Driver to drive?

[James Knott]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

It all depends on what your goals and expectations are. You are free to
choose your own course, no big thing to me.

So, will you try to pray away the next natural disaster headed your
way, or will you assume it's sent by your deity-of-choice to punish you,
and sit still for it?

Ever wonder why the area of the U.S., known as the "bible belt", gets hit
with so many hurricanes and tornados? ;-)

Then there was that tornado that cut a path through a major Florida city
(Miami?) a few years back. One of those bible thumpers claimed that the
sinners were being punished! I wonder how they all managed to live in that
narrow strip, and not elsewhere?

The amount of stupidity generated by those "true believers" is enormous!

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:46:26 -0700, uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

Governments exist to insure rights, not to grant them. No God... No
rights.

---
Make no mistake about it; you have no rights, and governments aren't
concerned with making sure you do. Governments are interested in
their own survival, and if that means giving you a little longer leash
to keep you from biting them, that's what they'll do.

--
John Fields

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:15:26 +0100, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:16:29 +0100, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net
wrote:


Mark Jones wrote:


So what will the AmeriKan dollar be worth in 4 more years? Anyone?
And to think, some call that "progress." Yeah!

My guess : 40-60% of what it is now.
Well, at least it pays their debt nicely.
Or as the americans put it : it makes them again
credit worthy. Don't think twice - get that money
immediately.

What a stupid statement. EuroPeons won't be able to
sell any goods.
What do you think that will do to Europe?

Jim, you might not be included, but most of your fellow
citisens have debts as high as the roof of their house.
That is inland debt and not really interesting for the
value of the USD. But the high demand for imported goods
has a direct influence on the USD.

I know, it'll delay or rather cancel the long awaited economy
boost. However, it is not Europe to decide. I guess it is Japan
and China that will do that. Since the US imports much more
goods (in value) that they export, it is the (to the US) delivering
nations that get truckloads of dollars they somehow have to spend.
Yes, buying US companies and US real estate is fine, they did that
already. There are still truckloads of cash to be spent.

The Japanese exporting 70% of their export to the US indeed think
twice about letting the USD drop. It affects their economy heavily.
Just letting it drop 10% against the Yen, means a number of
companies have to close the doors.
On the other hand it is hard to communicate to the voters that the
goverment has to subsidize another nation of boundless spenders.
They sleep on hard ricemats while the others drive the big cars
with their money. Simplified : When you sleep on a hard ricemat
anyway, why work too hard for others ?

China is said to be a huge net subsidizer of the USD too.
They keep their Yuan low to keep the economy going. Were
they to adjust it, their goods would become more expensive
which would throttle the economy. When the Yuan is too low,
they pay too much for imports, such as oil. The adjustment
of the Yuan is before the door, just a matter of the moment.
This then means that the US (and the rest of the world) will
have to pay more for chinese goods. This is also a defacto
devaluation of the other currencies.
While the dependence of the chinese econeomy on exports to
the US was strong, they meanwhile diversified. This means
a dropping USD doesn't hit them as hard as others.

Jim, I'm troubled by the coming events. I'm not really looking
forward to buy precision electronics for peanuts. There is far
more to it that I, as unstudied hobby economist can imagine.

It is just apparent to me that since many are trying to hold
the USD up, there will be an avalanche release, those foreigners
leaving the USD last will be bitten by the dogs.

Rene

Mighty strange circular reasoning. Come back in four years and tell
me about it... provided you survive the EuroPeon recession ;-)

...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.

 

In <41F1E3E5.2000104@nospam.com>, on 01/22/05
at 05:26 AM, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> said:

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.

Liberals have constantly demanded that airlines not single out people for
ANY reason, therefore those who are more likely to be terrorists, are
given a free pass, while grandma in her wheel chair gets to strip down in
front of her grandchildren.

The law forced upon the airlines because of the liberal position against
profiling states that no more than four muslims can be stopped and
searched, per flight, so if four go on, the next four with the weapons,
get a free pass. Even the stupidest among us would have to agree that is a
travesty.

It was not Bush appointees who came up with the 9/11 commision results.

He's a schmoe, and I despise much of what he does but he is not liable for
everything that goes on, and its a lazy man's way to argue to just say
"its Bush's fault" This country sucked big time long before any Bushes
came along, and it will continue to suck long after they are gone.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:00:32 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:


---
The point is not whether it's conscious or not,

Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For
example, a carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for
itself is daft.

---
I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food
for us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides
some of the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient
human would respect another, of course, but in its own way.

As I noted, and noted that I noted, its not for its *own* sake. The
carrot simply doesn't care. It cant. It cant feel. Its truly that
simple. We look after carrots because of their value to us, not to
them.

