Plimer and Silicon Chip

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd "

"David L. Jones"

and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem IF
they are used.

** The possibility that they WILL BE USED increases every day.

That possibility IS the single, greatest threat facing mankind.

How typically asinine of Mr Turd to so grossly misinterpret Dave's comment.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about
seeing
their name in print

** Seeing one's name in print is not the point - the telephone directory
does that. Having ones efforts and ideas judged worthy of publication in a
national magazine is what generates a sense of achievement.

enough to waste their time generating income for someone else!!!

** Time spent that benefits both oneself and others is never wasted.

What an utter ass Mr Turd makes of himself for saying it is.

Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to see
for
nothing,

** Nothing is all any of your demented ideas is worth.

and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.

** Fat chance of that, no matter what a vile Turd like you did.



...... Phil

 

[KR]

On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IkDym.25406$tG1.20788@newsfe22.iad...
$100 per page is the going rate, tax free.

Tax free? I don't think so. (You may have deductions that will
effectively make it so however, since then they will WANT to
classify it as a hobby)

Yes, tax free. For most people it can be classified as hobby income,
unless you are silly enough to deliberably say it's not. SC even
gave me a form to fill out stating that the income I was receiving
was for hobby purposes, to cover their backside too I guess...

Which is fine only as long as the tax department agrees it is a
hobby. And that may well be the case for most people.
Claiming blanket coverage for all contributors as a "hobby" however is
incorrect.

Yep, that's why I said "most".

The main definition is IIRC something like "no reasonable expectation to
make a profit. I'd be most perplexed if anyone can claim having made a
profit from an SC article alone! Perhaps if you did it as part of similar
regular income work or some such.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com

In my case according to my accountant - the definition was whether the
"hobby activity activity was run in a organised and businesslike way,
and for a clear purpose of generating income, and unrelated to your
current business activity" (or similar wording). I remember in my
case that "hobby" income" from activities that were similar to my
profession, were a problem area.

In the end, the amount involved wasn't that great, and it was
considered less hassle just to pay the tax rather than possible extra
accountants fees and possible risk of a dispute over the claim.


As it seems clear from your videos that you are an electronics
professional and earn taxable income from that, and are probably using
for your "SC hobby income" instruments, tools, home office,
proportions of electricity, rent/mortgage on that you may claim as
legitimate work related deductions on against your work income, this
may possibly create a problem or "grey area" for you, in these
circumstances.

As an example - writing/selling books on internet dating - as you
mentioned in another post, is clearly totally unrelated to your
electronics related profession, (it might not be if you ran a dating
agency doesn't use your work related equipment, and unless I am
wrong, is probably done more for fun and hobby, or advising others on
the subject rather than pursuing a career as a writer - should be a
clear-cut case of "hobby income".

(Note, these are my recollections of tax advice that I was given some
6 years ago, they aren't necessarily correct or maybe not still valid
with possible tax law changes made to this matter since that time and
should really be confirmed with an accountant.)

For anyone considering claiming to the ATO that any sort of income is
"hobby income", it would be very wise to consult an accountant first.

 

[KR]

On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0UFym.225052$sC1.77578@newsfe17.iad...

and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem IF
they are used. Disposal of radioactive material is a problem of course, but
probably more of it comes from nuclear power plants I will bet.

Agree on overpopulation.
Worse still we are breeding exactly the wrong sort of people (at huge
taxpayer expense).


Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".


In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect. EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about seeing
their name in print enough to waste their time generating income for someone
else!!!
Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to see for
nothing, and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.
You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not* necessarily
criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

MrT.

Each to his own, there isnt any wrong or right answer to this one.

My 2c worth would be that you would probably have better chance of
exposure in Australia by being published in Silicon Chip, rather than
being on a unknown personal web page that might never be found by the
majority of people. If you have a unique project that few have thought
of asking for, didn't know it existed or could be done, but it has
benefit, this is a way to get the idea out there and the "Wow - what a
great idea, I could use one of these" factor occurs. (IE: grabbing
the attention of people who normally wouldn't have thought of such a
project and therefore wouldn't search the web for it, but when shown
it, and it is explained they can see the benefits and then want to buy
and build it).

