Driver to drive?

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:11:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

You are describing cigarettes. They kill over 8,000 Americans a week,
in a most gruesome and painful manner.

Does Marlboro still run those 'cowboy' ads in the US? I haven't seen
any here in l'l Britland for some years.

I thought cigarette adverts were now illegal in England ?

Gibbo

 

[Reg Edwards]

- - - and next year it will be Tehrehan. Then Pyongyang. Then - - - !

 

[CFoley1064]

Subject: Detecting currents less than one femtoamp?
From: "Greysky" greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net
Date: 10/5/2004 3:54 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <hjt8d.6675$nj.2550@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com

Anyone know of a reliable way of detecting currents less than one femtoamp
i.e. 1X10^-16 amp full-scale? I figure to perhaps use some instrumentation
amps air wired (no pc board) but have not had much luck getting reliable
readings below about a nano amp - and at this scale, even an accidental
breath can leave a film on the chip that creates a current path that swamps
the signal I am looking for.... some have suggested using lots of acetone
for cleaning the circuits, and using silver (or even gold) solder... others
have suggested measuring for resistance and figuring it from there.... I get
the feeling low current designs seem to be more an art than a science. Any
hints, pointers, or guffaws appreciated. Thanks

Greysky

Go to the National Semiconductor site, and look up Bob Pease's article, "What's
all this femtoamp stuff, anyway?" A lot of the practical stuff is right there.

Good luck
Chris

 

[Fred Bloggs]

xray wrote:

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:14:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:


You seem to have missed the point. The 2004 election is not Kerry vs
Bush, it is a coalition against Bush. Everyone wants Bush out of office,
and there is only a shrinking minority of followers who won't let go of
him despite all evidence that they should. The latest poll from
Massachusetts, American Research Group Sept 10, is Kerry:64 Bush:27. The
national election results will not be far from this figure. There are
many fraudulent polls by Gallup, Strategic Research, and other
disreputable firms who have been skewing the results for political
purposes-especially in the battleground states. MSNBC just fired one of
them and said they will not be conducting any more polls.



"Fred",

I hope you are right this time. If so, you can start to be more
lower-key on the subject.

Myself, I am not convinced of the optimistic shift you give for trend
away from votes for Bush. Logic tells me it makes sense, but logic
evades most of my fellow Americans.

I think the first debate had a big effect. If your scenario ain't true
yet, I hope the coming debate does as much as the previous one to show
Bush as a buffoon. There is still time for many voters to wake up if
they pay attention.

If Bush does somehow get re-elected I may need to think of another
country in which to live. I welcome any suggestions for a place that
might better survive the coming turmoil, and isn't totally disconnected
from the civilization that I know?

Not to worry- it is a mathematical certainty that if the election was
held today Bush would lose. The reason is due to the historical record
of challenging incumbents. The pre-election polling results for the
incumbent *always* represent a ceiling on percentage of votes, and the
polling results for the challenger *always* represent a floor for his
percentage votes. That the polls indicate a dead heat is an indicator
that Kerry would win by as much as a ten point spread in the election.
The Bush campaign strategists knew they were in trouble from the start,
there was no record of achievements to brag about, they would have to
divert attention away from that with a massive character assassination
of the opponent- and that is exactly what they have done. Well that is
very 'old' by now- and they committed suicide in the debates, because
after all the Bush slander about Kerry, there was the 'expectation' that
Kerry would be this weak, wishy-washy, uncertain, wimp who would be
thoroughly crushed by the 'strong" Bush- a man with strong conviction
and certain purpose. 65 million Americans saw the direct opposite, Kerry
was knowledgeable, strong, and firm; and it was Bush who ran out of
talking points, employed a lot of repetition that nearly amounted to
blither, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge and rationale for
supporting his actions- Bush was on the defensive all the way and looked
as if he wasn't even convincing to himself- falling back on cheap
campaign slogans inappropriate for the serious debate most Americans
expected. So the debate exposed a large portion of the Bush campaign as
the fraud that it is, among other things. The evidence is in that Bush
is more likely than not to have committed the high crime of falsifying
intelligence data for Congress so that he could act in direct violation
of the law giving him authority to invade Iraq. This is called an
*indictment*- it remains to be formalized. This was another Bush
deception during the debates when he said Kerry saw the same
intelligence data Bush saw. This is NOT true. No one except Bush saw the
legitimate internal intelligence dissent against the final intelligence
reports- that information was withheld- Congress only saw the doctored
reports- the reports that were intended to deceive Congress and the
American people. Therefore it is another lie for Bush to say anyone saw
the 'same' intelligence data he saw- a deliberate lie, a lie with no
other purpose except to continue to deceive America.

