EAGLE Netlist conversion

[pdmtr]

Paul Burke wrote:

Sotris wrote:
The prices for a single 2 layers 1dm2 full prototype is only 20Euro
without VAT for foreign countries? What is the VAT if it will apply
(ie. with invoice inside EU)?
thanks

The service looks OK at first glance, though the design limitations
are
rather coarse (15 thou track/ space, 0.5mm holes). I'd be happier to
have a physical address of this Greek concern.
If you have a VAT number, send him that, and he won't charge you VAT
assuming he's VAT registered in Greece. You have to declare it and
pay
VAT in your own country, but you can claim it back. Otherwise he
charges
you VAT at Greek rates. It's bizzarre, but that's the rules.

Paul Burke

Dear Paul
Yes I understand that.
Thank you

 

[Oppie]

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:10r32dahnud3qc2@corp.supernews.com...

But *why* would you ever want to pick up a cow pie???

I think that Jim replied correctly that they could be burnt when dry. As

gross as that sounds, that's what my wife's uncle and aunt did on the dairy
farm. The dried meadow muffins were used to bank the wood stove overnight.
Uncle gave the kids 3 cents per pie. My wife (being the smart one), would
pay her little brother 1 cent to see if they were dry by sticking his finger
in it. (probably the only honest work the guy ever did)

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:04:54 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <2vufr09r4sr7s3lnla41risp9unr6oean6@4ax.com&gt
about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec 2004:
Nonsense. They are orthogonal. All four combinations are possible.

11 smart + knowledgable
01 stupid + knowledgable
10 smart + ignorant
00 stupid + ignorant

But it's a 4-dimensional matrix. You have to add in the 'American' and
'idiot' dimensions. You might consider that someone rather well-known is
widely described as '0000'.(;-)

So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <49tgr0ddbfuo7hbefc7l995u4toq3h98ro@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:

So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

Go and look at the GPS display in Daddy's Bentley.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:04:54 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <2vufr09r4sr7s3lnla41risp9unr6oean6@4ax.com&gt
about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec 2004:
Nonsense. They are orthogonal. All four combinations are possible.

11 smart + knowledgable
01 stupid + knowledgable
10 smart + ignorant
00 stupid + ignorant

But it's a 4-dimensional matrix. You have to add in the 'American' and
'idiot' dimensions. You might consider that someone rather well-known is
widely described as '0000'.(;-)

I hope you mean the American-Not American and the idiot-not idiot axes.
Because I have, in fact, met Americans who are not idiots.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 07:55:34 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:04:54 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <2vufr09r4sr7s3lnla41risp9unr6oean6@4ax.com&gt
about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec 2004:
Nonsense. They are orthogonal. All four combinations are possible.

11 smart + knowledgable
01 stupid + knowledgable
10 smart + ignorant
00 stupid + ignorant

But it's a 4-dimensional matrix. You have to add in the 'American' and
'idiot' dimensions. You might consider that someone rather well-known is
widely described as '0000'.(;-)

So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

John

Well, now, you've introduced the rich/poor axis, the British/not British
axis, the Oxford/not Oxford axis, and the twit/not twit axis. I suppose
twit could roughly be mapped onto some function of the stupid/idiot axes,
but then one really should introduce the fool/not fool axis....
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Guillaume]

Well, now, you've introduced the rich/poor axis, the British/not British
axis, the Oxford/not Oxford axis, and the twit/not twit axis. I suppose
twit could roughly be mapped onto some function of the stupid/idiot axes,
but then one really should introduce the fool/not fool axis....

Hmm, where does the "evil axis" fit in all that? °-)

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:37:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:09:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:


Milk is now $4 a gallon, bread $3 a pound, and unless you
make my kind of money, you can forget steak exists.


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.

Because our government is sending cash to rich people instead
of spending it on making sure people get proper nourishment.

--Blair
"Have another Krispy Kreme."

Good grief, you blame the government for everything. Which can only
mean you want the government to be responsible for everything. Which
can only mean you want the government to control everything.

