EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Webb wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:11:27 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

{snip}

Why do you suppose that there is a reason?

There's always *some* reason.

Not necessarily. Many things happen for no reason whatsoever. Fundamentally,
its Quantum Mechanics. There is no obligation that there is a reason for
anything

Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Sep 18, "Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
{snip}
Why do you suppose that there is a reason?

Why do you suppose there is a reason
for his supposition?

I didnt.

Then why did you ask why?

Why not?

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Charles]

"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5swAk.59707$E41.55058@text.news.virginmedia.com...

Charles wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message
newswwyk.56734$E41.28902@text.news.virginmedia.com...

I don't see the relevance of this either. So what if science makes
mistakes. Such mistakes don't indicate that there is something "other
than" mass-energy.

If you don't see the relevance, then you might be worshipping at the altar
of science (not as dangerous as the altars of religion, but still scary).
Science cannot and should not PRECLUDE anything; especially those ideas
beyond its limited realm of mathematical proofs.

Matter/energy could become a religion. Be careful.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Charles wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5swAk.59707$E41.55058@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Charles wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message
newswwyk.56734$E41.28902@text.news.virginmedia.com...


I don't see the relevance of this either. So what if science makes
mistakes. Such mistakes don't indicate that there is something "other
than" mass-energy.

If you don't see the relevance, then you might be worshipping at the
altar of science (not as dangerous as the altars of religion, but
still scary).

Oh...?

Science cannot and should not PRECLUDE anything;
especially those ideas beyond its limited realm of mathematical
proofs.
Matter/energy could become a religion. Be careful.

Once someone can provide some convincing evidence that there is something
other than mass-energy, I may be prepared to give up this particular
"religion".

I think you miss a point here. Science is not about absolute "truth". It is
about producing the minimum number of axioms that explain the most results.
Its irrelevant whether or not the particular axioms chosen are true, just as
long as they are consistent and work. So, I don't claim that science
describes is the way the universe really is, only that that is how it
appears to behave. For example, we have identical equations whether we
consider gravity is caused by the curvature of space, or by momentum
exchange of spin two particles (gravitons). Science is only a way of
*modelling* the universe.

Kevin Aylward
www.blonddee.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mike V wrote:

Assume god exists, an absurd assumption I know.

Then he uses us as his playthings and for his own amusement kills
people with tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, plague, fire, flood and
famine.

We are also ment to praise him and love him.

To be honest god makes Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il
look like a bunch of liberal social workers.

If god exists then I reject him and his evil ways as I would any
dictator.

Indeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk

"Dave Allen"

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Charles]

"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jv2Bk.60525$E41.51294@text.news.virginmedia.com...

Science is not about absolute "truth". It is about producing the minimum
number of axioms that explain the most results. Its irrelevant whether or
not the particular axioms chosen are true, just as long as they are
consistent and work. So, I don't claim that science describes is the way
the universe really is, only that that is how it appears to behave. For
example, we have identical equations whether we consider gravity is caused
by the curvature of space, or by momentum exchange of spin two particles
(gravitons). Science is only a way of *modelling* the universe.

Can't disagree with the above.

 

[private]

1) download and install Ghostscript and Ghostview, 2) install a
postscript printer (software install!) under Windoze and set its default
settings to print to file--no you do not have to have the 'printer
device' attached, 3) print to the postscript printer and name the file
and place the file somewhere in the drivepath so that you can find it,
4) browse to find the file and rename to have a .ps extension, 5) open
it in Ghostview, 6) convert to PDF using the appropriate menu, 7) review
PDF document.

Harry Dellamano wrote:

Looking for best software to convert DWG to PDF for less than $75. I need
to be able to zoom and crop large DWG drawings into smaller PDF. I already
have Acrobat 7.
Thanks,
Harry

 

[Barbarian]

"private" <me@giggleplex.lol> wrote in message
news:kRCKf.565$1B2.338@fe07.lga...

1) download and install Ghostscript and Ghostview, 2) install a
postscript printer (software install!) under Windoze and set its default
settings to print to file--no you do not have to have the 'printer
device' attached, 3) print to the postscript printer and name the file
and place the file somewhere in the drivepath so that you can find it,
4) browse to find the file and rename to have a .ps extension, 5) open
it in Ghostview, 6) convert to PDF using the appropriate menu, 7) review
PDF document.

