Driver to drive?

[Brian]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41F33459.9000101@nospam.com...

Brian wrote:
"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:0g36v0tksar1ruuh8ip70g2sum53ki9cm9@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:37 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs
nospam@nospam.com> wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:


When you get time, a bit more info on your web site would be better.

You can see he's a chicken farmer, this explains his Himmler-like views,
pusillanimous.

Wow. That's quite an insult.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/himmler.html


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com


Bloggs long ago proved himself an idiot. No need to have him do it again.

Yeah- yeah- sure I did. If that's you in the pic- you look like some kind
of semi farm animal/ humanoid thing- quite ugly- and who the hell says
there isn't RNA transfer with you people who live so close to the animals
the way you do. You're no surprise in the way of the type of complacent
imbecile who hews the Bush idiot-ology.

He proved it again!

No, alas, that is one of my engineers, Alan. He has more knowledge in
electronics and politics than not only you, but your entire family for 6
generations back, plus 6 more in the future, all inclusive.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

keith wrote:

The whatnot is that you puke neolibs couldn't get even your fool "women"
to get out and vote for your stuck-up Martha's Vineyard dweeb. There
was
no cheating. You couldn't get away with it (other than WA) this time.




http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe

Really the tactics used this time discust me and I don't see how any
halfway inteligent person can claim there was no cheating. There are
traitors who don't give a fuck about democracy running this country
and yes, they DID steal it this time just like last time.


No, I think it was far worse this time than it was last time.

The exit polling alone would have shown something as being amiss, but
all the other things together really makes for an overwhelming case.
Although the most incredible thing is that it's mostly ignored by the
conservative American media (aka all of the major networks and
newspapers in the US).

But of course the conservatives claim the media to be liberally biased.
I really don't see how they can believe so. What with it being spewed
forth that "values won this election" everywhere you turn. Who's damn
values?!? Since when is it a value to be a biggot, to hate your
neighbor and deny them their civil rights because they do things
differently in the privacy of their own homes?

Or the complete lack of coverage before, during, and after the theft of
our government even as it was happening in plain sight.

But in reality I believe the American media (the big ones anyway) is a
direct reflection of our percieved desires. They report what, when, and
how they think we want to hear it. Today they report with a
conservative slant, tomarro, hopefully, with a liberal one. Most of
them are just whores, metephorically speaking, that tell us what they
think we want to hear so we will continue listening.

 

[Brian]

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
message news:ekn5v0h11924ianle972q7m3rolkb69hjv@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:04:21 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



That's silly. The world's most repressive regimes have been Nazi
Germany, the USSR, China, Cambodia, and North Korea, places that kill
you if they suspect that you're *thinking* wrong.

Right- your remark is out of context- like you better hope Bush is not
thinking about regime change in the USSR or China...

Of course he is. And it will happen. It is happening. My Tektronix
TDS2012's are all made in China.

John

Let Freedom Ring!

 

[Joerg]

Hi Mac,

Thanks! You seem to be the king of cheap discrete solutions. ;-)

Nah, I think the real kings in that domain are in Asia. In Korea I once
thought I had a rock-bottom cost solution for a $10 circuit. Then an
engineer beat me to the punch and sliced more than 50 cents out of it.
They had a wall that looked like modern art but when stepping closer it
was reems of computer paper with part prices on there. Engineers would
do an hourly pilgrimage to that wall. I wish they'd teach that at
schools here.

Mostly I try to use jelly bean parts not so much for cost but to make
Purchasing's life easier. After all, these are the folks who get those
nice chocolates and bonbons from distributors in December and then it is
good when they like you... Also, it'll be better for circuit boards that
are farmed out to assembly places because that will be cheaper when you
use their 'preferred parts' as much as possible.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Mark Jones]

Andrew wrote:

Mark,

Also, sorry, the MOSFET pdf is here:

http://www.robot-electronics.co.uk/datasheets/irfiz48v.pdf

It indicates a maximum diode recovery dv/dt of 5.3 V/ns.
Hope this helps.

--Andrew Czop

Ok good, your drawing doesn't show it but these MOSFETs have built-in
reverse recovery diodes. On page 2 of the datasheet is shows the diode
is rated for 290A pulsed current / 100nS / 2.0Vf, that should survive
anything this motor can throw at it.

Hmm here's how the "freewheeling" or "recovery diode" works. Ignoring
a bunch of details including PWM frequency, imagine the PWM pulse has
just gone low and the motor stops being energized. A lot of energy has
went into creating the motor's strong magnetic field. This begins to
collapse. Due to induction principles this forces a potentially
kilo-volt and micro-second EMF pulse back at the driver. (The faster
the magnetic field can collapse, the higher the reverse voltage
potential produced.)

