EAGLE Netlist conversion

R. Steve Walz · Nov 28, 2004

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, stupid.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?
- YD.
--------------------------

Gee, not that I'd tell shit like you.

No, stupid.
I meant talking to everyone about it till it causes change.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz · Nov 28, 2004

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
- YD.
------------------------

You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Pig Bladder · Nov 28, 2004

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:44:33 -0800, Product developer wrote:

"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in message news:<fFsnd.19855$zx1.9933@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
"Pig Bladder" <pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.19.19.08.59.881936@anyspammer.org...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:26:27 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
[some jackbooted neoconservative stuff]
It's amazing the harm you dupes are willing to do just to be "right."

You can't harm a Frenchie by cutting off his balls, he doesn't play
soccer anyway, so he doesn't have any balls.

Ever heard of Zidane?

Definately in the FIFA top 10 of all international level players today.
The french suck but when it comes to soccer they rank among the best.

http://www.filthyhumor.com/priceless/13.html
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

Pig Bladder · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:01:18 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

YD wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
YD wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.
Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?
I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!
Or has it? ?;-
Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

And _you_, Mr. RSW, seem to have the peculiar notion that you amount to
_anyone_.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

Pig Bladder · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:59:23 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, stupid.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?
- YD.
--------------------------
Gee, not that I'd tell shit like you.

No, stupid.
I meant talking to everyone about it till it causes change.

AKA:
Until you're blue in the face.
Until hell freezes over.
Until pigs learn to fly out of my butt.
Until Walz learns to STFU.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

YD · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:01:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
- YD.
------------------------
You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

-Steve

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like? What have
I/we been yelling? Does your yelling make you amount to something? And
anyway, I wasn't talking to you, check the attributions.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Mark Fergerson · Nov 28, 2004

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think, or even WANT to, and we can't change
its effects on others.

They are directly related; I was talking about the
consequences of choice while you're apparently talking about
the consequences of physical interactions. I see them as
being related thusly:

We do not have "choice".

Don't interrupt prematurely.

In your Newtonian metaphysics (feel free to correct my
misinterpretations/assumptions

That this has anything to do with Newton v Einstein/QM is an unworthy
pretense. There is no such distinction in the physics, both are equally
Deterministic in sharing Theory of Science.

I could argue with that, but I was merely using Newton as
a handy tag for "clockwork mechanics" here.

If you want to try to show how QM is strictly
deterministic we'll need a new thread, possibly in say
sci.physics.

as you are forced by your
programming to see fit)

It's not "programming" in any psychological sense of it being something
one can one can "resist by effort", in fact there is NO such thing as
that.

I said nothing about whether or not "resistance" is
involved or even possible, and I implied no "programmer"
except an impersonal one; the laws of physics. GNFW, _all_
our actions and reactions are the direct causal results of
what went into making us who we are _right now_. Those
causal linkages extend into prehuman times, all the way back
to whatever was the first lifeform _and beyond that_ because
the way any lifeform operates behaviorally is determined by
the physics underlying its structure.

Perhaps the phrase "forced by" is what threw you.

There is no such thing as "psychology" possible in your
worldview except as a subset of strictly deterministic
physics applicable to the human brain/hormonal system.

, what we do is completely and
strictly predetermined since the Big Bang;

The "Big Bang" is a none experiential fiction. Time that is not
experienced is, of course, not of an experiential nature, it is
strictly theoretical and of a different nature than experiencable
time.

Irrelevant nitpicking. GNFW, the laws governing the
"inanimate" matter of which we are made are the same laws
that determined how we would interact long before we were
born. I provisionally accept the Big Bang, you don't; fine,
but at some point in the past life began and the experiences
we accumulate as individuals (and imperfectly transfer to
each other) started accumulating. Determinism describes what
went before, and hence our conversation. In your view there
can be nothing else, so whenever you pick as a starting
point, all human interaction, including the illusion of free
will, starts from there and proceeds inevitably.

free will is
apparently an illusion possibly generated by the fact that
we can't see the entire chain of interlocked causal
sequences between then and now. There can be no consequences
of choice because there is no choice. What will happen will
happen, and that's it, both for objective physical events
and subjective mentational events, for the same reasons.

No, what we have is the problem if being able to conceive of
a hypothetical, which is part and parcel of our partial awareness.

Conceiving hypotheticals is merely extending awareness
beyond individual direct sensory experience and
interpretation and comparison thereof. We now know that all
lifeforms including us do that fulltime, now that we know
that our sensorium, interpretive ganglia/cortexes, and
memory are limited, if not exactly what all the limits are.