Harry Dellamano wrote:
Looking for best software to convert DWG to PDF for less than $75. I
need
to be able to zoom and crop large DWG drawings into smaller PDF. I
already
have Acrobat 7.
Thanks,
Harry


Download and install PDF995 from www.pdf995.com.

It installs as a printer... tell autocad to print to printer "PDF995".

Print "view" to print a section of a drawing into a PDF.


Dennis

 

[Brad Velander]

Hey gee, looky here, now JeffM is multi-posting. Go back in your hole troll!

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1141586508.164929.163000@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs.
I don't know where I can get the two programs

Perhaps you could refine this search string:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sourceforge.net+intitle:Hope+OR+intitle:Atlanta
.
.
My gmail is yyq787@gmail.com.

You don't really "get" Usenet. do you?

Perhaps you don't even understand that you're accessing Usenet.
(Google Groups is only 1 way to do so
--some would say the LAME way. (I am not one of those.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Usenet

Any information that is transmitted privately
instead of being posted to the group
will obviously not be available to everyone.
As you are posting from the Usenet ARCHIVE at Google,
this should be impressed on you even more .

If, OTOH, you are just too lazy to return here for your answer,
piss off.

 

[Joseph2k]

Marte Schwarz wrote:

May be. I didn't read the english texts, because german is my native
languague ;-) But you don't have to read any texts from this guy. The
program is totaly self explaining.

Perhaps only to native German speakers?

Tell me your question, I may give you the answer without reading any text
from this guy.

Gegen dummheit kampfen Die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
Gegen Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst vergebens
--Shiller
Schiller

Helau

Marte


I am a Linux type, not in need of this program. Thanks anyway.

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Schiller

 

[Brad Velander]

What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar (yeah,
not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs
(sci.electonics.design, sci.electronics.cad, sci.electronics.misc, &
sci.electonics.equipment) and then again singularly to
(sci.electronics.cad)? In my book it would still be multi-posting ESPECIALLY
when it is done by assholes complaining about other's actions. Chiding this
user once was not enough for you, you have to do it twice within one
newsgroup? Why do we all have to read your dribble more than once?

Re: top posting. Trying to make up more of your own rules again, huh?
Well dream on troll. Maybe someday if you campaigned very diligently you
might get 'most' software coders to apply such a practice in their code,
until then lay off the users.

Here JeffM read this, directly quoted from Usenet FAQs (Oh I forgot, JeffM
actually hasn't ever read these because if he had and he was an intelligent
being he would have understood and not be always trying to shove his own
petty little rules down other's throats!) :

"WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
USENET AS SOCIETY
--------------------

Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.

-- Nick Szabo

WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
USENET AS ANARCHY
--------------------

Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.

-- Unknown"

So I piss you off, you piss me off. Get used to it because no matter how
much your little mind craves dominance, control and conformity, you and your
henchmen buddies don't rule Usenet! Nobody does! So take all of your petty
little rules and quips and stuff them where the sun don't shine because you
are making up this crap and anyone can make up completely opposing crap and
try shoving it down everyone's throats with just as much authority as you
carry.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.



"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1141624257.144115.134540@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Hey gee, looky here, now JeffM is multi-posting.
Brad Velander.

When you can properly define the terms you use,
someone might take you seriously.
In the meantime, become educated:

When you stop top-posting,
maybe someone will take your opinion seriously.
In the meantime you're just another clueless moron.

 

[Brad Velander]

Don't apologize,
I would suggest that you do look up the Usenet FAQs and just familiarize
yourself with them. They are light reading, not onerous nor very
complicated. In short, Jeff and his buddies are trying to make up rules
where they have no authority. They choose to pick on seemingly new newsgroup
users and you became one of their latest victims. You owe them no apology,
you did nothing wrong and you did not break any rules.

JeffM and his henchmen are typical pseudo-intellectual bullies trying to
mold the world to their liking. Sort of "Pinky and the Brain" types that
feed off each other and support each other regardless of the legitimacy of
their claims or actions.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

<yyq787@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141657337.643202.53030@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

I'm very sorry for my behavior that I've post so many the same
imformation on the google group,I will never same mistake for ever. And
that's my first time to use the google group.

