T
Terry Given
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
Cheers
Terry
ROTFLMAO!
Cheers
Terry
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Terry Given wrote:
*plonk*
R
Robert
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:bjhod1dffs1m95dqg54u9svi6rv2r7vjua@4ax.com...
http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/asics/fiber/design_methods.cfm
Called "Quickchip" from the old Tek process name.
Robert
news:bjhod1dffs1m95dqg54u9svi6rv2r7vjua@4ax.com...
Yep. Still around after Tek sold it to Maxim.
http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/asics/fiber/design_methods.cfm
Called "Quickchip" from the old Tek process name.
Robert
A
Al Borowski
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
bother?
Al
Do you really think people still fall for the alt.dev.null trick? Why
bother?
Al
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Al Borowski wrote:
if you expect me to let you control the way I compose my
posts, I suggest that you come up with a compelling reason
why I should do so.
Feel free to compose your own posts however you choose, but
if you expect me to let you control the way I compose my
posts, I suggest that you come up with a compelling reason
why I should do so.
A
Al Borowski
Guest
Sheesh, I'm not trying to force you to stop. Did I even ask you to stop
doing it?
I'm just wondering what the point is. Obviously people are smart enough
to remove the alt.dev.null silliness because they're replying.
Presumably it takes extra effort on your part to add it. So why keep
doing it?
Al
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:42:46 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
wonder. And I doubt if anyone imagines they can get you to let them
control you.
But if you are looking for some reason to consider, I suggest you look
at yourself only because that's the sole person you have any hope of
controlling. If you like redirecting follow-ups, though, I suppose
you should keep at it. Folks will probably point them out, here and
there, as evidence of continued pettiness.
Peace,
Jon
I doubt anyone cares whether you do or don't. Perhaps folks just
wonder. And I doubt if anyone imagines they can get you to let them
control you.
But if you are looking for some reason to consider, I suggest you look
at yourself only because that's the sole person you have any hope of
controlling. If you like redirecting follow-ups, though, I suppose
you should keep at it. Folks will probably point them out, here and
there, as evidence of continued pettiness.
Peace,
Jon
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Al Borowski wrote:
a suggestion to those who reply as to where they should reply.
Because I won't see any reply from the person I killfiled and
because I don't care what anyone else thinks, I insert a
suggestion of no reply from either group. You are, of course,
free to ignore my suggestion.
[2] Because certain flamers who are now in my killfile posted
personal attacks and stated a preference that I not set
followups. If such flaming is rewarded, there will be more
of it. I prefer less flaming, and thus choose to never, ever
give someone what they ask for if the request contains a
personal attack.
[1] Setting followups to alt.dev.null is, like all followups,
a suggestion to those who reply as to where they should reply.
Because I won't see any reply from the person I killfiled and
because I don't care what anyone else thinks, I insert a
suggestion of no reply from either group. You are, of course,
free to ignore my suggestion.
[2] Because certain flamers who are now in my killfile posted
personal attacks and stated a preference that I not set
followups. If such flaming is rewarded, there will be more
of it. I prefer less flaming, and thus choose to never, ever
give someone what they ask for if the request contains a
personal attack.
T
Terry Given
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
definition of *plonk*), because I had the temerity to laugh at you?
that is rather sad. Although pathetic might be a better word. Luckily I
find fragile people amusing.
ROTFLMAOYA,
Terry
Am I in your kill file (which I presume I must be, given your previous
definition of *plonk*), because I had the temerity to laugh at you?
that is rather sad. Although pathetic might be a better word. Luckily I
find fragile people amusing.
ROTFLMAOYA,
Terry
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
good company The authors of RFC 1036 - Standard for interchange
of USENET messages thought that being able to set followups was
such an important feature that they made it part of the standard.
My basis for disputing your accusation of pettiness is that it
is not petty to propose/suggest that a person who is engaging
in personal attacks and whose personal attacks will no longer
reach the intended target not reply. The "*plonk*" tells the
flamer that the conversation is over from my side. The
"Followup-To: alt.dev.null" is a suggestion that the flamer
end the conversation from his side.
I am following a time-tested strategy for dealing with flamers;
they get to flame me exactly once and then I no longer see their
posts. I let them know this with a "*plonk*" so that they and
everyone else can understand why subsequent flames get no response.
I set followups on the plonk posts to alt.dev.null as an additional
attempt to kill the thread. These are techniques which many
experienced Usenet users have been using for years.
