Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean relaxation of banking practices, not interference.a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:39 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
"No more Ferraris: we are the masters now"
This is a momentous day in the history of capitalism, as governments the
world over prepare to take huge stakes in the hitherto independent banks
that have driven the West's economic success.
For believers in free markets, the bailout is nothing short of a
calamity. But when the only alternative appears to be the meltdown of
our entire financial system, economic survival is all that matters.
So, a global meltdown is your definition of success of independent
banks?
It was the government's interference in banking practices that caused
the failures in the first place. More interference is not a good thing.
You are both blowhards. You talk about how smart you are, or used toOn 15 okt, 13:18, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Since you seem to be planning on building a valve amplifier for your
guitar, you presumably don't have a clear idea of what you are doing.
On the contrary, you Bill are as usual the one without a clue.
More of Graham's usual clueless abuse. He's snipped what I wrote -
without marking the snip - thus attempting to make it appear that my
own comment is as gratuitious and unsupported as his own, rather than
the conclusion of the kind of logical argument that he appears to be
incapable of constructing.
That's pretty much my view as well.Frankly I'm firmly in the camp that can't quite figure out whats
wrong with PC BIOS. Sure, its got some seriously legacy issues, but from
where I stand it seems its only true failings are in places where the
related standards are complex/poorly defined and the quality of the
implementations aren't so good. IMHO the replacements all suffer from a
case of creating a complex mess which will only lead to more pain in a
time period shorter than BIOS has been around. Frankly, there seems a
lot of "Not Invented Here" happening because a truly KISS replacement
would probably look shockingly like BIOS.
The following might save an instruction or two --"Bill B" ... schreef ...
Trying to figure out an easy way to update a single bit within a group
of 24 bits (3 bytes) using a lookup table that returns 8 bits. The
first 5 bits from the table will indicate the bit to be updated (1of
24) and the 6th bit will indicate a set or reset for that particular
bit.
[snip]
Complicated? Seems straight forward to me, though not the most efficient
in speed as you need an average of 36 shift and jump operations. To
improve speed you can consider the following: - pick up the update byte
from the table and store it somewhere - use bit 3 and 4 (so the fourth
and fifth bit) to point the indirect register to the byte that needs to
be updated - use bit 0-3 to prepare the mask
- check bit 5 to see if you need to set or to reset - if set is
required, use an OR operation, if reset is required complement mask and
use an AND.
On Oct 18, 10:22?pm, UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is endorsed by Gen.
Colin Powell tomorrow morning on Meet the Press.
? What would you like to bet on it?
?I'll bet $50 that it is not Obama.
Please make your check out to the Democratic National Convention, or
Planned Parenthood.
Or even "Joe the Plumber". Maybe it'll help him with his back-taxes.
Thank you.
In article <ng0kf4lvprc3j1n07s3q0sbj9l7s50r2t2@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net
wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:17 am, mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:12 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution
It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.
At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...
Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories. :-0
I have no beef. I am just pointing out a problem. Some would say:
The constitution is silent on the subject of radio waves so that must
obviously be a power left to the states. Others would say: Radio
signals cross state lines so they are interstate commerce.
Radio signals are not commerce at all.
Really? Commercial time is free? Broadcasters do it for the
jollies?
The phone lines are not operated by the FCC, idiot.In article <nkvjf4trobgl87otc4ocooacallg3mob86@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org says...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:12?am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
While we are at it where is the FCC in the constitution
It's the brainchild of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced
the then Federal Radio Commission.
At least, that what is says on the back of my licenses...
Just curious?
Do you have a 'beef' with the FCC?
Maybe we could trade horror stories. :-0
$5 fee EACH MONTH for EACH hard line phone in the country amounts to
several hundred million dollars a month. Likely for all the air phones
too.
Their operating costs are not several hundred million dollars a month.
Phone lines are free? You really do have a warped sense of
economics.
It's certainly a very interesting topology.I'd argue
that adding an opamp per power fet makes things faster, stability
better, and compensation simpler, since the gate/Miller capacitance
disappears... each fet now looks like a very fast, pF input
capacitance, DC-perfect device, and essentially disappears from the
overall loop dynamics. Now just pile on as many opamp+fet pairs as you
need. DC balance and current sharing become as good as the opamp
offset voltages, microvolts if you like, so fet gate threshold
variations and transfer curves don't matter any more. So use very
small source resistors and cut losses.
The OP clearly knows what he wants and although his first post didn't makeEeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Since you seem to be planning on building a valve amplifier for your
guitar, you presumably don't have a clear idea of what you are doing.
On the contrary, you Bill are as usual the one without a clue.
More of Graham's usual clueless abuse. He's snipped what I wrote -
without marking the snip - thus attempting to make it appear that my
own comment is as gratuitious and unsupported as his own, rather than
the conclusion of the kind of logical argument that he appears to be
incapable of constructing.
I'm quite sure that JF is far too out of touch with the technology currentlyEeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
You make those claims and then, conveniently, fail to back them up
because of the restrictions you claim are placed upon you by copyright
and contractual limitations.
