Troll Poll

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:49 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:23:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

http://www.forteinc.com/release/
Version 2.0 appeared in Feb 2004. So, you're running a 16 year old
version of Forte Agent that is 14 updates behind.

I was certain it was a lot older than that!

The software was probably suffering from bit rot or software rot:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot>
It's much like being required to update your immunizations against
various pathogens with occasional booster shots.

More like 24 years, but if
you say so then that's equal to the word of G-d in my book, Jeffrey!

Only one word? I would think that my guess(tm) deserves more than
one. Anyway, the math is clear enough:
2020 - 2004 = 16 years
Also, I'm not exactly a god. Real gods don't make mistakes. My
batting average is significantly less. To err is human.

I probably
shouldn't complain since I'm driving a 19 year old car, but you really
should consider at least test driving the latest version. Also, check
if you're entitled to a discounted upgrade price:
https://www.forteinc.com/agent/upgrade-form.php

Fraught with perils, I'm afraid. This version took a lot of tinkering
to get it 'happy' to run under Wine in Linux so I'm frit of taking the
chance...

<https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=59>
The latest version mentioned is 7.2. Nothing for 8.0 yet. Other than
the drastic deterioration in quality (extremely slow download of new
headers) when the company was sold 3 or 4 times, and then back to the
original owners, the software has usually run well under Wine. Nothing
on running 8.0 in the FAQ or their support newsgroup. I would offer
to test it for you, but I won't have time to save the world for at
least another two or more months.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:19:51 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

"Mr. L. Prosser was, as they say, 'only human'. That is, he was a
carbon-based bipedal life form descended from an ape." (HHGttG).

Bloody funny book, that. Must read it again some time.

--

No deal? No problem! :-D

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:08:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 09:55:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Providing high quality topic drift since about 1982...

Haha! I only just saw that!
BTW, forgot to mention but you recall that RF ALC I was having trouble
with? Well, I tried measuring the amplitude variations using an RF
spectrum analyser instead of a scope and they disappeared. Steady as a
rock all the way from 4Mhz to 1.3Ghz. Weird. It simply defies all
known science, Jeff, all known science....

I'm told that it's much easier to fix something that is working than
something that is broken.

Even at it's best, your Tek 2465A is -3dB down at 350MHz and
essentially comatose at 1.3GHz. I can't cut-n-paste the specs. Here's
a scan:
<http://www.testequipmenthq.com/datasheets/TEKTRONIX-2465B-Datasheet.pdf>
Hmmm... the scope isn't meant to accurately measure RF levels, so the
vertical flatness specs are in percent, not in dB. If you used a
cheap scope probe, banana jacks, or clip leads, the frequency response
will suffer.

I would check the 50 ohm input section of the vertical amp which kinda
smells like it might be fried.

Defying known science is easy. I do it all the time. Understanding
known science is far more difficult.

Congratulations on not screwing up your network analyzer while trying
to redesign it.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/01/20 21:53, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:19:51 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

"Mr. L. Prosser was, as they say, 'only human'. That is, he was a
carbon-based bipedal life form descended from an ape." (HHGttG).

Bloody funny book, that. Must read it again some time.

Listen to the original radio series, please. Accept no substitute!

 

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:TxNSF.16935
$oQ3.12299@fx29.am4:

On 12/01/20 21:53, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:19:51 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

"Mr. L. Prosser was, as they say, 'only human'. That is, he was
a
carbon-based bipedal life form descended from an ape." (HHGttG).

Bloody funny book, that. Must read it again some time.


Listen to the original radio series, please. Accept no substitute!

Easy with Youtube, no purchase needed.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjMqoLBIaek&list=PL8B0E11D798B2314C>

 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:qvg9bp$1lnk$1
@gioia.aioe.org:
snip

Easy with Youtube, no purchase needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjMqoLBIaek&list=PL8B0E11D798B2314C

Oops! NOT the original!

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:02:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Even at it's best, your Tek 2465A is -3dB down at 350MHz and
essentially comatose at 1.3GHz.

I'm sure it would have given up the ghost well before 1.3Ghz. I only
checked the portion of the RF output up to 300Mhz.

I can't cut-n-paste the specs. Here's
a scan:
http://www.testequipmenthq.com/datasheets/TEKTRONIX-2465B-Datasheet.pdf
Hmmm... the scope isn't meant to accurately measure RF levels, so the
vertical flatness specs are in percent, not in dB.

RF levels in percent?? They have *got* to be kidding. No wonder Tek
started to lose market share after these scopes were produced.

If you used a
cheap scope probe, banana jacks, or clip leads, the frequency response
will suffer.

Oh boy; I just remembered I forgot about the probe! The one I used was
only rated at 100Mhz. FFS there are so many gotchas; you leave one
thing out, one setting not set and you've had it. And there are SO
many such pitfalls.

I would check the 50 ohm input section of the vertical amp which kinda
smells like it might be fried.

Good call; I'll check it.

