P
Peter O. Brackett
Guest
Thread:
[snip]
Keel haul the bastards!
--
Peter
[snip]
Keel haul the bastards!
--
Peter
P
Peter O. Brackett
Guest
Kevin:
[snip]
You'r just "sour" because no one will pay you to do Physics!
--
Peter
[snip]
You'r just "sour" because no one will pay you to do Physics!
--
Peter
T
Tim Auton
Guest
"Peter O. Brackett" <none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:
Tim
--
Love is a travelator.
The money for doing physics really sucks.
Tim
--
Love is a travelator.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
complete theory to actually produce an anti-gravity machine, thereby
raising myself way above the crowd
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Or too early. It would be nice to do the finishing touches to an almostKevin:
[snip]
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first
to do something is not, on its own, a measure of value.
Kevin Aylward
[snip]
Tsk, tsk, it's just too bad you were born too late kid!
complete theory to actually produce an anti-gravity machine, thereby
raising myself way above the crowd
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover" wrote:
Nobel Institute carries no weight with me whatsoever. Nobles are heavily
political biased. There is certainly no correlation to real worth of an
individule and a noble prize. For example, those cosmic background
radiation discoverer dudes got a Noble simply for turning on their
instruments and noting that there was unexplained noise. It was a total
fluke. They though it was bird shit. It could have been *anyone*.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Well, I don't want to get into discussing specific individuals, but the
Nobel Institute carries no weight with me whatsoever. Nobles are heavily
political biased. There is certainly no correlation to real worth of an
individule and a noble prize. For example, those cosmic background
radiation discoverer dudes got a Noble simply for turning on their
instruments and noting that there was unexplained noise. It was a total
fluke. They though it was bird shit. It could have been *anyone*.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
My emotions only have an indirect impact on my views. By and large, I am
very calculating in how I live my life. I'm probably as near to a Vulcan
as one can get. Once one really sees what life is *really* about (i.e.
maximising the numbers of Replicators,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html) one can never look at
life in that daft, naive way again. Like, duty, helping, love, hate,
etc...Its all a mechanical, explainable process.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Ho hummm...
My emotions only have an indirect impact on my views. By and large, I am
very calculating in how I live my life. I'm probably as near to a Vulcan
as one can get. Once one really sees what life is *really* about (i.e.
maximising the numbers of Replicators,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html) one can never look at
life in that daft, naive way again. Like, duty, helping, love, hate,
etc...Its all a mechanical, explainable process.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Joel Kolstad wrote:
The fact that some can't handle facts, is not my problem. Whether
something is negative or positive is completely arbitrary. I don't
consider the fact that life is fundamentally pointless, a black cloud. I
don't consider it a white one either. Its simply the way it is. Emotions
about it are irrelevant.
I'd grant you that, yeah, 99.9999% of the
significant evidence of exceptionality.
not about being "happy" in what they/we do, its about believing that
what they do has any major significance. I simple don't accept that most
notable electronics dudes stand out, as pretty much *any* other
competent electronic dude would have came up with the same ideas as such
notable dudes. This is in contrast to many of the real physics "greats".
Sure, some one else might have came up with GTR, but such individuals
are few and far between. By claiming that electronics dudes are "great"
gives disservice to those that that actually can be considered "great".
Other than possibly, people like Nyquist or Shannon, they aint no way
you are goanna convince me that those that are involved in engineering
electronics deserve such accolades as "great".
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
This is simply an irrelevant statement. I am making statements of fact.
The fact that some can't handle facts, is not my problem. Whether
something is negative or positive is completely arbitrary. I don't
consider the fact that life is fundamentally pointless, a black cloud. I
don't consider it a white one either. Its simply the way it is. Emotions
about it are irrelevant.
I'd grant you that, yeah, 99.9999% of the
Ahmmm... again, with all due respect to Mr. Widlar, I just don't see any
significant evidence of exceptionality.
I don't have an issue with this, never claimed otherwise. My point ismuch less Feynman and Einstein, but there's no reason they
shouldn't take joy and be proud of whatever their lot in life is,
even if it is something as mundane as picking cotton in a field... or
designing electronics.
not about being "happy" in what they/we do, its about believing that
what they do has any major significance. I simple don't accept that most
notable electronics dudes stand out, as pretty much *any* other
competent electronic dude would have came up with the same ideas as such
notable dudes. This is in contrast to many of the real physics "greats".