So, people would have cheeseburger ration booklets? Mandatory blood
pressure monitors at supermarket checkouts: 120/80 or no potato chips
for you!

I need some chocolate.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:14:19 +0100, Guillaume wrote:

Well, now, you've introduced the rich/poor axis, the British/not British
axis, the Oxford/not Oxford axis, and the twit/not twit axis. I suppose
twit could roughly be mapped onto some function of the stupid/idiot axes,
but then one really should introduce the fool/not fool axis....

Hmm, where does the "evil axis" fit in all that? °-)

That's the cool thing about reality - it turns out that Creation isn't the
Right Place for Evil.

Unfortunately, the people who are holding it think it's god or something.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:47:30 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:45:59 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <49tgr0ddbfuo7hbefc7l995u4toq3h98ro@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:
So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

Go and look at the GPS display in Daddy's Bentley.

Last time I was in England, I was being driven around by a Captain Of
Industry in his fancy Carerra with GPS, LCD map, and a very sweet
female, English-accented robotic voice that told him where to go and
when to turn and stuff. After a couple of minutes of programming, off
we'd go. But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere, and she'd say,
in her elegant measured voice, "take the next left" and it would be
too late, so around and around we'd go...

Sort of fun, actually, if you're not driving.

Ever done a cloverleaf while way stoned? It takes about a year to go
around all four loops.

%-)
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:57:00 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:47:30 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:45:59 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <49tgr0ddbfuo7hbefc7l995u4toq3h98ro@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:
So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

Go and look at the GPS display in Daddy's Bentley.

Last time I was in England, I was being driven around by a Captain Of
Industry in his fancy Carerra with GPS, LCD map, and a very sweet
female, English-accented robotic voice that told him where to go and
when to turn and stuff. After a couple of minutes of programming, off
we'd go. But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere, and she'd say,
in her elegant measured voice, "take the next left" and it would be
too late, so around and around we'd go...

Sort of fun, actually, if you're not driving.

Ever done a cloverleaf while way stoned? It takes about a year to go
around all four loops.

Actually, I've never been way stoned. Hallucigens make me nasty
paranoid. Reality is plenty weird enough.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:16:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:57:00 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:47:30 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:45:59 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <49tgr0ddbfuo7hbefc7l995u4toq3h98ro@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:
So what are the coordinates for a rich, British, Oxford-educated twit?

Go and look at the GPS display in Daddy's Bentley.

Last time I was in England, I was being driven around by a Captain Of
Industry in his fancy Carerra with GPS, LCD map, and a very sweet
female, English-accented robotic voice that told him where to go and
when to turn and stuff. After a couple of minutes of programming, off
we'd go. But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere, and she'd say,
in her elegant measured voice, "take the next left" and it would be
too late, so around and around we'd go...

Sort of fun, actually, if you're not driving.

Ever done a cloverleaf while way stoned? It takes about a year to go
around all four loops.


Actually, I've never been way stoned. Hallucigens make me nasty
paranoid. Reality is plenty weird enough

Paranoia is your friend. It makes you keep a low profile. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <b0lhr0tr5evesb29330ldcvlim1ba8v0si@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:

But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere,

Well, you call them 'rotaries' and I agree that they are very common on
UK. You have some in New Orleans, I know.

I wonder what you (and the GPS) would make of a 'satellite junction'
(they may have a new name now). You have one big island in the middle
(and it may not be round) with four or five smaller ones around the
periphery, each of which acts as a roundabout.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Tony Williams]

In article <+HUq32B8lVuBFw5s@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote
But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere,

I wonder what you (and the GPS) would make of a 'satellite
junction' (they may have a new name now). You have one big island
in the middle (and it may not be round) with four or five smaller
ones around the periphery, each of which acts as a roundabout.

Roundabouts (even magic roundabouts) are easy if you remember
the one Golden Rule.

If the other vehicle is pointing towards your driver's
door then he absolutely, definitely, has the right of way.

--
Tony Williams.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Larkin wrote...

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

America is losing its value.

What really makes a country valuable is its productivity.