At about -2V, the diode conduction begins, limiting the voltage rise
and protecting the MOSFETs from being destroyed by excessive
reverse-bias. Inside the motor, the current flowing through the motor
and MOSFET diode does not drop to zero instantaneously, thus there is
still a partial magnetic field maintained.

On the next PWM rising cycle, the entire system is forward-biased
again and the motor's magnetic field grows again. Logically, the less
the PWM duty cycle, the less overall power is going to be delivered
and retained (or "freewheeled") by the motor and diode - effectively
powering it less.

Ignoring a bunch of other factors, here are some alternate things
that can cause a motor to become too hot:

1. The motor is underrated for the voltage/current you are applying
to it. Some motors, steppers especially, can be over-driven in terms
of voltage for a specific purpose. A 12v stepper could be powered by a
24v Vcc, but a series power resistor must be used to dissipate some of
that power. The logic behind doing this is to allow more EMF into the
motor windings. (EMF = speed, current = torque.) The end result is
that a 12v stepper motor will be much "snappier" when powered this way
than if it were powered from 12v with no dropping resistor. Too much
power will overheat any motor not designed to dissipate that power,
resistor or not.

2. Missing/unspecified components. Does the motor in question require
a built-in cooling fan/housing/heatsink, but had it removed to fit in
the space provided? (Or removed by the seller, unbeknownst to you?) Is
the motor rated only for 10°C temperature rise at 20% duty cycle? Some
motors are designed to provide extreme power in a small space for
short durations, while others are designed for continuous duty.

3. Is the motor a compatible type? Remember above that this PWM
driving technique retains some magnetism in the motor between pulses.
If the motor were a "synchronous", 2-phase, split capacitor, or any
other non-DC, single-phase motor then driving it this way may be
incorrect. (See
http://www.elmomc.com/products/elmo-analog-servo-drives.htm for
examples of two different drivers for both Brushed and Brushless DC
motors.)

4. Is "hot" a relative term, or is your motor going out-of-spec? Some
motors just operate at higher temp rise than others. My gut feeling
is, if you can burn yourself by touching the motor, then it's too hot
regardless of rating. Some are designed to operate quite warmly,
however. Even so, excess heat wears out bearing grease and causes
thermal stresses.

I don't intend to sound scoff or pedantic, merely trying to cover all
the bases and/or point out something overlooked. It is very difficult
to diagnose a problem verbally... ask anyone who has done telephone
tech support!

Regards,
Mark Jones


-- "I think the state of the universe at the moment of
conceptulization determines part of how an entity further interacts
with the rest of its reality, and hence our experience with it." MCJ
200311

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:11:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:30:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
A baseball bat's not alive,

But a baseball bat was made from a tree, that was.

---
Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
baseball bat should be respected,

Why?

---
Because without that life you would have nothing. No carrot, no
baseball bat, nothing.

So, we should respect *all* electrons and protons then? Without them we
would also have nothing. So your argument fails.

Don't you see, that the building materials are simply not sufficient by
themselves to identify what should be respected. It incredible more
difficult to draw the line between even organic and inorganic chemistry.
For example, methane, ethane etc is found all other the solar system
with no hint of life. Choosing DNA is arbitrary. Consciousness isn't, in
this context. Its unique. Its something most, if not all can,
essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious,
killing it should be a no no.

---


---
I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being
alive.

I know, but you have gave no rational reason why "alive" is relevant
to the issue. Bacteria is alive, but we don't care about them.

---
Certainly we do. A great deal. What makes you think we don't?

We don't care about bacteria for its *own* sake. I already made it clear
the context with which I am using words like using "care". I don't want
to get bogged down by all this verbiage.

---

Again, if it don't have feelings, why should we care? It certainly
cant. Come on now, Produce a reason.

---
Come on, yourself. I've already given you several and still it
doesn't seem you're capable of understanding them, so you're either
actively keeping it from sinking in (NIH) or you have a learning
disability.

You have gave no valid reason whatsoever. I applied your *same* argument
to declare that we should respect an electron. My argument requires no
such daft idea. An electron isn't conscious.

---


Left to its own devices, a P4 is incapable of having goals.

So is a carrot. A real goal, is an aspect of consciousness.

---
Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.

Thats correct. It isnt.

---
Yes, Kevin, I know.

So, whats your point.

---


Unconscious goals are simple *not* sufficient to delimit life. We
need more.

---
Delimit? In which way are you using the term?
---


decide, chose...

---
Garbage, then.

Not at all. You 101 logic seems a problem.

---
For you, perhaps. The point is that organisms which have had life
imbued into them and then proceed on their way toward their destiny
don't need to _choose_ whether to accept or choose life, it was
something over which they had no control.