Its completely daft to respect a non conscious object for its own
sake. Think about what you are really saying dude. Its no different
from claiming a baseball bat should be respected.

---
A baseball bat's not alive,

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

Kevin, a carrot is. Respect the life in
it.

Again, sure its "alive", by some definitions, before being picked from
the ground, but so what. It never felt, and can never feel, so its
feelings are immaterial.

---

---
But quite relevant in mine. Without that unconscious goal, we would
not be sitting here having this discussion.

So what. A P4 has unconscious goals, are we to give it rights as
well?

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

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

---

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

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

decide, chose...

Its not an explanation. Its was subjective waffle.

---
Well, yes, it always gets down to that, doesn't it? If it's not what
Kevin wants to hear then it's subjective waffle. And, of course, if
it's something subjective that Kevin has said, then it couldn't
possibly be anything other than |TRUTH|

My arguments are essentially objective. They are based down to simple
axioms, which I state.

---



As John Woodgate said, this is a question of drawing
lines, and mine is drawn with affording the fetus protection from
the instant of conception. Period.

But in my view, you opinion is made based on ill-informed prejudice
originating from your past, when you had little science to justify
your ideas. You are still relying on faith.

---
What don't you understand about "Period"?

I'm not interested in discussing opinions with you.

Oh?

---

It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.

Irrelevant, and not necessarily true by your simplified definition of
"life".

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

That's not the point. There is very compelling scientific evidence that
consciousness is an electro-chemical process of the brain. This strongly
suggests that other electro-chemical process might result in
consciousness.

---

"It is not what we are made of that makes us, its how what makes us
is arranged"

---
Kevin's latest opinion...

No. Its pretty much fact. e.g.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NSintox.htm

"Psychedelic drugs provide some of the best evidence we have that the
mind is the brain; that our thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions are
created by chemistry. "

Please present a scientific, credible alternative if you believe there
is one. i.e.. one backed up by real experiments.

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.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <41f1fd7f$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net>, learner@juno.com wrote:

In <41F1E3E5.2000104@nospam.com>, on 01/22/05
at 05:26 AM, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> said:

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.

Liberals have constantly demanded that airlines not single out people for
ANY reason, therefore those who are more likely to be terrorists, are
given a free pass, while grandma in her wheel chair gets to strip down in
front of her grandchildren.

The law forced upon the airlines because of the liberal position against
profiling states that no more than four muslims can be stopped and
searched, per flight, so if four go on, the next four with the weapons,
get a free pass.

No, they stop the four that they consider most likely to have weapons or
links to others to be stopped for resulting probable cause. Surely any
found with weapons do not count against the limit of 4 per identifiable
demographic group (white grandparents as well as mid-Eastern Muslims!)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:56:09 GMT, "Kryten"
<kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Rich The Newsgropup Wacko" <wacko@example.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.22.08.27.59.316912@example.com...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:44:15 +0000, Kryten wrote:

So tag the thread as ignored, dunderhead.

No. Because I am looking for information relevant to (a) this thread an (b)
this newsgroup.

Geez, how many times do we have
to go over this?

I presume you've been posting on that subject.
Your philosopher alias was killfiled.

You want me to retitle the thread _for your convenience_ because you're
_looking for a job_????

Yes, that would be a sensible and courteous thing to do.

I might gently point out that this is not a job counseling service,
and just because you start a thread you do not therefore own it.

There are no rules, just precedence. And precedence shows that threads
meander and split, driven in whatever direction seems most
interesting.


John

 

[Andrew Holme]

Kyle Winters wrote:

Hello everyone,
I apologise in advance for my lack of knowledge. I am completely
self-taught in electronics so might be missing a basic concept
here...
I have a 74LS05 IC (Hex Open Collector Inverter) that I want to use
to drive
a motor (via a relay). I tested it first with a LED and it worked
fine
(after I realised I needed to put a 3K9 (pull-up?) resistor to the
+5V line
to get it going).
Now when I attach the relay in place of the LED, I don't get enough
voltage
to fire the 5V relay.
I will try a diagram for when it worked with the LED...


Output of 74LS05
????????????????>??????
?Vx LED ?
? ?
?
3K9(R1) ?
GND
?
?
????
+5V


Now, when I try it with the relay in place of the LED, I don't get
enough
voltage. I tried various values for R1 - the results were:
R1 Vx
100R 2.90 V
820R 0.70 V
3K9 0.16 V
22K 0.03 V

Now, I'm thinking if I go any lower than 100R, the voltage at Vx will

permanently be enough to switch the relay, so I'm a bit lost - I
don't think
my theory is correct.
In case you need it, the resistance across the relay coil is 120R.
If anyone can point me in the right direction, I would very much
appreciate
it. Even better, if someone can tell me why the LS05 needs this
resistor at
all, maybe I would understand it a bit better.

