Driver to drive?

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore 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.

Exactly. I'm behaving professionally. Nor do I want to let all the Chinese see
how to do it right.

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.

---
Trying to start a pissing contest?

You haven't the skills and experience in this field.

Ain't gonna work.

I'm sure you're very good at other things.

Graham

 

[James Waldby]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:33:07 +0200, petrus bitbyter wrote:

"James Waldby" ... schreef ...
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

That'll only set the mask. You also have to update a byte.

Suppose:

'updbyte' to be a copy picked from the update table FSR pointing to the
byte to be updated 'mask' to be the prepared mask, containing one 1

movf mask,w ; (Only if mask is not in w already)
btfsz updbyte, 5 ; check for set or reset
goto setupd ; set required go for it
xorlw 0xff ; reset required so complement mask
andwf IND,r ; reset bit
goto continue ; reset done, so continue
setupd iorwf IND,r ; set bit
continue nop

As there are only few instructions, I see no way to save one or two.

movf mask,w ; (Only if mask is not in w already)
iorwf IND,r ; set bit
btfss updbyte, 5 ; check for set or reset
xorwf IND,r ; reset bit
continue nop

--
jiw

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 19, 10:26 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
If you use a huge enough diode it survives the fuse blowing so long as
the fuse is the one you supplied and isn't wrapped in foil.

Why do people do that ? Must be good for 100A peaks.

With a real fuse, a 100A peak diode will do. With a foil wrapped one,
it needs to be even bigger.

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 19, 10:25 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Is there anything stopping you increasing the supply voltage a tiny bit or using
high side drive ?

The supply voltage is "cast in paper".  I don't understand your "high
side drive" comment.

That would only be of relevance to source follower output designs. Well, actually,
I've used with bipolars too but that's another story.

A little background:

This is an existing product that we would like to improve by changing
part of the circuit.  That part will need to get bigger.  We want the
new PCB to fit exactly onto the existing assembly so the total size
can't grow.  If I can shrink some other part, we can do it easily.

I see your problem. Can you go to Class D ?

No, not unless I can get everything above 30KHz to be about 60dB
down. That requires biggish inductors to do.

Do you have a full schematic of the existing design ?

Yes, since I drew it some years back.

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


I've made one decision though. If one outfit wants me it'll be Group
Technical Director.

My advice would be to take the one where you're likely to do the least
damage.

You would think they already have a know it all janitor.

That's a bit low Michael. The fact of the matter is that after something of
a drought (partly for health reasons) it's damn monsoon out there right now.
I don't know how I can satisfy both clients who both have very interesting
respectively moderately big and huge projects on right now.

Plus my back's still fucked.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

You're a babe in arms in this discipline.

---
You wish.

I cut my teeth on audio and was designing and building bridge amplifiers
in the early '60's, even before RCA came out with them, as I recall.

The world has moved on John.

---
As have I, while you guys keep struggling to lower THD to limits which
are so far beyond the threshold of audibility that the point of the
exercise becomes ludicrous.

But it's FUN !

Where would you place the threshold (and what harmonic structure) of audible
THD ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.

---
Ah, but since you don't hold the keys to the kingdom I might come up
with something even better, just for the fun of kicking your ass.

I wish you every success.

It also has to fit industry standard form factors. A 3u 19" rack is considered big
for a 2kW amplifier for example, must be as lightweight as possible and must have
certain input processing requirements such as anti-clip circuitry, balanced inputs of
course and user selectable high pass filters to name a few.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Not if the "additional" pole is at a much higher frequency than the
previous pole inherent to the capacitances of a heap of fets driven by
some wimpy resistive source. Increasing the bandwidth of the output
stage - the serious speed problem - by, say, 20:1 has got to help the
overall loop.

Just buffering Ciss helps a ton.

There's no free lunch here: we're adding GBW, and paying for it. But
not much, since opamps are cheap.