Bob Parker's ESR meter is probably a good example of this, and a
brilliant device.


If you are producing a project with proprietary parts (ie a coded
microcontroller) that can't just be grabbed off the shelf as a
standard part by regular kit suppliers, and you want to sell the chip
rather than publish the code, then SC probably would help you get more
sales than an unknown webpage. Whether sales of this type are worth
the trouble is another matter.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:18:28 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

The main definition is IIRC something like "no reasonable expectation to
make a profit. I'd be most perplexed if anyone can claim having made a
profit from an SC article alone! Perhaps if you did it as part of
similar regular income work or some such.

Yep, the way it works is you keep all those receipts for parts, books,
etc that you used in developing the project. so Income = $10, but
expenses = $1,000, equals deduction of taxable income of $900.

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0UFym.225052$sC1.77578@newsfe17.iad...
and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem
IF they are used.

And that's the point. If something CAN happen or be used, it's a threat.
How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest threat
facing this planet?
The only equivalent threats would be cosmic borne catastrophes.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about
seeing their name in print enough to waste their time generating
income for someone else!!!

As Phil and KR have mentioned, there are many other benefits (and the
occasional problem) with getting something published. So you aren't just
"generating income for someone else", far from it.
Phil summed it up nicely when he said "Time spent that benefits both oneself
and others is never wasted."

Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to
see for nothing, and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.

You can have your cake and it eat it too.
You can put a project up on your your webpage as well as getting it
published. And getting it in SC or some other mag gives you large direct
exposure to people who otherwise generally won't find your stuff unless they
went specifically looking. And SC will pay you too, not a large amount, but
a nice bonus.

While it may be a profit generating magazine, there are those who like to
think of the aussie electronics magazine scene as a more of a "community"
they grew up with, and therefore like to give something back in return for
what they have gained over the years. Thinking you are just helping a
magazine make a profit is a very narrow minded view IMO.

You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not*
necessarily criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

Sure, I agree.
But you have to look at my critisim in context to "Peter K"s post at which
my comments are directed.
He criticised the magazines content, of which he claims to be quite capable
of contributing to. He even mentioned he would be happy to contribute, but
then chucked a hissy when he found out SC won't pay his consulting like fees
(LOL!). Anyone who just criticises something but is in a position to help
change for the better, deserves a serve in my book.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[David L. Jones]

KR wrote:

On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and those
who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the madness
at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that left poor
Mikhail scratching his splotch.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".

Yes indeed.
Those interested in such things should read Jonathan Schell's The Seventh
Decade. I'm just finising it off, a great read on the subject of weapons
buildup.

In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect. EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

Pakistan are only but one of the issues.
Japan are sitting on a stock of something like 50tons of Plutonium, enough
to make thousands of weapons. And the capacity to make untold more, like
80tons projected in the next year or two (that's more Pu than the entire US
arsenal). They are the new Pu global powerhouse. Once they go nuclear (and
their aversion to nuke weapons is shinking to zero), the whole deck of
playing cards starts to fall.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wsEym.30034$As.27023@newsfe13.iad...
The 7 Billion selfish humanoids could very well be helping it along.
Bastards!


"COULD", you are joking that they may NOT be right?

Of course.
Only a fool thinks we are not damaging this planet in untold ways.

And population is projected to reach 9 or 10 Billion by the middle of
the century or so. And nobody is even sure if it will decrease then
or just keep climbing.

There has to be some sort of resource-induced sustainable limit somewhere,
but no one knows where or how.
The problem is the developing countries are starting to find out how good
we've got it, so they want their big house, plentiful high quality food,
SUV, big screen plasma and broadband internet as well.

Australia's current record level of population increase is certainly
not consistent with government claims we need to do something about
climate change, that's for sure! Still no sign of an end to Howard's
baby bonuses or immigration levels either!

It's insane, no other word for it.
The problem is governments run countires like they run big businesses, you
gotta show that mythical X% compounded growth every year otherwise you must
be doing something wrong!

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:V5bzm.155549$nL7.114266@newsfe18.iad...

KR wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and those
who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the
madness at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that
left poor Mikhail scratching his splotch.