From the looks of your diagram (try
http://www.tech-chat.de/download.html next time) and your description,

it sounds like you had the LED connected from the LS05 output to
ground. That's wrong. Connect the LED and resistor in series between
+5V and the LS05 output.

The relay should be connected between +5V and the LS05 output; you
don't need a series resistor for a 5V relay. What you do need,
however, is a back emf diode connected backwards across the relay coil
- you could destroy the LS05 if you omit this.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7jh2v0l3k6ggfkf8at890hccj1j88te1q2@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:25:35 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:

Just curious, John. Exactly how many crack babies have adopted? How about
dumped babies? HIV? Any at all? Anything?

---
From your previous posts it seems that you're not so much interested
in information _about_ me, what you'd like is information you can use
_against_ me. Consequently, unless you can convince me why you need
to know about how I handle my social responsibilities you can stay in
the dark.

--
John Fields

IOW, you've done nothing to help the situation. It's just hypocritical for a
person to rail against the evil of abortion, then do nothing to help the
other alternative to it.

What exactly do you think would happen to all these babies if abortion were
made illegal?

 

[keith]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:15:13 -0500, James Knott wrote:

keith wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:13:28 -0500, James Knott wrote:

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Except for those who don't have the capacity to regulate their own
lives. For them, religion is a good thing. Its just that you don't
really want this sort of people in positions of responsibility. That's
when society gets into trouble.

Hmmm... And what major event happened in Washington D.C., yesterday?
;-)

Four more years!


Fortunately, he's out then, no matter what.

Then there's eight more years of Jeb. I'm sure in twelve we can find
someone just as good.

--
Keith

 

[Parse Tree]

keith wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:24:05 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:


Clarence_A wrote:

"DW" <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106343743.567899.251800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


The term "liberal" gets thrown a lot.

I saw something a while back that I like to cite w
when someone slames liberals.

1. Thank a liberal when you go to the grocery store
and find that it is illegal for them to sell that
peice of meat that went rancid a month ago.
2. Thank a liberal when you go to the emergency room
and they treat your heartt attack right away. There was a time
when an ermergency room could decline treatment if you
couldn't afford it and they would throw you out in the street.
So what if you died.
3. If you're a woman thank a liberal that your
husband can't beat you. Believe it or not there was
a time when it was legal for a husband to beat his
wife in the US.



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.

Bless a liberal, send them to hell!
They can party there without hurting anyone!

Taxes are really not very onerous at all. People in the US can be such
babies about them.


If they're not onerous, perhaps you want to pay mine?

How much do you pay? $80000 or so?

 

[Brian]

"Mark Jones" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:d_adneUSdPuW5G_cRVn-2g@buckeye-express.com...

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <g8m3v0pte0g8qrapj9p0f2rlcv7ogf73t8@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Sad Days for America and the World- Four More Years
of Hell', on Fri, 21 Jan 2005:


OK, I understand that he has faith in the perfectibility of humankind,


He's a Marxist????? (;-)


Sounds like Church-Speak!

"Yes Father Dubya, 100 holy marys and the world will be perfect..."

[rolls eyes, shakes head]

In fact, it's the whole thing with religion in the middle east which
is causing the problem. It has always caused problems - it's the cause
of all problems over there. Ever since man first came there they have
fought, and anyone who thinks they can make them stop in one lifetime
is a fool. It is in their blood; ingrained in their past; part of who
they are. It's a nation teeming with natural-born terrorists! Ever ask
yourself why the innocent people of that area don't leave? Bombs and
bullets and death every day - why stay unless you're completely
accustomed to it?

I wish someone would find a few "dead sea scrolls" (or something)
which proved once-and-for-all that Jesus was born on Native American
soil and had NOTHING to do with the middle east whatsoever. Then we
could disassociate ourselves with all the warring factions over there
forever. Pull out the troops, thank the UK for tolerating us and this
insane tirade, and leave the Iraqis to do what they are going to do
anyways - kill each other under anarchial rule - but this time, not
get caught up in it.

Yes, it might be a noble thing to help liberate a country from an
oppressor. But only if the country wants liberated! If they don't want
help, why force it on anyone?

Maybe America can't win this one. Maybe America can, at the expense
of many more sons and daughters. Then again, maybe it's better not to
try since we know the result is going to be the same. Remember Iraq
didn't do 9/11 - Osama did. That's another contry altogether, called
Afghanistan. Perhaps we've heard of it? Or does it just feel good to
have some guns-a-blazin', no matter where they are?

Yep, you're one bad-ass holy-roller, Dubya. I gotta give you credit
for being such a master manipulator though. Who would have thought you
could be both good and evil at the same time?


