need a cheap student edition FPGA

On Fri, 7 May 2010 19:20:33 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should
be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war
for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and
weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn
to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo?

Exactly. Many people do not realize that is perfectly good
grammer (and even preferred in some situations). Hell, I can
even detect the obvious!

It's nice that you admit to being a liar.

What an absurd assertion to make, right up there with a cretin
like you saying, "All cretins are liars."
Click to expand...
Are you attempting to cop to the lesser charge of cretin? It's true, but that
doesn't mean you're not also a liar, which you demonstrably are.
 
On 5/7/2010 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
THE DIMBULB SCORECARD
Click to expand...
List deleted.

The fact that you have such a list says a lot about you, and little
about anyone on that list.

Matthew
 
Otto Bahn wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.-
Click to expand...

You really are a stupid troll.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:26:47 -0400, Matthew L Martin <mlmartin@teranews.com>
wrote:

On 5/7/2010 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



THE DIMBULB SCORECARD


List deleted.

The fact that you have such a list says a lot about you, and little
about anyone on that list.
Click to expand...
LOL. The above says a *lot* about your reading skills.
 
Hatunen wrote:
Otto Bahn wrote:

Please to be explaining Iraq.

And Afghanistan and Viet Nam.
Click to expand...

Ask the British why they screwed up the area, and the UN about their
decisions about Iraq.

The French started the crap in IndoChina, then deserted. Wimpy assed
politicians refused to allow US troops to fight an effective war. That
old BS about crossing a line in the sand doesn't work. The only policy
that does work is 'Destroy your enemy totally and utterly, that he rise
against you not again.'

Afghanistan is openly harboring international terrorists.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:36:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

Otto Bahn wrote:

Please to be explaining Iraq.

And Afghanistan and Viet Nam.


Ask the British why they screwed up the area, and the UN about their
decisions about Iraq.

The French started the crap in IndoChina, then deserted. Wimpy assed
politicians refused to allow US troops to fight an effective war. That
old BS about crossing a line in the sand doesn't work. The only policy
that does work is 'Destroy your enemy totally and utterly, that he rise
against you not again.'
Click to expand...
The subject at issue is the previous statement:

People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with your comments since the claim at issue
was not followed. We did not go into Viet Nam with enough troops
to fight an effective war (leaving aside the question of whether
we should have been there at all). It's not clear that it would
have even been possible.

Afghanistan is openly harboring international terrorists.
Click to expand...
Ditto, so far.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
 
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:37:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.


Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?
Click to expand...
Can't be. That Otto was funny.
 
Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:36:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

Otto Bahn wrote:

Please to be explaining Iraq.

And Afghanistan and Viet Nam.


Ask the British why they screwed up the area, and the UN about their
decisions about Iraq.

The French started the crap in IndoChina, then deserted. Wimpy assed
politicians refused to allow US troops to fight an effective war. That
old BS about crossing a line in the sand doesn't work. The only policy
that does work is 'Destroy your enemy totally and utterly, that he rise
against you not again.'

The subject at issue is the previous statement:

People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

It has nothing to do with your comments since the claim at issue
was not followed. We did not go into Viet Nam with enough troops
to fight an effective war (leaving aside the question of whether
we should have been there at all). It's not clear that it would
have even been possible.

Afghanistan is openly harboring international terrorists.

Ditto, so far.
Click to expand...

Believe whatever you want. You're not important enough to do
anything, anyway.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:37:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.


Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?

Can't be. That Otto was funny.
Click to expand...

Only because of the sight gags. The mule was funny too, but he can't
design electronics. :)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
Matthew L Martin wrote:
On 5/7/2010 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



THE DIMBULB SCORECARD


List deleted.

The fact that you have such a list says a lot about you, and little
about anyone on that list.
Click to expand...

You're right. It says that I have no use for morons who keep digging
through their mommy's dirty cloths for more sock puppets. I guess that
you're angry, because all he lives for you are your daddy's dirty gym
socks.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:48:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:37:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.


Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?

Can't be. That Otto was funny.


Only because of the sight gags. The mule was funny too, but he can't
design electronics. :)
Click to expand...
Maybe oTTo looks funny but I'm betting on pathetic.
 
Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:46:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:36:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

Otto Bahn wrote:

Please to be explaining Iraq.

And Afghanistan and Viet Nam.


Ask the British why they screwed up the area, and the UN about their
decisions about Iraq.

The French started the crap in IndoChina, then deserted. Wimpy assed
politicians refused to allow US troops to fight an effective war. That
old BS about crossing a line in the sand doesn't work. The only policy
that does work is 'Destroy your enemy totally and utterly, that he rise
against you not again.'

The subject at issue is the previous statement:

People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

It has nothing to do with your comments since the claim at issue
was not followed. We did not go into Viet Nam with enough troops
to fight an effective war (leaving aside the question of whether
we should have been there at all). It's not clear that it would
have even been possible.

Afghanistan is openly harboring international terrorists.

Ditto, so far.


Believe whatever you want. You're not important enough to do
anything, anyway.

Ad you are?

What, exactly, do you think I would I to do?
Click to expand...

WHAT? That makes absolutely no sense.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:48:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:37:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.


Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?

Can't be. That Otto was funny.


Only because of the sight gags. The mule was funny too, but he can't
design electronics. :)

Maybe oTTo looks funny but I'm betting on pathetic.
Click to expand...

I bet his mommy dresses him funny.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On 5/7/2010 8:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Matthew L Martin wrote:

On 5/7/2010 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



THE DIMBULB SCORECARD


List deleted.

The fact that you have such a list says a lot about you, and little
about anyone on that list.


You're right. It says that I have no use for morons who keep digging
through their mommy's dirty cloths for more sock puppets. I guess that
you're angry, because all he lives for you are your daddy's dirty gym
socks.
Click to expand...
What makes you think I'm angry about anything?

Matthew
 
[sci.electronics.design removed, to get rid of the wingnut.]

Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:13:45 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote:

"Mark Edwards" <Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote

As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.
That's just plain silly. There's only three standard deviations above
average according to your logic...?

The CEEB imposed a reporting cutoff at plus/minus three SD. Once
beyond 3 SD the scores get more and more iffy as to validity
(what's the real meaning if one test taker scores +5 SD while
another scores +6 SD?).
Click to expand...
That's a strange place to saturate the score. In my experience, three SD
above average is the borderline for "will almost certainly finish a
university degree in minimum time", and two SD above average is the
cutoff for "will be able to start university studies, but will probably
never graduate". In other words, you're right at the point where
interesting predictions can be made.

But then, I know nothing about your SAT, so maybe it has nothing to do
with tertiary entry.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
 
Matthew L Martin <mlmartin@teranews.com> wrote:
On 5/7/2010 1:58 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read in months, if not years.
Click to expand...
Eh. His .sig says he's gotten his politics from Heinlein, what do you expect?

Dave "DON'T MAKE ME CROSSPOST OVER THERE, I'LL TURN THIS NEWSGROUP _around_!"
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 
In comp.lang.verilog Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
(snip regarding SAT scoring)
Click to expand...

The CEEB imposed a reporting cutoff at plus/minus three SD. Once
beyond 3 SD the scores get more and more iffy as to validity
(what's the real meaning if one test taker scores +5 SD while
another scores +6 SD?).
Click to expand...
Statistically, 3SD is probably about as well as you can do in
that time, and with an appropriate number of questions.
There are now three scores between 200 and 800, so about 1/3 of
the questions for each. (There is also a non-scored section used
for testing questions.)

That's a strange place to saturate the score. In my experience, three SD
above average is the borderline for "will almost certainly finish a
university degree in minimum time", and two SD above average is the
cutoff for "will be able to start university studies, but will probably
never graduate". In other words, you're right at the point where
interesting predictions can be made.
Click to expand...
Yes, the test is probably much better in the -1SD to +1SD range,
where it is likely used by many midrange schools. If you are
about 3SD then you had better get darn close to 800.

But then, I know nothing about your SAT, so maybe it has nothing
to do with tertiary entry.
Click to expand...
I have never heard the term "tertiary entry" before, but from the
Wikipedia article it sounds similar. In addition to the SAT
reasoning test, there are also SAT subject tests, and top schools
usually require two or three of those. Grades and letters from
teachers are also used by schools to distinguish candidates.

Note that statistically it takes exonentially more questions to
distinguish the higher and higher SD levels, and even then there
is a significant uncertainty.

-- glen
 
On Fri, 07 May 2010 22:09:24 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:48:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:37:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:39:52 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Like the top of your head?

Everybody likes the top of Barbara's head.


A real 'Chrome Dome'? :)

"Beer rest" is the correct answer.

I'm a trifle bemused by the reference to DD-214 in your .sig, though.

Surely people who own destroyers other than the old USS Tracy should be
allowed to stand (or, as you Americans say, run) for office?


I use that sig file for a reason. People who have served their
country in the military know that you don't drag your country to war for
some things, but when you do, you go in with enough manpower and weapons
to get the job done in a short time. Also, in the military you learn to
complete your mission within budget.

Please to be explaining Iraq.

More examples of the "875 Verbal SAT score", oTTo? What a lying sack of shit.


Do you think it's the same inflatable airhead 'Otto' that was in one
of the 'Airplane' movies?

Can't be. That Otto was funny.


Only because of the sight gags. The mule was funny too, but he can't
design electronics. :)

Maybe oTTo looks funny but I'm betting on pathetic.
Click to expand...
Are you up for a thought experiment?

Just suppose--for the sake of argument--that oTTo knew exactly what
the SAT score ranges are and were. Suppose that he posted what he did
about his alleged score just to see what kind of responses he would
get. And suppose a couple of people pointed out why this score wasn't
possible, perhaps thinking that he was conflating verbal and math.
Then suppose that, in spite of claims, arguments, and Web links to the
contraray, oTTo continued to insist on his score, and these folks
continued to point out that his claim wasn't possible. Just suppose
they continued to try to force him admit his error long past the point
at which sensible people realized what was going on--indeed, past the
point when oTTo himself posted clues as big as stop signs.

If oTTo made himself look foolish intentionally and the people who
kept biting his shiny hook made themselves look foolish
unintentonally, which is the bigger fool?

BW
 
After loads of posts this discussion has gone off to la-la land.
Can you please keep this discussion out of comp.lang.verilog. It is
off-topic.
Please please trim your posts. Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top