GNFW, our subjective awareness state at any time must
therefore be strictly dictated by physics; it appears more
complex because the system self-interacts (and no two such
systems are quite identical in all respects), and we don't
have experiential access to all the causes or linkages, but
it's still all deterministic physics.

We are not fully "self-aware". We are able to be somewhat aware of
the tenses of experience, past to the present as memory and then
a hypotheesis of many potential futures, and that is the rub, that
we conceive of many futures as similarly possible, when that is due
merely to our ignorance of the actual solitary outcome and what it
will be. This "God-view" is what leads us astray, just as it leads
us to erroneously believe that we know "God's Will" and the weird
viciousnesses that religion is capable of perpetrating on each other.

Well, how is that different from believing that there is
only one possible future? Xtians do the same thing when they
prate on about how their deity will inevitably win
Armageddon, with a sort of "sum over histories" fudge
allowing for such apparent departures from the Great
Inexorable Plan as free will and the occasional, temporary
victories of Evil.

Similarly, if there can be only one future (GNFW), then
either your Plan will come to pass or not; your exhortations
are an integral part of the inexorable sequence of events
that was started long ago and have no effect except to
extend the causal linkages where they will go. You will
continue them or not, and they will be received well or not,
period.

You are simply a puppet contributing to the total pull on
all the other puppets' strings, and the pull you apply is
predetermined by all the pulls ever applied to your strings.

Thus "good" and "evil" (including what I will not argue
is not "weird viciousness") are simply integral parts of the
total causal chain, both equally essential in propagating
it. Our perception of them as separate or opposites was
completely determined from the get-go.

To conceive of many futures is to pretend we can choose them, when
we cannot. All they are is possible outcomes we pretend to model
on an equal footing to "plan" our lives, when that is a pretense,
because by the time we are aware of them, our mind is made up anyway.

I just said approximately that.

They are merely the manner in which we justify our mindset, no more.

GNFW, the _only_ way in which such justification can
occur, because how we do that is also predetermined.

"What we are" makes the "choices", but they are not truly choices
but cause and effect, it is our deepest nature, but "what we are"
is NOT either our awareness alone or its preferences.

Yes, it is. There is no difference GNFW. Our awareness is
the inevitable product of our experience and how it's
processed. Our "preferences" are strictly determined by
quirks in the processing determined by our individual
physical makeup, which determines how our individual wiring
is arranged.

Our thoughts ARE us, but we are not them, we do NOT produce nor do
we govern them! Instead, they PRODUCE *US*! When we pretend that
the product, namely our nature, is something our nature controls,
we have simply inverted cause and effect out of hubris.

I said that. GNFW, all aspects of mentation; awareness,
consciousness, "preferences", "pretenses", "hubris", "what
we are", whatever, are illusory emergent properties of the
complex physical system of our brain at a given time
strictly determined by raw physics. Any parsing of them is
completely arbitrary. If we "invert cause and effect", we
were going to and that's that.

To speak
of the "us" as controlling what we are is to pretend we can decide
what to believe. We cannot change the tiniest of our beliefs.

Well, so far you can't change that one of yours.

If we could, life itself would not be possible, and here's why!!:
If we could decide what we would fully and completely believe,
in ANY degree, we would be able to change where we believe we
were, and where we exist, and we could become totally and completely
deluded into a phony reality that we develop at random from an
unrelated infinity of possibles, and we would almost immediately
upon being granted this potential, become psychotic and become
totally out of touch with our common reality. We would step off
the "cliff" of awareness into something totally beyond a rule-based
universe. This would actually be the end of awareness, because no
awareness of a random changing condition would be useful, and thus
awareness would dissociate, it would not persist.

Taken to the extreme, this is commonly called "insanity";
the individual concerned does not agree with the consensus
view of reality. This is also the case when the majority of
a population agrees on an objectively false consensus of
reality except it then usually goes by a different name,
frinst "demon-possessed".

This does not necessarily prevent the individual
concerned from being a fully functional, contributing member
of the society in which he is immersed as long as he does
not announce his divergent perceptions or if his divergence
is not sufficient for him to be perceived as dangerous.

Thing is, there's constant objective feedback from our
environment that can refute or support our beliefs about
reality. Ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting that
feedback to support a false belief is what leads to
non-functional insanity and/or being perceived as dangerous.