-- "We cannot expect to stumble into happiness; it must come from
within." MCJ 20050119

Why help the oppressed? Didn't you just say they don't know any better?
Should we just leave the ignorant, even if violent or criminal, alone?
Should we just tolerate them? Perhaps we should let criminals roam the
streets? Why jail them, they may not know any better?

The problem is that many a candy-ass does not like what it takes to make a
better world. They want to hide and complain, but not fix or sacrifice. Let
all the world become a ghetto and just wait your turn to be absorbed into
it, why not? After all, it will be your kids' problem not yours, right?

 

[Winfield Hill]

Paul Burke wrote...

Kyle Winters wrote:

I have a 74LS05 IC (Hex Open Collector Inverter) that I want to use
to drive a motor (via a relay).

I haven't got any TTL data books any more, so I don't know the figures,
but I suspect that a 7405 won't sink enough current to drive a relay.
Guessing at about 5mA sink current, if the resistance of your coil is
less than (order of) 1kohm, you're sunk.

Replace it with a ULN2003 or similar (different pinout!).

Here are the datasheet ratings. If a specific part has a saturation
voltage of 200mV at 16mA, it can probably sink say 40mA successfully
(0.5V, 20mW), but you'd be breaking rules and using it beyond spec.

.. part Iol(max) Vol(typ) (max) Voh(max)
.. ---- ---- ----- ----- -----
.. 74LS05 8mA 0.25V 0.40V 7V
.. 7405 16mA 0.20V 0.40V 7V
.. 7406 16mA - 0.40V 30V
.. " 40mA - 0.70V 30V
.. 7416 16mA - 0.40V 15V
.. " 40mA - 0.70V 15V

These four parts all have the same TTL 7404 inverter pinout.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Kyle Winters]

Sorry - will try the diagram again...


Output of 74LS05
------------------->>-------------
|Vx LED |
| |

|
3K9(R1) |
GND
|

|
----
+5V

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Noah Roberts wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Noah Roberts
nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote (in

1106683157.681825.208750@c13g2000cwb.

googlegroups.com&gt about 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Tue, 25
Jan 2005:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


Unfortunately,
the ignorant peasants that invented god, knew sod all about
maths.

I have no problem with your argument until that.

BTW, because those people do not deserve your disrespect. The people
you are calling ignorant peasants lived long, hard, and often
unrewarded lives. Maybe they didn't know a whole lot, like how to
read, write, or do math; maybe they did. A lot of what cause their
hardship was the way they were treated by royalty...like ignorant
peasants. That is a very derogatory term.

I also object to you saying ignorant peasants invented god. It is not
ignorant to believe in god.

Yes it is.

Hey, you know how we got here, well it was due to this dude like, an all
knowing, all powerfull, can do anything, is every where at once dude...

Like get real. You truly believe that that is a credible solution? Its
complete and utter nonsense.

All this is a statement on "I am f'ing clueless, with no idea how/why we
exist so I'll just make it up as I go along".

Smell the roses...Gods are absurd. Its that simply.

Third, in the fast wealth of knowledge in the universe, you are not
much smarter than them.

Oh...I do indeed have much expertise in various subjects.

And I guarantee they knew more about
survival.

This isn't one of my areas of expertise. Your point would be?

Finally, the history of religion does not support your assertation.

Oh?

The peasants you speak of knew "sod all" about religion. They went to
church and listened to someone speak latin for a few hours. Then they
went back to work living...God was stolen and kept from them.

Those that spoke latin were also "peasants".

ago are now known to be false. Why should the idea of a god be any
different?

Are the laws of gravity still the same? I don't mean is our
understanding of them still the same...I mean does gravity do now what
it did then?

Nope.

Why should God's existance be any different?

Oh dear. It doesn't. "God" never done anything then, and he don't do
anything now. Now get this, god don't exist. Tell me, why don't you
believe in pixies, elves, Santa claus, Thor, Zeus. when you figure that
out, you'll understand why this one god don't exist either.

Show me some bloody evidence that this so called god done anything.
Simply claiming that "god created Elvis" don't cut it. Produce the dude
and lets see him do something.

Gravity exists and operates of its own accord no matter what our
understanding of it, or lack thereof. If God exists it is the same.

Has our understanding of God changed in that time?

Yep. We now know that people invented god due to lack of information as
to how we could possible have came about. Physics and biological
knowledge is now so extensive that we know the basic mechinisems beyund
reasonable doubt. That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god. In addition, the evidence we
have from physics, e.g. quantum mechanics shows that the universe is
inherently unpredictable, hence an all knowing god is extremely
unlikely. And no don't bring up the "we are just ignorant bit". It dont
wash.