I confess I do that kind of thing. Just not put op-amps round the actual output
devices myself so far but it sounds interesting. They'd have to be damn fast
though.

Graham

 

[Anthony Fremont]

James Waldby wrote:

movf mask,w ; (Only if mask is not in w already)
iorwf IND,r ; set bit
btfss updbyte, 5 ; check for set or reset
xorwf IND,r ; reset bit
continue nop

Clever.

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Eeyore 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.


I'm quite sure that JF is far too out of touch with the technology currently
used in the best audio amplification.

Also, it has to be economic to manufacture. That's easily half of it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that being the case, then it must be shit you're making!
I think any beginner can accomplish that.

As ever you're quite clueless.

What do you a PCB / chassis mount professional audio XLR 3 pin gold-plated
connector should cost for example ?

Or an NE5532 ?


Graham

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:48FA3DA5.66925665@hovnanian.com:

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:48F8D9A4.10F893DD@hovnanian.com:

MooseFET wrote:

[snip]

Why go so high tech. Simply go with the ink bottle of purple ink
like 3rd world places have done. It won't prevent those aren't
supposed to from voting once but it does prevent them from voting 10
times. The percentage of adults who are not allowed to vote is so
small that if you limit them to one at a time they will get lost in
the noise.

The race of purple people are going to drag you into court!


one thing to point out;illegally registered voters can obtain ABSENTEE
BALLOTS and vote that way.
Then DemocRATic election committees will count them.

In Florida, perhaps. Here, they are called provisional ballots. They
don't get counted until the validity of the registration in question is
verified.


but look who would be doing the "verification";DemocRATic election
committees.

Its a non-partisan position here. If Republicans won't support the
process, whose fault is that?

Sitting around and whining doesn't constitute 'support'.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Only through suffering comes wisdom. -- Zeus

 

On 19 okt, 19:35, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 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.

You are both blowhards.

Since John Larkin advertises his own brilliance on a fairly regular
basis, not to mention the brilliance of the products he designs and
sells, he qualifies as a fairly impressive blowhard on his own
account.

You talk about how smart you are, or used to
be, with zero evidence.

Even Eeyore has been known to identify stuff that he has designed, and
I've pointed to stuff that I've designed from time to time. John
Larkin presumably doesn't consider this evidence that that we are - or
were ever - smart since he seems to think that his designs are the
only schematics which could prove that the designer was clever, but
his claim of "zero evidence" is somewhat fatuous.

I will post the schematic of an original, probably unique, practical,
just-invented audio amp output stage topology if both of you will
agree to do the same.

Which means that John thinks he has invented something new and
exciting - again. If he spent a little more time learning about what
other people had done, he might waste a little less time boasting
about his latest reinvention of the wheel.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 19 okt, 19:35, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:48:07 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 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.

You are both blowhards.

Since John Larkin advertises his own brilliance on a fairly regular
basis, not to mention the brilliance of the products he designs and
sells, he qualifies as a fairly impressive blowhard on his own
account.

You talk about how smart you are, or used to
be, with zero evidence.

Even Eeyore has been known to identify stuff that he has designed, and
I've pointed to stuff that I've designed from time to time. John
Larkin presumably doesn't consider this evidence that that we are - or
were ever - smart since he seems to think that his designs are the
only schematics which could prove that the designer was clever, but
his claim of "zero evidence" is somewhat fatuous.

I will post the schematic of an original, probably unique, practical,
just-invented audio amp output stage topology if both of you will
agree to do the same.

Which means that John thinks he has invented something new and
exciting - again. If he spent a little more time learning about what
other people had done, he might waste a little less time boasting
about his latest reinvention of the wheel.

I'll take that for refusal. I suspect nobody is surprised.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:33:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Not if the "additional" pole is at a much higher frequency than the
previous pole inherent to the capacitances of a heap of fets driven by
some wimpy resistive source. Increasing the bandwidth of the output
stage - the serious speed problem - by, say, 20:1 has got to help the
overall loop.