Here we go again. This is all so vague.

PLEASE DEFINE LIFE

---

Without unconscious goals there would be no life here
as we know it since there would be no way to achieve sentience.
---

I agree that without unconscious goals there would be no
consciousness. Consciousness is the tip of the ice burg of
unconscious behaviour.

---
In what way? Be specific.

No idea what you mean.

Consciousness is an emergent property of very complex systems that
interact with each other. The individual systems themselves are not
conscious. The necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness to
be manifest are unknown.

---

I don't really see that your sentence here makes any sense. What's
your point?

---
Basically, that you can't put the cart before the horse.

See respecting electrons above. The electron come before the cart
(life).

---


Essentially objective? If they're not totally objective, and
factual, then they're merely opinions.

They are "essentially" objective because, based on axioms, they *are*
objective. However axioms themselves can't always be. The axioms are
our starting point, which can introduce an element of subjectivity.

---
A castle built on a foundation of straw?

No the axioms are based on *evidence*. For example, the axiom that "the
speed of light is an invariant in vacuum" is based on extensive
experimentally support.

---


---
Really? Give me an example where consciousness exists without life
behind it.

That's not the point.

---
LOL! Since you can't cite an example,

Of course I cant. Science is not sufficiently advanced to create
artificial consciousness. However, there is nothing in science that
prohibit such a situation.

and you just can't bear to admit
that you can't, you skirt the issue.

Dont be daft.

---
I catch you in a subterfuge and I'm daft? LOL!

Not at all. I have been very clear on my position. I have lots of papers
putting such a position forward.

---

The point _is_, Kevin, that
consciousness can't exist without life driving it,

Prove it.

---
Now _that's_ daft! To do a proof by exhaustion I'd have to kill every
conscious entity on this earth and note that it was no longer
conscious after it stopped being alive. How much simpler it would be
for you to find a _single_ example to refute my claim.

I have already stated the claim is valueless as an indicater of what
should be respected or not. Life can't exist without electrons, so if
your argument is valid, it must also be valid to conclude that we must
respect all electrons. This is plainly daft, so your argument is false,
and therefor, so is your statement that "life" is a good decider of
respect.

---


---
Fine, but for the time being, it's life that's driving that
electrochemical process that's allowing life to drive that
electrochemical process thats...

I Just knew you were going to weasel with this idea. This is besides
the point. I don't have any issue with the Darwinian machine of
replication, selection and generation of traits being the cause of
all consciousness. So what.

"Life" as I belive you take is, a simple Darwinian prosee and is not
sufficient, in my book, or any rational book, enough to uniquely
define something as human/animal, i.e. an entity that should be
respected for its own sake.

---
Weasel? I didn't bring up Darwin in order to sidestep the issue which
is, basically, that without life consciousness can't exist.

Without electrons, life cant exist.

The
respect for life is an altogether different issue and has to do with
simple reducto ad absurdium, the gist of it being that life is
precious and should be conserved because if it isn't, death is the
_inevitable_ end.

But its daft and impractical to conserve *all* life, and we don't. We
indiscriminately kill bacteria. If we dont conserve all life, life, by
itself is meaningless.

If there were no better way to ID respect, you might have an argument,
but we do. Its called "consciousness".

What is unfortunate is that historically few, if any saw that it is
consciousness that is key to being human/animal. What is more
unfortunate, is that now that this been pointed out, you are still
clinging to an outmoded idea. You need to move on to a better way of
thinking about "life".


Of course is anyway, as far as we know, but how

tragic it would be if we found we had thrown something away which
removed the inevitability. YMMV...
---

I just see this "life" idea as misguided, for historical and
religious reasons. Its based on ideas that consider certain bunches
of chemicals more special then others. I see no justification for
this sort of arbitrary distinction.

---
You "see" this "life" idea as misguided for your own convenience,

No. Its based only on *logic*. I systematically attempted to come up
with a delimiter for what makes us, us. i.e. unique. Without uniqueness
we can't draw any lines at all. In which case, we would all cease to
exist as we wouldn't morally be able to eat carrots. Its trully that
simple.

It is *only* consciousness that makes us unique, and something that
should be valued for its own sake.

What is also significant about using consciousness as the delimiter is
that it can be seamlessly applied to artificial consciousness/life. If
science did eventually price a consciousness in a box, one that could
not self replicate itself, or satisfy any of the usual definitions of
life, I think most of us would still agree that a feeling aware
artificial consciences should not have its plug pulled.

perhaps in an attempt to justify a series of abortions you felt
necessary to have performed for your own ends?

Oh please...get real. My views on this are the same as when I was 14.