 

[John Todd]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in news:qGZ
$nVMQpXYBFwrm@jmwa.demon.co.uk:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote (in <rKa8d.4134$eq1.3864@trnddc08&gt about 'Is this antenna
article serious?', on Mon, 4 Oct 2004:


I thought you meant that there was a specific reference to a Bussard
ramjet.

For a really great story concerning a Bussard engine,
read Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"!

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:06:56 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


The final analysis of Patriot in that war is that it did not bring
down a single Scud. Even if it had, it would have served only to
spread the damage - it was trying to intercept in entirely the wrong
part of the flight.


Since the SCUD has something like a 500 mile range, which part of the
trajectory could you use? The mental midgets seem to have no clue, the
SCUD is just a big piece of inaccurate junk, optimized for throw range
and de-optimized for accuracy- it is a civilian terror weapon to be
lobbed into a broad urban area, it is worthless against military
targets. In order to disintegrate the SCUD in flight- you would need a
direct penetrating hit with a smart fuse to detonate from within- or a
hellatious external blast from the exterior but close by- perturbing the
trajectory is not an option- you are talking nukes.



I'm not saying there was anywhere else an interception could occur -
just that the damage caused by a Scud was largely that of something
big and heavy falling on a town, and breaking it into several big and
heavy pieces would only make the net damage worse - not better.

As for Patriot, I understand its prime role was as an airborne
incursion interceptor - ie planes flying at reasonable speed in a flat
trajectory. You couldn't imagine anything much further from its
intended profile than a Scud.

Most of the real damage to Scuds was done by SAS (and I guess Ranger)
teams going into territory and destroying them on the ground.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

The SCUD launch sites should have been bombed to pieces- using ground
teams, operatives to illuminate them. This would be more effective than
a ground combat team.

 

[John Fields]

On 5 Oct 2004 05:19:04 -0700, johankarremans@hotmail.com (Johan
Karremans) wrote:

Can somebody tell me what the substitute ic is from ic 74LS173.

Depends on what you're trying to do.

--
John Fields

 

[Scarfie]

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in news:bcm8d.4327$cd1.143@trnddc03:

On Monday 04 October 2004 12:17 pm, Scarfie did deign to grace us with
the following:

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in
news:QDg8d.5204$x65.3923@trnddc06:


Well, I have no idea how a DVD works, but if it's a data storage
medium, the data can be got out any way you want it, depending how
much hacking you want to do.

First, I need to drag my headbone into the 21st century - isn't a DVD
pretty much just a CD with an order of magnitude or so more storage?

Thanks,
Rich

Pretty much the same as CD. The only problem with getting the data out the
way we want it is hacking into the deck's OS or hardware to make it do what
it needs to do.

The system clock...the system clock...just need to override it with another
clock signal...

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 02 October 2004 07:26 pm, Charles W. Johson Jr. did deign to
grace us with the following:

Rich,
One passed to the left offerring your open unshielded side[0] to the
other
person. When pasing to the right your Shield meet his and was more
agressive.

Charles

[0] i.e., the side with the bared sword, from context.

How do you figure that presenting a shield is "more aggressive" than
brandishing a sword? Ya gonna push him off his horse? That's a very sick way
of looking at things, you know.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 04 October 2004 07:46 pm, ranmyaku did deign to grace us with the
following:

I am looking for a way to control small voltages (0-5v) remotly using
my PC and WiFi if possible. Does anyone know of such a product, or of
how to build one mysef (writing software isn't a problem)? Thanks.

Sure. Just hang a DAC on a port somewhere.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net>
wrote (in <pIz8d.4727$Sl2.2910@trnddc09&gt about 'What does J-K in J-K
flip flop indicate?', on Tue, 5 Oct 2004:

I was assuming that the "R" was "Reset" and the "S" was "Set." But what
could "J" and "K" stand for?

Jog and Kick, of course. What do you think Q and Q-bar stand for? And
the D in D-type and the T in T-type.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:10:39 +0100, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:11:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

You are describing cigarettes. They kill over 8,000 Americans a week,
in a most gruesome and painful manner.