I find it fascinating seeing the behaviors here that
you somehow never seem to find time to complain about.
If it is evidence of pettiness - which I dispute - then I am in
good company The authors of RFC 1036 - Standard for interchange
of USENET messages thought that being able to set followups was
such an important feature that they made it part of the standard.
My basis for disputing your accusation of pettiness is that it
is not petty to propose/suggest that a person who is engaging
in personal attacks and whose personal attacks will no longer
reach the intended target not reply. The "*plonk*" tells the
flamer that the conversation is over from my side. The
"Followup-To: alt.dev.null" is a suggestion that the flamer
end the conversation from his side.
I am following a time-tested strategy for dealing with flamers;
they get to flame me exactly once and then I no longer see their
posts. I let them know this with a "*plonk*" so that they and
everyone else can understand why subsequent flames get no response.
I set followups on the plonk posts to alt.dev.null as an additional
attempt to kill the thread. These are techniques which many
experienced Usenet users have been using for years.
I find it fascinating seeing the behaviors here that
you somehow never seem to find time to complain about.
T
Terry Given
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
Solipsist
Cheers
Terry
so laughing at another persons post is flaming you?
Solipsist
Cheers
Terry
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
Terry Given wrote...
thread deserves to be killed or not, not up to you alone.
--
Thanks,
- Win
This we object to, it's up to us all together whether a
thread deserves to be killed or not, not up to you alone.
--
Thanks,
- Win
T
Terry Given
Guest
Winfield Hill wrote:
Its the sort of trick I would expect from a smart-alec child.
However its probably more accurate to say that threads die, rather than
that they are killed.
As a matter of netiquette, which is worse: childishly setting followups
to alt.dev.null, or OT posts sans "OT" ?!
Cheers
Terry
PS Hows the 4191A going Win? I've just been playing with my 3577A,
measuring glue thickness in some little planar forward converters - I
have 150 or so to investigate out of the last run of 9,000.
I had a think about how to do impedance measurement, and came up with this:
[50R source]-----+---[DUT]----+
| |
[A] [R]
10M 50R
[Zdut(s) + 50]
Va(s) = -------------------
[50 + Zdut(s) + 50]
[50]
Vr(s) = -------------------
[50 + Zdut(s) + 50]
Va(s) Zdut(s)
so H(s)= ----- = 1 + ------- = 1 + Zdut'
Vr(s) 50
so far its worked really well for in-circuit testing of the planar
forward converter (2 outputs, planar coupled inductor and planar
transformer). With the 3577A I can take a direct in-circuit measurement,
and see both the transformer Lmag and output inductor. Otherwise I have
to remove 4 SO-8 FETs to examine the effect of Lmag alone.
The prod tech reckoned we had a whole bunch of internal PCB shorts, but
so far all I've found is poor core assembly - arbitrary mix-and-match of
gapped and un-gapped cores, and poor core glueing - enough glop in the
transformer and Lmag plummets.
If I was less lazy, I'd set up the arithmetic to remove the +1, rather
than just pressing "A/R". But |H(s)| rises above 1 well below the
frequencies of interest to me.
Hear Hear.
Its the sort of trick I would expect from a smart-alec child.
However its probably more accurate to say that threads die, rather than
that they are killed.
As a matter of netiquette, which is worse: childishly setting followups
to alt.dev.null, or OT posts sans "OT" ?!
Cheers
Terry
PS Hows the 4191A going Win? I've just been playing with my 3577A,
measuring glue thickness in some little planar forward converters - I
have 150 or so to investigate out of the last run of 9,000.
I had a think about how to do impedance measurement, and came up with this:
[50R source]-----+---[DUT]----+
| |
[A] [R]
10M 50R
[Zdut(s) + 50]
Va(s) = -------------------
[50 + Zdut(s) + 50]
[50]
Vr(s) = -------------------
[50 + Zdut(s) + 50]
Va(s) Zdut(s)
so H(s)= ----- = 1 + ------- = 1 + Zdut'
Vr(s) 50
so far its worked really well for in-circuit testing of the planar
forward converter (2 outputs, planar coupled inductor and planar
transformer). With the 3577A I can take a direct in-circuit measurement,
and see both the transformer Lmag and output inductor. Otherwise I have
to remove 4 SO-8 FETs to examine the effect of Lmag alone.
