excel spreadsheets.

But it's been a
good while since we bought any new MS Office licenses. We choose OOo
for a number of reasons:

Irrelevant.

It's a standard, and it uses standard document formats.

It may use "standard" formats, but it is most certainly *not* a
standard. In particular Calc is really messed up.

It's better than newer MS Office for working with older MS Office documents.

Only if you have no clue what you're doing with M$O. OOo has horrid
spreadsheet compatibility (the main reason I cannot use it).

It works on any machine, any OS, any Windows version, any service pack.

Equally badly.

We can upgrade when as and when *we* want, not when some other company
dictates. And the upgrade is independent of everything else on the system.

I'm still using Office '97 (and OOo) at home and '03 at work. No
one is forcing me to "upgrade".

We don't have to install "security updates", or worry about macro
viruses (the only viruses we've had at our company were macro viruses).

You're lucky. Of course macros are a pretty important feature for
anyone using Excel for more than lists.

We don't have to suffer a f***ed up software update system that can lock
up a PC for hours during automatic MS Office updates even though updates
were explicitly turned off.

Office doesn't force updates on me. Windows does (and that can be
turned off), but no office updates. At work, updates (to Windows)
are done at night. The automatic reboot pisses me off, but...

We can work together with our customers and partners that use OOo as
well as those that use MS Office.

Only if your customers are simpletons.

We can freely mix and match languages for the interface and for
dictionaries.

We can export to pdf directly from OOo, giving much better pdf's than
you can get from MS Office + Acrobat Distiller, much faster.

There are many PDF printers available, beer-free.

Employees can install OOo freely, legally, safely, and easily on their
home machines.

Oh, and it's free.

Free isn't a very useful feature if it doesn't work. OOo Calc is
brain-dead.

Even if OOo and MS Office were the same price, I'd still prefer OOo. I
have a number of licenses for MS Office (or at least MS Word) that came
"free" with PCs over the years - I've never bothered installing them.


Well, a number of governments think different.
^ly

So? The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$. It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.

And the way I heard it, it is MS who has been forced into compatibility
with ODF

Nonsense. M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.


You might have a typo there, but it's true that MS Office has poor
compatibility with older MS Office versions!

No, I don't have a typo there. I have *no* love for M$. In this
case, there is no good alternative (to Excel).

MS certainly don't *care* about compatibility with anything non-MS. But
they *do* care about large markets. ODF is an ISO standard, and is the
mandated standard for steadily more governments and official bodies
around the world. OOXML is a flop - MS are aware of how badly they
messed it up, and what a PR failure it was. The continuing process of
ISO ratification serves only to destroy ISO's reputation - it will not
make OOXML a real standard. Added to this, the OOXML quasi-standard at
ISO is not the same as the OOXML used by the latest MS Office versions.
In fact, MS sees it as easier to implement ODF support than to support
ISO-OOXML (perhaps because the former is a proper specified and
documented format). MS has made a tactical withdrawal on formats, and
wants people to standardise on ODF using MS Office (once they've got the
next version out, of course).

<sheesh>

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <shfof49llt5jtn6vujhisn749oi2n0lqv6@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:33:57 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <8nvmf41hijet6j43l5obl6rd10qi6v0trr@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:45:04 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <nkvjf4trobgl87otc4ocooacallg3mob86@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:12?am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution

It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.

At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...

Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories. :-0

$5 fee EACH MONTH for EACH hard line phone in the country amounts to
several hundred million dollars a month. Likely for all the air phones
too.

Their operating costs are not several hundred million dollars a month.

Phone lines are free? You really do have a warped sense of
economics.

The phone lines are not operated by the FCC, idiot.

I didn't say they were, Dimmie.

The monthly fees I refer to are the FCC charges.

So what?

That is completely separate from the charges the folks that own the
lines have.

No one said anything about any "fees", Dimbulb.

I did, you fucking retard, in the post you responded to!

Do you always have to repeat yourself, Dimbulb? (rhetorical
question).

--
Keith