Driver to drive?

[Dbowey]

John Fields posted:

<< Subject: Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
From: John Fields jfields@austininstruments.com
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2005 7:38 AM
Message-id: <dm2iv09gu5li6713lvtot1p3sjnc549sg1@4ax.com>

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:22:50 -0700, uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <9oYJd.131944$f47.23183@news.easynews.com>, on 01/27/05
at 02:31 AM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:
Unfortunately it doesn't work. With the universe there came time,
according to current scientific understanding (I think this is
logically proven?). So if we step outside of time there can be no
universe.

That doesn't even make sense. Time is an entity created by the universe,
not the other way around.

The universe doesn't know jack about time. Time is something that man
invented so he would know when to eat and get up in the morning.

---
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

And some day time will stop again and new space and time (in retrospect) will
begin again so we can attempt to improve on the previous time around. Perhaps
we will come out of the slop with a proclivity for multiple brains.

Don

 

[John Larkin]

He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more sophisticated
palate ....

Gosh, Jim, your palate has just been called a redneck. Those eurodudes
are all as sophisticated as a French whore. I bet your heart is just
plum broken... better have a drink.

John

Hey, Jim, do you drink Pinot Noir? Or is it too wimpy for you?
Somebody gave us a bottle of Leaping Horse '02 (from Lodi, CA,
wherever the hell that is) and Mo and I agree it's the most delicious
wine we ever tasted. I'm scouting around for more.

 

[not_keith]

As a Christian (and an Engineer, yes not ALL science orientated people
are atheists - we just cann't spell), I have to ask.... Have you
looked at the subject heading for this forum?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:59:19 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

I'd also replace the NPN with a PNP, and put the relay from its
collector to ground. That way, if the chip fails it doesn't fail
with the relay energized.

Who says? The '05 output cannot fail short?

OK, but I'd still fall back on personal preference. It's a gut-feeling
sort of thing.

Otherwise, just replace the '05 with an '06 and put the relay
from output to +5, as others have said.

The OP wants to know how to adapt an '05, and, what is more, his
original circuit description was for a load which would turn "off" when
the '05 input went HIGH. The PNP makes the IN->RELAY STATE
non-inverting using positive logic.

OK, I missed that one.

while hacking Fred's art, I saw that the 120R was in series with
the diode. I wouldn't have done that either. ;-)

This is a speed-up resistor used to put 2x Vcc across the relay
magnetizing inductance at turn-off. The main advantage is more pull
power to break the contact.

Well, I learned something today. Guess I can go back to bed! ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[not_keith]

God said it, I believe it and that's all there is to it! NOW can we
"talk" about leakage current or something besides religon!

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <10vh0vlo9igof81@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

years, but it's a consistent, even green -- the only fingerprints are on
the back panels which are (a) removable and (b) not taped.

Clear paint would probably also work, assuming you're careful about not
painting the parts that are supposed to connect.

How about getting it gold plated?

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[WayneL]

A very good freeware package that I have used for several years is Eagle
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/
You can either get support from Eagles good news group or the Yahoo group I
setup located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eaglecad/

Cheers

Wayne


"Jim Douglas" <james.douglas@genesis-software.com> wrote in message
news:OLWdnd51_bj0gk3cRVn-1Q@comcast.com...

I am looking for something basic to use at home for small projects. I have
downloaded a few examples, PCB Wizard I like, Eagle Layout Editor seems
too
much. Has anyone used the PCB Wizard product? Any other recommendations?

I am also using the student version of CircuitMaker, which is GREAT! I
understand at one time it had with it a product "TraxMaker"? but sure
can't
find it in the version I have?

Thanks!
Jim Douglas

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:24:24 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
news:35rbjeF4m26cfU1@individual.net...

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.27.03.17.42.591552@att.bizzzz...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:45:53 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:

Too early. No, I am simply reiterating the facts, in case you're too
stupid
to grok 'em the first time around....

I got your shallow insult the first time around (must have taken you all
night). It is amazing that such shallowness can come from a 48W twat.

--
Keith

Are you and Fields the same individual?

Same difference. Two puds inna pod.

---
Not in _yer_ pod...