As our ability to define "objective" is refined,
determining "sanity" becomes easier. However, there's still
the problem of relating objective reality to what our
sensorium and interpretive hardware can handle. Some people
refuse to accept what frinst Relativity or double-slit
experiments tell us about our Universe because they can't
experience them directly. FTM some think the world is flat.

Of course Buddhists say that the very few totally random choices
where rule-based Life Systems are "chosen" accidentally is how
Aware Life comes into Being and "we" arise to awareness anyway,
but still, what you are calling "Choice" is ACTUALLY the door OUT
of Life, choice is the very ANTITHESIS of Life. Choice is spinning
the Big Wheel, supposed "choice" then can be seen as Non-Choice,
and random, where the chosen and fixed is Our Life, and apparent
"choice" that is Deterministic Experience of a Life that we cannot
control.

I see a "middle way".

The Very Nature of Experience is NOT GETTING WHAT YOU WANT. This
is what makes what we CALL "Awareness" at all important, as it
arises from a need to deal with adversity, and without adversity
Awareness has no purpose and need not exist. If we got everything
we wanted then our "Awareness" would atrophy and deselect both
personally, as wewouldn't need or use it, and thus also it would
be deselected evolutionarily.

But GNFW "what we want" is as strictly determined as
everything else, and "awareness", adversity and evolution
are all emergent illusions.

If strict predeterminism is not in force,

The term in philosophy is Determinism. "Predeterminism" is the
"creation science" slanted buzzword used by phonies in the field
who come from the soft-headed religious pseudo-universities.

Congratulations; ten Pedant Points. You knew exactly what
I meant. If not, let me clarify. My usage was intended to
be; "determinism" means zero uncertainty in current events
and how they'll come out, but "pre-determinism" includes
_all_ uncertainty-less causal chains that lead from however
far back you want to go, through a particular event, into
however far the future may extend.

free will can
exist in that we can examine the _possible_ consequences of
potential actions in order to decide which, if any, to take
within the limits of physical law.

Within the limits of physical law there aren't any such, because
your brain is also in the universe and gives rise to your thoughts,
thus your choices. The only alternative is to hypothesize some
alternate realm where congitation occurs and is not governed by
biochemistry and physics and can do something "for some other
reason" not well-presented by you. Let's see you try to show that
other realm and its rules and nature! Hmmmm?

Since I never posited any such, and don't believe in it,
no thanks.

What I do believe is that mentational states are
enormously more complex than you seem to believe they are;
to oversimplify, neurons and groups thereof support
recursively circulating patterns of data (frinst beliefs
about the significance of sensory input) by reinforcing
potential gradients on each pass, and those gradients can
shift minutely during each iteration and even reversed over
many, not to mention interact with other patterns if and
when they interact. But all this comes down to particle
physics, which simply isn't completely deterministic.

Note that this does not necessarily conflict with what I
said below. I'll elaborate down there.

This is where most people raised in the western Xtian world of
blame/guilt/shame-based religion and the mistaken belief that people
"choose" everything, find that their principles are self-contradictory!

Fortunately for me, I was never all that well immersed in
it because I noticed the flaws in its foundations early on.

They can either flee the question altogether at this point and rely
on what they feel "more comfortable" believing, even if they have to
do it vaguely and without clarity, or they find that the whole system
of words they have used in most parts of life to discuss these issues
are actually internally inconsistent!!

Or persecute/kill those who expose their inconsistencies
for "heresy".

This is the point at
which certain woo-woo types try to drag QM in by making
consciousness and choice a result of uncertainty in brain
mechanisms like microtubules, but I'm not one of them. I'll
go as far as saying that QM allows strict determinism to
have a "fuzzy" basis on the macro level where we live, but
no farther.

Okay. Acceptable. But there is no other "level". Smaller than
you can see is no more than a hypotehtical, a way of talking
about rules and what we see on "macro"-screens and displays,
and NOT some "Real" place things happen.

Why do you say "there is no other "level""? QM clearly
operates in the Very Small with entirely different rules
than in the Newtonian (shorthand again) human-sized world,
and at high velocities, the totally counter-intuitive
Relativities hold sway.

Do you call these and similar counterintuitive things
"hypothetical" solely because our sensoria are inadequate to
accept direct sensory input in their relevant regimes? Do
you not trust your sensory extensions (instruments) as far
as your understanding of their operation allows you to? Is
what your microscope or oscilloscope shows you "unreal"?