**I recall reading a report when the scientists reported to some politician
that they had managed to achieve a power density (of the laser they were
testing to shoot down ICBMs) of 10^5 Watts/sq cm (or close to that). The
pollie then asked how much power they needed for the system to work. The
scientist replied that they needed 10^10 Watts/sq cm. "Oh good" replied the
pollie, "you're half way there"...

And they leave idiots like that in charge of the 'button'.

Politicians should be taught about the power under their control.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:349dcf14-8a59-41ed-973e-13bfc39bff14@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 11:18 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

KR wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and those
who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the
madness
at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that left poor
Mikhail scratching his splotch.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".

Yes indeed.
Those interested in such things should read Jonathan Schell's The Seventh
Decade. I'm just finising it off, a great read on the subject of weapons
buildup.

In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect. EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

Pakistan are only but one of the issues.
Japan are sitting on a stock of something like 50tons of Plutonium, enough
to make thousands of weapons. And the capacity to make untold more, like
80tons projected in the next year or two (that's more Pu than the entire
US
arsenal). They are the new Pu global powerhouse. Once they go nuclear (and
their aversion to nuke weapons is shinking to zero), the whole deck of
playing cards starts to fall.

Dave.

I didnt know about that. WOW.

I forgot to add Japan to the list of countries under US protection and
therefore at huge risk if the US fails.
I'm not surprised that the Japanese' aversion to Nuke weapons is
shrinking to zero.


**If you imagine that Japan could not assemble a nuke within 24 hours, I
suspect you are in for a huge shock.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:349dcf14-8a59-41ed-973e-13bfc39bff14@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 11:18 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
KR wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and
those who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the
madness
at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that left
poor Mikhail scratching his splotch.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".

Yes indeed.
Those interested in such things should read Jonathan Schell's The
Seventh Decade. I'm just finising it off, a great read on the
subject of weapons buildup.

In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect. EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

Pakistan are only but one of the issues.
Japan are sitting on a stock of something like 50tons of Plutonium,
enough to make thousands of weapons. And the capacity to make untold
more, like 80tons projected in the next year or two (that's more Pu
than the entire US
arsenal). They are the new Pu global powerhouse. Once they go
nuclear (and their aversion to nuke weapons is shinking to zero),
the whole deck of playing cards starts to fall.

Dave.
I didnt know about that. WOW.

Yeah, I didn't know about that either until I read Schell's book.

**If you imagine that Japan could not assemble a nuke within 24
hours, I suspect you are in for a huge shock.

Schell quotes they can do it "in a matter of days".

A plutonium implosion nuke isn't as trivial and foolproof as a gun type
uranium one, but the japs ain't exactly lacking talent in how to build
things.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[KR]

On Oct 8, 11:18 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

KR wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and those
who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the madness
at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that left poor
Mikhail scratching his splotch.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US  (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".

Yes indeed.
Those interested in such things should read Jonathan Schell's The Seventh
Decade. I'm just finising it off, a great read on the subject of weapons
buildup.

In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect.  EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

Pakistan are only but one of the issues.
Japan are sitting on a stock of something like 50tons of Plutonium, enough
to make thousands of weapons. And the capacity to make untold more, like
80tons projected in the next year or two (that's more Pu than the entire US
arsenal). They are the new Pu global powerhouse. Once they go nuclear (and
their aversion to nuke weapons is shinking to zero), the whole deck of
playing cards starts to fall.

Dave.

I didnt know about that. WOW.

I forgot to add Japan to the list of countries under US protection and
therefore at huge risk if the US fails.
I'm not surprised that the Japanese' aversion to Nuke weapons is
shrinking to zero.

Note also that at the recent Japanese election they changed to the
opposition party that had been in the wilderness for decades.


The other consequence of all of it could be a drastic realignment of
alliances throughout the world, that could also affect economy,
security, trade, finance, and who knows what else.

As much as I dislike the idea of nukes, In the face of such a
"regional arms race", Australia may be forced to do the same, for its
own security. (deterrent effect).



--
> ===============================================> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com

 

[KR]

On Oct 8, 10:48 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0UFym.225052$sC1.77578@newsfe17.iad...
and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem
IF they are used.