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:01:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:38:34 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:


He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more sophisticated
palate ....


Gosh, Jim, your palate has just been called a redneck. Those eurodudes
are all as sophisticated as a French whore. I bet your heart is just
plum broken... better have a drink.

Who was it that impugned my tastes? I didn't see the original
message.

I guess you plonked him. B*** S*****.

John

 

[Charles Schuler]

Honestly having checked out details of world religions, only Christianity
can withstand the scrutiny of science.

Ummm, the scientific method won't work here. One can't conduct any
experiments.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <61oiv0hjecpdjs6ddc5qs8n3o30aoug2mj@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:04:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:01:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:38:34 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:


He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more sophisticated
palate ....


Gosh, Jim, your palate has just been called a redneck. Those eurodudes
are all as sophisticated as a French whore. I bet your heart is just
plum broken... better have a drink.

Who was it that impugned my tastes? I didn't see the original
message.


I guess you plonked him. B*** S*****.

John

Oh? You mean, B*** "Limp Dick" S*****?

He's even more impotent than F***k B******n

Must be a Netherlands thing ;-)

It's hard to breathe underwater.

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:44:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:04:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:01:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:38:34 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:


He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more sophisticated
palate ....


Gosh, Jim, your palate has just been called a redneck. Those eurodudes
are all as sophisticated as a French whore. I bet your heart is just
plum broken... better have a drink.

Who was it that impugned my tastes? I didn't see the original
message.


I guess you plonked him. B*** S*****.

John

Oh? You mean, B*** "Limp Dick" S*****?

He's even more impotent than F***k B******n

Must be a Netherlands thing ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Consider:

Bill Sloman
Fred Bloggs

Here, we have

4 letters + 6 letters

BLO ... SLO

Double-l, double-g


Then, for

Bill Sloman
Frank Bemelman
Fred Bloggs

Here, we see the 'F.B' and 'man' themes again.

These are all obviously the same guy.


John

 

[Kevin]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:11:49 GMT, Mac <foo@bar.net> wrote:

I like the idea of using Cat5 with RJ-45 or RJ-11. One thing you should
know is that you can plug a regular telephone cord into an RJ-45 socket.

Really? Never tried this... interesting!

This is what we do where I work (I mean the telephone jacks are RJ-45,
but we plug regular phone cords into them). So you could terminate the
CAT5 network in regular RJ-45 wall plates, and then go from the wall to
the RJ-11 in your device with ordinary telephone cords. You might want to
use the inner two wires for ground, and use the outer two wires for your
signal. This will avoid any conflict if someone plugs the cable into a
telephone. It would still allow the possibility of someone plugging a
laptop into the wall, but only if they have their own patch cord.

Thanks. I will test this myself. But is it reliable? (after all the
RJ45 jack is larger than a RJ11 connector, so doesn't the RJ11
connector shift around or can potentially move while in the jack,
possibly breaking the connection?) What happens if someone pulls on
the RJ11 cable while inside the RJ45 jack? Does it pull out relatively
easily or sticks in the jack and the connector rips off the cable
first?

Here's another question: are there such things as *surface mounted*
RJ45 jacks (instead of wall plates)? By this I don't mean "surface
mount" as in "DIP vs SMT" package but RJ45 jacks that come in a
similar box like modular telephone boxes that can be screwed down to
any surface?

And how about topology? The recommended topology for RS485 is a bus,
but in the real world connections can sometimes be more conveniently
made if one uses a star topology (which from most RS485
documention/app notes discourages). How do you run RS485 in the real
world where things can be moved around somewhat and you need to have
some flexibility to rearrange cable as needed?

 

[Kryten]

<snip OT>

I like the odd humorous/interesting aside as much as the next guy but if it
is totally OT (like welsh place names, religion etc) then please converse
directly.
Or start another thread with [OT] in it (a lesser evil).

Otherwise people who might have a relevant useful comment about electronics
design jobs, or places that are worth doing such a job in, may tag this
thread as ignored.