What's happening to our true country productivity? I know the
"productivity" of our manufacturing companies has been rising.
But as companies close, putting workers out of productive work*,
and as more and more of the remaining companies first move their
production overseas, and then move product engineering overseas,
how can the overall real "productivity" of our country's workers
go up?

I don't know if the government directly tracks such a parameter,
but it has to be badly dropping. Perhaps the severe balance of
trade deficit is a way to track it. And we know what that's
been doing.

Fine Beaujolais or not, I'm worried.

* Should the work of real-estate brokers, bankers, lawyers, or
investment advisers, etc., be called part of our nation's true
productivity? Ditto soldiers, government employees, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:08:28 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <b0lhr0tr5evesb29330ldcvlim1ba8v0si@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Thu, 9 Dec
2004:
But you people have "roundabouts" everywhere,

Well, you call them 'rotaries' and I agree that they are very common on
UK. You have some in New Orleans, I know.

Two in San Francisco that I know of; little ones. They tend to have
fountains or shrubbery in the center.

Also known as "traffic circles" in some places.

New Jersey uses "jug handles" at intersections. Land is cheap in
Jersey.

I wonder what you (and the GPS) would make of a 'satellite junction'
(they may have a new name now). You have one big island in the middle
(and it may not be round) with four or five smaller ones around the
periphery, each of which acts as a roundabout.

Sounds like a component of a pinball machine.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-
dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote (in <cpcblt016dr@drn.newsguy.com&gt
about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Fri, 10 Dec 2004:

What's happening to our true country productivity? I know the
"productivity" of our manufacturing companies has been rising.
But as companies close, putting workers out of productive work*,
and as more and more of the remaining companies first move their
production overseas, and then move product engineering overseas,
how can the overall real "productivity" of our country's workers
go up?

It's not *real* productivity. When I was beginning to learn about
company management, there was a lot of emphasis on 'return on assets'. I
thought about this and decided that a company could be very unstable if
it had a very high 'return on added value'. I tried it on the
instructors, with predictable results. But later I found that Lord
Weinstock (not exactly a tyro at making a company profitable!) had the
same idea about a year earlier.

The point is that if your company is adding little value to a product
(e.g. just putting a brand-name on the box), or is adding value (e.g. by
shipping it from Taiwan to US) that *anyone* could add, then Sum Yung
Gai can undercut you and drive you off the market.

I don't know if the government directly tracks such a parameter,
but it has to be badly dropping. Perhaps the severe balance of
trade deficit is a way to track it. And we know what that's
been doing.

I'm sure that nice Mr. Greenspan thinks of little else these days.
Seriously.

Fine Beaujolais or not, I'm worried.

* Should the work of real-estate brokers, bankers, lawyers, or
investment advisers, etc., be called part of our nation's true
productivity? Ditto soldiers, government employees, etc.

If they bring money into the country, directly or indirectly, yes. Wall
Street (and the City of London) rely on that concept. Internally, they
churn the funds, and if they spend their 'ill-gotten gains' internally,
then they re-distribute wealth, which is regarded as a good thing. If
they save it all or invest or spend it outside the country, then I think
it's not 'productivity'. Defence forces are a special case, though. They
are like the cost of UL or FCC approvals - a cost you can't operate
without incurring.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On 10 Dec 2004 06:26:05 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

America is losing its value.

What really makes a country valuable is its productivity.

What's happening to our true country productivity? I know the
"productivity" of our manufacturing companies has been rising.
But as companies close, putting workers out of productive work*,
and as more and more of the remaining companies first move their
production overseas, and then move product engineering overseas,
how can the overall real "productivity" of our country's workers
go up?

I don't know if the government directly tracks such a parameter,
but it has to be badly dropping. Perhaps the severe balance of
trade deficit is a way to track it. And we know what that's
been doing.

Fine Beaujolais or not, I'm worried.

* Should the work of real-estate brokers, bankers, lawyers, or
investment advisers, etc., be called part of our nation's true
productivity? Ditto soldiers, government employees, etc.

As to that last question, yes. We live not only in a post-Capitalist
society, but in a post-Stuff society, too. The classic Marxist
emphasis on physical posessions is increasingly moot: food, gadgets,
entertainment are so cheap they're not a big issue any more.
Productivity is so high that a few percent of the population is needed
to grow all the food we need, and a few percent more to make all the
stuff we need. Housing is expensive, but only in big popular cities,
and that's not a materials issue.

Most people have too much stuff, and spend money at The Container
Store or Ikea just to buy stuff to store other stuff in, or rent
U-store lockers to stash junk they'll never use. Around here, people
have sidewalk sales to unload their accumulated crap so they can buy
more; not many buyers!

So what does a society look like when efficiencies in farming and
manufacturing reduce the associated workforces essentially to zero,
and food and "stuff" befome vanishingly cheap? Lots of nail salons, I
bet.

You can blame a lot of this efficiency on electronics. We, the EE's,
are the job killers.

I was just reading about the increasing "natalist" movement in
America. It's not organized but it's increasingly important. It's
about people who live in quiet, "boring" places and take available
jobs and don't care much about money or stuff. What's important to
them is kids and family.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:58:30 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-
dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote (in <cpcblt016dr@drn.newsguy.com&gt
about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Fri, 10 Dec 2004:

What's happening to our true country productivity? I know the
"productivity" of our manufacturing companies has been rising.
But as companies close, putting workers out of productive work*,
and as more and more of the remaining companies first move their
production overseas, and then move product engineering overseas,
how can the overall real "productivity" of our country's workers
go up?

It's not *real* productivity. When I was beginning to learn about
company management, there was a lot of emphasis on 'return on assets'. I
thought about this and decided that a company could be very unstable if
it had a very high 'return on added value'. I tried it on the
instructors, with predictable results. But later I found that Lord
Weinstock (not exactly a tyro at making a company profitable!) had the
same idea about a year earlier.

The point is that if your company is adding little value to a product
(e.g. just putting a brand-name on the box), or is adding value (e.g. by
shipping it from Taiwan to US) that *anyone* could add, then Sum Yung
Gai can undercut you and drive you off the market.

I don't know if the government directly tracks such a parameter,
but it has to be badly dropping. Perhaps the severe balance of
trade deficit is a way to track it. And we know what that's
been doing.

I'm sure that nice Mr. Greenspan thinks of little else these days.
Seriously.

Fine Beaujolais or not, I'm worried.

* Should the work of real-estate brokers, bankers, lawyers, or
investment advisers, etc., be called part of our nation's true
productivity? Ditto soldiers, government employees, etc.

If they bring money into the country, directly or indirectly, yes. Wall
Street (and the City of London) rely on that concept. Internally, they
churn the funds, and if they spend their 'ill-gotten gains' internally,
then they re-distribute wealth, which is regarded as a good thing. If
they save it all or invest or spend it outside the country, then I think
it's not 'productivity'. Defence forces are a special case, though. They
are like the cost of UL or FCC approvals - a cost you can't operate
without incurring.

What about musicians, street sweepers, novelists, gardeners? They
contribute nothing material and bring no money into the country. All
they do is make other people feel better. Is that "productivity"?

John

 

[Guillaume]

That's the cool thing about reality - it turns out that Creation isn't the
Right Place for Evil.

Unfortunately, the people who are holding it think it's god or something.

Well, I'm not a creationist myself.

But let's take the creationism approach here, for argument's sake.
If the Creator has created all things in the Universe, surely He
has created Evil as well. For there is nothing he has not created.
Why would some part of Creation not fit in Creation? Sounds like
an unworkable paradox to me.

But to me, this paradox stems from the fact that the premises here
are unworkable. There's no such things as "right", "wrong" and
"evil". There is just an unlimited quantity of different point of
views - some of which (most?) are not very compatible with one
another.

Besides, what seems "right" to you might seem "wrong" to another,
and vice versa. The very fact that one would claim to be more
"right" than another (who both claim to be) directly implies that
one would feel "superior" to another, thus knowing the "right right".
This is, in fact, nothing else but discrimination.

Creationism *is* discrimination.

"To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad
dream, a sudden reveling of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of
the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment."
- Isaac Asimov