 

[JeffM]

What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar
(yeah, not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs
(sci.electonics.design, sci.electronics.cad, sci.electronics.misc, &
sci.electonics.equipment)
and then again singularly to (sci.electronics.cad)?
Brad Velander

IF they WERE *identical*, then you would have a point

*besides the one at the top of your head).
..
..

In my book it would still be multi-posting

Asstated several times, when you start conforming to the norm,

and learn the vocabulary,
then AND ONLY THEN wiill your opinion carry any weight.
..
..

Re: top posting.
Trying to make up more of your own rules again, huh?

Observe the method used

by the MAJORITY of experienced Usenet posters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/e259a5ca51d0730/62ce424a66ab320b?lnk=st&q=engineer+*-*-that-poor-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-emulate-*

 

[Brad Velander]

You know what you can kiss, Jeff?

So go ahead put on your filters or whatever else you want to do, you're
a troll trying to bully and scare others into conforming to your ideals and
rules. Such a small tormented mind, that it must try to control and meld
that which was created without control for a very real and well understood
reason by it's creators.

You and all your henchmen can just go away and enjoy your social club
amongst yourselves where you can make all the rules you want and do whatever
you want to enforce them. On Usenet you're trolls, just looking for that
bridge to call home where you can scare the locals with you vivion of what
is right and wrong.

FYI, the norm on Usenet is that there is no norm, no law, no unwanted
moderation, no rulers, no rules! Only trolls that want to try and control
the world! Smmmmoooocccchhhhh! There's a big wet one for you, you
intellectually challenged troll!

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1141698811.808369.51550@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar
(yeah, not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs
(sci.electonics.design, sci.electronics.cad, sci.electronics.misc, &
sci.electonics.equipment)
and then again singularly to (sci.electronics.cad)?
Brad Velander

IF they WERE *identical*, then you would have a point
*besides the one at the top of your head).
.
.
In my book it would still be multi-posting

Asstated several times, when you start conforming to the norm,
and learn the vocabulary,
then AND ONLY THEN wiill your opinion carry any weight.
.
.
Re: top posting.
Trying to make up more of your own rules again, huh?

Observe the method used
by the MAJORITY of experienced Usenet posters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/e259a5ca51d0730/62ce424a66ab320b?lnk=st&q=engineer+*-*-that-poor-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-emulate-*

 

[JeffM]

yyq787 @ gmail.com wrote:

.
...that's my first time [using] the google group.

It's obvious that, despite having posted to Usenet hundreds of times,
Brad.has never bothered to read anything like this:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:A6TIDwud-1IJ:gloria-brame.com/glory/jour3.htm+lurk+zzz+observe-*-the-*-*-style-*-*-*-*+qq-qq+adapt-your-own-*-accordingly
(A good read for a newbie.)

Another Beginners' Guide:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:t3PDy-35EzkJ:www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/guide.html+Before-you-post-*-*-*+lurk-for-a-while

Brad is what we call "clueless".
His notion of *anarchy* is just stupid; all groups have norms.
Here's one more you missed with your recent post: context:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.dance/browse_frm/thread/7d7206245406b31a/d2a254b71a556333?q=they-don't-see-*-*-*-*-Google+You-don't-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-previous-post+click-*-show-options-*+click-THAT-Reply-link+only-leave-enough+zzz+If-you-don't-*-*-*-*-your-reply+faqs
It's easy to miss for Google Groups newbies
because when Google re-crafted their site, they did it poorly IMO.

More stuff here:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8PaSp2kKbWoJ:www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html+just-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original+zzz+One-to-Many-Communication+qqq+to-give-a-context
..
..
Often, when someone first posts to Usenet (especially Google Groups),
he has a burning hunger for an answer to a question.
Tunnel-vision sets in and he doesn't stop to realize
that others may be interested in the topic as well.

Multi-posting gets HIM the answer,
but it makes it difficult for OTHERS who are trying to follow the
topic.
This has always been obvious to me;
I'm just amazed that others don't get it immediately.

 

[JeffM]

FYI, the norm on Usenet is that there is no norm
Brad Velander

Go ahead. Continue to remain ignorant.
I understand that you can't see patterns with your head up your ass
like that.
Making things difficult on others and calling it a "style" is moronic.
Usenet has survived stupid people like you and will continue to.
Everyone else knows that you couldn't be more WRONG.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:24:47 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
<roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:54:36 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> Gave us:

"ian.field1" <ian.field1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:imIQf.271$aA6.94@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
While pollution is significant - so is the smoke, ash and minerals
blown into the air by volcanic eruptions. Not to mention the fact that
some
scientists claim that grazing animals produce nearly as much greenhouse
gas
as vehicles - and not to be outdone, one natural world documentary claimed
that termites are even worse!!! Who the hell do you believe these days?!

Don't forget that all plants produce methane. That was a recent Nature
article (12 Jan '06). They said it accounts for potentially 10-20% of
atmospheric methane.


Plants produce OXYGEN. Decaying, DEAD plants produce methane. We
refer to our dead plant piles as compost heaps or piles.

Sheesh.

No, there have been recent studied that show that living plants
release sizable amounts of methane too. It's been known for ages that
plants release hydrocarbons, which is why we have the "Smokey
Mountains."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm


Ronald Reagan was right about a lot of stuff.

John

 

[Joerg]

Hello John,

No, there have been recent studied that show that living plants
release sizable amounts of methane too. It's been known for ages that
plants release hydrocarbons, which is why we have the "Smokey
Mountains."

You mean, they also fart?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm

This probably means that our bureaucrats in CA could some day be
pondering another means to squeeze money out of us. Some kind of plant
tax where an "official" (newly hired, with a fat pension benefit and
health plan from cradle to grave) swings by and assesses the number and
size of your yard plants. Of course, it would not be called a tax.
Vegetation volatile release fee or something like that. When they think
they can do it with cows I don't see a reason why they'd stop there.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:n7t8121imo4o68knkmtbv7a77g5esui68e@4ax.com...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:24:47 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:54:36 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> Gave us:

"ian.field1" <ian.field1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:imIQf.271$aA6.94@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
While pollution is significant - so is the smoke, ash and minerals
blown into the air by volcanic eruptions. Not to mention the fact that
some
scientists claim that grazing animals produce nearly as much
greenhouse
gas
as vehicles - and not to be outdone, one natural world documentary
claimed
that termites are even worse!!! Who the hell do you believe these
days?!

Don't forget that all plants produce methane. That was a recent Nature
article (12 Jan '06). They said it accounts for potentially 10-20% of
atmospheric methane.


Plants produce OXYGEN. Decaying, DEAD plants produce methane. We
refer to our dead plant piles as compost heaps or piles.

Sheesh.


No, there have been recent studied that show that living plants
release sizable amounts of methane too. It's been known for ages that
plants release hydrocarbons, which is why we have the "Smokey
Mountains."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm


Ronald Reagan was right about a lot of stuff.

Was he right when he said "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution
stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation."?

 

[Roy L. Fuchs]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:41:37 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
Gave us:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:n7t8121imo4o68knkmtbv7a77g5esui68e@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:24:47 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:54:36 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> Gave us:

"ian.field1" <ian.field1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:imIQf.271$aA6.94@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
While pollution is significant - so is the smoke, ash and minerals
blown into the air by volcanic eruptions. Not to mention the fact that
some
scientists claim that grazing animals produce nearly as much
greenhouse
gas
as vehicles - and not to be outdone, one natural world documentary
claimed
that termites are even worse!!! Who the hell do you believe these
days?!

Don't forget that all plants produce methane. That was a recent Nature
article (12 Jan '06). They said it accounts for potentially 10-20% of
atmospheric methane.


Plants produce OXYGEN. Decaying, DEAD plants produce methane. We
refer to our dead plant piles as compost heaps or piles.

Sheesh.


No, there have been recent studied that show that living plants
release sizable amounts of methane too. It's been known for ages that
plants release hydrocarbons, which is why we have the "Smokey
Mountains."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm


Ronald Reagan was right about a lot of stuff.

Was he right when he said "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution
stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation."?

Bovine flatulence and subterranean fossil decay is likely a bigger

culprit.