Why yes it
certainly has, for some of us. Where are the inquisitions? At least
in this culture and country we don't torture and burn people for
heresy...yet (though there are obviously those in both camps that
would have it back). I would say that is a step up, wouldn't you?
Certainly more important than the slight alterations to a formula for
how fast something hits the ground when you drop it?

There is no formula for god. Nothing is testable about god in the
slightest. Its simple vacuous claims.

So we have two forces that exist independantly of human interferance.

Nope. We have objective evidence on the effects of gravity. We have no
evidence for a god.

We have *bishops* telling us that god did this, god says that, but
diddly squat for actual evidence of such claimed deeds. Any "evidence"
that there is completely contradictory, www.evilbible.com.

In both cases our understanding of them has changed. But we know a
lot more about gravity then we do God. God is a much bigger subject
matter.

God contains no information at all.

Sort like Chi, it exists

Dream on.

or not whether it is believed in or
not...though it is more effectivly channeled and is effects better
understood if it is believed in.

Complete hogwash.


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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burke wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Maths didn't really get started until the 16 to 18 hundreds.
Certainly no one knew how to handle infinites correctly until then.
Look up definitions of limits. Even the idea of a static universe by
Newton was flawed because he/they didn't know how to correctly
account for the "infinite" number of stars.

So, yeah they were ignorant peasants.

By those standards, we are ignorant peasants now, since the maths of
the future (assuming sentient beings survive) will inevitably make
ours look primitive.

Maybe, maybe not. The mathematical physics we have now is such that we
have no realistic hope in the future for many, many years, of verifying
its predictions. Like, particle accelerators larger than the solar
system.


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.

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Alex Zaretsky wrote:

We are developing a "camera on a stick".
It is actually a CMOS sensor camera with a very simple Micro controller
which supports the USB 2.0 protocol and MPEG2 encoder chip.
The idea is that the camera will compress rather small video clips in
MPEG2 format to the external "disk-on-key" (for example of M-Systems)
connected to the camera all the time during video capturing.
When the disk-on-key is inserted to a computer USB it should be
automatically accessable by Windows Explorer without installation of
any driver software.

The problem we face is how to support the Windows File system without
using high-end controllers (ARM for example) with an operating system
running on it. We are really interested in keeping the price of the
device as low as possible.

As far as I understand today every digital camera, every Voice
recorder, MP3 player with USB support faced the same problem.
Thank you very much.

Yes, then it is time to consider a USB host adapter chip.
It acts like a PC and aceesed the Flash sticks.
There is Cypress and the Atmel USB380 plus more.
the newsgroup comp.arch.embedded might also be more
appropriate. Look out for "USB host" there.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

Alex Zaretsky wrote:

The problem we face is how to support the Windows File system without

Supporting FAT is not a big task and can easily be done in an 8-bit
microcontroller. The hard part is the USB stack. Better to pick a USB
host chip that has existing IP (maybe built-in). Look at Atmel's parts
for example, which are designed to solve this problem for you.

 

[CBarn24050]

Subject: Re: 74LS05 driving Relay
From: Paul Burke paul@scazon.com
Date: 26/01/2005 08:33 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: <35p3daF4q5v60U1@individual.net


I haven't got any TTL data books any more, so I don't know the figures,
but I suspect that a 7405 won't sink enough current to drive a relay.
Guessing at about 5mA sink current, if the resistance of your coil is
less than (order of) 1kohm, you're sunk.

Change to the 7405 (16mA) or 74s05 (20mA)

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:17:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
No one said a brick has feelings or that it made any sense to respect
its non-existent feelings, but your refutation implies that it was
[said].

It was implied.

---
Yes, I know. That's why I wrote: ..."your refutation implies"...
immediately above. I'm beginning to see that part of your problem is
your short attention span.
---

You want to respect the feelings of an inanimate bit of
DNA. That is, something that cant, and can never feel because DNA is not
conscious.

---
No, Kevin, I don't. For the umpteenth time, what I believe commands
respect is the strand of DNA _itself_, the molecules which comprise
it, the atoms which comprise the molecules, the subatomic particles
and forces which bind the particles, and on and on down (or up) the
chain.
---

That's intellectually dishonest, Kevin, and disingenuous, and
indicates that you're not interested in the discussion for any purpose
other than to win an argument. Either that or... well, you figure it
out.

The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments.

---
Really? Then be so kind as to explain the implications to me, if you
would.
---

This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising an
"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false idea.

---
It seems to me that the concept of an omnipotent god is much more
logically coherent than the concept of an impotent god, and it also
seems to me that you're starting to grasp for straws. That is, you
can't rationally defend your position, so you start trying to change
the focus of the argument by throwing shit into the game.
---

---
No, the real issue seems to be that _you_ either can't understand
analogy or you continually keep trying to move your end of the field
farther and farther away from the ball.