And that's the point. If something CAN happen or be used, it's a threat.
How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest threat
facing this planet?
The only equivalent threats would be cosmic borne catastrophes.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about
seeing their name in print enough to waste their time generating
income for someone else!!!

As Phil and KR have mentioned, there are many other benefits (and the
occasional problem) with getting something published. So you aren't just
"generating income for someone else", far from it.
Phil summed it up nicely when he said "Time spent that benefits both oneself
and others is never wasted."

Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to
see for nothing, and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.

You can have your cake and it eat it too.
You can put a project up on your your webpage as well as getting it
published. And getting it in SC or some other mag gives you large direct
exposure to people who otherwise generally won't find your stuff unless they
went specifically looking. And SC will pay you too, not a large amount, but
a nice bonus.

While it may be a profit generating magazine, there are those who like to
think of the aussie electronics magazine scene as a more of a "community"
they grew up with, and therefore like to give something back in return for
what they have gained over the years. Thinking you are just helping a
magazine make a profit is a very narrow minded view IMO.

You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not*
necessarily criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

Sure, I agree.
But you have to look at my critisim in context to "Peter K"s post at which
my comments are directed.
He criticised the magazines content, of which he claims to be quite capable
of contributing to. He even mentioned he would be happy to contribute, but
then chucked a hissy when he found out SC won't pay his consulting like fees
(LOL!). Anyone who just criticises something but is in a position to help
change for the better, deserves a serve in my book.

Dave.

One point I overlooked - if you read Peter K's original post, he only
"reads" SC at the news stand, presumably this means that he stands
there reading it, rather than buying it. In this case, he gets the
info for free, so why "look a gift horse in the mouth" ?

Even though it is his free choice to buy or to read for free - he is
not even contributing financially by buying the mag, this isn't going
to help it "improve".

If he stops his "reading", I doubt Leo, or anyone else related to SC
is going to lose any sleep over it.

Personally, I have always been amazed at how SC, & the former EA teams
and their contributors over the years have managed to think up,
design, build, prototype and publish such a wide and diversified range
of electronic designs, every month, for so many years, on top of all
the hassles of running a business. - Even before the days of the
internet. The time and effort involved in some of these projects must
be staggering

None of this would come cheap either.

--
===============================================> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:K1Zym.130337$Y83.53013@newsfe21.iad...

Claiming blanket coverage for all contributors as a "hobby" however is
incorrect.

Yep, that's why I said "most".

I'm sorry where exactly?
"> >>>> $100 per page is the going rate, tax free."

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:427d5420-cca8-4a6e-8bc3-172b41af9681@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

If you are producing a project with proprietary parts (ie a coded
microcontroller) that can't just be grabbed off the shelf as a
standard part by regular kit suppliers, and you want to sell the chip
rather than publish the code, then SC probably would help you get more
sales than an unknown webpage.

Yes that is one area where you could possibly benefit.

Whether sales of this type are worth the trouble is another matter.

Agreed, but attacking someone if THEY personally don't think so is rather
silly IMO.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Gazm.41231$6f4.38273@newsfe08.iad...

and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem
IF they are used.

And that's the point. If something CAN happen or be used, it's a threat.
How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest threat
facing this planet?

Well it may be a "threat", and still not a "major problem". The severity of
the problem depends on the liklihood of the threat occurring.

The only equivalent threats would be cosmic borne catastrophes.

Yes indeed. So one learns to live with what is totally out of human control.
That does not include population increase and baby bonuses IMO.

As Phil and KR have mentioned, there are many other benefits (and the
occasional problem) with getting something published. So you aren't just
"generating income for someone else", far from it.
Phil summed it up nicely when he said "Time spent that benefits both
oneself
and others is never wasted."

Sure, but only the individual concerned can make the judgement of how his
time is best utilised. No one has infinite time available to them.

You can have your cake and it eat it too.
You can put a project up on your your webpage as well as getting it
published. And getting it in SC or some other mag gives you large direct
exposure to people who otherwise generally won't find your stuff unless
they
went specifically looking. And SC will pay you too, not a large amount,
but
a nice bonus.