Thanks in advance.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:02:55 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Bush unfazed by UK protest plans
Bush unfazed by 'loving women' gaffe
Bush unfazed by criticism
Bush unfazed by falling car rental taxes, Orlando hotel closings
Bush unfazed as absence of WMDs confirmed
Bush unfazed by criticism, believes WMD search has just begun
Bush unfazed by death toll (this blunt title has been hidden by The
Herald Sun)
Bush unfazed as US toll in Iraq tops 1,000
Bush unfazed by spineless pundits, UN

Gosh Fred, you sure sound fazed.

Did you listen to, or even better read, his Inaugural address? You
have two choices:

1. Believe he means this and that it's possible.

or

2. Believe in nothing. In that case, he's a winner and you're a loser,
and that's OK because only power matters and the world has always
been, and will always be, a miserable mess. Tough luck about those
kids in Africa.

I can, I think, accurately predict which members of this NG will
choose which option.

In that last article, writer Cal Thomas hails Mr. Bush's unfazed stance,
"The president neither retreated nor apologized for the war or his claim
that Hussein possessed WMDs." This "no regrets" policy requires the
"unfazed" strategy (which likely came from GOP advisors) wherein
conscience is banished. GWB's guilt-free indifference has become a fad,
adopted by all manner of people – from prime ministers to torturers.

Cal is a bit intense. Peggy Noonan really hit the nail on the head. Or
in the head. Whatever.

John

 

[Parse Tree]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <10vhe15ah3hi8ad@corp.supernews.com>, on 01/27/05
at 01:04 AM, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> said:
I was a fool to get involved. It is completely irrational to get into
religious debates in forums such as this.

It was never a religious debate, it was about trying to convince a child
that he does not know what the definition of evidence is.

You see, to Kevin, evidence is something that supports his point of view.

Evidence is something that can be examined by two people and does not
materially change.

Anything that puts his opinion in jeopardy, or causes his conclusions to
be proven false, is not evidence.

His opinions are correct because they're based on evidence. Your
opinions are not based on evidence, and that's why evidence constantly
shows that you are incorrect.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:46:36 -0800, larwe wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Because science is fallible, and admits it - whereas religions are
fallible, and do not admit it.

Wait a minute. You just admitted it - religions are fallible.
Religions

(lots of miscellaneous god-bollocks snipped).

You missed the point, of course. I am not religious. I *stated* that
religions are fallible (this is not an "admission" of anything).
Religions do not admit fallibility. The Catholic Pope is a perfect
example of this: reality is defined by what he says, not the other way
around.

Yeah, well, Kevin Aylward believes in his own infallibility, that doesn't
mean I don't believe he exists!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Parse Tree wrote:

All things logical are necessarily bound by logic. If something is
proven by logic to be logically impossible, then it is logically
impossible. Logic not applying cannot change that fact.

Then it is logically impossible to apply logic to an all powerful being,
something that by definition cannot be bound by logic.

Except it isn't logically impossible, because I just did it. It
demonstrated the non-existence of god.

Because it invalidates the completeness theorem and thus creates a
contradiction. Ergo, the being cannot exist.

theˇoˇrem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thr-m, thîrm)
n.

1. An idea that has been demonstrated as true or is assumed to be so
demonstrable.
2. Mathematics. A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the
basis of explicit assumptions.

Did you intend to put more information here?

1. There may or may not exist an all powerful being.
2. To prove something with logic it must be assumed that logic binds
the subject.

I'm not proving the existence of it, I'm proving the nonexistence.

But that doesn't speak to MY proof.

Your 'proof' isn't a proof. I have already pointed out the incorrect
premise, and thus your proof is invalidated.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:35:15 -0800, Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Lighten up people - every nutter is comvinced of their own
righteousness, and if we could just kill all the non believers in our
particular version of God, then all would be OK. At least, thats the
promise........

If we started doing that, then pretty soon everybody that wasn't dead
would be blind and toothless...

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:59:08 -0800, Noah Roberts wrote:

This can also answer questions about why we cry when we are not in
physical pain. The body cannot deal with the whole power of what 'I'
am (yes, a rather romantic notion I grant you). There are other
examples to support this, the application chi is one. Of course you
have already suggested you do not believe in chi...but that doesn't
stop me from using it or manipulating it in another person.

Dude, where are you at? I could use some assistance with my chi. Are
you anywhere near LA?

Thanks,
Rich