What do you think when such "hypotheticals" intrude into
the human-sized world? What do you make of lasers, BECs
large enough to see, superfluid LHe, Young's experiment? How
about the relativistic corrections necessary to prevent
pincushioning in a large color CRT?

These are not evidence that there's only one "level",
just examples of extreme cases where these things become
noticeable. In most of our direct experience, they appear to
be totally irrelevant. In fact, we are apparently wired to
ignore the few natural instances where they appear, like the
diffraction at sharp-edged shadows.

Things ONLY REALLY happen inside LIVES!!

In the direct experiential sense, yes, but the forces
operating in the universe as a whole are enormously
different from what we can experience directly, and our
experiences are subject to their influences. Do you actually
believe that unlistened-to falling trees make no sound? Did
the Milky Way not rotate until we noticed evidence for it
and came to a consensus that it was valid?

Similarly, inside our brains things are going on that we
can have no direct experience of. We can only extract what
you call "hypotheticals" which I suspect correlates to what
I call "objective data".

The objective data increasingly shows that
non-determinism plays a very small but significant part in
extremely complex, self-interacting systems. This has
nothing to do with microtubules, but the simple fact that
the electron motions that underlie the mentational processes
I describe earlier are not as certain as you apparently want
to believe.

Please don't tell me you're one of those that reject the
consequences of things outside your direct sensorium. If you
do, there's no point in continuing.

Strict philosophical (and/or physical) predeterminism
means there are no options and never were.

Options are chosen by processes outside and before awareness.

Not "chosen". GNFW, there was always only one way for
things to go.

The trained physicist in me will wonder why you think that is
important, like seeing a medieval peasant in a riot chasing a
lost paper "Indulgence" across the plaza and getting stomped
for it. Even if the world is Deterministic it doesn't change
its Nature at all, and if you examined it closely you'd realize
this and relax a little, nothing has changed, the walls did
not come apart, we can have a Deterministic world and still be
deluded by this illusion of "choice" that occurs because of our
Awareness of hypotheticals, we simply have to be a lot nicer to
each other, because we are ALL victims of our Lives, in a sense.

I suppose puppethood can be comforting; there's enough
historical evidence for that.

Besides, GNFW whether or not we become "a lot nicer to
each other" is similarly not in our control. Either we were
going to all along, or not.

And what we do to protect ourselves must be tempered with this
knowledge. In fact, what we do to perfect Humanity MUST become
INFORMED by this principle, that individually we do not choose,
and that we only are changed by the efforts of one another, and
that this happens against our supposed "Free Will" most often!!!

GNFW, "what we do to protect ourselves" and "what we do
to perfect Humanity" is already set more firmly than in stone.

In fact, what many call "Free Will" is no more than either mental
inertia, or an excuse to blame people different than onseself for
everything their Life has made them and avoid Social Responsibility
for it, or AT LEAST public tax liability for it!!

True, for those subsets of humanity.

Now the degree to which people are informed of this is of course
beyond their control, but people tend to improve society by random
selection that is achieved by this collective "Brownian motion"
advancement, where improvement is retained by its success and
failure is rejected by group awareness of it, and by our group
effect on deterministic individuals, each one trspped in lives
that they do not control, with perhaps the only improving input
to their lives coming from those others around them accidentally
discovering better ways to live and think!

GNFW, all this is predetermined. They're just falling
down a potential set up long ago, just going through motions.

In the specific case I was talking about, an entity with
no awareness of time can have no conception of causality;
making the First Decision to split (yielding a part or parts
that can experience time) could not be pre-assessed in terms
of risks and benefits because there is no way to have a
previous basis on which to make that assessment. Once that
decision is made and acted on, then and only then can
consequences of that choice occur. OTOH it can also have no
pre-programming which forces it to act one way or the other;
that's the basis of Original Free Will.

There is no such thing, there is only happenstance.

GNFW there can be no "happenstance"; all is directly
traceable causally.

That is not consciousness, that is primordial schizm of Self and
Other that causes consciousness. The belief in Self is Awareness.
It arises accidentally, when it arises, and it only arises sometimes.

GNFW there are no "accidents".

Yet you propose that "criminals"
suffer torture (consequences) as "warnings" to others.

It's the only useful or appropriate part of punishment.

Within your general worldview AIUI there can be no
"utility" since whether or not it has any effect is
predetermined, hence those to whom it is aimed are
unaffected by _it_ taken as a separate input. They are
affected by the entirety of what went before.

Everyone who sees a bad outcome befall another will be altered
by the knowledge, and this deterence is a "Good Thing"(tm).