Fine. Pay me and I'll do something similar for you and you'll own the
copyright.
---
Pay you???
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day!
Well, let's face it, you don't have the necessary skills.
Make sure you have a shovel, you'll need it for that hole
your about to dig for your self.
the crap is getting deep!John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
As it is, all you seem to be intent on doing is promoting yourself as
some sort of audio Guru who claims to greatness but who refuses to
submit proof.
Suit yourself. Everything I claim does what it does. All you have to do is
buy one and test it yourself.
---
Why buy when I can build?
---
It would cost you LOTS more to build one yourself and you wouldn't replicate the
pcb pattern which can be critical for top performance.
Graham
LOL!!
your about to dig for your self.John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
But at such low distortion levels, is it worth it?
Everything is worth it.
?
If only for the technical challenge and personal reward.
---
Really?
You make those claims and then, conveniently, fail to back them up
because of the restrictions you claim are placed upon you by copyright
and contractual limitations.
Fine. Pay me and I'll do something similar for you and you'll own the
copyright.
---
Pay you???
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day!
Well, let's face it, you don't have the necessary skills.
Graham
Make sure you have a shovel, you'll need it for that hole
I think you definitely want to hook up with one of the Chinese ImportIs there a cheap source for fiber optic that is't used for communication
but
lighting? I need it in small lengths(< 1 in but of course I can cut it)
and
don't mind imperfections. In fact I imagine even scrap would work. 1mm to
2mm in diameter too.
Although need it without the sheath or some easy way to remove it. Would
be
nice if it had a coating on it so I could handle it but a very thin one
that
was bonded to the fiber)
Thanks,
Jon
I might try to track down some of it and do some tests.Den wrote:
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upCKk.2822$hc1.1034@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Is there a cheap source for fiber optic that is't used for communication
but lighting? I need it in small lengths(< 1 in but of course I can cut
it) and don't mind imperfections. In fact I imagine even scrap would
work. 1mm to 2mm in diameter too.
Although need it without the sheath or some easy way to remove it. Would
be nice if it had a coating on it so I could handle it but a very thin
one that was bonded to the fiber)
Thanks,
Jon
Farnell for sheathed stuff, about 2mm core diameter IIRC.
Try the $2 / crap / bargain / junk / shit shops and see if they have some
'70s optic fibre table lamps.
Or the "el cheapo" christmas tree with optical fibers
Damnation Jon, what part of the privacy issue of secret ballot do you"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f6f73aef-036d-4ff1-8d17-059699e99b72@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 17, 4:53?am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
There seems many possibilities to fix the problems but I guess no one
wants
to?
My sister-in-law has a bright shiney-new Green Card.
From the look of it, it has about 30 dozen security features on it.
(and IN it?)
Assuming the card does not cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture,
maybe that's a good first start? Just replace our existing paper
voter registration cards - which in our State, do not have a photo ID
on them.
Still, ID-ing the person will not tell you if they actually live in
the precinct in which they are voting.
That's a database lookup. And any network connection is vunerable to
attack.
If you want abuse, you can look at what's going on in Ohio right now.
Efforts there seek to disqualify up to 200,000 registered voters at
the polls.
For better or worse. I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out that
that's a lot of potential votes.
-----------
The problem is that the democrats won't police themselfs. By having a
machine that internally keeps track of who votes one can prevent multiple
votes(it's quite easy to do). One must have a way to track and a way to
secure. All can be overcome to some degree and it will at least take it out
of the hands of groups like acorn and even reduce much of the government
oversight because they don't need to worry about those groups.
There are a series of checks and balances that can be put in place to make
it work pretty well. (much better than what is going on now)
For a presidential nomination it doesn't matter if the computer doesnt' know
which district. As long as you are a us citizen and have the right to vote
it's ok. It just makes sure you don't vote more than once.
If one wanted they could associate such information into the database so if
there are discrepancies more information can be taken into account to
resolve it.
The problem with id's is that they are easily counterfieted(the polling
places usually do not have the resources to check and usually don't care all
that much).
Remember, the problem is people voting twice. ID's do not solve that
problem. A computer that keeps track of the individual's vote count does. Of
course it has to do it right but assuming it does then it solves the
problem. It also can't easily be counterfieted because it would be locked up
in a bipartisian way(say a double lock where each party gets the key and
only both keys can be used... along with security checks and such just in
case).
The main issue is that people think that it will violate there privacy or
that "big brother" is collecting info about them. To me, it's a small price
to play to reduce the corruption a great deal.
Heres the scenario:
Joe blow goes in to vote. If he hasn't voted before then nothing happens. If
he tries to vote again the machine will detect it(since it recognizes is
info) and it warns someone. If he actually did vote before then of course he
will shot... else his vote is taken manually and scruitinized to make sure
it is valid(log's of the machines can be brought up to see what happened).
Also, if names/social numbers/etc were linked to the bio-info then it would
be that much better. That way Joe will need to have the proper ID too and if
it doesn't match then they know it's not joe but someone trying to pretend
to be joe. Although it wouldn't do that person trying to pretend any good
unless he couldn't vote in the first since his vote only counted once
anyways.