And what I object to is that they make more money from my endevours than I
do. YOU may not care, and that is your right, however I am happy to forego a
small amount of money, and some ego stroking, just so someone else can make
even more money. For those who are real professionals, having their name
printed in SC is hardly something to get terribly excited obout IMO .
However your personal situation may indicate otherwise perhaps.

While it may be a profit generating magazine, there are those who like to
think of the aussie electronics magazine scene as a more of a "community"
they grew up with, and therefore like to give something back in return for
what they have gained over the years. Thinking you are just helping a
magazine make a profit is a very narrow minded view IMO.

Nope, this very newsgroup and thousands of web sites now provide what we
needed the magazines to do once upon a time. We no longer need to pay the
cost of the magazine to read some stupid opinions on climate change etc. Nor
to read contruction articles for Jaycar/DSE/Altronics etc. kits.
I once bought EA, ETI, and SC every month, but not for a LONG time, I just
don't see the value any more.

You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not*
necessarily criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

Sure, I agree.
But you have to look at my critisim in context to "Peter K"s post at which
my comments are directed.
He criticised the magazines content, of which he claims to be quite
capable
of contributing to. He even mentioned he would be happy to contribute, but
then chucked a hissy when he found out SC won't pay his consulting like
fees
(LOL!). Anyone who just criticises something but is in a position to help
change for the better, deserves a serve in my book.

That's my point, he IS entitled to criticise it (and you are entitled to
disagree)
Just because he chooses not to "donate" his time to help improve a "for
profit" magazine, doesn't mean he is wrong. You just have different
agenda's.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:04976760-6c72-4a70-bb26-594f5635ef88@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Personally, I have always been amazed at how SC, & the former EA teams
and their contributors over the years have managed to think up,
design, build, prototype and publish such a wide and diversified range
of electronic designs, every month, for so many years, on top of all
t>he hassles of running a business. - Even before the days of the
internet. The time and effort involved in some of these projects must
be staggering

You ignore the fact that many of the projects were provided by Dick
Smith/Jaycar/Altronics etc to sell kits.
Then there are the projects like those under discussion that they pay
peanuts for.
It's been a long time AFAICT that they had a big team of in house engineers
and technicians doing their own kit development.
The rest of the mag is mostly ads, press releases, ads, an editorial rant
that's just like those on these internet use groups which millions of people
post for nothing, ads, and a couple of regular columns like "Serviceman"
that they presumably do pay something for.

It all reminds me of Jaycar who have been advertising for staff in SC every
month for YEARS, simply because they won't pay the amount of money necessary
for the sort of staff they would like to have! They keep hoping someone is
desperate I guess.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:33 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest
threat facing this planet?

Well, there are only two militaries involved with this theorectical
capacity. The Russians who have a decrepit and unreliable system and The
USA who so far have cocked up every war (including independence) they
entered unless someone else was wiping their arse and helping them.

 

[Davo]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:33 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:


How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest
threat facing this planet?

Well, there are only two militaries involved with this theorectical
capacity. The Russians who have a decrepit and unreliable system and The
USA who so far have cocked up every war (including independence) they
entered unless someone else was wiping their arse and helping them.

You must read different history books to mine, if it wasn't for the
Americans entering WWII England would be speaking German and Australia
would be talking Japanese.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:16:59 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

The rest of the mag is mostly ads,

It is the number of ads that determine how big the magazine can be and
thus how many projects they need.

 

[keithr]

On 8/10/2009 8:43 PM, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:33 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:


How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest
threat facing this planet?

Well, there are only two militaries involved with this theorectical
capacity. The Russians who have a decrepit and unreliable system and
The USA who so far have cocked up every war (including independence)
they entered unless someone else was wiping their arse and helping them.


You must read different history books to mine, if it wasn't for the
Americans entering WWII England would be speaking German and Australia
would be talking Japanese.

It was the Russians more than the Yanks that defeated the Germans.
Whether the Japanese could have invaded Australia is moot, they had
pretty well run out of steam before they got here. It was, of course the
Yanks who mainly defeated the Japanese, but they didn't do it on their own.