EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:22:37 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.10.20.13.19.732295@example.net&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Fri,
10 Dec 2004:
The answer, of course, as usual, is Love.

As in tennis.

But you can't have a 'brand-new' god. Gods are outside of time, so 'new'
is meaningless.

Would you be so kind as to reveal your source of this information? ;-)

The theory is, it's like a hierarchy, and we're the next stage of
evolution, and when we all clue up, we get to go create universes of our
own. i.e., the god of this reality is a created being in the next higher
level of reality, just like we're the created beings in this one.

It does get tiresome, however, waiting for billions and billions of people
to clue up.

Remember as a kid, they were saying, "With one eye, you can see two
dimensions, with two, you can see three dimensions. If you had three eyes,
could you see four dimensions?"

Interestingly, when you open your third eye, you can see more like seven,
i.e., it's not linear. ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <87akr05hf43k9qfa8o3ba6dpuv9lhchkgb@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Fri, 10 Dec
2004:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:35:09 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:


And consultants are allowed to work 170 hours a week, of course.

Or at least bill for 170 hours a week.

So? Anyone can afford $170. (;-)

--
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 Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.11.01.02.05.402424@example.net&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Sat,
11 Dec 2004:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:22:37 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.10.20.13.19.732295@example.net&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Fri,
10 Dec 2004:
The answer, of course, as usual, is Love.

As in tennis.

But you can't have a 'brand-new' god. Gods are outside of time, so 'new'
is meaningless.

Would you be so kind as to reveal your source of this information? ;-)

Time is what stops *us* being omnipresent and omniscient. QED

The theory is, it's like a hierarchy, and we're the next stage of
evolution, and when we all clue up, we get to go create universes of our
own. i.e., the god of this reality is a created being in the next higher
level of reality, just like we're the created beings in this one.

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Suitable for hypotheists.

It does get tiresome, however, waiting for billions and billions of
people to clue up.

Being outside of time, gods don't have to wait.

Remember as a kid, they were saying, "With one eye, you can see two
dimensions, with two, you can see three dimensions. If you had three
eyes, could you see four dimensions?"

Astonishingly clever kids!

Interestingly, when you open your third eye, you can see more like
seven, i.e., it's not linear. ;-)

Not even close. You need 10, 11 or maybe 26 to pass Creator 101.
--
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 Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:22:49 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <87akr05hf43k9qfa8o3ba6dpuv9lhchkgb@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Fri, 10 Dec
2004:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:35:09 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:


And consultants are allowed to work 170 hours a week, of course.

Or at least bill for 170 hours a week.

So? Anyone can afford $170. (;-)

One of my customers has just asked me to add a feature to an existing
piece of my embedded code, runs in a product we license to them to
manufacture and use in their laser systems. A couple of days to code
and test with luck, but tricky: the critical interrupt routine has a
fair amount to do, and only 13 microseconds available to do it. They
want it by the end of December... big rush... Christmas and stuff...so
I quote them $8K. OK. Now they turn it over to their legal staff, and
they just sent me a "services agreement" to sign. Section 3C says that
they own anything I do, and all other copyright or whatever materials
associated with the job. That means they would own the entire program
and the entire design that we license to them. No dice. So we reject
the agreement and remind them about the license. Armies of lawyers now
are moving in, shrieking like the Nazgul on black horses. We'll be
lucky to have a deal by February, and we'll certainly spend more time
hassling Ts&Cs than writing code.

I'm ready for some of that Beaujolais Nouveau.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <fr2lr0p7sp6kttlh06em4d12tupv51bka3@
4ax.com&gt about 'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S.', on Fri, 10 Dec
2004:

One of my customers has just asked me to add a feature to an existing
piece of my embedded code, runs in a product we license to them to
manufacture and use in their laser systems. A couple of days to code and
test with luck, but tricky: the critical interrupt routine has a fair
amount to do, and only 13 microseconds available to do it. They want it
by the end of December... big rush... Christmas and stuff...so I quote
them $8K. OK. Now they turn it over to their legal staff, and they just
sent me a "services agreement" to sign. Section 3C says that they own
anything I do, and all other copyright or whatever materials associated
with the job. That means they would own the entire program and the
entire design that we license to them. No dice. So we reject the
agreement and remind them about the license. Armies of lawyers now are
moving in, shrieking like the Nazgul on black horses. We'll be lucky to
have a deal by February, and we'll certainly spend more time hassling
Ts&Cs than writing code.