There are some issues of course, with it because the computer system needs
to be completely secure but it makes it much harder to fix an election.
The real reason of course is that the democratic party simply doesn't want
such things implemented beacuse it hurts them because they can't cheat...
cheaters never want it to get harder. In fact, since dems favor big
government they should be te ones pushing for such things but they don't.
And your argument would be incorrect I am afraid to say. I have alreadyOn Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:07:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Allen Bong
Hi Graham,
Is this a good audio amp using HexFET for a starter?
http://users.otenet.gr/~athsam/power_amplifier_45w_hexfet_eng.htm
The driver and output stages use IRF9540 and IRF540 and the opamp
is LF411. THD is 0.2%. Power supply is +/- 30V.
I like it because the PCB design is included.
Allen
Not too bad,
Yes. "not too bad" in the strict sense of the phrase. That is, it is
a bad design, but not so bad as to be totally unusable. However,
this does depend on the definition of "good" somewhat. Assuming we
give meaning to the term "average", then this design can not in any
reasonable way be classed as a "good" or even an average design".
It is a quick knock up, that serious audio designers don't even give
a second look to, well except when commenting on how bad it is.
except for the biasing. Iq could have been set by a
pot+resistor from IC1 pin 4 to 7, and the DC offset trim should be
into the opamp, not fighting it.
A "good" audio amp, imo, will have at most, only one trim pot, and
this is to set the output bias.
The biasing/crossover of this type of circuit is potentially
perfect, in that both stages run at some idle current and signal
makes one pick up,
For very high speed, audiophile performance, this output device
configuration is very poor. The gates of the transistors are
connected via two much speed lag. This usually results in very,
large shot through currents when hit by 100n pulses.
but leaves the opposite side idling. As opposed to a lot of
circuits where conduction on one side actively shuts off the other.
DC bias on the output fets depends on their thresholds, not so good;
closing local loops on the fets (with more opamps) would be better.
Oh...a sure-fire recipe for disaster, if done correctly...It will
generate additional de-stabilising poles. That particular technique
can be useful for reducing LF. distortion, but it does it at the
expense of BW, i.e. higher HF distortion. I would be surprised if
this "design" could stand having its HF IMD compromised any further.
My NMR and MRI gradient amps use a similar topology... the driver
opamp has its supply rails cascoded to make signal currents, and the
upper and lower power stages are active current mirrors. I'd argue
that adding an opamp per power fet makes things faster, stability
better, and compensation simpler, since the gate/Miller capacitance
disappears...
Unfortunatly not. Consider a two stage amp circuit, one first stage, beingeach fet now looks like a very fast, pF input
capacitance, DC-perfect device, and essentially disappears from the
overall loop dynamics.
For LF, the op-amp approach is very nice, for HF, its not so nice.Now just pile on as many opamp+fet pairs as you
need. DC balance and current sharing become as good as the opamp
offset voltages, microvolts if you like, so fet gate threshold
variations and transfer curves don't matter any more. So use very
small source resistors and cut losses.
This is very slow, by about 2 orders of magnitude at least. At this slowMy amps often work in pulse mode, when doing chemical NMR. They settle
to PPMs of the target value (which is current, since we're driving
gradient coils) in 10's of microseconds.
Kevin Aylward wrote:
A "good" audio amp, imo, will have at most, only one trim pot, and
this is to set the output bias.
I was delighted with the consistency of my D Series of bipolar amps.
No trim pots at all. Designed out in the design process. In fact the
entire amp had not one trimpot. That means faster production and
final test plus a cost reduction.
That'll only set the mask. You also have to update a byte.On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:59:39 +0200, petrus bitbyter wrote:
"Bill B" ... schreef ...
Trying to figure out an easy way to update a single bit within a group
of 24 bits (3 bytes) using a lookup table that returns 8 bits. The
first 5 bits from the table will indicate the bit to be updated (1of
24) and the 6th bit will indicate a set or reset for that particular
bit.
[snip]
Complicated? Seems straight forward to me, though not the most efficient
in speed as you need an average of 36 shift and jump operations. To
improve speed you can consider the following: - pick up the update byte
from the table and store it somewhere - use bit 3 and 4 (so the fourth
and fifth bit) to point the indirect register to the byte that needs to
be updated - use bit 0-3 to prepare the mask
- check bit 5 to see if you need to set or to reset - if set is
required, use an OR operation, if reset is required complement mask and
use an AND.
The following might save an instruction or two --
0. Get byte in accumulator
1. OR accumulator with 1-bit mask M.
2. Go to 4 if bit is being set.
3. XOR accumulator with M
4. ...
--
jiw
---John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
But at such low distortion levels, is it worth it?
Everything is worth it.
?
If only for the technical challenge and personal reward.
---
Really?
You make those claims and then, conveniently, fail to back them up
because of the restrictions you claim are placed upon you by copyright
and contractual limitations.
Fine. Pay me and I'll do something similar for you and you'll own the
copyright.
---
Pay you???
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day!
Well, let's face it, you don't have the necessary skills.