Just buffering Ciss helps a ton.

Just sticking a unity-gain buffer, like an LT1010, in front of the
gate helps a lot. But then, you may as well use an opamp and close the
local loop.

There's no free lunch here: we're adding GBW, and paying for it. But
not much, since opamps are cheap.

I confess I do that kind of thing. Just not put op-amps round the actual output
devices myself so far but it sounds interesting. They'd have to be damn fast
though.

Graham

 

On 19 okt, 21:06, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Eeyore 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.

The OP clearly knows what he wants and although his first post didn't make
that clear, he has since elaborated and I find no absence of a 'clear idea'.

The OP knew what he wanted, but he lacked a clear idea of the way the
solution he was asking for was going to give him the effect he
desired, in the same kind of way that you have a clear idea that you
want to prove anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense, but no
clear idea of the nature of the evidence supporting the case for
anthropogenic global warming. In your case this failure of insight
makes it rather difficult for you to argue against anthropogenc global
warming in any way that might be remotely persuasive.

The original poster is less disadvantaged - he should be able to get
hold of a guitar amplifier design that gives him the kind of
distortion he wants, and it won't be impossibly expensive or bulky. Of
course, if he has the bad luck to get hold of a valve amplifer design
that doesn't give him the kind of distortion he had in mind, he'll be
stuck, as he doesn't appear to know what kind of distortion he
actually wants.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[boB]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:18:27 GMT, "Jeff L" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:k1dne4luj7j1g03ivr22e225mokpjghoon@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:29:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


This is what's going on:

ftp://66.117.156.8/SwitcherRise.JPG

For the first 15 ns, the lower fet of the synchronous switcher is on.
The output voltage is about -0.5 volts, roughly, which is Rds-on of
the lower fet times the load current. In preparation for turning on
the upper fet, the chip switches the lower fet off for the next 20 ns.
Now the load current is flowing through a pn junction diode internal
to the chip, essentially the substrate diode of the lower fet. That
has a drop of about 1 volt. The 20 ns of both-fets-off time is
intended to make sure they don't generate a huge shoot-thru current.

But when the upper fet turns on, at 35 ns, the substrate diode
reverse-conducts, and a huge current flows through the upper fet
through the diode to ground. After about 5 ns of reverse conduction,
the diode snaps off, and the output zooms up. It's acting like a
step-recovery diode, or maybe even a Grekhov DSRD. This huge current
winds up the chip's wirebond and lead inductance, which is what's
ringing. The waveform is classic.

Two fixes:

Add an external schottky diode to clamp the output at -0.5 or so, so
the slow PN diode doesn't turn on.

and/or

Replace the bipolar opamps with fet amps, which are less eager to
rectify RF.


National should have done something about this. Used a schottky if
possible, or a soft-recovery diode, or warned people to add an
external schottky.


The addition of external diodes may be ineffective, as diverting
current flow from one loop to another, under the influence of only a
few 100mV of diode forward voltage differential, will be impractical
in the time frame available.

Reducing turn-on speed of the upper fet is effected through an
increase in gate drive source impedance, by placing impedances in the
drive source's supply - the boost cap - as is suggested elsewhere.

This can fix the problem, but will drop the efficiency of the power supply.
The efficiency drop might be significant at those frequencies.

I have found that this can also ~increase~ the efficiency of the power
supply by lowering the losses from this particular mechanism problem.

boB

Not likely a
problem in John's case, since the unit is bench powered, unless the power
dissipation in the chip becomes too much.


RL

 

[RichD]

On Oct 12, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why are so many Americans so stupid ?

UK is 50 years ahead of us down the sewer
of socialism... now let us discuss further
this matter of intelligence...

--
Rich

 

[mpm]

On Oct 19, 8:32�pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"mpm" <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:f51614ef-03e3-4746-b329-8decbc42bdae@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 3:27?pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:





Here are some pics of a proof of concept. The quality sucks but shows
whats
going on:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=MVC-001S.48c.JPGhttp....