I had similar problems with a US client. Luckily my technical contact
was very senior and when I told him about the problem, he very quickly
cause the legal eagles to see sense. They don't seem to understand that
they can't appropriate other people's IPRs as part of a supply contract,
and they don't understand the difference between an $8k job and a $8M
job.
--
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 Fields]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:28:27 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Time is what stops *us* being omnipresent and omniscient. QED

---
Indeed. We have to _wait_ before the effects of our actions become
apparent to us.
---

The theory is, it's like a hierarchy, and we're the next stage of
evolution, and when we all clue up, we get to go create universes of our
own. i.e., the god of this reality is a created being in the next higher
level of reality, just like we're the created beings in this one.

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Suitable for hypotheists.

---
LOL! Missed you, John, glad you're back...
---

It does get tiresome, however, waiting for billions and billions of
people to clue up.

Being outside of time, gods don't have to wait.

---
I disgree, a little.

If we've been bound in time by the actions of the gods, then even
though it may seem to us that our fate is determined beforehand, it
might vary depending on how we conduct ourselves in the cause and
effect world into which we've been placed and on what the gods are
looking for.
---

Remember as a kid, they were saying, "With one eye, you can see two
dimensions, with two, you can see three dimensions. If you had three
eyes, could you see four dimensions?"

Astonishingly clever kids!

Interestingly, when you open your third eye, you can see more like
seven, i.e., it's not linear. ;-)

Not even close. You need 10, 11 or maybe 26 to pass Creator 101.

---

_Pass_ Creator 101?

It's all I can do to imagine that I can imagine that I'm in its wake.


--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:11:35 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

One of my customers has just asked me to add a feature to an existing
piece of my embedded code, runs in a product we license to them to
manufacture and use in their laser systems. A couple of days to code
and test with luck, but tricky: the critical interrupt routine has a
fair amount to do, and only 13 microseconds available to do it. They
want it by the end of December... big rush... Christmas and stuff...so
I quote them $8K. OK. Now they turn it over to their legal staff, and
they just sent me a "services agreement" to sign. Section 3C says that
they own anything I do, and all other copyright or whatever materials
associated with the job. That means they would own the entire program
and the entire design that we license to them. No dice. So we reject
the agreement and remind them about the license. Armies of lawyers now
are moving in, shrieking like the Nazgul on black horses. We'll be
lucky to have a deal by February, and we'll certainly spend more time
hassling Ts&Cs than writing code.

I'm ready for some of that Beaujolais Nouveau.

---
$8k? Sounds to me like you're in the catbird seat, so you don't have
to drink that crap. Depending on how you've structured earlier
agreements, hopefully they can't get their hooks into you, and if they
can't and the deal doesn't look good to you, just walk away.

If you've performed satisfactorily in the past [for them] there should
be no question about your being able to modify your own stuff, and if
they want to argue about your $8000.00, what should you do, lose
money?


--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:52 -0800, Richard Henry wrote:

"Oppie" <boppie@-nospam-ludl.com> wrote in message
news:1102606422.cc38f658828b0655ae0750616937e7e8@teranews...

"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)

WRT burning cow pies: A few years back there was a brush fire that started
at the end of my block and burned up through a cow pasture. After the flame
front was safely away, my neighbor and I wandered around a while with
shovels putting out smoldering meadow muffins.

The following year, were there especially rich, thickly grown spots in the

new plants, where the pies were?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:28:27 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:22:37 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net
The answer, of course, as usual, is Love.

As in tennis.

But you can't have a 'brand-new' god. Gods are outside of time, so 'new'
is meaningless.

Would you be so kind as to reveal your source of this information? ;-)

Time is what stops *us* being omnipresent and omniscient. QED

No, time is the thing we've invented because omnipresent omnicience is so
overwhelmingly incomprehensible to a 4-D physical neural net. ;-)

The theory is, it's like a hierarchy, and we're the next stage of
evolution, and when we all clue up, we get to go create universes of our
own. i.e., the god of this reality is a created being in the next higher
level of reality, just like we're the created beings in this one.

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Suitable for hypotheists.

Oh, heck, I can even downgrade it to "assertion." ;-)

It does get tiresome, however, waiting for billions and billions of
people to clue up.

Being outside of time, gods don't have to wait.

Well, they have to "wait" for their creations to catch up. Physical stuff
just moves slower than imaginary stuff.

Remember as a kid, they were saying, "With one eye, you can see two
dimensions, with two, you can see three dimensions. If you had three
eyes, could you see four dimensions?"

Astonishingly clever kids!

Maybe so. I never thought there was anything unusual about them. I also
remember in about the 1950's, with Mom & Dad & my brugly others and sisty
ugler, speculating, "Where will we be in the year 2000? I'll be, lessee,
2000 - 1949; I'll be fifty-one! At the time, my folks were in about their
forties.

The year 2001 has come and gone - where are the flying cars and moon
shuttles?

Interestingly, when you open your third eye, you can see more like
seven, i.e., it's not linear. ;-)

Not even close. You need 10, 11 or maybe 26 to pass Creator 101.