Sure, some one else might have came up with GTR, but such individuals
are few and far between. By claiming that electronics dudes are "great"
gives disservice to those that that actually can be considered "great".
Other than possibly, people like Nyquist or Shannon, they aint no way
you are goanna convince me that those that are involved in engineering
electronics deserve such accolades as "great".
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
M
Max Hauser
Guest
"Kevin Aylward" in
news:LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Famously elegant solutions to tough problems are often "obvious" after they
are solved. (That's why they are elegant.) Frequency filters were obvious
after Wagner and Campbell. Analog computation after Bush and others.
Multivibrators after Eccles and Jordan. Op amps seemed inevitable after
Philbrick, Paynter and Co. Translinear circuits, following Gilbert (who, by
the way, also pioneered Integrated Injection Logic by the record, ISSCC 1969
if I recall offhand, though it was popularly credited to later pure-digital
chip designers).
It's true that some solutions acquire names not from cleverness but simple
priority ("invention"), which has legal and business implications.
Solving no problems is easier still.
With a computer, a newsreader, and an armchair, innovation that took years
and broke barriers can be dismissed with the greatest of ease. (For just
under 25 years now, on the Usenet.)
(N. B.: One argument for permanently archiving the internationally visible
pph above is implicit worth as advertisement for editing services. Quick
quiz: Find seven famous gross mechanical errors and at least two famous
style weaknesses -- none of which would appear in a professionally edited
version. Just a little fun trivia.)
I must post the Platinum anecdote, some of you will like it. ;-)
M
news:LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I think that's worth archiving.
Famously elegant solutions to tough problems are often "obvious" after they
are solved. (That's why they are elegant.) Frequency filters were obvious
after Wagner and Campbell. Analog computation after Bush and others.
Multivibrators after Eccles and Jordan. Op amps seemed inevitable after
Philbrick, Paynter and Co. Translinear circuits, following Gilbert (who, by
the way, also pioneered Integrated Injection Logic by the record, ISSCC 1969
if I recall offhand, though it was popularly credited to later pure-digital
chip designers).
It's true that some solutions acquire names not from cleverness but simple
priority ("invention"), which has legal and business implications.
Solving no problems is easier still.
With a computer, a newsreader, and an armchair, innovation that took years
and broke barriers can be dismissed with the greatest of ease. (For just
under 25 years now, on the Usenet.)
(N. B.: One argument for permanently archiving the internationally visible
pph above is implicit worth as advertisement for editing services. Quick
quiz: Find seven famous gross mechanical errors and at least two famous
style weaknesses -- none of which would appear in a professionally edited
version. Just a little fun trivia.)
I must post the Platinum anecdote, some of you will like it. ;-)
M
J
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Kevin Aylward <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
indicate levels of 'greatness.' You've made a reasonable argument that
Widlar et al. were just 'highly competent' engineers without coming close to
the level of Einstein, but presumably you also realize that the number of
people in the 'highly competent engineering' class is itself a miniscule
chunk of the population.
I like Einstein's quote something to the effect that he was always intrigued
thinking about how many people out there picking coffee beans for a living
were just as clever as himself, yet they never had the opportunity for that
genius to shine.
BTW, the guys who discovered the cosmic background noise temperature...
presumably their 'genius' was that they recognized what was really going on,
and _didn't_ just assume it was just some bird droppings on their horn
antenna.
---Joel
Perhaps the problem is that the language doesn't have enough words to
indicate levels of 'greatness.' You've made a reasonable argument that
Widlar et al. were just 'highly competent' engineers without coming close to
the level of Einstein, but presumably you also realize that the number of
people in the 'highly competent engineering' class is itself a miniscule
chunk of the population.
I like Einstein's quote something to the effect that he was always intrigued
thinking about how many people out there picking coffee beans for a living
were just as clever as himself, yet they never had the opportunity for that
genius to shine.
BTW, the guys who discovered the cosmic background noise temperature...
presumably their 'genius' was that they recognized what was really going on,
and _didn't_ just assume it was just some bird droppings on their horn
antenna.
---Joel
X
xray
Guest
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:59:08 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
guess you are a failure unless you view your role in life as a drone
that makes the real breeders comfortable.
How does all this talk about electronics help the process? If it does
at all, then how can your tendency to irritate people be useful? If it
doesn't help support the best replicators, then why are you wasting
time here instead of trying to get laid or helping someone else get
laid?
I'm not totally discarding your treatise. I tend to lean way more
toward science than religion or any other mystical definition, but
maybe you have discarded some subtleties that seem irrelevant to you
but really do perform useful functions.
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
So is the local vicinity crawling with little Aylwards? If not, then I
guess you are a failure unless you view your role in life as a drone
that makes the real breeders comfortable.
How does all this talk about electronics help the process? If it does
at all, then how can your tendency to irritate people be useful? If it
doesn't help support the best replicators, then why are you wasting
time here instead of trying to get laid or helping someone else get
laid?
I'm not totally discarding your treatise. I tend to lean way more
toward science than religion or any other mystical definition, but
maybe you have discarded some subtleties that seem irrelevant to you
but really do perform useful functions.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Max Hauser wrote:
Look dude, of course simplicity can have significant value, but there is
no merit if that simplicity was simple to arrive at.
For example, all of the basic results of Special Relativity, i.e the
equations (The Lorentz transformation), were already known prior to SR.
However, it was by an amazingly complicated route, with no overall
understanding of what was going on. Einstein came along and cleaned the
mess up. General Relativity, in concept, is also amazingly simple, yet
took around 10 years to be put together.
put loading coils in telephone lines.
All simple stuff that required little work to "discover". None of this
required a paradigm shift of existing knowledge, as was the case when
Einstein proposed that time itself was non unique.
For example, since it was known that transistors had an exp()
relationship, it is absolutely and trivially obvious that one can use
them to multiply by logging, adding and anti-logging. A random (genetic)
connection algorithm to generate the required circuit would take no time
at all to come to such a simple circuit solution.
Again, what I see here is misconceptions based on the first, person who
just happened to be give a problem to solve for the first time, coming
up with the obvious answer.
Indeed, the commercialisation of electronics, over basic physics, is
part of the reason for the issue. Companies spend significant resources
on trying to give the impression that whatever they do is state of the
art, superior stuff. Lets not all be taken in by this and think that we,
as EE's do much of merit.
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there. I am
also aware that *most* did not.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
If that makes you tick. Fine.
Oh dear... I knew this was coming.
Look dude, of course simplicity can have significant value, but there is
no merit if that simplicity was simple to arrive at.
For example, all of the basic results of Special Relativity, i.e the
equations (The Lorentz transformation), were already known prior to SR.
However, it was by an amazingly complicated route, with no overall
understanding of what was going on. Einstein came along and cleaned the
mess up. General Relativity, in concept, is also amazingly simple, yet
took around 10 years to be put together.
My understanding is that filters were discovered by accident when they
put loading coils in telephone lines.
Ahmmmm...
All simple stuff that required little work to "discover". None of this
required a paradigm shift of existing knowledge, as was the case when
Einstein proposed that time itself was non unique.
For example, since it was known that transistors had an exp()
relationship, it is absolutely and trivially obvious that one can use
them to multiply by logging, adding and anti-logging. A random (genetic)
connection algorithm to generate the required circuit would take no time
at all to come to such a simple circuit solution.
Again, what I see here is misconceptions based on the first, person who
just happened to be give a problem to solve for the first time, coming
up with the obvious answer.
In electronics, its most not some.
Indeed, the commercialisation of electronics, over basic physics, is
part of the reason for the issue. Companies spend significant resources
on trying to give the impression that whatever they do is state of the
art, superior stuff. Lets not all be taken in by this and think that we,
as EE's do much of merit.
That is not what I am doing. I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there. I am
also aware that *most* did not.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Joel Kolstad wrote:
the universe. That's my point. At the same time a physics group were
developing a cosmic background radiation experiment. They noticed the
results and it was they that they knew what the explanation was.
You obviously don't know the story. They indeed assumed it was the bird
droppings when the inspected the horn. They cleaned it up because of
that assumption.
The dudes got a Noble, simply by being in the right place at the right
time. They contributed nothing. Its that simple. The radiation would
have been discovered by the dudes who were looking for it if they had
not been so lucky. Even that would in way way "merit" a prize
associated with 'genius'. All you need is a low noise receiver at point
it into space. The Noble was given simply because the information itself
was of such significance, i.e. evidence for the creation of the universe
in a big bang. However, giving the postman a prize for delivering this
message should hardly equates to more than a Christmas box. The Noble
prize is essentially, meaningless in a technical sense, although I would
certainly like one. It would although me to sell my soul to the
advertisers.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Nope. They had no idea whatsoever. They had nothing to do with studing
the universe. That's my point. At the same time a physics group were
developing a cosmic background radiation experiment. They noticed the
results and it was they that they knew what the explanation was.
You obviously don't know the story. They indeed assumed it was the bird
droppings when the inspected the horn. They cleaned it up because of
that assumption.
The dudes got a Noble, simply by being in the right place at the right
time. They contributed nothing. Its that simple. The radiation would
have been discovered by the dudes who were looking for it if they had
not been so lucky. Even that would in way way "merit" a prize
associated with 'genius'. All you need is a low noise receiver at point
it into space. The Noble was given simply because the information itself
was of such significance, i.e. evidence for the creation of the universe
in a big bang. However, giving the postman a prize for delivering this
message should hardly equates to more than a Christmas box. The Noble
prize is essentially, meaningless in a technical sense, although I would
certainly like one. It would although me to sell my soul to the
advertisers.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote ...
occurs to me you haven't read much of Widlar's best work, perhaps
never subscribed to the Journal of Solid-State Circuits or went
to an ISSCC meeting? One suggestion, read Hans' book for explicit
stories of breakthroughs made by Widlar after many others had spent
several years working on the very same thing, and felt perfection
had been achieved. For example, Widlar's 200mV band-gap reference.
The silicon extrapolated band gap voltage after all is 1220mV.
That accomplishment by itself does not make Widlar great, but he
had about 25 of the quality or better that I'm aware of, and we
know from those who worked near him or who attended sessions at
the local bar that his influence on them was considerable.
It was Peter who said he loved the way Hans weaved "the history"
in with the technology in his book, and that we need to remember
"the greats". Surely he meant, "we need to remember the greats of
electronics." You cannot argue Widlar was not one of our greats.
And again I'll assert your use of the word great is conservative,
and even a bit insulting to those for whom you reserve its use.
By calling Feynman and Einstein merely "great," you are indeed
damning with faint praise. They were much more than just great.
For example, even Tony the Tiger recognized that "Frosted Flakes Ž
Are more than good, They're Gr-r-reat! Ž" I'm sure you don't
want to restrict Feynman and Einstein to that class of accolade.
Win
With that kind of "due respect," I'd take a critic instead. It
occurs to me you haven't read much of Widlar's best work, perhaps
never subscribed to the Journal of Solid-State Circuits or went
to an ISSCC meeting? One suggestion, read Hans' book for explicit
stories of breakthroughs made by Widlar after many others had spent
several years working on the very same thing, and felt perfection
had been achieved. For example, Widlar's 200mV band-gap reference.
The silicon extrapolated band gap voltage after all is 1220mV.
That accomplishment by itself does not make Widlar great, but he
had about 25 of the quality or better that I'm aware of, and we
know from those who worked near him or who attended sessions at
the local bar that his influence on them was considerable.
It was Peter who said he loved the way Hans weaved "the history"
in with the technology in his book, and that we need to remember
"the greats". Surely he meant, "we need to remember the greats of
electronics." You cannot argue Widlar was not one of our greats.
And again I'll assert your use of the word great is conservative,
and even a bit insulting to those for whom you reserve its use.
By calling Feynman and Einstein merely "great," you are indeed
damning with faint praise. They were much more than just great.
For example, even Tony the Tiger recognized that "Frosted Flakes Ž
Are more than good, They're Gr-r-reat! Ž" I'm sure you don't
want to restrict Feynman and Einstein to that class of accolade.
Win
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
xray wrote:
There is no such thing as "failure" in evolution, or success for that
matter. Things replicate or do not replicate. We just are.
you) is a trait that is obviously desirable. People who don't talk or
write are less likely to be popular, as obviously, others dont know
about them if they dont say nought. People want to associate with
popular traits, popular traits are ones that have a larger probability
of replication success, simply because better replications, are by their
nature, popular, i.e. numerous.
child abuse). *Any* effect that is noticed, good or bad, will make you
more popular., because, err... it gets noticed. people ant to associate
with popular people as it will make them more popular.
It is just something that is observed. Those that don't, are simple not
observed as much. That's all there is to it.
satisfied for humans, the overall approach *must* be correct. There is
of course possibility for some of the details suggested to be in error.
Without doing more specific work, it can be hard to determine which
trait should propagate more than another, given a set of conditions.
Religion is little more than going "dah.. I don't understand how I got
here, so it must have been due to a man who knows everything, can be
everywhere at once, and can do anything". Like get real dude. How anyone
still believes this crap is beyond belief.
conservation of energy. All systems obey the laws if they satisfy the
axioms, but such laws does not uniquely describe all behaviour. The fine
details need more information, but they are not discarded, only
approximated to make solutions more tractable.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Nope.
There is no such thing as "failure" in evolution, or success for that
matter. Things replicate or do not replicate. We just are.
It is a general processes. Being popular, i.e. people know you (not like
you) is a trait that is obviously desirable. People who don't talk or
write are less likely to be popular, as obviously, others dont know
about them if they dont say nought. People want to associate with
popular traits, popular traits are ones that have a larger probability
of replication success, simply because better replications, are by their
nature, popular, i.e. numerous.
It makes one popular. There is no such thing as bad news (exception,
child abuse). *Any* effect that is noticed, good or bad, will make you
more popular., because, err... it gets noticed. people ant to associate
with popular people as it will make them more popular.
It does.
There is no reason to maximise ourselves, so the question is irrelevent.
It is just something that is observed. Those that don't, are simple not
observed as much. That's all there is to it.
Ahmmm... Given that we *know*, *experimentally*, that the axioms are
satisfied for humans, the overall approach *must* be correct. There is
of course possibility for some of the details suggested to be in error.
Without doing more specific work, it can be hard to determine which
trait should propagate more than another, given a set of conditions.
Oh dear...you mean you have some doubt?
Religion is little more than going "dah.. I don't understand how I got
here, so it must have been due to a man who knows everything, can be
everywhere at once, and can do anything". Like get real dude. How anyone
still believes this crap is beyond belief.
Not possible. The mene-gene machine theory is a global theory, much like
conservation of energy. All systems obey the laws if they satisfy the
axioms, but such laws does not uniquely describe all behaviour. The fine
details need more information, but they are not discarded, only
approximated to make solutions more tractable.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Winfield Hill wrote:
ones arse phrases.
"I just don't see any significant evidence of exceptionality".
This, of course, doesn't say there is no evidence, only that I am not
aware of any, if there were some
them to obtain a sub 1.2V reference voltage is again, truly trivial.
Pretty much anyone with the required math background can do it in their
head. I knocked up a BG (see SS example) that could output 0V to Vsupply
and runs down to 0.7V, in about 15 minutes of noting that one simply has
to subtract off a current from the BG diodes. Sure, I had some
hindsight, but this does not negate the fact that this sort of stuff is
a theoretical no-brainier.
I still think you are confusing issues related to the first person that
does something, with an issues something's intrinsic difficulty.
to dudes like Pat Matheny, Stanley Jordan, John McLaughlin, Joe Pass
etc, he's a rank amateur.
Look, I'm not trying to get at Widlar. I admit that I don't know much of
what he has done, but what I have *seen* to date, only seem to justify
the notion of "good". Noting that people who might be called good, are
actually "normal", i.e. one should absolutly *expect* someone with a 4
year bachelors degree to have a certain standard. That is, I consider
those with bachelors EE degrees that can't even do a small signal
equivalent circuit, of which I would say even as high as 90% can't, are
*bad*, even though they might be "good" at EE compared to a plumber.
someone who is "better" than the norm. For that I use err.. "better".
So, no it is not demeaning to call Einstein "only" great.
Arguable, I would say Shannon was probably "great" as he made
fundamental contributions. he actually defined information. Again,
coming up with some novel transistor circuit is simple not on the same
par. Simple rearrangements of existing, simple knowledge is enough for
them.
fluff when used in advertising contexts.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Probably not. Thats why I explicily used one of my "Yes Minister" save
ones arse phrases.
"I just don't see any significant evidence of exceptionality".
This, of course, doesn't say there is no evidence, only that I am not
aware of any, if there were some
The basic equations on band gaps are trivial. The ability to manipulate
them to obtain a sub 1.2V reference voltage is again, truly trivial.
Pretty much anyone with the required math background can do it in their
head. I knocked up a BG (see SS example) that could output 0V to Vsupply
and runs down to 0.7V, in about 15 minutes of noting that one simply has
to subtract off a current from the BG diodes. Sure, I had some
hindsight, but this does not negate the fact that this sort of stuff is
a theoretical no-brainier.
I still think you are confusing issues related to the first person that
does something, with an issues something's intrinsic difficulty.
Such as?
I know many that say Clapton has a big influence on them, yet compared
to dudes like Pat Matheny, Stanley Jordan, John McLaughlin, Joe Pass
etc, he's a rank amateur.
Look, I'm not trying to get at Widlar. I admit that I don't know much of
what he has done, but what I have *seen* to date, only seem to justify
the notion of "good". Noting that people who might be called good, are
actually "normal", i.e. one should absolutly *expect* someone with a 4
year bachelors degree to have a certain standard. That is, I consider
those with bachelors EE degrees that can't even do a small signal
equivalent circuit, of which I would say even as high as 90% can't, are
*bad*, even though they might be "good" at EE compared to a plumber.
Yes I can, untill I have evidence that indicate oherwise.
I would have to disagree, but this is now done to definitions.
Well, this is a matter of definitions. I don't consider "great" to mean
someone who is "better" than the norm. For that I use err.. "better".
So, no it is not demeaning to call Einstein "only" great.
Arguable, I would say Shannon was probably "great" as he made
fundamental contributions. he actually defined information. Again,
coming up with some novel transistor circuit is simple not on the same
par. Simple rearrangements of existing, simple knowledge is enough for
them.
I don't consider any words used in advertising to mean anything but
fluff when used in advertising contexts.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
T
Thomas Philips
Guest
As one hardly ever sees the context in which a problem was originally
solved, and the difficulties encountered while trying to solve it,
it's surprisingly easy to mistake the simplicity of a truly elegant
solution for simple-mindedness, particularly when the passage of time
has dulled the context. Quite often, the only clue to the brilliance
of a solution is its later ubiquity. By this standard, Widlar was a
truly remarkable person.
Thomas Philips
solved, and the difficulties encountered while trying to solve it,
it's surprisingly easy to mistake the simplicity of a truly elegant
solution for simple-mindedness, particularly when the passage of time
has dulled the context. Quite often, the only clue to the brilliance
of a solution is its later ubiquity. By this standard, Widlar was a
truly remarkable person.
Thomas Philips
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Thomas Philips wrote:
the type suckered into using the popular phraseology of "robust",
"elegant", or "productize"-or any of that other crap phraseology. He was
primarily a *producer*- responsible for bringing something like 99.999%
of the discrete applications into the integrated circuit domain- took
many applications and made them manufacturable, reliable, stellar
performers, and educated the engineering community in their proper,
advantageous, and creative use through a prolific record of research
reports, application notes, and contributions to popular books and
articles. He could give a damn less what the likes of Aylward pretends
to think, say, or do.
I don't think Widlar was hung up on being a "theorist" and would not be
the type suckered into using the popular phraseology of "robust",
"elegant", or "productize"-or any of that other crap phraseology. He was
primarily a *producer*- responsible for bringing something like 99.999%
of the discrete applications into the integrated circuit domain- took
many applications and made them manufacturable, reliable, stellar
performers, and educated the engineering community in their proper,
advantageous, and creative use through a prolific record of research
reports, application notes, and contributions to popular books and
articles. He could give a damn less what the likes of Aylward pretends
to think, say, or do.
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On 3 Jun 2004 07:01:53 -0700, jmeyer@nektonresearch.com (Jim Meyer)
wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
...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.
wrote:
I like the Freudian slip "...ferment mind of Bob Widlar ".
ROTFLMAO!
...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
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
K
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Fred Bloggs wrote:
This is simply crap. Not a chance in hell that one man done so much.
Your dreaming.
took many applications and made them manufacturable,
Most of those that are well known writers, are not very good at what
they write about. However, I am not making any claims specifically about
Widlar by this statement, only pointing out the actual facts in general.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Nonsense.
This is simply crap. Not a chance in hell that one man done so much.
Your dreaming.
took many applications and made them manufacturable,
You clearly have a need to hero worship someone. Get over it.
Most of those that are well known writers, are not very good at what
they write about. However, I am not making any claims specifically about
Widlar by this statement, only pointing out the actual facts in general.
Like wise to your own opinions.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:24:09 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
named Aylward to annoy us ;-)
...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.
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
I second Fred's assertions! Fortunately they'll never be a dimension
named Aylward to annoy us ;-)
...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
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.