While I agree that
there may be no inherent "specialness" between two bunches of inert
chemicals, a bunch of chemicals that is alive is certainly more
special than a bunch that isn't.

Not to me it isn't. A self replicating molecule is nothing special other
then it self replicates. It has no consciousness. Why you fail to see
the major relevance of this escapes me. I can only conclude that it is
due to brainwashing from childhood.

---

We have a much better justifiable distinction now. Its consciousness.
Its just unfortunate that few appreciated this, again, mostly due to
erroneous religious faiths.

---
A much more _convenient_ excuse for unjustifiably taking life is more
like it.

You just don't get it. How many times must it be pointed out that if
something cant feel, and never could, that its feelings don't matter. It
don't have any feelings. Dah...

And, Kevin, who the hell do you think you are (or anyone is) to be the
judge of which religious faiths are "erroneous" and which aren't???

Easy. All religions I am aware of are blatant, provably, contradictor,
therefore false. Again, its that simple. Thee is nothing to debate.
www.evilbible.com


Get real, like ignorant peasants of 1000's years ago dreamed up some
asinine idea of an all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, who
can do anything, made us all, entity. Get bloody real dude. Its the most
pathetic fantasy every imagined. Wake up and smell the roses dude.

Oh dear... Look, millions take Prozac. It makes them *feel* better.
Hence our feelings are effected by chemicals. We measure electrical
impulse when someone feels pain. We can artificially induce out of
body experience, bright lights, etc. There are millions of cause and
effect experiments done every day, like drinking a pint of Guinness.
All of this is in support to the view that it is electrochemical
process that make as completely what we are.

The alternative that our minds is not just the result of the
electrochemical process of the brain has no evidence to support it
whatsoever. All you doing is a cop out. Like, well, we dont know 100%
sure, its only 99.9999999%. Yeah, get real dude.

We are a biological machine. Its that simple. Its something you
should learn to accept. Its the way it truly is.

---
In order to try to cloud the issue and take the advantage, you keep
trying to pretend that I've, somehow, stated that that isn't true. If
you can, I'd like to see where you can find that I stated that we're
not machines.

But if you accept this, then you should see the relevance that it is
only consciousness that makes us unique. That is, inanimate matter from
animate matter.

---

A "fact" in science is what is perceived to be true beyond all
reasonable measures of verification. Like, its a fact that Clinton
got a BJ from that intern.

---
Since you weren't there to witness it, it's your _opinion_ that she
gave him head.

You obviously didnt even read the above.

What part of "is what is perceived to be true beyond all reasonable
measures of verification." did you fail to understand?

Nothing much in science or life is absolute.

A _fact_ is that life precedes consciousness. Do the experiment any
number of times for verification, the result will always be the same.

The fact is, electrons precedes life. Do the experiment any number of
times for verification, the result will always be the same.

Lets all hail to thy great lord, thy electron.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:43:36 GMT, "Kryten"
<kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:m86tu0t26glpkdm49gsdn5i4siur5jnh79@4ax.com...

That would only delay the influence of the male engineer's most
effective form of birth control.

Marriage?

I'm a male engineer.

That is extremely effective birth control on its own.

It drastically reduces the proportion of women you meet,

Well, get out there and mingle.

and the chances of
attracting one, let alone dating one.

There's a certain type of woman who likes engineers, and there is a
good supply of them. And they turn out to be an excellent lot.

"The only use women have for engineers is to marry them."

John

 

[SioL]

"Brian" <brian@w3gate.com> wrote in message news:SsidnbKv_4ncf2_cRVn-tw@centurytel.net...

Its hard to argue with the jealous. Yeah, we go to Europe for vacations. Because it is quaint. Rustic perhaps. Old World. But the
US is, by a huge margin, the best country in the world. As the gap widens, the outsiders and like-thinkers whine more? Why? Simply
because they BELIEVE they are entitled to some of the wealth created by us. The reason we are so great is because we have a
distinct lean toward the right.....

Here you go, you're a good example of what the majority of the US thinks.
And than you wonder "Why do they hate us so much over there in Europe?

By the way, the best place to live in the world is Norway. And US is not even
second or third.

Quote:
For the fourth year in a row,
the United Nations has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the
world. Sweden, Australia and Canada are next in line, while the United States is further
down the scale.
End Quote.

The United States landed in eighth place on the list. So much for your "By a wide margin".
Although I'd give it a much worse rating, below 15. There are many countries I'd pick
rather than the US, countries with higher levels of Democracy with people who are a lot
less arogant, are better educated overall and are a lot slimmer. Who wants a 150Kg+
girlfriend?

I've been to the countries mentioned here so I know what I'm talking about.
I bet you've never been outside the US, have you? So what is your position based
upon, government propaganda? Did your mama tell you US was the best place to live
and you were gonna kick those EU asses?

S

 

[Ayauhteotl]

In article <41F1E3E5.2000104@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

!learner@juno.com wrote:
!>>>Thank a liberal when you get your tax bill and you have to sell
!>>>the house to pay the tax. Then state and federal Income tax
!>>>reduces the net from the home sale to a level below what you would
!>>>need to put a down payment on a mobile home. And all the license
!>>>fees go up each year.
!>>>
!>>
!>
!>
!> Next time you go to the airport, get strip-searched in public, and a wand
!> up your butt, while half a dozen Muslims waltz onto the plane unmolested
!> because the FAA says only four muslims per flight can be checked, well,
!> thank a liberal.
!>
!>
!
!Nah- you can thank the airline corporations who made such a farce of
!their privatized security that 9/11 was made possible, forcing the
!government to create the TSA. Every bit of this operation was conceived
!by Bush political appointees.

Actually, you can blame the head of the FAA who has flat out stated in
an interview that persons fitting the profile would not be scrutinized.
Can't find the cite at the moment
--
B"H from Liberated NYC
Evaeldeva,
Rabbi Cani Havanutherwun POEE, ELF
Chief Rabbi of the Chef Sephardee MacNCheese Cabal
"He who takes the Bible literally is a Fool."- R. S bar Yochai
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses."--Sir Arthur C.
Clarke

 

[James Knott]

Aunty Kreist wrote:

Does Scientology count as a religion, or a cult?

Is there a difference?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Brian wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41F33459.9000101@nospam.com...


Brian wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:0g36v0tksar1ruuh8ip70g2sum53ki9cm9@4ax.com...


On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:37 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs
nospam@nospam.com> wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:



When you get time, a bit more info on your web site would be better.

You can see he's a chicken farmer, this explains his Himmler-like views,
pusillanimous.

Wow. That's quite an insult.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/himmler.html


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com


Bloggs long ago proved himself an idiot. No need to have him do it again.

Yeah- yeah- sure I did. If that's you in the pic- you look like some kind
of semi farm animal/ humanoid thing- quite ugly- and who the hell says
there isn't RNA transfer with you people who live so close to the animals
the way you do. You're no surprise in the way of the type of complacent
imbecile who hews the Bush idiot-ology.



He proved it again!

No, alas, that is one of my engineers, Alan. He has more knowledge in
electronics and politics than not only you, but your entire family for 6
generations back, plus 6 more in the future, all inclusive.

Yeah right sure- more bombast....

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Brian wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:41F336F5.2090008@nospam.com...


Brian wrote:

You are a tiny minority of the population, the extremely self-absorbed,
fanatical, lazy, hate-spewing, homo-loving, tree-hugging nutcase.

Why, thank you.


First smart, honest thing you ever said!

That's your opinion which is losing the benefit of doubt of not coming
from a delusional imbecile with every post.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:21:32 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:26:53 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:15:46 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:07:21 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:20:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


It's just that I relate more to Jews than to Christians ;-)

---
I feel the same tug.

I dated a Jew in high school. He mother did *not* approve. I ended up
marrying one of her friends.

My youngest son dated a Jew after college. Her mother, her father and
her grandparents, and all her family for that matter, very much
approved of this very moral, upstanding, ATHEIST young man.

I was *fine* after I was married. Until then...

They've been married for seven years and have a three year old
daughter (the SED group has seen her picture); she will be raised in
the Jewish faith.

I've seen her picture. A fine looking child. I trust it didn't come from
your side. ;-)

No she looks very much like her mother, with beautiful long black
hair.

My children are good looking, too, just like their mother. I'm the
only ugly one ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:17:56 +0100, "SioL" <Sio_spam_L@same.net>
wrote:

"Brian" <brian@w3gate.com> wrote in message news:SsidnbKv_4ncf2_cRVn-tw@centurytel.net...

Its hard to argue with the jealous. Yeah, we go to Europe for vacations. Because it is quaint. Rustic perhaps. Old World. But the
US is, by a huge margin, the best country in the world. As the gap widens, the outsiders and like-thinkers whine more? Why? Simply
because they BELIEVE they are entitled to some of the wealth created by us. The reason we are so great is because we have a
distinct lean toward the right.....


Here you go, you're a good example of what the majority of the US thinks.
And than you wonder "Why do they hate us so much over there in Europe?

By the way, the best place to live in the world is Norway. And US is not even
second or third.

Quote:
For the fourth year in a row,
the United Nations

Now THERE'S an authoritative source I place a lot of faith in ;-)

has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the
world. Sweden, Australia and Canada are next in line, while the United States is further
down the scale.
End Quote.

The United States landed in eighth place on the list. So much for your "By a wide margin".
Although I'd give it a much worse rating, below 15. There are many countries I'd pick
rather than the US, countries with higher levels of Democracy

The US is NOT a Democracy, it's a Republic.

with people who are a lot
less arogant, are better educated overall and are a lot slimmer. Who wants a 150Kg+
girlfriend?

YOU ?

I've been to the countries mentioned here so I know what I'm talking about.
I bet you've never been outside the US, have you? So what is your position based
upon, government propaganda? Did your mama tell you US was the best place to live
and you were gonna kick those EU asses?

S

No, It was BIG DADDY ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[keith]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:49:56 -0500, James Knott wrote:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

Does Scientology count as a religion, or a cult?

Is there a difference?

Ask yourself if your atheism is a cult, and maybe you'll see the
difference.

--
Keith

 

[Tom Kupp]

Andrew Holme wrote:

Tom Kupp wrote:
A few years ago, I posted a message asking for ideas for a like the
ones used by the automatic door manufacturer's. I got a great reply
describing one that the poster had disassembled, but no circuit
diagram. I have been able to get back to working on the project, and,
since I am not a degreed engineer, I would like to verify that I
interpreted his description correctly. Unfortunately, the email
address I have for him is no longer valid. If some kind soul could
read the description below, and click the link to check my schematic,
I would be eternally grateful.

The + and - inputs are drawn the wrong way around on the three amplifer
stages.

The final comparator stage is a bit suspect. At the very least, the
voltage divider R6/R7 should not be the same as R1/R2; the default output
polarity
will be unpredictable and there could be false triggering. From the
wording, it sounds like centre of R6/R7 should be 1.1V above or below the
bias set by R1/R2 i..e 0.4 or 2.6V.

The low frequency gain of that circuit must be quite high. 12 to 18
inches
ey? I'm curious enough to reach for a breadboard ...




Description:
Here is the explanation of the pet proximity detector where the pet
wears a magnet embedded in a plastic medallion on its collar. I
tested the sensing range to be from 12 to 18 inches. I thought the
use of the relay as a source for an inexpensive coil was clever.
Obviously, the contacts are not used. The front end amplifier
consists of three sections of a LM324 op amp. Each section pretty
much the same. All + inputs are connected to the bias generated from
two resistors that divide the 3V power supply in half. The sense
coil, having a 0.1 uF across it, connects from the bias supply to the
- in of the first amp. The op amps are coupled through 10uF
caps--they each have 3.3Mohm feedback resistors with 0.1uF across
them. The fourth amp is used as the level detector set to detect
approx. 1.1 volt signal. Note: the output DC level is at bias supply
level. You can do what ever you want from there.

Schematic: http://home.twcny.rr.com/kupp/
Thanks!
Tom
Thanks for the feedback. Think I'll grab that breadboard, too!

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:49:35 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:11:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:30:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
A baseball bat's not alive,

But a baseball bat was made from a tree, that was.

---
Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
baseball bat should be respected,

Why?

---
Because without that life you would have nothing. No carrot, no
baseball bat, nothing.

So, we should respect *all* electrons and protons then? Without them we
would also have nothing. So your argument fails.

---
Hardly.

So far, the discussion has largely been about the respect for
biological life, the distinction between a living and a non-living
aggregation of chemicals, and the necessity for life to be a precursor
to sentience.

My argument has been that that which is biologically alive should be
respected because of the life it cradles, not because of the particles
of which it is composed. A single electron, _by itself_ being
biologically inactive, doesn't meet that criterion, so the argument
remains viable.

Truthfully, Kevin, I don't see why you have such a problem with
"respect". It's as though you think that there's a limited ampout of
respect in the universe and if it's afforded to anything/anyone other
than yourself your supply of it will be diminished.
---

Don't you see, that the building materials are simply not sufficient by
themselves to identify what should be respected.

---
What I've been saying all along, and which you don't seem to be able
to draw the distinction between, is that the respect isn't for the
vessel itself, it's for its contents. In a sense, "If you don't want
to waste the wine, don't break the bottle." That then implies that if
you don't want to waste the wine you have to care for (respect) the
integrity of the bottle.
---

difficult to draw the line between even organic and inorganic chemistry.
For example, methane, ethane etc is found all other the solar system
with no hint of life.

---
So what? Organic chemistry is simply the chemistry of
carbon-containing compounds.
---

Choosing DNA is arbitrary.

---
In what respect?
---

Consciousness isn't, in this context. Its unique.

---
are you suggesting that the DNA in unique living organisms isn't?
---

essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious,
killing it should be a no no.

---
My position is that if a fetus is alive, killing it should be a no-no.
YMMV, but that's also been argued to death, so why keep bringing it
up?
---

---
I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being
alive.

I know, but you have gave no rational reason why "alive" is relevant
to the issue. Bacteria is alive, but we don't care about them.

---
Certainly we do. A great deal. What makes you think we don't?

We don't care about bacteria for its *own* sake. I already made it clear
the context with which I am using words like using "care". I don't want
to get bogged down by all this verbiage.

---
The meaning can vary as context changes, so if you don't wish to be
misunderstood it's incumbent on _you_ to make your meaning clear in
the context in which you're currently using it. By doing that (and I
might add, taking a little more care with your punctuation, grammar,
and spelling) the amount of unnecessary verbiage will certainly
decline. It's all a question of courtesy, Kevin, in that if I have to
continuously backtrack to try to glean meaning from what you've
written, then you're causing me to waste my precious time. But
perhaps that doesn't matter, since, in what seems to be your view no
one is as important as you are and what matters is that you be the
least inconvenienced.
---

Again, if it don't have feelings, why should we care? It certainly
cant. Come on now, Produce a reason.

---
Come on, yourself. I've already given you several and still it
doesn't seem you're capable of understanding them, so you're either
actively keeping it from sinking in (NIH) or you have a learning
disability.

You have gave no valid reason whatsoever. I applied your *same* argument
to declare that we should respect an electron. My argument requires no
such daft idea. An electron isn't conscious.

---
Apples and oranges.
---

Left to its own devices, a P4 is incapable of having goals.

So is a carrot. A real goal, is an aspect of consciousness.

---
Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.

Thats correct. It isnt.

---
Yes, Kevin, I know.

So, whats your point.

---
You really haven't figured it out yet?
---

Here we go again. This is all so vague.

PLEASE DEFINE LIFE

---
Why? We both know what it is and can apply the classical definitions,
so what would be the point other than to provide you with another
soapbox?
---

Consciousness is an emergent property of very complex systems that
interact with each other. The individual systems themselves are not
conscious. The necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness to
be manifest are unknown.

---
Very nice. I agree.
---

---
A castle built on a foundation of straw?

No the axioms are based on *evidence*. For example, the axiom that "the
speed of light is an invariant in vacuum" is based on extensive
experimentally support.

---
An example of a single axiom which, so far, appears to be fact doesn't
alter the fact that a conclusion based on an array of axioms, some of
which may not be factual, can't be considered fact.
---

---
I catch you in a subterfuge and I'm daft? LOL!

Not at all. I have been very clear on my position. I have lots of papers
putting such a position forward.

---
What position? That you've been very clear on your position? Or
something else? It's not clear...
---

I have already stated the claim is valueless as an indicater of what
should be respected or not. Life can't exist without electrons, so if
your argument is valid, it must also be valid to conclude that we must
respect all electrons. This is plainly daft, so your argument is false,
and therefor, so is your statement that "life" is a good decider of
respect.

---
I've already dealt with this question of the electron at a lower level
earlier on in this post, but if you want to take a look at a bigger
picture, then my view is that _everything_ in the universe should be
respected. I mean, how can you _not_ respect what brought you into
being? You write about an electron as if it were an insignificant
speck of nearly-nothing, and yet its secrets are so tightly wrapped up
that none of us you can't make one from scratch! What's to not
respect about that?-)
---

---
Weasel? I didn't bring up Darwin in order to sidestep the issue which
is, basically, that without life consciousness can't exist.

Without electrons, life cant exist.

---
Now you're talking!!!
---

The
respect for life is an altogether different issue and has to do with
simple reducto ad absurdium, the gist of it being that life is
precious and should be conserved because if it isn't, death is the
_inevitable_ end.

But its daft and impractical to conserve *all* life, and we don't.

---
Having respect for life doesn't mean that we can't take it, nor should
it. We have to eat to conserve our own lives, so the question becomes
one of where to draw the line.
---

We indiscriminately kill bacteria.

---
No, some bacteria we specifically keep alive because we find them
beneficial.
---

If we dont conserve all life, life, by itself is meaningless.

---
Well, some would argue that, under any conditions, life itself is
meaningless, so it all boils down, it would seem, to an individual's
point of view.
---

If there were no better way to ID respect, you might have an argument,
but we do. Its called "consciousness".

---
What do you mean by "ID"?
---

What is unfortunate is that historically few, if any saw that it is
consciousness that is key to being human/animal. What is more
unfortunate, is that now that this been pointed out, you are still
clinging to an outmoded idea. You need to move on to a better way of
thinking about "life".

---
I'm not arguing that it's not consciousness which is the key to our
becoming human in the sense of becoming rational beings, I'm arguing
that without life being the precursor to that consciousness, we would
not only not be human, we wouldn't be here. I can't see why you can't
grasp that concept, but it does seem to have you frustrated to the
point where you're becoming patronizing. As usual?
---

---
You "see" this "life" idea as misguided for your own convenience,

No. Its based only on *logic*. I systematically attempted to come up
with a delimiter for what makes us, us. i.e. unique. Without uniqueness
we can't draw any lines at all. In which case, we would all cease to
exist as we wouldn't morally be able to eat carrots. Its trully that
simple.

It is *only* consciousness that makes us unique,

---
and something that

should be valued for its own sake.

What is also significant about using consciousness as the delimiter is
that it can be seamlessly applied to artificial consciousness/life. If
science did eventually price a consciousness in a box, one that could
not self replicate itself, or satisfy any of the usual definitions of
life, I think most of us would still agree that a feeling aware
artificial consciences should not have its plug pulled.


perhaps in an attempt to justify a series of abortions you felt
necessary to have performed for your own ends?

Oh please...get real. My views on this are the same as when I was 14.

While I agree that
there may be no inherent "specialness" between two bunches of inert
chemicals, a bunch of chemicals that is alive is certainly more
special than a bunch that isn't.

Not to me it isn't. A self replicating molecule is nothing special other
then it self replicates. It has no consciousness. Why you fail to see
the major relevance of this escapes me. I can only conclude that it is
due to brainwashing from childhood.

---

We have a much better justifiable distinction now. Its consciousness.
Its just unfortunate that few appreciated this, again, mostly due to
erroneous religious faiths.

---
A much more _convenient_ excuse for unjustifiably taking life is more
like it.

You just don't get it. How many times must it be pointed out that if
something cant feel, and never could, that its feelings don't matter. It
don't have any feelings. Dah...


And, Kevin, who the hell do you think you are (or anyone is) to be the
judge of which religious faiths are "erroneous" and which aren't???

Easy. All religions I am aware of are blatant, provably, contradictor,
therefore false. Again, its that simple. Thee is nothing to debate.
www.evilbible.com


Get real, like ignorant peasants of 1000's years ago dreamed up some
asinine idea of an all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, who
can do anything, made us all, entity. Get bloody real dude. Its the most
pathetic fantasy every imagined. Wake up and smell the roses dude.


Oh dear... Look, millions take Prozac. It makes them *feel* better.
Hence our feelings are effected by chemicals. We measure electrical
impulse when someone feels pain. We can artificially induce out of
body experience, bright lights, etc. There are millions of cause and
effect experiments done every day, like drinking a pint of Guinness.
All of this is in support to the view that it is electrochemical
process that make as completely what we are.

The alternative that our minds is not just the result of the
electrochemical process of the brain has no evidence to support it
whatsoever. All you doing is a cop out. Like, well, we dont know 100%
sure, its only 99.9999999%. Yeah, get real dude.

We are a biological machine. Its that simple. Its something you
should learn to accept. Its the way it truly is.

---
In order to try to cloud the issue and take the advantage, you keep
trying to pretend that I've, somehow, stated that that isn't true. If
you can, I'd like to see where you can find that I stated that we're
not machines.

But if you accept this, then you should see the relevance that it is
only consciousness that makes us unique. That is, inanimate matter from
animate matter.

---

A "fact" in science is what is perceived to be true beyond all
reasonable measures of verification. Like, its a fact that Clinton
got a BJ from that intern.

---
Since you weren't there to witness it, it's your _opinion_ that she
gave him head.

You obviously didnt even read the above.

What part of "is what is perceived to be true beyond all reasonable
measures of verification." did you fail to understand?

Nothing much in science or life is absolute.


A _fact_ is that life precedes consciousness. Do the experiment any
number of times for verification, the result will always be the same.

The fact is, electrons precedes life. Do the experiment any number of
times for verification, the result will always be the same.

Lets all hail to thy great lord, thy electron.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:29:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

That's a stretch! Do you actually think Bloggs is capable of
reproduction?

Well, there's nothing like having a couple of kids to teach a guy
humility. Draw your own conclusions.

John

 

[bsting]

Another more scalable solution is available from Crossbow
(www.xbow.com). They share (open) the software developement code with
you and it is free.

-Brian

 

[Clarence_A]

"Digi" <galstaff@linuxSPAMISHmail.org> wrote in message
news:87651ot1gt.fsf@hiro.homelinux.net...

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> writes:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

Does Scientology count as a religion, or a cult?

Is there a difference?

A cult is just an unpopular religion.

So they 'ARE' all cults!