You show me yours, and I'll show you mine. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard Henry]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.11.08.05.43.233526@example.net...

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:52 -0800, Richard Henry wrote:


"Oppie" <boppie@-nospam-ludl.com> wrote in message
news:1102606422.cc38f658828b0655ae0750616937e7e8@teranews...

"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)

WRT burning cow pies: A few years back there was a brush fire that
started
at the end of my block and burned up through a cow pasture. After the
flame
front was safely away, my neighbor and I wandered around a while with
shovels putting out smoldering meadow muffins.

The following year, were there especially rich, thickly grown spots in the
new plants, where the pies were?

The next year, thee were bulldozers building a golf course.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.11.08.05.43.233526@example.net&gt about 'Heard
this morning on talk radio', on Sat, 11 Dec 2004:

The following year, were there especially rich, thickly grown spots in
the new plants, where the pies were?

This is normally the case if the pasture is short of nitrogen, in which
case, in England, the patches grow stinging nettles. A deficiency in
some other nutrient causes a similar effect, without the nettles.
--
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 Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <kt4lr0tre4hrt4k4vjq75h00v8r9bkilf1@4ax.com&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Sat,
11 Dec 2004:

If we've been bound in time by the actions of the gods, then even though
it may seem to us that our fate is determined beforehand, it might vary
depending on how we conduct ourselves in the cause and effect world into
which we've been placed and on what the gods are
looking for.

I didn't mean to imply any sort of predestination. In fact, it is
totally inconsistent with the 'perfect creation' argument. It puts us
back to robot status.
--
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 Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.11.08.18.23.629328@example.net&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Sat,
11 Dec 2004:

The year 2001 has come and gone - where are the flying cars and moon
shuttles?

You were too lazy to invent them.
--
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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:54:27 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <rich@example.net
wrote (in <pan.2004.12.11.08.18.23.629328@example.net&gt about
'Beaujolais Nouveau Arrives in the U.S. - CAUTION: METAPHYSICS', on Sat,
11 Dec 2004:

The year 2001 has come and gone - where are the flying cars and moon
shuttles?

You were too lazy to invent them.

Well, I wouldn't mind that everything wrong is my fault, but I do wish
that along with such horrendous responsibility came the power to fix it.

"Wanna blame somebody? OK, blame me. Now give me purchase order authority
to fix it!" That usually shuts them up. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:49:08 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:11:35 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

[snip]
they just sent me a "services agreement" to sign. Section 3C says that
they own anything I do, and all other copyright or whatever materials
associated with the job. That means they would own the entire program
and the entire design that we license to them. No dice. So we reject
the agreement and remind them about the license. Armies of lawyers now
are moving in, shrieking like the Nazgul on black horses. We'll be
lucky to have a deal by February, and we'll certainly spend more time
hassling Ts&Cs than writing code.

I'm ready for some of that Beaujolais Nouveau.

---
$8k? Sounds to me like you're in the catbird seat, so you don't have
to drink that crap. Depending on how you've structured earlier
agreements, hopefully they can't get their hooks into you, and if they
can't and the deal doesn't look good to you, just walk away.

If you've performed satisfactorily in the past [for them] there should
be no question about your being able to modify your own stuff, and if
they want to argue about your $8000.00, what should you do, lose
money?

"Walk away" is my standard policy. I just call the customer's
technical contact and tell him, sorry, no-can-do. Usually all hell
breaks loose, and there's next to no legal verbiage at all.

...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.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

"Walk away" is my standard policy. I just call the customer's
technical contact and tell him, sorry, no-can-do. Usually all hell
breaks loose, and there's next to no legal verbiage at all.

Yeah. I already told them "no" once already, when the tekkies on the
other end tried to force me to use "their" algorithm to do the signal
processing, when mine was a lot simpler and gave the same results with
far less likelyhood of having bugs. They said their algorithn was more
"processor efficient" and I told them I didn't give a damn how hard my
CPU worked, only how hard *I* worked. Since they need this thing, they
backed down. I figure they can specify what they want done, but not
how they want it done. If they specify "how", then I'm not responsible
for it working, and I refuse to do anything I can't guarantee.

This particular company owns the market they're in, and they have a
culture of arrogance, right up there with Intel. The first time they
visited us, their senior procurement guy wandered around our place and
came back and said "There's no way in hell you're ever going to build
anything for *****", and then he left. OK. Next trip he was more
reasonable.

Really, if they want something done that they can't do themselves, and
they figure we can, why don't they trust us to do it right?

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:17:59 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


"Walk away" is my standard policy. I just call the customer's
technical contact and tell him, sorry, no-can-do. Usually all hell
breaks loose, and there's next to no legal verbiage at all.