GNFW they were either going to be altered/deterred by it
all along, or not.

If your society is persuaded to engineer this bad outcome to
deter a behavior, then it can be beneficial.

GNFW, either it would have all along, or not; persuasion
and benefit are illusory.

"Appropriateness" is a value judgement; my values say
that it's a waste of time and resources. Just smoke
incurable criminals economically and get on with life.

To do so without informing others who might be dissuadable is
folly.

Nope. Just universal testing ASAP and case-specific
testing as it comes up until then. Warning incurables like
psychopaths is pointless; they don't believe it applies to
them because they're "special".

Physically torturing those you perceive as economic
torturers is simplistic vengeance which merely propagates
the idea that torture and vengeance are useful concepts in
and of themselves, applicable wherever one can justify their
use.

They ARE. They deter, they dissuade, they even satisfy, and
that can preserve the peace and calm the victims and prevent
future crime, and vengeance for that crime. What can dissuade
anyone from profiteering ever again any better than seeing
someone who did shrieking on the 50 yard line at halftime being
tortured to death before 10,000 people? Chilling effect!

That kind of display is simply a waste of the
participants' time which could be used productively. Simply
killing would-be criminals before they can commit crimes is
more economical. I guess I'm just not as bloodthirsty as you
are.

Yes, you've justified them _your_ way, but others may do
so in other ways. Setting precedents is risky business.

Nope, horror comes from people taking vengeance. Not from
"precedent". Without justified vengeance desired from previous
victimization, no one could be interested in horror. It's
unappetizing without hatred. But with hatred it is heart-warming
and exhilirating.

Hatred is heart-warming? Yeesh. "Lizard brain-warming",
maybe.

<snip>

Again, IUIC you're saying that we're simply automatons
rigidly following an interlocking cascade of strictly
deterministic causal sequences which some of us believe we
can affect, and some don't.

Oh everyone mistakenly believes they choose, but that's only
when they choose what they are destined to choose, every single
one of them. They can't have effect unless by affecting others
but this is because they cannot help but do and say what they
do and say.

GNFW, exactly.

Plain "automatons" are not aware. But, you see, we are not merely
automatons, but AWARE automatons who STILL WILL do nothing other
than what we are destined to DO by cause and effect! Awareness
changes what we'll do, but not the fact that it is deterministic.

But GNFW, awareness is also illusory.

BTW, would you care to explain how, in that context, the
latter distinction in belief can occur at all, without just
saying "because it had to"? Or did I answer that above?

Hence the only place and time to try to change anyone's
behavior, or to place blame for their past behaviors, is the
Big Bang (or First Cause of your choice).

Sounds like baloney to me.

Sounds like logic to me.

Deterrence is thus entirely dependent on, and as illusory
as is free will; those to whom it is aimed will either
respond or not as they are programmed. They _cannot_ choose
to heed or ignore such warnings; local causality is
completely predetermined since the Big Bang.

There was no "big bang", quit rattling on about it like an adolescent
with a catch-phrase.

Just can't help spouting insults, can you? Take it to
mean "origin of humans" or "origin of the genetic influences
which determine our responses".

It's unrelated to life since our birth, which
seems what you're trying to say, but whether it's since birth or
life since we woke up this morning, perhaps having been someone else
yesterday and not realizing this, it doesn't matter. Life ONLY occurs
to one person at a time, that is the denomination in which the "coin"
of Life is struck, one Life at a time. No "big-bang" ever happened to
any BEING, thus its form of "happening" is totally specious, and it
is actually unrelated to any understandable or experiencable "time".

Lessee here; GNFW, "who and what we are" is a compound of
genetics and sensory input, yes? Then go as far back as
whatever you may choose to call the first human. That
person's life was as pre-determined as ours because it lives
by the same physics as we do. Its influence on all
subsequent others, and theirs on each other, is equally
pre-determined. All else is illusion.

What happens to us looking backward from any moment of our Life cannot
BE changed, and its effect on what we are IS what we are, until more
experience alters it, and thus we do what we are destined to do, until
something talks us into something else, and till it does we have
nothing but our mind's cogitations upon that Past to determine what
we are. And even our mind only does what it will do chemically, and
physically, atom by atom, the same as the surrounding world, it is
as determined as any other physics experiment. Pretending we "decide"
is merely the recognition that we ARE ALREADY DECIDED!! Pretending
there were other "choices" we "could" have made is nothing but a lie
to give us a sense of control, or an ignorance of the process by
which we presented them and made them look unpalatble as compared to
our "chosen" "decision", while at the same time trying to pretend
they were palatable enough to "choose" INSTEAD of what we "decided".
We had already decided irretrievably, before organizing fully our
justifiaction for it, and we could NOT have changed our "decision".