No, the issue is that your understanding of these issues is too
simplistic.

---
Kevinism. Since you're the "ultimate authority", it's either too
simplistic, or too complicated, or too different from the way you'd
like it to be to be valid, huh?
---

But, on the chance that you're making honest mistakes I'll explain it
to you, again, but this time in terms of grapes.

1. If you want wine, dont raze the vineyard.

2. If you want Champagne, don't break the bottle before the
fermentation is done.

You see, it's really very simple. If you want wine, then you have to
respect the process, since breaking it anywhere between the vine and
the wine will result in... well, not wine.

No. we don't "respect" the process for its own sake. The process isn't
conscious.

---
Speak for youself. _I_ respect the process whether it meets your
definition of "conscious" or not because, without the process, what
you define as consciousness cannot come about.
---

---
So now you want to steer this discussion into a debate about whether
petroleum was created biologically or not?

No. I am simply highlighting the difficulty in deciding what physical
objects are considered "life" objects.

---
To what end? We are not discussing what may happen to the bodies of
living organisms after they die.
---

What on Earth does that
have to do with the subject at hand, or is it merely another attempt,
on your part, to steer the discussion away from the subject at hand?
---

Again, the issue is that I am, with all due respect, way ahead of your.

---
You'd like it to be but, in fact, the issue is something you can't
deal with, so you resort to insults and diversionary tactics in an
attempt to skirt it.
---

It is getting increasingly clear that your are operating on a much lower
wavelength.

---
At the moment, yes. Shorter wavelengths are often only line-of-sight
and I'm trying to get you past that.
---

What is and what is not "organic" matter, as in matter *only* associated
with "life", is fundamental to the discussion of what sort of life
matter should have respect.

You just cant see the big picture here.

---
On the contrary, _you_ don't seem to be able to see the trees for the
forest!

The forest being life and the trees being its constituents, its easy
to see that if you respect life, then you must also respect the trees
since without them, there would be no life. Expanding on that
concept, if we look at matter which is supporting life we find that
the periodic table is full of trees which not only support life they
do a myriad of other jobs as well, so why shouldn't they be respected?

Your problem is that you've already stated that an organism which, in
your view, isn't conscious doesn't deserve respect and, of course,
since you're infallible there's no way you can be wrong about it.
---

properties that inanimate systems do not have. It is certainly
possible to construct a self-replicating entity with non
biologically components. So, there is no way to distinguish DNA,
from a physical point of view form other physical entity

---
That's not true. I can easily write a program which replicates
itself, (and mutates, if that's my intent) yet it will be totally
different from a self-replicating strand of DNA.

In addition, it's certainly easy enough to differentiate, on a purely
physical level, the difference between a strand of DNA and, say, a
strand of thread, so your argument is invalid.

Thump...Thump...Thump...as he hits his head on the wall.

Oh dear oh dear... this is getting completely pointless. Again, with all
due respect, its clear that you are conceptualising this at a way, way
lower level then me.

---
I don't think that's possible. You pretend to a lofty, ivory tower
intellect, but when push comes to shove and you're confronted with
basics you're all over the place with "Oh, that's not what I meant."
or "You must have misunderstood."
---

Sure, we can differentiate on some arbitrary physics basis, but the
point is about the concepts involved.

---
See what I mean? You make a concrete statement like:

"It is certainly
possible to construct a self-replicating entity with non
biologically components. So, there is no way to distinguish DNA,
from a physical point of view form other physical entity."

Which I refute, and all of a sudden it's not about the statement any
more, it's about the "concepts involved" or whatever else you can
dream up to keep from having to admit that you were wrong.
Of course the possibility exists that you meant something altogether
different from what you said, in which case you were wrong in not
wording it properly. But then, of course, Kevinism raises its ugly
head and it becomes everybody's job but yours to make sure your
meaning is understood.
---

What is the actual argument that one can use to decide that the DNA
replicator should be respected where as a constructed mechanical
replicator should not be.

---
Is that supposed to be a question?
---

Why should one collection of molecules have
priority to another, as certainly, in principle, the constructed
mechanical replicator could also be conscious.

---
Is that also supposed to be a question? If it is, there's supposed to
be a question mark at the end of it so I don't have to go back over it
again and again to figure out what it is you're trying to say. Have a
little common courtesy, Kevin, and if you expect an answer rewrite the
question properly.
---

Its just an arbitrary definition based on
*preconceived* ideas of what "life" *should* be.

---
Actually, no. What _you're_ trying to ram down everybody's throats is
that life can't be consided life before the onset of consciousness,

Yep. That is, before something first becomes conscious, it is an
inanimate object with zero feelings. Something that can't feel, is not
aware, cant possible, rationally be given respect as if it does feel.