The first is with flash. It should be obvious which one is the fiber optic
and which one is the led on the surface. The fiber optic is running both
red
and green while the lifted one is just red.

The fiber optic is much "tighter" but as the last picture shows, at a
different angle the green comes completely through and sometimes the red
is
more prevalent(3rd link).

The fiber optic looks "nicer" because it looks more professional but that
might be just because of of the other being rigged(hot glued to hold it in
hole). The fiber optic method is much easier to do because I don't have to
"lift" the led into the hole but can put the led's on pcb.

On the other hand, the fiber optic is clearly not as bright and it is a
bit
harder to see off angle. Increasing the diameter of the fiber optic core
should help a little and may help with "mixing" the colors beter.

So, the main thing I need to get my idea rolling is some fiber optic
cabling
that solves the following problems(or where it can be easily modified to):

1. Mixes the colors better(so viewing at different angles do not give
different colors)
2. Disperses the light at the end a bit better
3. A thin jacket so that it will fit snug in the hole. (the one I used
fits
very nicely but the jacket is 1mm thick. I'd like to reduce the jacket
size
and increase the core size but same snug fit without screwing up the fiber
in some way)
4. A lot of light seems not to be going into the fiber. When I look
underneath the wood it is almost just as bright as what is above if not
brighter. ?Seems pretty in efficient to me since I could probably get the
same brightness by using the "lifted" led at 1/3 power(or maybe 1/2) but
"lifting" the led has many of it's own problems.

I was also thinking of maybe having some type of "lenz" that fits on top
of
the hole that can be pressed in that disperses the light and mixes it.
Although this complicates things by a few factors(mainly resourcing them
and
extra cost).

A lens (note, not spelled "lenz"?) will improve the fiber-optic
results tremendously.
There was a company I used once before (I'm trying desparately to
remember their name....).
-------

What I found was led pipes and lenses. This is really what I need but I
can't find them at the proper size. (They are all for the large TH like leds
or large SMT)

===> They make a lot of fiber-optic safety interlock switch stuff.
But they have discrete lenses available. �Began with an "S", I
think..?
It'll come to me, or someone here will know them. �Big company. �USA.
------

I don't know. I haven't dealt with fiber optic. �It seems like my solution
is probably the best even if I can't work out the kinks perfectly, at least
for getting a prototype done. �Although I'd rather get it right the first
time if it's not too much trouble.

I've already ordered 200 of the rgb led's and hopefully it won't be too hard
to get a pcb for them going. I got a 100$ fender squire comming. Hopefully
I'll be able to start on the circuitry sometime soon. Shouldn't be too
difficult but going to be hard to integrate into the guitar because enough
surface area needs to be left so the neck can stick well and if it needs to
be removed again it doesn't ruin the circuit. I think it shouldn't be that
bit of a challenge though when I get too it.

======> I actually have a box full of misc plastic fiber optics, parts, fiber
reels, etc...
If I knew where it was in the warehouse, I'd ship it to you my regular
discount offer price:
That being, the cost of UPS shipping plus a single bottle of a decent
Belgian Ale! �Ha!!
-----

That would be nice But I wonder if the Belgian Ale is good for you?

===> I wouldn't write off fiber optic until you marry it up with a flush
mount lens of some sort.
I think you will be very impressed. ďż˝ Also, just to mention, the human
eye is much more sensitive to green than red. ďż˝(You'll have to play
with color/luminosity issues, even with LED's)
----

I've been looking for lenses but it seems they are all too big. The fresnel
type seem to be what I want but I can't find them at the size I need(at most
about 2mm).

Hell, I'm having a hard time finding cheap fiber optic with a core of about
1.5-2mm ;/ �I'm going to hit the local stores tomorrow and see if I can't
find any in a hobby shop.