A perfect picture of a chain of puppets. No change, no
choice, no "influence" beyond what was pre-determined.

Specifying torture as a "punishment" is equally futile.
No threat will deter those who cannot choose to be deterred.

People do not "choose" to be deterred, they are affected against
their desires, against any "will" they supposedly control, they
are terrified and will alter their public acts so that such does
not befall them. Even those interested in terrorist acts will
rethink their next move, quite possibly deciding to wait and not
do something that might result in them shrieking their life out
publically on some torture stage. They might be able to handle
capital punishment, nothing more than death by anesthesia, an
easy way to go, but torture?

GNFW, it doesn't matter. They'll either act as if the
risk were acceptable, or not.

Torture is VERY useful in conbating religious terrorists. If they
have to experience unbelievably painful prolonged hell to get to
some alleged heaven and 77 houri virgins or whatever, they will
think it out several more times before proceding, or not procede.

GNFW, it doesn't matter. They'll either act as if the
risk were acceptable, or not.

Without horrible prolonged, unimaginable painful torture, to some
totally poor bastard in the third world with no future to speak of,
death is not some horrible choice. The same is true in the ghetto,
which is why kids there shoot each other for little or nothing.

GNFW, it doesn't matter. They'll either act as if the
risk were acceptable, or not.

Also, no one can relieve a being of their fate, or the consequences
of that fate. If you effect their fate that is YOUR fate to do so,
it is caused as theirs is caused, by physical laws.

And there's no point in your saying anything at all
except as a predictable output of your mental "state
machine", such as the following:

Yup.
I can't help but say what I say,
and neither can you if my words change you.

Conversely, neither can your words have any effect if
they weren't going to. The soil upon which your verbal seeds
are cast is either fertile or barren determined by a factor
totally outside your control or anyone else's; they will
sprout or not regardless of how many times you cast them.

No, each cast, of course, casts more possible effects.

GNFW, whether or not you cast is pre-determined. Whether
or not they sprout is pre-determined.

You know that, quit posturing. You just told a lie and you knew it.

No. I showed the inevitable logical consequences of your
premises. They permit no wiggle room.

<snippage>

Um, if I have no free will, how can I lie?

You can't unless you're going to.

Okay, definitional mismatch here. To me, the verb "to
lie" means to tell an untruth _deliberately_, as in
deliberating whether or not to do so, then deciding to do
so. That final step requires that I have self-directable intent.

It's called disingenuity. It's a left-handed favor to you to accuse
you of telling falsehood intentionally to deceive, rather than accuse
you of merely being stupid. Even without "free will" you can have
the motive to deceive intentionally.

But GNFW that motive is pre-determined. I have no option
but to follow its course. There can be no self-directable
intent other than its illusion because "self" is an illusion.

And GNFW stupidity is equally illusory.

In your Newtonian metaphysics,

I _cannot_ lie in that
sense since I have no volition other than the illusory sort
predetermined by my experiences etc. If I'm going to tell an
untruth, it's a simple direct consequence of the cascade of
events that shaped my experiences etc., not because I choose
to. Such an act would, as you say, be a violation of
physical law as blatant as a physical object exceeding c in
vacuo.

But still, whether you can help it or not, you're lying and a liar.

Nope, that requires self-directed intent. GNFW, none can
exist.

Of course you can't help it, who would actually WANT to be a liar!!!

Psychopaths don't seem to be bothered by it.

If you can watch a logic gate produce a "false" output
and call it a liar, then you can call a human a liar. In no
other Newtonian sense can a human lie.

You know what lies are

No, I know what I call "lies" and what you call "lies",
but they're not the same thing. The difference is that I say
that _intent_ is required to lie, and GNFW there is no such
thing. It's simply an output directly traceable to all
previous inputs and the way the hardware is configured.

and you know that a large enough logic array
with sequential feedback can conceal data intentfully. They're called
secure encryption systems.

By my definition, they're not lying. They're producing a
true output directly dependent on their inputs and hardware
configuration. The apparent discrepancy only exists in the
absence of knowledge of the encryption key and how to apply it.