The prod tech reckoned we had a whole bunch of internal PCB shorts, but
so far all I've found is poor core assembly - arbitrary mix-and-match of
gapped and un-gapped cores, and poor core glueing - enough glop in the
transformer and Lmag plummets.
If I was less lazy, I'd set up the arithmetic to remove the +1, rather
than just pressing "A/R". But |H(s)| rises above 1 well below the
frequencies of interest to me.
J
Joerg
Guest
Hello Robert,
path is "You can choose from a complete library of transistors, generate
custom resistors, capacitors, and diodes, and have complete placement
freedom."
Do they make a chip designer stick to prescribed device geometries?
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
Looks great. The only thing I find a bit strange under the "full custom"
path is "You can choose from a complete library of transistors, generate
custom resistors, capacitors, and diodes, and have complete placement
freedom."
Do they make a chip designer stick to prescribed device geometries?
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:03:23 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
set resistor and capacitor values, I know of no foundry which allows
"rolling-your-own" bipolar geometries. You must also follow a
stringent set of layout rules, enforced by running the final layout
thru the foundry's DRC (design rules check).
And, for those unfamiliar with all this ASIC stuff... you also run
LVS, layout versus schematic... a netlist comparator that checks
schematic-derived netlist with netlist extracted from the layout.
...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 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.
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
Yes. In custom ASIC's, while you can adjust L & W in MOS devices, and
set resistor and capacitor values, I know of no foundry which allows
"rolling-your-own" bipolar geometries. You must also follow a
stringent set of layout rules, enforced by running the final layout
thru the foundry's DRC (design rules check).
And, for those unfamiliar with all this ASIC stuff... you also run
LVS, layout versus schematic... a netlist comparator that checks
schematic-derived netlist with netlist extracted from the layout.
...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.
G
Guy Macon
Guest
Winfield Hill wrote:
that were designed into the fabric of Usenet that you object to?
Setting followups is advisory. You still get to decide where
your posts go. You can even use your killfile so that you
never see those naughty followups that offend you so. This
has been explained to you before.
Setting followups is advisory. There exists no newsreader
that does not allow the poster to choose where his posts go.
I suggest taking personal responsibility for your actions rather
than following what you consider to be bad advice and then blaming
the person who advised you for your bad decisions. If you have
chosen to use a newsreader that silently obeys advisory header
fields without giving you a warning or allowing you to change
the default behavior, I suggest that you get a better newsreader.
Setting followups is advisory. Some poorly-written newsreaders
have the default behavior of starting a post with the entire
post that is being replied to quoted, and with the newsgroups
line set according to the followup-to and newsgroups header
fields, but this in no way reduces the poster's personal
responsibility for what is contained in his posts or for where
his posts go.
My preference from the start was and still is a newsgroup
environment where reasonable people can sit down like adults
and discuss their respective behaviors and arrive at a
compromise. You and others have decided that you prefer an
adversarial relationship. You should not be surprised when
this decision of yours results in your stated preferences
being ignored. I have preferences too; I prefer discussion
about electronics without personal attacks. If you wish me to
even consider changing my behavior to suit your preferences,
I suggest that you be at least slightly willing to change your
behavior to suit my preferences. Did I mention that setting
followups is advisory?
"This is not a list. This is not a board. This is not
some web page forum with rules and moderators. This is
USENET. The wild west of online communication. Where
trolls and flames roam rampant. Where you keep your
asbestos underpants handy if you lack wit (or have an
ego that greatly exceeds your actual abilities).
If you don't like it, feel free to run back to the
comfortable safety of moderated web forums and mailing
lists where everyone lives in enforced peace and harmony
in the land of Nod."
-Cichlidiot
Just so that my list is complete, are there any other features
that were designed into the fabric of Usenet that you object to?
Setting followups is advisory. You still get to decide where
your posts go. You can even use your killfile so that you
never see those naughty followups that offend you so. This
has been explained to you before.
Setting followups is advisory. There exists no newsreader
that does not allow the poster to choose where his posts go.
I suggest taking personal responsibility for your actions rather
than following what you consider to be bad advice and then blaming
the person who advised you for your bad decisions. If you have
chosen to use a newsreader that silently obeys advisory header
fields without giving you a warning or allowing you to change
the default behavior, I suggest that you get a better newsreader.
Setting followups is advisory. Some poorly-written newsreaders
have the default behavior of starting a post with the entire
post that is being replied to quoted, and with the newsgroups
line set according to the followup-to and newsgroups header
fields, but this in no way reduces the poster's personal
responsibility for what is contained in his posts or for where
his posts go.
My preference from the start was and still is a newsgroup
environment where reasonable people can sit down like adults
and discuss their respective behaviors and arrive at a
compromise. You and others have decided that you prefer an
adversarial relationship. You should not be surprised when
this decision of yours results in your stated preferences
being ignored. I have preferences too; I prefer discussion
about electronics without personal attacks. If you wish me to
even consider changing my behavior to suit your preferences,
I suggest that you be at least slightly willing to change your
behavior to suit my preferences. Did I mention that setting
followups is advisory?
"This is not a list. This is not a board. This is not
some web page forum with rules and moderators. This is
USENET. The wild west of online communication. Where
trolls and flames roam rampant. Where you keep your
asbestos underpants handy if you lack wit (or have an
ego that greatly exceeds your actual abilities).
If you don't like it, feel free to run back to the
comfortable safety of moderated web forums and mailing
lists where everyone lives in enforced peace and harmony
in the land of Nod."
-Cichlidiot
J
Joerg
Guest
Hello Jim,
was for a disposable so electromigration was ok to an extent. The
foundry did not like that at all. "Are they crazy?" and all that sort of
thing. It was like racing a car at 8000rpm. The engine will most likely
do it but may be pretty much toast and trailing blue smoke at the end of
the race.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
:-(
That's where we had to negotiate an exception for our HV chip design. It
was for a disposable so electromigration was ok to an extent. The
foundry did not like that at all. "Are they crazy?" and all that sort of
thing. It was like racing a car at 8000rpm. The engine will most likely
do it but may be pretty much toast and trailing blue smoke at the end of
the race.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
R
Richard H.
Guest
Guy Macon wrote:
"When using the followup header, it is nice to put in the message
somewhere 'Followups set.'"
If one is truly concerned about SNR in this group, such a simple
courtesy would make their actions more prominent and appear less
devious. Unless, of course, the goal is really to appear devious and
perpetuate conflict.
Richard
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html
"When using the followup header, it is nice to put in the message
somewhere 'Followups set.'"
If one is truly concerned about SNR in this group, such a simple
courtesy would make their actions more prominent and appear less
devious. Unless, of course, the goal is really to appear devious and
perpetuate conflict.
Richard
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:53:00 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
isn't necessarily that the world actually *is* wrong. In any case, I
think you've earned at least some of the responses you've received. --
not all, but some. And your elsewise behavior hasn't motivated me to
defend you (or even believe I *could* have helped) in those cases
where I may have felt differently.
No, I'm not going to debate netiquette with folks you cannot bring
here. When you bring up statements by others who cannot be here
themselves, it is fruitless. The reason is simple -- they aren't here
and I can't talk to them and they cannot reply. Which only leaves me
debating your interpretations against mine of what others may have or
may not have intended. They might, should they themselves see the
evidence and issues first-hand, change their minds and admit they were
wrong or else tell you that you misunderstood what they said. You
have to defend yourself on the points and merits as best you can,
without recourse to citing your authorities, whom cannot be here and
make their own evaluations and statements for themselves. And I won't
be party to debating what those folks may or may not believe about
some specific situation.
Jon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
Introspection may help. When the world *seems* wrong, sometimes it
isn't necessarily that the world actually *is* wrong. In any case, I
think you've earned at least some of the responses you've received. --
not all, but some. And your elsewise behavior hasn't motivated me to
defend you (or even believe I *could* have helped) in those cases
where I may have felt differently.
No, I'm not going to debate netiquette with folks you cannot bring
here. When you bring up statements by others who cannot be here
themselves, it is fruitless. The reason is simple -- they aren't here
and I can't talk to them and they cannot reply. Which only leaves me
debating your interpretations against mine of what others may have or
may not have intended. They might, should they themselves see the
evidence and issues first-hand, change their minds and admit they were
wrong or else tell you that you misunderstood what they said. You
have to defend yourself on the points and merits as best you can,
without recourse to citing your authorities, whom cannot be here and
make their own evaluations and statements for themselves. And I won't
be party to debating what those folks may or may not believe about
some specific situation.
Jon
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:54:48 -0700, "Richard H." <rh86@no.spam> wrote:
Jon
Exactly.
Jon