Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f01a828$0$9628$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr>,
grs@mail.com says...

Sure it's been tried. It fails every time for exactly the same
reasons. It's not a stable system.

It fails every time, because it deprives people of their
very essence as human beings: their free will. Since it
negates our very core as human beings, it cannot be
acceptable.

Precisely. It fails because force must be used to "stabilize"
the system. Force isn't compatible with a democracy, thus the
system degenerates into a totalitarian police state.

I don't mean to possess any universal truth, but I do
think the problem is as simple and as basic as I just
stated above, and a thousand more posts on the topic
will not get us any further.

Communists like Walz and Sloman will never agree with these
simple truths.

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:42:16 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

Precisely. It fails because force must be used to "stabilize"
the system. Force isn't compatible with a democracy, thus the
system degenerates into a totalitarian police state.

As I understand RSWs plans, it *starts out* that way.

John

 

[Zoran Brlecic]

G. Skiffington wrote:

Looking for 4 units (or 2 minimum) of this 18 pin dip. Used in the
Yaesu
FT767GX and likely other equipment - not having any luck, so far, trying
to find a supplier in Canada or the US with stock. Any info or help
appreciated - Thanks.

Try www.icmaster.com for more information. You might also want to
contact Motorola or Yaesu directly.


73 ... WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measure: look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

 

[Bill Sloman]

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19694c20bf40491498a4e7@enews.newsguy.com>...

In article <sj5ufvk31uecv9f6hgnbf77u0eni3vajrh@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@analog_innovations.com says...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se
wrote:

Scott Higdon <s.higdon@mindspring.com> wrote:

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

This is a nonsense phrase. Needs and abilities have
nothing to do with each other. In fact, they're almost
inversely proportional.

A newborn baby has almost no abilities. But they have
many needs. The older they get, the more they're able
to do, the less they need someone else to do things
for them.

The only sensible interpretation of "From each..."
is that those with abilities will be forced to provide
for those with needs.

Exactly.

The first attempts to create a better system, the first socialist
ideas, were about replacing the capitalist power with worker power,
but they didn't think much about changing the repressive and
controlling system, they just took it over.

This created state capitalism.

The conflict between bolsjevik communists and liberal communists,
anarkists and utopian writers was about this.

The liberal and utopian side wanted to change the whole system,
liberate the individual, not just take over the existing power
structure and put a worker at the top of it.

You are one sick puppy; without a clue about human nature.

Fortunately your "utopia" will never be.

Oh, but his "utopia" has been and continues to be! Think Nazi
Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and countless other
examples of the marvels of communism.

If you knew anything about the subject, you wouldn't confuse the Nazi
German "National Socialism" with Russian, Chinese, or Cuban Communism,
nor would you confuse Russian, Chinese and Cuban communism - all of
which saw educated intellectuals as part of the work force - with
Cambodian communism, which murdered most of its educated population.

None of them have much to do with Steve's Utopia, which depends on
educating the population as a whole to the level where - inter alia -
they can recognise the sort of right wing propaganda which you froth
out, and understand why it is nonsense.

Based on the cross-section of the population we get posting here,
Steve's utopia is a long way off.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3F010026.6AAF@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article <3EFE0695.FC0@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:54:10 -0700, Jim Thompson
Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

I think Steve has been stoned most of his life, so what would he know

---
Information which is available from introspection is often difficult to
impossible to obtain in our normal workaday world and can be more easily
accessed with the aid of psychotropic substances.

--
John Fields
-----------------
John is right, even though I haven't been "stoned" since
the summer of 1973.

...more like you never came back.

--
Keith
----------
Why are all Rightists lying pieces of shit?

Why do all commies insult as an innate reaction?

Is it just that you can't say anything logically that galls your balls?

Look at your pot steevie.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.engr.electrical.compliance that Jeff <frontline_electronic
s@NSatt.net> wrote (in <3tpMa.32110$3o3.2329178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn
et.att.net&gt about 'Lamp ratings', on Wed, 2 Jul 2003:

I was just surprised to see John Woodgate replying
and then others with detailed technical minds going
beyond the normal responces.

Curiously, a few weeks ago I had a serious discussion with a colleague
about the subject of the original enquiry, in particular whether
relevant safety standards are adequate in preventing incidents due to
overheating, and we concluded that they aren't. But in Britain,
overheated lampholders emit an unpleasant odour, and this acts as a
'preventative factor'! The surface temperatures (and that of the wiring,
unless silicone rubber insulated) of luminaires fitted with ceramic
lampholders can become unacceptably high if a too-high rated lamp is
fitted.

After the initial response, others joined in with statements that yet
others found a need to comment on. That is the way it is with
newsgroups, to paraphrase E Hemingway.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Bill Sloman]

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.196c0cfd61573f798a500@enews.newsguy.com>...

In article <7c584d27.0307011604.535b9c31@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...
Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19694c20bf40491498a4e7@enews.newsguy.com>...
In article <sj5ufvk31uecv9f6hgnbf77u0eni3vajrh@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@analog_innovations.com says...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se
wrote:

Scott Higdon <s.higdon@mindspring.com> wrote:

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

This is a nonsense phrase. Needs and abilities have
nothing to do with each other. In fact, they're almost
inversely proportional.

A newborn baby has almost no abilities. But they have
many needs. The older they get, the more they're able
to do, the less they need someone else to do things
for them.

The only sensible interpretation of "From each..."
is that those with abilities will be forced to provide
for those with needs.

Exactly.

The first attempts to create a better system, the first socialist
ideas, were about replacing the capitalist power with worker power,
but they didn't think much about changing the repressive and
controlling system, they just took it over.

This created state capitalism.

The conflict between bolsjevik communists and liberal communists,
anarkists and utopian writers was about this.

The liberal and utopian side wanted to change the whole system,
liberate the individual, not just take over the existing power
structure and put a worker at the top of it.

You are one sick puppy; without a clue about human nature.

Fortunately your "utopia" will never be.

Oh, but his "utopia" has been and continues to be! Think Nazi
Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and countless other
examples of the marvels of communism.

If you knew anything about the subject, you wouldn't confuse the Nazi
German "National Socialism" with Russian, Chinese, or Cuban Communism,

If you knew anything about human evolution you'd be silly to
state anything this asinine.

So you aren't just a right-wing nit-wit, but right-wing nitwit who
believes in socio-biology. Do tell us what aspect of human evolution
makes it appropriate to class Steve's "utopia", nazi Germany,
communist Russia, communist China, communist Cuba and the Pol Pot
regime as examples of the same thing. It has been a rather depressing
week, and I could use a laugh.

nor would you confuse Russian, Chinese and Cuban communism - all of
which saw educated intellectuals as part of the work force - with
Cambodian communism, which murdered most of its educated population.

This is *exactly* what you and Walz want! ...though perhaps by
different means. Walz wants to outright *KILL* the producers,
and you simply want to strangle them. I see no difference.

You don't seem to be able to see very much, do you.

RSW doesn't want to kill the producers, but the capitalists who
exploit them, while producing nothing in the process. I am sympathetic
to this point of view, up to a point, but I see capitalists like Bill
Gates as potentially useful resources if handled correctly - which is
to say, restrained from the anti-competitive exploitation of
near-monopoly market share and similar anti-social tricks.

You may see this as "strangulation", but you don't seem to have a
particularly firm grip on reality, do you.

Neither of us shows any sign of wanting to kill off the educated urban
21% of the population that Pol Pot cleaned out, a group that would
certainly include both of us, and might even include you.

None of them have much to do with Steve's Utopia, which depends on
educating the population as a whole to the level where - inter alia -
they can recognise the sort of right wing propaganda which you froth
out, and understand why it is nonsense.

You're as silly as sleeve. THe fact is that Steve's "utopia"
(and yours) is not stable. The dictator will invariably rise out
of any communistic system. You're well on your way.

Your ideas about historical inevitablity are as silly as those of
Marx.
The same communist system that threw up Stalin eventually produced
Gorbachov, who certainly wasn't a dictator, and effectively dismantled
the system. The current Chinese communist party is an oligarchy with
with a faction-supported leader, not a dictatorship. Your grasp of
reality is really very weak.

Based on the cross-section of the population we get posting here,
Steve's utopia is a long way off.

One would *HOPE*. The problem is that as much as he talks about
a "democracy" he has no interest in the concept. *HE* has all
knowledge, thus he is the "majority".

You misread him. He believes he knows what the "majority" will think
when they are as well educated as he is, and he is merely predicting
the way they will behave when they achieve this happy state. If you
are a representative example of the prospective majority, utopia is a
very long way off.

No, if I were worried
about Walz, I'd sleep like a baby. I fear your kind far more.

As you should. Prolonged exposure to rational argument may develop
your brain to the point where it is capable of processing data, rather
than reproducing right-wing propaganda (badly). If this every happens
- we can hope - you are going to be severely embarassed by the asinine
crap you posted while still brainwashed. It is a prospect to look
forward to, though perhaps not in my lifetime.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Ed Price]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:9kvaPECpamA$EwgC@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.engr.electrical.compliance that Jeff <frontline_electronic
s@NSatt.net> wrote (in <3tpMa.32110$3o3.2329178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn
et.att.net&gt about 'Lamp ratings', on Wed, 2 Jul 2003:

I was just surprised to see John Woodgate replying
and then others with detailed technical minds going
beyond the normal responces.

Curiously, a few weeks ago I had a serious discussion with a colleague
about the subject of the original enquiry, in particular whether
relevant safety standards are adequate in preventing incidents due to
overheating, and we concluded that they aren't. But in Britain,
overheated lampholders emit an unpleasant odour, and this acts as a
'preventative factor'! The surface temperatures (and that of the wiring,
unless silicone rubber insulated) of luminaires fitted with ceramic
lampholders can become unacceptably high if a too-high rated lamp is
fitted.

After the initial response, others joined in with statements that yet
others found a need to comment on. That is the way it is with
newsgroups, to paraphrase E Hemingway.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

Now that is an interesting concept! As you approach an unsafe condition, it
stinks so bad you can't stand it. A fairly good warning, unless nobody is
present to smell it. No doubt I will be criticized as being insensitive to
the olfactory challenged.

Ed

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.engr.electrical.compliance that Jeff <frontline_electronic
s@NSatt.net> wrote (in <ItJMa.33774$0v4.2455927@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldn
et.att.net&gt about 'Lamp ratings', on Wed, 2 Jul 2003:

Hi John, I was wondering if the higher voltages there
had any strange effects that we might not see here?

Some designs of lamp incorporate a fuse in the internal wires so that if
an arc occurs between the ends of a broken filament, the resulting high
current and temperature do not persist and cause the lamp to explode. I
should think arcing is much rarer with 120 V supplies.

I had one low voltage lamp filament break and weld
itself to a short internally.(very small 3.2mm lamp)
Now one lamp in a group of many was causing the
supply to shut down and the supply feeds other
systems.... in short (no pun) who starts by looking for
a shorted lamp, not me.

I do know of this as an extremely rare event with low-voltage lamps.
'AC/DC' tube radios had the tube heaters in series and there was
sometimes a dial lamp in the chain. If the lamp failed, a high voltage
would develop across the break and would occasionally weld the whole
internal metalwork into a solid blob. So the dial light would go out but
the radio would still work. In this case, the 'arc lamp' was fed via the
resistance of the tube heaters and any additional resistance, so the
current was limited to a less than catastrophic value.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[JohnM]

In article <3EFE0B68.56C3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

------------------------------
Families of 4 earning under $40K can't even afford medical insurance in
any of the major cities because their rent is 2/3rds to 3/4ths of their
income, which money is funneled immediately to the upper 10% of the
population directly from their paychecks. They can't afford SUV's.
They have smaller, older, and most often used cars. They often manage
to have plain cable, but with no premium channels.
-Steve

If this is how things are in the city, then that's as it should be.
Money, in our society, is the measure of what you are worth to the world
(well, it *should* be anyway, and usually is..). The money you earn is
what you have to get what you want in the world with. This brings up two
issues; the issue of "fairness" and the issue of "not enough to go
around". Both are false issues, even as far back as Johnathon Swift the
idea of "making the world fair" was seen as ridiculous (if you've not
read the story, look it up). The only way to make the world "fair" is to
blind and paralyze all of society, right?

The "not enough to go around" issue comes up at least twice in your post-
both in the indication of rent taking up most of the wages of the people
you refer to and in the apparent support for some sort of health
insurance for all. Why didn't you go the other route and propose some
sort of housing so that these people have more money to pay for
insurance? Because it's been tried already and it didn't work (the
Projects). Effectively free "health insurance" for all would result in
the same sort of mess in medicine as occurred in the projects. Consider:
the word "insurance" implies that you get more than you paid in case of
potential misfortune. (What would be the point of it went the other way?)
Where does this money that's being paid to the insurance for the poor
come from? Traditional economics works out to the basic truth that all
wealth is created by the masses. If you think you can shift the burden of
paying for this "insurance" to the wealthy- you have to consider the fact
that the money of the wealthy is based in the efforts of the workers (as
it should be), and the only possible result of the wealthy paying for
this insurance is for the wages of the workers to go down. Where the rub
is, is in the fact that the workers aren't spending the money for this
insurance directly- you're putting a lot more stages in between (worker
produces, company profits, company and upper eschelons pay for insurance
(instead of paying worker directly- here's where the difference starts.
Diverting the wages of the worker to more points requires more labor. The
company either has to hire more people or pay overtime to accomodate this
and these are all non-productive people, they weigh against the workers
who directly produce profits for the company- right? See where I'm
getting? The cost of doing business just went up so the workers simply
will be paid less on top of the amount less they'll be paid because part
of their wages is now going to "insurance"), money that goes to insurance
is handled again at various levels down to where the worker uses a card
to pay for the doctor.. at every one of these levels are bureaucrats (who
have the natural tendency to try to get people under them, they "need"
assistants- bureaucracies tend to expand, even in the absence of more
work to do, right?) and they will end up consuming more and more money
(which will naturally lower the wages of the worker even more). In the
end, the people you're trying to help end up worse off (the natural
result of trying to make things "fair").

Consider, further, the impact of this on the health industry. (Are you
aware that this universal insurance would have the effect of making some
rich folks richer? Some of them doctor folks would make more money..
That's not fair...) The health business would find itself in a position
of greater demand on a supply that is slow to respond to market
influence. So what would result would be? Either an increase in price
(supply/demand, right? Maximize profits, based on supply and demand) or a
price-fixing scheme which could only result in a lessening of service in
order to (again) maximize profit. Then what? The truth of it would be the
same as now- the more money you have, the better health care you can get.
The only change would be that the poor would end up with easier access to
health care of lesser quality.

John

 

[JohnM]

In article <3EFE0639.424A@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

-------------
Actually no one is, because there can be no such thing. What you have
distinguished is simply those with biochemically abnormal brains from
the insane with normal brains. Neither are capable of "Free Whim".
-Steve

You promote both a society where the workers will rise up and take
control and the idea of "no free will" but don't you think the two
contradict each other? The society you propose (and claim to foresee)
would require free will on the part of the people doing the taking of
power, no? Otherwise they'd continue as they have now, quietly living
their lives. If you're counting on evolution eventually producing a
generation without free will who are inclined (and thus compelled) to
take power then these people won't be considering the good of the people-
this consideration would either require free will on the part of people
who take power ('cause without it they'd only be inclined to take power,
steadily increasing their power until the society was at the greatest
possible of misery. The argument that they have both the tendency to
gain power and then do good fails because they will be weeded out during
the revolution by the ones who are more singular-minded and thus more
efficient). No matter what, in this society the people with the (non free
will) tendency to take power would eventually make it a miserable
experience.

I'm not saying that your society would work with people who have free
will either- it won't, not with human nature what it is today. The
problem comes with the nature of the individual in question (the seeker
of power) and people who wish to do good are at a distinct disadvantage
in the gaining of power. If your society would work it would have shown
itself by now in one of the myriad of revolutions in modern history but
it hasn't. The ones where the poor took power tend to resemble the French
Revolution- but do ya know what? The American Revolution was pulled off
by a bunch of nasty ol' rich folks (slaveholders too) and it's the one
that can be pointed to as a success, isn't it... so, let's go full circle
on that subject- If it was nasty rich folks who pulled off the American
Revolution and fine, upstanding poor folks who pulled off the French
Revolution (and all the others similar to it) then.. wouldn't you say
that the rich folks got a better chance of having the sense to do it
right?

As far as free will- consider this; what happens if (and it's not too
farfetched today..) tomorrow morning a law is passed that proclaims those
who promote any economic system other than capitalism is incurably insane
and would these people please report to the appropriate center for the
liquidation of the incurably insane (reluctant candidates will be
escorted there, starting at noon). Are you aware that your denial of free
will makes you guilty at this point? If you had free will you'd be able
to find another way of looking at the world but if you don't then you'd
only be able to pretend to, then later revert back to your non-free will
state, so you'd be worthless for rehabilitation (as the people rounding
you up would already know). Your claim of the lack of free will would
condemn you to death- would you have enough belief in the lack of free
will on the part of those who will kill you to not beg for your life?

You deny free will because you fear taking responsibility for your
actions. You hate the rich because you envy them (and you feel it's not
fair that they're richer than you) and you believe that your supposed
lack of free will makes this ok- you don't have any choice, you're just
what you are- you have no ability to be otherwise. Perhaps you also feel
guilt over your own good fortune; you are more fortunate than most of the
people in the world and you don't understand why and it makes you feel
guilty. This combination of envy/guilt, based on your perception of the
world (which emphasises "fairness"), causes you to seek refuge in the
belief that there is no free will. Thus you are allowed to hate the rich
and believe yourself magnanamous toward the poor (while not donating your
own worldly goods to make them less poor- you keep what you have and are
still able to hate others for having more without having to consider the
contradiction between beliefs and actions). If you admitted to having
free will then bettering yourself and helping the poor would be possible-
but that's hard and it involves introspection and uncomfortable feelings
and the willingness to give away that which is yours.. much easier and
safer to just deny free will and point fingers elsewhere.

John

 

[Darren McHugh]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Nonsense, it just hasn't been legislatesd on a wide scale, but
Communism is how humans evolved for 200,000 years!

.... and life was so much better then.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 02:06:00 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

I'm not capitalism fan, but unfortunately no better system
then democracy based on private property was invented so far.

Property rights are good, but equality under law is what's more
important.

---------------------------------
Nonsense, it just hasn't been legislatesd on a wide scale, but
Communism is how humans evolved for 200,000 years!

Right. Those ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Romans, Greeks, Chinese,
Israelites had perfect, classless societies. Their kings were paid the
same per hour as the slaves, I'm sure.

Makes one nostalgic for the good old days before Capitalism, no?

John





>-Steve

 

[Neil Brown]

This woman has the ticket if you ask me, although I haven't read the
book, I saw an interview of her on tv and what she had to say was
quite interesting.

http://www.cassmd.com/naturalhighs/index.php

http://www.tvo.org/yourhealth/archive/season/20022003/20022003program12.html

The second link states that Canadians are a Prozac crazed
society...there is some truth to that. As one my old friends said,
"don't drug me, hug me"

NB


Chris Carlen <crcarle@BOGUS.sandia.gov> wrote in message news:<bdsab7$m2r$2@sass2141.sandia.gov>...

R. Steve Walz wrote:
It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of
something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex.

I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples
from your point of view.

-----------
Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind.


The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt.


Why are Rightists always such shit-fucking disingenuous liars
about logic and argument?

It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have
no rudder for Truth.

I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your
mouth is truth.

Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway?

And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy?

-----------------
Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect.

Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable
with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be
changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly
obeys cause and effect.

You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of
truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you
demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are
absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you
know nothing.


Good day!

 

[bigmike]

"Darren McHugh" <firstname_lastname@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F0485D6.B7AF3BB8@hotmail.com...

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:


Nonsense, it just hasn't been legislatesd on a wide scale, but
Communism is how humans evolved for 200,000 years!

... and life was so much better then.

You have to excuse Steve, because unlike the rest of us, he has no free
will. According to Steve's views, he does not have the ability to think for
himself, or change his mind about anything. I have seen people with this
problem before, but I can't remember what they were called - oh, I remember!
The're called idiots

 

[bigmike]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:2r09gvsss192juh2514017stm2m9vdp1dj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 02:06:00 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:


I'm not capitalism fan, but unfortunately no better system
then democracy based on private property was invented so far.

Property rights are good, but equality under law is what's more
important.

---------------------------------
Nonsense, it just hasn't been legislatesd on a wide scale, but
Communism is how humans evolved for 200,000 years!



Right. Those ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Romans, Greeks, Chinese,
Israelites had perfect, classless societies. Their kings were paid the
same per hour as the slaves, I'm sure.

Makes one nostalgic for the good old days before Capitalism, no?

John

You might have a point here. Steve's views do seem to have more to do with

Stoicism then with socialism, since Steve seems to think everything in live
is predetermined, since there is no such thing as free will, according to
him. Maybe Steve is really a re-incarnated Cleanthes or Chrysippus

 

[DON]

Hey Guy's ...I just wanted to know of an easy device or circuit I could
build myself..not to cause a heated discussion.. Thanks



"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:96vufvkqnde5n52arcpiis916408n2ufue@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:17:27 +1000, "DON" <don_r1@yahoo.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Has anyone purchased the Video Stabiliser Kit from Oatley Electronics. I
have found its performance to be very poor. The brightness fades in and
out
when connected between two VCR's.

If anyone knows of any modifications to it to make it perform better or
even
knows of a totally better circuit and would email it to me I would be
most
appreciated.

Don

WES Components, Ashfield, have a video stabilizer, code CP2, for $45
to the trade. Retail price is around $90, from others. I have seen it
working VCR-to-VCR.


http://www.cypress.com.tw/product.php?PId=89283&CId=007&CName=Video%20Proces

sors&SR=0

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[bigmike]

"Neil Brown" <neilbrown@canada.com> wrote in message
news:ac700c5.0307031220.58894f69@posting.google.com...

This woman has the ticket if you ask me, although I haven't read the
book, I saw an interview of her on tv and what she had to say was
quite interesting.

http://www.cassmd.com/naturalhighs/index.php


http://www.tvo.org/yourhealth/archive/season/20022003/20022003program12.html

The second link states that Canadians are a Prozac crazed
society...there is some truth to that. As one my old friends said,
"don't drug me, hug me"

NB

After reading the articles, they are making it sound as if Canadians have an
obsession with mental illness, and the drugs they use for treating it. I
don't know about the book though, because those "better mental health
through cooking" ideas tend to scare me a little They tag the book with
this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In this ground breaking book, authors Hyla Cass, M.D., and Patrick Holford
show how to formulate the perfect "brain food" to improve how we think and
feel, resulting in a greater sense of connection and joy in everyday life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

The part that bothers me the most is where the cover of the book says, "feel
good all the time!" That's just not possible - well, not in the real world
anyway. Prozac users may have a different view about this

Still, it is giving alternatives to shock treatments, and mind altering
drugs,
and thats a good thing. The claims are a little over the top, but what do
you expect when trying to sell a book? Thanks for the links, interesting
stuff.

Chris Carlen <crcarle@BOGUS.sandia.gov> wrote in message
news:<bdsab7$m2r$2@sass2141.sandia.gov>...
R. Steve Walz wrote:
It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of
something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex.

I don't really understand your question so can you give me some
examples
from your point of view.

-----------
Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind.


The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt.


Why are Rightists always such shit-fucking disingenuous liars
about logic and argument?

It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have
no rudder for Truth.

I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your
mouth is truth.

Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway?

And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy?

-----------------
Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect.

Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable
with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be
changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly
obeys cause and effect.

You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of
truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you
demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are
absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you
know nothing.


Good day!

 

[Jeff]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:wY8ZwICnU6A$EwiU@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.engr.electrical.compliance that Jeff <frontline_electronic
s@NSatt.net> wrote (in <ItJMa.33774$0v4.2455927@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldn
et.att.net&gt about 'Lamp ratings', on Wed, 2 Jul 2003:

Hi John, I was wondering if the higher voltages there
had any strange effects that we might not see here?

Some designs of lamp incorporate a fuse in the internal wires so that if
an arc occurs between the ends of a broken filament, the resulting high
current and temperature do not persist and cause the lamp to explode. I
should think arcing is much rarer with 120 V supplies.

A fused lamp, I would not expect that to open under
other than catastrophic conditions.
No, 120VAC designs usually will not arc without some
outside contributing factor, but more than once
I have seen an arc develope between a 5V and a 12V supply, PC traces that
were adjacent to each other and under a connector edge, over time, with
condensation
and material aging (and the possiability of outgassing and mechanical
stress) the 12VDC would arc to the
regulated 5VDC supply to the Up IC and damage the IC.
(both sources are fed constantly)
After that I now assume anything can arc, somehow.
Jeff

I had one low voltage lamp filament break and weld
itself to a short internally.(very small 3.2mm lamp)
Now one lamp in a group of many was causing the
supply to shut down and the supply feeds other
systems.... in short (no pun) who starts by looking for
a shorted lamp, not me.

I do know of this as an extremely rare event with low-voltage lamps.
'AC/DC' tube radios had the tube heaters in series and there was
sometimes a dial lamp in the chain. If the lamp failed, a high voltage
would develop across the break and would occasionally weld the whole
internal metalwork into a solid blob. So the dial light would go out but
the radio would still work. In this case, the 'arc lamp' was fed via the
resistance of the tube heaters and any additional resistance, so the
current was limited to a less than catastrophic value.

I have caused this myself with a portable 120VAC
lamp after dropping it and looking at the open filiment
I thought that maybe a light tap or violent shaking might
weld the two halves of it back together. (wrong)
This time both ends came off and both set themselves
at same points of contact, accross the smallest area
of the electrodes, blowing the breaker.
New lamp, and breaker.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

Jeff

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article <3F00E7AD.261E@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article <sj5ufvk31uecv9f6hgnbf77u0eni3vajrh@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@analog_innovations.com says...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se
wrote:

Scott Higdon <s.higdon@mindspring.com> wrote:

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

This is a nonsense phrase. Needs and abilities have
nothing to do with each other. In fact, they're almost
inversely proportional.

A newborn baby has almost no abilities. But they have
many needs. The older they get, the more they're able
to do, the less they need someone else to do things
for them.

The only sensible interpretation of "From each..."
is that those with abilities will be forced to provide
for those with needs.

Exactly.

The first attempts to create a better system, the first socialist
ideas, were about replacing the capitalist power with worker power,
but they didn't think much about changing the repressive and
controlling system, they just took it over.

This created state capitalism.

The conflict between bolsjevik communists and liberal communists,
anarkists and utopian writers was about this.

The liberal and utopian side wanted to change the whole system,
liberate the individual, not just take over the existing power
structure and put a worker at the top of it.

You are one sick puppy; without a clue about human nature.

Fortunately your "utopia" will never be.

Oh, but his "utopia" has been and continues to be! Think Nazi
Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, and countless other
examples of the marvels of communism.

--
Keith
--------------
Why do you Rightists always just LIE when you can't think of any
logical reasons for the shit you believe???

Why do you Stalin wannabe's always LIE when you run out of ideas?
---------------

You're LYING again.

Communism was never TRIED in modern times. If it had been none
of those societies would have rich people, and they do! And you
mistakenly associated fascisms with feudalisms.

Sure it's been tried.
-----------------

Nope, that would require whatever society that had tried it to
eliminate totally any and every privileged class. None have done
that. They were ALL hoaxes to gain for the rich more opportunities
for theft.

It fails every time for exactly the same
reasons. It's not a stable system.
------------------

Capitalism isn't a stable system, which is why the People keep trying
to start communisms in the FIRST place. But they are never permitted
to, or are never sufficiently versed to do so properly, by eliminating
all privileged classes.

And THAT'S CHANGING NOW!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public