Does Marlboro still run those 'cowboy' ads in the US? I haven't seen
any here in l'l Britland for some years.

The original Marlboro cowboy actually died of lung cancer.

John

 

[Tim Wescott]

boki wrote:

Dear All,
I try to use many Bluetooth devices at the same time for my
PC/NB, when enable them individually, they will work good(The only no
good is sound quality of Bluetooth earphone). If I enable them all,
the mice move speed will drop down(like a mice taking stone) until I
stop another Bluetooth device, then the mice work normally.

The Bluetooth bandwidth is limited? or driver problem?

Best regards,
Boki.

Is it a Bluetooth mouse? Yes, any communications method, wireless or
otherwise has limited channel capacity. Bluetooth is no exception, and
has definite data rate limitations. I'm no expert, but there is most
likely also severe efficiency limitations imposed by it's
collision-detection scheme.

--

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 04 October 2004 08:11 pm, John Larkin did deign to grace us with
the following:

You are describing cigarettes. They kill over 8,000 Americans a week,
in a most gruesome and painful manner.

It figures that a bushist would be an antismokerist, as well. Just love
those newfangled religions, don't you John Larkin?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 05 October 2004 03:10 am, Paul Burridge did deign to grace us
with the following:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:11:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

You are describing cigarettes. They kill over 8,000 Americans a week,
in a most gruesome and painful manner.

Does Marlboro still run those 'cowboy' ads in the US? I haven't seen
any here in l'l Britland for some years.
--

There hasn't been a cigarette ad on TV in decades. The antismokerists,
like all religious fanatics, get to impose their dogma, but like a
cancer of the national psyche, they're never satisfied, they have to
keep thumping, and thumping, and thumping.

Hmmm. Maybe the cults are just sex substitutes.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 05 October 2004 08:04 am, John Larkin did deign to grace us with
the following:

You smoke, don't you?

And you're feeble-minded, aren't you?

Assigning blame does _not_ establish causality, but you people are in such
a deep trance you've lost all capacity for reason.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 05 October 2004 04:02 am, Reg Edwards did deign to grace us with
the following:

- - - and next year it will be Tehrehan. Then Pyongyang. Then - - -
!
Yeah, the drunken bully never learns from things like Ho Chi Minh City.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Hi Johan,

74HCT173?

TI has them but they are very expensive:

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/cd54hct173.html

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:55:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

On Monday 04 October 2004 08:11 pm, John Larkin did deign to grace us with
the following:

You are describing cigarettes. They kill over 8,000 Americans a week,
in a most gruesome and painful manner.


It figures that a bushist would be an antismokerist, as well. Just love
those newfangled religions, don't you John Larkin?

Please explain how that "figures." I hate smoking because it keeps
killing people I love.

John

 

[Clarence]

"xray" <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:auj4m090259b6nu2hoe0jkdqugbc3juli3@4ax.com...

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:14:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

You seem to have missed the point. The 2004 election is not Kerry vs
Bush, it is a coalition against Bush. Everyone wants Bush out of office,
and there is only a shrinking minority of followers who won't let go of
him despite all evidence that they should. The latest poll from
Massachusetts, American Research Group Sept 10, is Kerry:64 Bush:27. The
national election results will not be far from this figure. There are
many fraudulent polls by Gallup, Strategic Research, and other
disreputable firms who have been skewing the results for political
purposes-especially in the battleground states. MSNBC just fired one of
them and said they will not be conducting any more polls.


"Fred",

I hope you are right this time. If so, you can start to be more
lower-key on the subject.

Myself, I am not convinced of the optimistic shift you give for trend
away from votes for Bush. Logic tells me it makes sense, but logic
evades most of my fellow Americans.

I think the first debate had a big effect. If your scenario ain't true
yet, I hope the coming debate does as much as the previous one to show
Bush as a buffoon. There is still time for many voters to wake up if
they pay attention.

If Bush does somehow get re-elected I may need to think of another
country in which to live. I welcome any suggestions for a place that
might better survive the coming turmoil, and isn't totally disconnected
from the civilization that I know?

I usually do not see Fred's crap. Killfiled you know. SO your reply is the
first I have seen. He hasn't changed his song, nor got a clue.
Fred Boggs is FOS. The Polls show it "TOO CLOSE TO CALL" at this point.
He is simply trying, unsuccessfully, to show Bush being Bushwhacked by the
extreme left. It hasn't happened!

If your considering moving, pack your bags.