By your definition, which apparently assumes that the
relevant analog of the encryption key is lost in the mists
of time and/or hidden in the enormous complexity of the
ongoingt interactions both within and outside his mind, you
are not justified calling a human a liar because you know
the key exists, you just don't have it handy.

Hence there's no fault to be found, no point in placing
blame except as above, no point in "punishment", no hope for
deterrence to work.

Blame, no, death and/or torture as deterence, yes. Re-education if
possible, even by force.

No. GNFW either these measures would have have the
"desired" effect all along, or not.

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

Neither desperation nor pretense. This is
MetaphysicsLand, and Newton is a set of waterwings keeping
you out of the deeper, more interesting parts.

Quit disingenuous posturing. You know you can't defend that, you
even insist you don't re: QM. You know this has nothing whatsoever
to do with Newton v Einstein/QM.

I know no such things. Make fewer assumptions.

Mark L. Fergerson

YD · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:59:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, stupid.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?
- YD.
--------------------------
Gee, not that I'd tell shit like you.

No, <snip gratuitous insult>.
I meant talking to everyone about it till it causes change.

-Steve

Still doesn't answer the original question nor the follow-up. Can I
take it that you really have NFI of when your usenet rants are going
to make an effect? Are you only doing this over the net or do you hold
meetings somewhere? Hop on a soapbox on a streetcorner or a park? Are
you a troll?

- YD.
Please take note of the absence of insults and demeaning remarks.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Mark Fergerson · Nov 28, 2004

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
vacuous name-calling.

I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.

Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all

structural argument

that is based only on the common human experience.

Yet another unsubstantiable claim.

It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I

always

intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.

"Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
reality. You will not define "common human experience"
because there is no such thing.

Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.

No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
going on in each other's mind, which should have been
obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.
You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
will not explicate that alleged body.

Of course there's common human experience. We all shit out of our ass, and
it's all brown and smells like shit.

Most of us obey our hardwired aversion to rolling in it
too, but what does that prove?

Mark L. Fergerson

YD · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:22:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:01:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
- YD.
------------------------
You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

-Steve

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like?
-------------
Of course it does, you're being stupid again.

-Steve

Oh, please tell, what have *I* been raving and ranting about? As far
as I can tell I've only made a couple of easy questions in a civilized
tone. You, OTH, evade them and reply in a mean and small minded
manner. You do this to everyone, which bodes ill for any kind of
acceptance of your ideas.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Mike Engelhardt · Nov 28, 2004

Jim,

I'm looking for a TL081/TL084 Model that accurately
models power supply current.

The models on TI's site are deadly INACCURATE :-(

That vender opamp models don't steer current from
the supplies deals with their Boyle model ancestry.

I would recommend using LTspice's Universal Opamp
model. It properly steers current from the supplies.
You specify Avol, GBW, slew rate, current limit,
phase margin, switch saturation voltage(how close
the output gets to the rails), offset voltage,
equiv. input voltage and current noise densities
and corner frequencies for the particular opamp.

LTspice's Universal Opamp model does tend to be
better than many of dedicated PSpice-style opamp
models that get supplied by vendors based on the
Boyle model.

--Mike

Jim Thompson · Nov 28, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:59:44 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
wrote:

Jim,

I'm looking for a TL081/TL084 Model that accurately
models power supply current.

The models on TI's site are deadly INACCURATE :-(

That vender opamp models don't steer current from
the supplies deals with their Boyle model ancestry.

I would recommend using LTspice's Universal Opamp
model. It properly steers current from the supplies.
You specify Avol, GBW, slew rate, current limit,
phase margin, switch saturation voltage(how close
the output gets to the rails), offset voltage,
equiv. input voltage and current noise densities
and corner frequencies for the particular opamp.

LTspice's Universal Opamp model does tend to be
better than many of dedicated PSpice-style opamp
models that get supplied by vendors based on the
Boyle model.

--Mike

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2004

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:41:07 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

[snip]

Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Pooh Bear · Nov 29, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:41:07 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

[snip]
Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

John

I didn't care for salmon, except smoked. Then my wife convinced me to
try wild salmon... incredibly superior!

I love salmon in all its forms.

When I visited China a few years back the hotel buffet had *raw* salmon (
sushi style if you like ). Awesome. The most delicious delicate flavour.

Smoked is good.

Simply heated in the oven works nice too. Cooks in its own oil. Don't
overcook.

Consider fennel and dill for an interesting combination.

Graham

John Larkin · Nov 29, 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:24:43 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:41:07 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

[snip]
Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

John

I didn't care for salmon, except smoked. Then my wife convinced me to
try wild salmon... incredibly superior!