Yeah. I already told them "no" once already, when the tekkies on the
other end tried to force me to use "their" algorithm to do the signal
processing, when mine was a lot simpler and gave the same results with
far less likelyhood of having bugs. They said their algorithn was more
"processor efficient" and I told them I didn't give a damn how hard my
CPU worked, only how hard *I* worked. Since they need this thing, they
backed down. I figure they can specify what they want done, but not
how they want it done. If they specify "how", then I'm not responsible
for it working, and I refuse to do anything I can't guarantee.

This particular company owns the market they're in, and they have a
culture of arrogance, right up there with Intel. The first time they
visited us, their senior procurement guy wandered around our place and
came back and said "There's no way in hell you're ever going to build
anything for *****", and then he left. OK. Next trip he was more
reasonable.

Really, if they want something done that they can't do themselves, and
they figure we can, why don't they trust us to do it right?

John

I have a regular client like that, but with a vulnerability... they
like to use multiple consulting firms, each doing a particular set of
cells within a chip.

Last time out ONLY my cells worked as advertised.

A few weeks ago I was asked to do a cell, specified with an
unrealizable power budget.

I said NO, it can't be done with that power budget.

The client responded rather snottily, "Well I'll just have the ***
group do it".

To which I replied, "Go ahead, I know what their track record is".

On the other end of the phone... GROAN ;-)

...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.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:43:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I have a regular client like that, but with a vulnerability... they
like to use multiple consulting firms, each doing a particular set of
cells within a chip.

Last time out ONLY my cells worked as advertised.

A few weeks ago I was asked to do a cell, specified with an
unrealizable power budget.

I said NO, it can't be done with that power budget.

The client responded rather snottily, "Well I'll just have the ***
group do it".

To which I replied, "Go ahead, I know what their track record is".

On the other end of the phone... GROAN ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Doncha just love when you can do that?

The worst thing about arrogance is that it gets in the way of great
design. I figure that if a group of people get together to solve a
problem, the collective intelligence of the group *ought* to be
greater than that of any of the members, and they can bat ideas around
until something really good pops up. But when egos are on the line and
some people are convinced that they're smarter, and have to prove it
at all times, stupid stuff is practically guaranteed to happen. The
worst ones are usually the "I have a PhD and you don't" fatheads, the
ones who sign all their emails "Dr. Floob"

My favorite customer is probably Pratt&Whitney. They are super smart
and super disciplined but are, for the most part, decent and
thoughtful people who want to get things done the best way. And they
*tell* purchasing what to do and when they want it done. I think
designing jet engines weeds out the reckless cowboys pretty quick.

My limited experience with Intel puts them high on the fathead list.
Just say "Itanium" to put them in their place.

Back to work.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:17:25 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:43:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


I have a regular client like that, but with a vulnerability... they
like to use multiple consulting firms, each doing a particular set of
cells within a chip.

Last time out ONLY my cells worked as advertised.

A few weeks ago I was asked to do a cell, specified with an
unrealizable power budget.

I said NO, it can't be done with that power budget.

The client responded rather snottily, "Well I'll just have the ***
group do it".

To which I replied, "Go ahead, I know what their track record is".

On the other end of the phone... GROAN ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Doncha just love when you can do that?

Oh, Yes! Almost as good as an orgasm ;-)

[snip]

My limited experience with Intel puts them high on the fathead list.
Just say "Itanium" to put them in their place.

Back to work.

John

"Itanium", I'll have to remember that, or was it Unobtainium" ?

It always amazes me how Intel doesn't use their own products, at least
here in Arizona. In the Chandler facility they use some mainframe
beasty and their own simulator software... runs butt-slow.

I often reach frustration level, leave the Intel facility, drive home,
run the simulation, go back to find their machine is still churning,
churning, churning...

(Actually MicroChip is in about the same (in)efficiency boat... I
think the engineering departments are too micro-managed by Steve
Sanghi. And the young engineers are so insecure that they back-stab
my efforts... as if I wanted their jobs... give me a break

I always disarm the PhD's by saying, in a group session, "I hope there
are no PhD's here", then proceeding with my most demeaning collection
of PhD jokes, starting with "Piled-higher-and-deeper" ;-)

...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.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:39:51 -0800, Tim Wescott
<tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Take a look at....

http://sun.yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_13630.php

That's Madeleine (Thompson) Coil ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Well, if we're going to brag about relatives, my Dad is mayor of the
newest city in Oregon.

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/metro_east_news/110251086998332.xml?oregonian?en

Great! Don't you just love it when your elders keep going strong and
don't fade into non-existence at retirement? My father (10 years
older than yours) plays a dulcimer in a hillbilly band ;-)

...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.