=====> And one word of caution, if you're handling glass fiber-optic, brush
up on fiber safety first. �You don't want that stuff in your skin or
eyes. ďż˝ (And depending on what you're driving the fiber with -- you
don't want to perform amateur RK surgery either.. �Though I'm sure
you're driving with LED's and not collimated lasers, etc...
Besides, I don't think I've ever seen glass fiber at the cross-
sectional diameter your project requries, but you never know. �Just be
aware you can't pluck glass fiber out with tweezers. �You'll end up in
the E.R. ďż˝
------

Really? I imagine the silica dust is harmful to the lungs but that develops
over long term exposure? Yeah, I'm not using lasers or anything but simple
led's so I don't have to worry about that. Mostly I just need to cut the
fiber optics to size. (used a razor blade to cut what I had and it worked
fine although the end wasn't perfectly smooth and flat)

Do you know if I were to strip the fiber optic's jacket off and insert it in
the wood if the wood will change the refraction causing it to be less
efficient? �Or if the wood will some how weaken the fiber optic? (although
that shouldn't matter too much as it's short and not being moved once in
place)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It depends on the fiber (optical rolloff), but the type of cable I'm
thinking you want doesn't actually have a sheath. That also saves you
the labor of having to remove it.

I didn't make it clear in my last post, but you should definitely be
using a plastic or acrylic fiber (not a glass fiber). I didn't get
around to completing that thought. Glass fiber will be too much money
anyway.

I'm also wondering (out loud, I really haven't thought it
through.....) if you might be able to get by with a silicone lens.
You might even be able to prototype these yourself? Google "Liquid
Silicone Lens" and drill down through some of the hits. Although
focusing might suffer on your protoype, I'm wondering if using a clear
silicone would greatly simply prototype assembly -- or whether it
would just be a big ugly mess to clean up?

The company I was thinking about was Banner Engineering.
(No "S". Duh?!) Oh well. Call their engineers, because they make a
lot of stuff that's nowhere to be found on their web sites. Although,
they're likely too pricey to be a practical solution. But maybe they
can steer you to the right folks. I do know they carry all kinds of
fiber. At least they used to a few years back. Good luck.

-mpm

 

[krw]

In article <6m187dFee7g6U1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...

krw wrote:
In article <6luv1iFe90meU1@mid.individual.net>,
dirk.bruere@gmail.com says...
JeffM wrote:
The official launch is Oct 13, but you can download it now.
http://distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/#extmirrors

For those of you struggling with folks sending you crap
saved in M$'s new lock-in/lockout file formats, here's the good news:

-- New stuff --
Can open files from M$Office 2007, Office 2008 for OS X
(.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.)

1024 Columns Per Sheet (was 256)
-- Excel 2007 will do 16,384 ! (x 1,048,576 !)

Support for (ISO standard) OpenDocument Format 1.2 (ODF)

Runs under OS X without X11

...and OOo has had some VBA support for a while now.

More details:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/
Just downloaded it.
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.

Because, unless you are doing trivial work, it isn't compatible with
the other 99.9% who would rather pay for software.

Well, a number of governments think different.
^ly

So? The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$. It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.

And the way I heard it, it is MS who has been forced into compatibility
with ODF

Nonsense. M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <j7pmf4hpl1dpvplvn3nihcl239umnvdpc8@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:44:03 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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?

After the election there will be NO talk radio... that ought to make
the little bastard Dems happy :-(

Of course it will. The CBS and NBC wings of the DNC will be happy
too.

But I'll have the last laugh... wonder how high the price of gasoline
will rise ?

They'll "solve" the problem by rationing it. They're already
talking about it.

What will be even more fun will be the price of heating oil in
Massachusetts [smirk]

Good thing I left NE. The weather's nice down here (though a little
global warming would have been nice this weekend). $10 oil should
be enough of a "fire" to get the kid to move too.

--
Keith