I love salmon in all its forms.

When I visited China a few years back the hotel buffet had *raw* salmon (
sushi style if you like ). Awesome. The most delicious delicate flavour.

Yeah. Salmon and unagi are two things that don't need to be dipped in
the soy-wasabi stuff.

John

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:24:49 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:24:43 +0000, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:41:07 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

[snip]
Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

John

I didn't care for salmon, except smoked. Then my wife convinced me to
try wild salmon... incredibly superior!

I love salmon in all its forms.

When I visited China a few years back the hotel buffet had *raw* salmon (
sushi style if you like ). Awesome. The most delicious delicate flavour.

Yeah. Salmon and unagi are two things that don't need to be dipped in
the soy-wasabi stuff.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:51:46 -0500, Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

in article 9hgmq053hrj8qmhsrgp1lc4gsjhfob9u8m@4ax.com, Jim Thompson at
thegreatone@example.com wrote on 11/29/04 10:44 AM:

Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

...Jim Thompson

That's a bit rustic, don't ya think?

As a country boy I've BTDT... wipe your foot on the grass, but you
still have it between your toes ;-)

I think it's more like a head-on collision with a septic tank truck . . . .

;-)

Jon

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jon Yaeger · Nov 29, 2004

in article 2ghmq0tdaco9lq8doa54j00voalv4j4v34@4ax.com, Jim Thompson at
thegreatone@example.com wrote on 11/29/04 10:54 AM:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:51:46 -0500, Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net
wrote:

in article 9hgmq053hrj8qmhsrgp1lc4gsjhfob9u8m@4ax.com, Jim Thompson at
thegreatone@example.com wrote on 11/29/04 10:44 AM:

Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

...Jim Thompson

That's a bit rustic, don't ya think?

As a country boy I've BTDT... wipe your foot on the grass, but you
still have it between your toes ;-)

Say, what were you doing standing behind those animals?? (Sorry - couldn't
resist)

;-)

Harry Dellamano · Nov 29, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:alrmq0hadt16ktu3u6km007kp0m4ust8s8@4ax.com...

Please suggest circuitry and power MOSFETs to do the following:

Control voltage > +100mV, turn on P-channel device to +24V (1 Amp *)

Control voltage < -100mV, turn on N-channel device to -24V (1 Amp *)

-100mV <= Control voltage <= +100mV, both MOSFETS OFF.

Speed required <= 1uS (Voltage *)

Thanks!

(*) Load is 20ohm in series with 2.5mH

...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.

Hey Jim,
Questions, Is there one or two power inputs, one for positive and one for
negative? Are there one or two power outputs or a single node that could be
both +/-. Do the single or double power inputs have to withstand full
reverse voltage to the other rails?
Please threw in some incentives for the winning design, maybe a trip to
Phoenix and a night at your home for food and drink. Winner may bring a
Hibachi if your outdoor grill is too small for four people.

Cheers
Harry

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:56:06 GMT, "Harry Dellamano"
<harryd@tdsystems.org> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:alrmq0hadt16ktu3u6km007kp0m4ust8s8@4ax.com...
Please suggest circuitry and power MOSFETs to do the following:

Control voltage > +100mV, turn on P-channel device to +24V (1 Amp *)

Control voltage < -100mV, turn on N-channel device to -24V (1 Amp *)

-100mV <= Control voltage <= +100mV, both MOSFETS OFF.

Speed required <= 1uS (Voltage *)

Thanks!

(*) Load is 20ohm in series with 2.5mH

...Jim Thompson

Hey Jim,
Questions, Is there one or two power inputs, one for positive and one for
negative? Are there one or two power outputs or a single node that could be
both +/-. Do the single or double power inputs have to withstand full
reverse voltage to the other rails?
Please threw in some incentives for the winning design, maybe a trip to
Phoenix and a night at your home for food and drink. Winner may bring a
Hibachi if your outdoor grill is too small for four people.

Cheers
Harry

I have +24V and -24V supplies and a single control signal to switch
output between those two levels or OFF.

If you can provide your own transportation I can provide the food and
drink.

I have a smoker sufficiently large to smoke a liberal, whole, without
folding ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

EAGLE Netlist conversion

R. Steve Walz

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Pig Bladder

Guest

Pig Bladder

Guest

Pig Bladder

Guest

YD

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

YD

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

YD

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Pooh Bear

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jon Yaeger

Guest

Harry Dellamano

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor