OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Rolavine]

From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
[... me ...]
that question completely because he did not aid and abet an enemy by
having that meeting.

Perhaps you ought to ask the POWs that suffered because of Kerry's remarks
if they think he committed treason.Or "aided and abetted" the enemy.

Perhaps you facshits ought to ask Al Qaida how much aid and comfort they got

when Bush said we may not be able to win the war on terrorism. I suspect that
Bush rings the bell in this category for that remark.

Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: John Larkin

I never borrow money. The problem is, you have to pay it back

Don't worry, bush is borrowing it for you!

Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)

If you go with the issue of the outing of the CIA person, you can leave
the "may" out.

Yes a simpler issue, but who done it? The potential treason I described has a
clear perp! Yeah, it's prob the same arrogant bastard.

Rocky

Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: Fred Bloggs nospam@nospam.com

Bush's daughters speak for themselves- dressed like trailer park sluts
and acting like spoiled rich kids with 'tude. I call that a failure to
raise those children properly, and I hope to God they aren't
representative of some future model- a bunch of totally worthless and
superficial airheads.

That stinks, Bush's daughters or Kerry's children are not this countries

enemies, they had nothing to do with setting policy, and they should be off
limits, along with all the relatives who are not directly involved or soaking
up 'I'm a relative' swill like Neil Bush. Since the daughters have said pretty
much nothing political you don't have that as a basis for attack either.

Stop it, it's dishonorable regardless of the side your on!

Rocky

Rocky

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

[snip]

If your only concern is to prevent some other party from obtaining
patent rights so as to interfere with your unlicensed continued
production, then it *may* be enough to have legally notarized
engineering notebook data on the invention.

This won't prevent the USPTO from issuing the competition a patent.
Since they have no way of knowing about the existence of your notebooks,
they'll still issue a patent to anyone who applies.

This would be cheapest and
will not require you to give competitors a head start with a published
tutorial on the operation. Consult with the appropriate patent attorney.
In the US it is certainly a fact that you lose patent rights to anything
you yourself have had in production for one year prior to applying for a
patent.

What your notebook will do is give you the opportunity to defend
yourself in court should your competition threaten you with their
patent. However, this won't be cheap. You will still have to expend some
money to get the standing patent invalidated. Even to defend yourself
and our right to continue manufacturing your product.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Kevin is not dyslexic - his errors are absoltely typcial of a literate
but impatient writer, making exactly the same errors of action that we
all do, and not catching and correcting as many of them as he ought to
before he posts his output. I don't find that the remaining errors
make him difficult to understand - in fact his output is unusually
coherent, well-organised and easy to follow. Most ot the time he's
right, too - which makes a nice change from far-right.

See my subsequent post,
news:s4qqk0drr4j1ol6v7m3vplt49qc3cebkos@4ax.com
in which I withdrew that hasty 'diagnosis'.

But I'm sure you're not implying Kevin's error-rate is 'typical'? (Or
even absoltely typcial <g>.) It's far higher IMO, and so needs a
corresponding increase in preventive and corrective measures. Like
reading what he's scribbled and using a spell-checker!

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Hal Murray]

I do this sort of thing for a living, and I can tell you that measuring
the current out of the battery and accumulating a running total of amp-hours
will come *much* closer to telling you how much charge is still left in it than
any voltmeter reading no matter how you massage the voltage.

How important is the temperature?

Is 1A at room temp the same amount of "life" out of the battery
as 1A at freezing?

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Crighton <john_c@tpg.com.au>
wrote (in <41573478.2038817@News.individual.net&gt about 'Battery level
tester.', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

I am suggesting using a very heavy load
directly across the battery terminals for a very short period of time
(1mSec) which will check the fitness of the battery to continue.

I know that you are. I do read carefully and I do not criticize lightly.
A heavy-current test is simply not necessary for a deep discharge
battery. It could be useful for a float battery that is not intended to
be deeply discharged, or for a capacity test on a stand-by battery that
is rarely used.

The OP only needs to know whether the battery will run *HIS* loads, not
one five or more times larger. When the on-load voltage reaches 10 V or
so, it's time to re-charge. What calls his attention to something odd in
his set-up is that the voltage fluctuates rapidly when he uses his
laptop. That MUST be due to cable and/or termination resistance; nothing
else can cause it. But he doesn't seem willing to accept that.

Your high-current tester may be simple for you, but it seems to me that
the OP has quite limited knowledge of electronics and it wouldn't be
simple for him to design.
--
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 <null@example.net>
wrote (in <vIG5d.6332$me5.4044@trnddc06&gt about 'Patents, Prior Art,
Publication and Usenet.', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

The unfortunate fact is, that mailing something to yourself (at least in
the US) has been found in court to not prove a single thing.

Oh, well, we know how perverse US court decisions are. But some do
happen in other countries as well.

Was any 'explanation' given for the perversity?
--
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 Robert Baer
<robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote (in <41575635.CCC3B750@earthlink.net&gt
about 'Patents, Prior Art, Publication and Usenet.', on Sun, 26 Sep
2004:

The "mail it to yourself" idea is stupid and useless.

WHY? You and others say so, but you don't say why!

What *is* useful is a dated notebook which would show when initial
"crazy" idea was generated, along with dates of work and dates of
improvement, etc.

I'll get to work on one today. I've got two notebooks made in the 1950s,
so the paper is the right age. Where can I get a fountain pen and some
old ink?

What do you suggest I claim to have invented in, say, 1956?
--
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 <null@example.net>
wrote (in <BJG5d.6333$me5.1089@trnddc06&gt about 'Patents, Prior Art,
Publication and Usenet.', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

No, it's been ruled in court that a self-addressed letter doesn't prove
anything.

For the fourth time, I think, WHY???
--
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 Mike Monett <no@spam.com> wrote
(in <415732E2.1580@spam.com&gt about 'Patents, Prior Art, Publication and
Usenet.', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

The opposing attorney has 1,000 ways to tear that evidence to shreds and
make you look like a crook.

Post 0.3% of them, then.
--
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 Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10lerm2o95pf522@news.supernews.com&gt about 'Patents, Prior
Art, Publication and Usenet.', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Neither would a jury

That's why I specified 'Recorded delivery'. The delivery is recorded
quite independently of the sender, by the Post Office. The envelope
carries a label with a number which can be used to retrieve the record.
I might have said, 'Stick the label over the flaps of the envelope so
that it can't be opened without destroying the label'.

Does UK recorded delivery have that option? As far as I can tell
here in the US, no date marking is available that cannot be applied
to an unsealed envelope, allowing you to stuff it and seal it later.


Yes. An unsealed letter can't be sent by Recorded Delivery. By sticking

the label over the flaps (the customer sticks it on, not the clerk), you
ensure it's sealed and can't be opened without destroying the label.
--
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

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Thanks all. Some excellent ideas.

I think I'm gonna do nothing, just get it on the market as quick as I can.

One of the main possible competitors (a company some 5000 times larger than
mine) for this item is already negotiating with me on obtaining exclusive
European rights for one of our other products (rather than making their own) so
perhaps I'm worrying about nothing. Maybe they consider the market too small to
be bothered with on a large scale, or perhaps they've seen that the other item
they're looking at has already become a well established piece of kit in which
case maybe that's all I need to do with this new one.

Publishing full details of how it works gives any possible competitors a head
start. By not publishing at least I have a bit of extra time to get the thing
on the market before anyone else.

Gibbo

 

[Guy Macon]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote

The unfortunate fact is, that mailing something to yourself (at least in
the US) has been found in court to not prove a single thing.

Oh, well, we know how perverse US court decisions are. But some do
happen in other countries as well.

Was any 'explanation' given for the perversity?

Because you can mail it unsealed and then, years later,
you can put something in it and seal it.

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:

The "mail it to yourself" idea is stupid and useless.

WHY? You and others say so, but you don't say why!

Because you can mail it unsealed and then, years later,
you can put something in it and seal it.

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

No, it's been ruled in court that a self-addressed
letter doesn't prove anything.

For the fourth time, I think, WHY???

Because you can mail it unsealed and then, years later,
you can put something in it and seal it.

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Mike Monett <no@spam.com> wrote :

The opposing attorney has 1,000 ways to tear that evidence
to shreds and >make you look like a crook.

Post 0.3% of them, then.

He can accuse you of mailing it unsealed and then, years later,
putting something in it and sealing it.

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

As far as I can tell, here in the US, no date marking is available
that cannot be applied to an unsealed envelope, allowing you to
stuff it and seal it later.

Yes. An unsealed letter can't be sent by Recorded Delivery. By sticking
the label over the flaps (the customer sticks it on, not the clerk), you
ensure it's sealed and can't be opened without destroying the label.

That would explain why poeople living in the US think that it's
useless and a person living in the UK thinks it works fine. Rich
*did* specify "at least in the US"...

In the UK, an opposing attorney still has some ways to attack it.
Claiming forgery, for instance.

BTW, I can go to the UK and produce a letter, sent by Recorded
Delivery and dated before the start of the season, that correctly
predicts the winner of the Rugby World Cup, No forgery, either.

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Guy Macon wrote:

BTW, I can go to the UK and produce a letter, sent by Recorded
Delivery and dated before the start of the season, that correctly
predicts the winner of the Rugby World Cup, No forgery, either.

The same can be done in any year for Formula 1 motor racing.

Gibbo

 

[Mike Monett]

Andrew Holme wrote:

Mike Monett <no@spam.com> wrote

Very well done! I finally got around to downloading the OP42F
datasheet, and immediately spotted a problem. The op amp has low
GBW and cannot handle the fast pulses coming from the charge
pump, especially around zero phase error.

Thanks Mike. There is a 1nF capacitor and 22 ohm resistor before
the op-amp (see schematic) providing a pole at 7.2 MHz. Won't
these pre-filter the fast edges? I could try increasing the cap to
10n and see if that helps.

i1 R i2
Charge -->--+-----/\/\/\---->- Summing junction
pump | (virtual earth)
---
--- C
|
---
\\\

Regards,
Andrew.

Hi Andrew,

Unfortunately, a pole at 7.2MHz won't help much with an op amp that
has 10MHz GBW. I ran into a similar problem with nonlinearity in an
analog integrator in the Binary Sampler, shown in

http://www3.sympatico.ca/add.automation/sampler/tracking.htm

In your case, the real problem is the stray inductance in the 1nF
cap. This combines with the inductance and capacitance of the traces
from the charge pump and produces resonances at high frequencies.

The output of the charge pump changes dramatically around zero phase
error. Two current sources are being turned on, and the risetimes,
the amount of phase error, and shape of the edges affect the
resulting current imbalance. The charge pump output signal can
reinforce the resonance in the wiring and increase the amplitude. So
instead of filtering the fast edges, this circuit is generating
them!

The op amp needs wide bandwidth at the input, so the fast signals
are amplified and may cause a stage to go nonlinear. When this
happens, the op amp output is unpredictable.

The conclusion is you cannot depend on an op amp to remain a pure
integrator when it has to deal with fast pulses. A passive filter
doesn't have these problems, and can filter the fast edges enough so
a plain low frequency op amp could be used as a gain buffer if
needed.

Best Wishes,

Mike Monett

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Yannick wrote:

yes i agree, sory i misunderstood slightly, the resistor inevitably adds
noise so leaving it out means you have less noise,
wich is what i think i said as well anyway, but i thought you were still
meaning the higher frequency wich you mentioned in the previous paragraph. i
wasnt fully awake when i read it lol.



hehe no problem


If i were you i would measure what signal you get when u reflect it off a
target, my estimate of 10% reflected back towards the lense was pure
gueswork. the real chalenge comes when u have a smooth dark surface that is
angled away from the detector.



indeed , the good news is that my phase meausurement works, i now can
do distance measurement with direct light path on the photodiode. I am
now gonne make a microcontroller interface wich does the ADC,
calculations(phase-distance algorithm) and drives a DDS frequency
synthesiser. After this i am going to replace my PIN photodiode with
an avalanche one and the difficult part will began : measuring the
reflection on a diffuse surface... i almost cant wait

Better don't wait at all.
I tried this almost 10 years ago and failed due to the little light
coming back. It was rather frustrating to see how little came back
from a white paper in 20cm distance. The ultimate surface was not
meant to be white and perhaps a bit farther away than 20cm.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10lfmd547hmqb41@news.supernews.com&gt about 'Patents, Prior
Art, Publication and Usenet.', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

BTW, I can go to the UK and produce a letter, sent by Recorded Delivery
and dated before the start of the season, that correctly predicts the
winner of the Rugby World Cup, No forgery, either.

Nothing easier.
--
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 ChrisGibboGibson
<chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote (in <20040927051718.10414.00002836@mb-
m23.aol.com&gt about 'Patents, Prior Art, Publication and Usenet.', on
Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

Guy Macon wrote:

BTW, I can go to the UK and produce a letter, sent by Recorded
Delivery and dated before the start of the season, that correctly
predicts the winner of the Rugby World Cup, No forgery, either.


The same can be done in any year for Formula 1 motor racing.

At least in theory, a new driver, or an older one coming out of

retirement, could begin to compete some way into the season and go on to
win the drivers' championship.
--
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