---
That's just a copout for your wanting to be judge, jury and
executioner of everything you don't agree with.

Today it's two months after conception because it has no "feelings",
tomorrow it's a few hours after it's born because it can't speak, the
day after that it'll be because it doesn't believe in Kevin.
---

whatever your reasons for trying to do that might be.

It makes logical sense. We can all, essentially, agree that conscious
objects , e.g. feel pain, therefore respect for conscious objects is
trivially obvious. For inanimate collections of chemicals no such
argument can be made. Its that simple.

---
It's even simpler than that, in that if you respect the consciousness,
then you should respect the life which allowed it to become conscious.
No life, no consciousness.
---

In the real world, AIUI, a _new_ life starts when half of the the egg's,
and half of the sperm's DNA spiral around each other and start
assembling a new individual.

---

No it doesn't. This is an arbitrary definition *invented* by *you*.

---
Oh, my... since it's something _I_ invented it _must_ be wrong?
Sounds like Kevinism again or, at the very least, NIH.

Ok, let's say, for the moment, that it _is_ something I invented.
That, in and of itself, doesn't make it incorrect. Matter of fact,
there are lots of things I've invented which work the way I intended
them to, so your criticism, without further evidence proving my
"invented" definition wrong, is without merit.

However, since you disagree with my definition, you no doubt have a
favorite definition of your own, which is...???
---

a definition that cant be supported by any logical arguments. Any
argument you have made in support of this daft idea, I have shown can be
equally applied to entities that you agree is not life. e.g. a
mechanical replicator.

---
I don't believe you can point to where I said that life is prohibited,
in the context in which it was intended, purely because of mechanical
reasons, but how about this to clear up your misconception:

Aside from the fact that we haven't yet figured out how to make
mechanical replicators which can make make copies of themselves which
can make copies of themselves... how about this: Assume that you
have a cookie-cutter replicator which can make copies of its
cookie-cutter self which can make cookie-cutter copies of themselves
and so on, ad infinitum, wouldn't you agree that that's a rudimentary
form of life?

Biological viruses do _just that_ all the time and I believe they're
afforded the status of being alive. Why not then afford that status
to other kinds of lifeforms which can do the same thing?

The point I'm trying to get across to you is that if it acts alive,
smells alive, and tastes alive, then more than likely it _is_ alive,
so I don't agree with _your_ premise that just because it's mechanical
it can't be alive.

My earlier argument(s) applied to the new life created by a sperm and
an egg, with some of the individual characteristics of each being
being incorporated into the new life as a result of the process, not
to the new life due to the cloning mechanism you allude to, where the
only change in the offspring would be due to mutations caused by
external pressures.

However, considering that many "lower" lifeforms propagate by mitosis,
(multiply by dividing) I find it difficult to believe that you have no
respect for the vast quantities of bacteria which are working so hard
to make sure that you stay alive so that you can provide them with
food which they'll use to make sure that you stay alive to provide
them with food which they'll use to make sure that you stay alive to
provide them with food which they'll use ...
---

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.

Yes, I know your position. You have provide no rational argument as
to why you take this view.

---
"Rational" to you, Kevin, means anything that you agree with, so you
don't have to confront yourself with the possibility of your being
wrong. "Kevinism"...

No. I mean a rational argument.

---
No, you mean an argument which you can defeat.

If you had meant "rational" you would have, originally, presented
undeniable, quantifiable evidence to support your claims. Instead,
you chose to puff yourself up as an "authority" and started issuing
edicts as to why your opinions should be considered objective fact.

Edicts which, BTW, were also merely opinions.
---

YMMV, but that's also been argued to death, so why keep bringing it
up?

The point is that we are discussing what constitutes a definition of
"life" in the sense that we should respect its views for its own
sake.

---
It's "views"? I wasn't aware that "life" had views...

I'm glad you agree.

---
I don't. Life has a goal, and that goal is to survive. It doesn't have
"views" other than that if its existence is threatened it will try to
flee from or kill other life which threatens its goal. You may be
fooled into thinking, or you might try to fool others into thinking
that that's not the case, but if that's the case, then someone's life
other than your own or their own will be calling the shots, while what
you really want is for what you believe in to rule.

You're trying to do the same thing here by using whatever means you
have at hand to try to ensure the survival of what you believe in but,
unfortunately, your logic is flawed.
---

Basic, simplistic definitions of life don't have
views, therefore why on earth do you want to respect such life. *Until*
"life" has some sort of view, its views are indeed irrelevant.

---
How can it have irrelevant views and no views at the same time? It's
that kind of sloppy thinking which leads me to believe that all you're
really trying to do is throw words out there for effect, without
worrying too much about what they mean and forcing the reader to do
your job for you. As for as what it _seems_ you might be trying to
get at, read the reply just before this one.
---

This is exactly why we need a definition of "special life" that accounts
for objects that should be respected for its own sake. All "life" can't
possible qualify for this respect.

---
Reducto ad absurdium, you take the position that everything should be
illegal unless it's specifically allowed, which is ridiculous.
---

---
Kevinism again.

You demand that everyone define _their_ terms explicitly in order to
keep you from being confused, yet _you_ think it's perfectly
acceptable for you to be able to carelessly paint with a broad brush.

No, I expect that there is some modicum of common sense. This means that
certain things are taken as read.

---
That makes no sense, common or otherwise. Which "certain things" are
you talking about, and what do you mean by "taken as read"? Surely
you must realize that what you write is rarely unambiguous, so "taken
as read" is itself unclear.
---

Quite frankly, this is one of those...

Thump...Thump...Thump...hit head on the wall.. Like, how could anyone be
so misguided to really believe that anyone could be so daft as to think
that, for example, that not caring about bacteria in the *slightest*,
was part of the meaning of the above. Its a complete non-starter. It
only shows that you are thinking on this at way, way, lower level then
the what this discussion is aimed at.

---
"then the what this discussion is aimed at"?

Come on, Kevin, I'm getting tired of wasting my time having to wipe
your ass for you. If you expect me to continue with this discussion
have the courtesy to clean up your writing. Otherwise, forget it. I'm
tired of having to glean fifth-grade opinions from second-grade
English.
---

I'm, still sitting here wondering, how you could even contemplate such a
daft idea... It again tells me that this discussion is pointless. We are
on different wavelengths.

---
I agree. I have no problem contemplating 'most anything, no matter how
daft _you_ might think it to be, while you seem to be so tightly bound
by your Kevinism that views other than your own are anathema.
---

Oh dear... again, your completely out of it. You completly misunderstand
why this means your argument fails. The fact the same argument has been
applied to what you consider "life" and what you consider "non life",
yet has the *same* outcome, means that the argument *cannot* be used as
an argument for what constitutes life and non life.

---
I think you're confused. Take a little time and explain _exactly_
what you mean.
---

The *fundamental* issue here is that is the very *definition* of
what "life" should be classified as. It is what this debate is all
about. Dah...Dah...Dah...

---
Hardly. As I posted earlier:

"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."

Had you disagreed, I would have expected to have heard about it before
now.
---

No one knows what "life" is.

---
Then it's disingenuous of you to have asked me for a definition of it
unless, in truth, you were inquiring sincerely.

Nonsense. I want to know what *your* definition of life is, irrespective
of any absolute definitions. I presented mine, that is conventional
definitions "life" are simply irrelevant.

---
My definition of life _is_ the conventional definion, as I've stated
before, but you haven't present a definition, you've presented your
opinion that conventional definitions of life are irrelevant.
---

They are too broad to have
practical meaning, that is, they cant be used to identify (ID) what
might be considered "real life", i.e conscious entities.

---
And there's crux of the problem. You consider what you're now calling
"real life" to be what conscious entities possess, and I consider real
life to be what all living matter possesses. A superset of yours.
---

Sure, its my
definition, but do you want to disagree that all conscious entities
should at least be considered for respect? So I am half way there with
the definition of "meaningful life".

---
Boy, are you confused... I've never stated that I don't respect
conscious entities, what I _have_ stated is that I respect all life,
whether it fits into what you niggardly consider "meaningful".
---

It is specifically this that I am
addressing by making the distinction of consciousness.

---
No, it isn't. What you're trying to do is _prove_ that life before
consciousness is unimportant enough that terminating it is a non-issue
and, therefore, no responsibility needs to be taken for having
terminated that life .

No, I am giving an argument what this should indeed be the case.

---
Until you can prove that the taking of life is inconsequential, you
have to accept the responsibility and consequences that accompany the
act.
---

You _can't_ prove it,

Of course it cant be proved. I am simply making arguments in support of
the view.

---
See above.
---

therefore the issue of
responsibility needs to be dealt with, therefore you're on the horns
of a dilemma.

Nope. There is no dilemma. I see no argument that can justify DNA should
be given special status. Sure, I cant produce a conscious entity made
from non DNA to show that DNA is insufficient as a decider for "life",
but there is extensive evidence that this is the case. e.g. neural
research on how the brain functions.

---
No DNA, no life. No life, no brain.

When artificial life is created, _it_ also should be respected.
---

---
Ah, Kevinism again. Anything you can't understand or that you
disagree with must be invalid.

No. There comes a point when one realises that that someone has
insufficient background to understand the points being made.

---
Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help you over that
hurdle...

--
John Fields