>Defying known science is easy. I do it all the time.

Well, you're clearly a G-d among men, Jeff. Your advice right now is
badly needed by - among many others - the Royal Family.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:02:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

RF levels in percent?? They have *got* to be kidding. No wonder Tek
started to lose market share after these scopes were produced.

In order for the input level accuracy to be specified in dB, it might
be useful if the vertical amplifier scale was logarithmic instead of
linear. For a linear vertical scale, percent of full scale (or
something similar) is quite normal.

Oh boy; I just remembered I forgot about the probe! The one I used was
only rated at 100Mhz. FFS there are so many gotchas; you leave one
thing out, one setting not set and you've had it. And there are SO
many such pitfalls.

With the scope vertical set for 50 ohm input, the vertical input needs
to be fed from either a 50 ohm source through a 50 ohm coaxial cable,
or by an amplified probe designed to drive a 50 ohm output. A
commodity scope probe, designed to only work with a 1 Mohm scope
input, is not gonna work.

I would check the 50 ohm input section of the vertical amp which kinda
smells like it might be fried.

Good call; I'll check it.

Don't bother. The problem was the scope probe.

Well, you're clearly a G-d among men, Jeff. Your advice right now is
badly needed by - among many others - the Royal Family.

Royal Family? You mean the Trumps? I don't think my advice will do
much to improve their situation.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:htsn1f51ig67b6qmolvvqs6lg75oipqscq@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 14:02:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

RF levels in percent?? They have *got* to be kidding. No wonder
Tek started to lose market share after these scopes were produced.

In order for the input level accuracy to be specified in dB, it
might be useful if the vertical amplifier scale was logarithmic
instead of linear. For a linear vertical scale, percent of full
scale (or something similar) is quite normal.

Oh boy; I just remembered I forgot about the probe! The one I used
was only rated at 100Mhz. FFS there are so many gotchas; you leave
one thing out, one setting not set and you've had it. And there
are SO many such pitfalls.

With the scope vertical set for 50 ohm input, the vertical input
needs to be fed from either a 50 ohm source through a 50 ohm
coaxial cable, or by an amplified probe designed to drive a 50 ohm
output. A commodity scope probe, designed to only work with a 1
Mohm scope input, is not gonna work.

I would check the 50 ohm input section of the vertical amp which
kinda smells like it might be fried.

Good call; I'll check it.

Don't bother. The problem was the scope probe.

Well, you're clearly a G-d among men, Jeff. Your advice right now
is badly needed by - among many others - the Royal Family.

Royal Family? You mean the Trumps? I don't think my advice will
do much to improve their situation.

To me the sad thing is not that his elder son is already corrupted,
but that the little twerp tike he has will also suffer the
Trumptardation.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:57:30 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
> Clifford Heath wrote:

<snip>

Bill does several things that make his posts especially unpleasant:

* He responds to an individual in the third person, as if they are
unworthy of his time (yet he is profligate in wasting everyone's time
with such posts, thereby demeaning by implication every reader here),

** Yes, Bill speaks about or down to you, not to you.

Whether on the phone, or not.

A lie.

* He frequently mentions the demerits of other individuals not yet
involved in the current thread, thereby expanding the field of battle,

** Yes, his postings are not idea compact.

Some faults are ubiquitous.

* He details surmised personal characteristics or background which are
entirely irrelevant to the topic or on which he has no definite
information, as if he is some kind of all-seeing oracle.

** Bill is a self appointed guru with a grey beard and posh pommy accent.

Australians (like everybody else) are good at hearing how an accent differs from their own, less reliable on the extent of the difference.

He also speaks slowly, so you are forced to spend a long time listening.

Simultaneously, it avoids HIM having to listen.

Not a feature of my speech that anybody else has commented on, but Phil has unique (and probably non-reproducible) skills when it comes to decoding audio signals.

I can handle criticism, and I can handle seeing him criticise others -
but only where it is clearly correct and relevant to the topic.

** Requires way more insight that Bill possesses.

Or perhaps more insight that Clifford Heath can claim. His ideas about what might be relevant are rather restricted.

Bill, if you're reading this, do a little review of your posting history
and exercise a little self-reflection before replying. Apply some of
your much-vaunted psycho-analysis to your own posts, and I think you'll
see I have been kind, fair and accurate. I certainly tried to.

** Bill is not into any such navel gazing.

Nobody in their right mind would bother to take that kind of twaddle seriously.

Phil isn't all that sane and he's happy to use any weapon, no matter how pathetic, when he gets cross (which happens quite frequently).

> He truly believes he is not autistic.

Phil thinks that most of the world is autistic.

https://www.autismspectrum.org.au/news/autism-prevalence-rate-up-by-an-estimated-40-to-1-in-70-people-11-07-2018

suggests that it affects 1.4% of the population. Phil doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

> Let sleeping dogs lie.

And give up on the dogged pursuit of irascible audio experts?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath wrote:

-------------------------

Bill does several things that make his posts especially unpleasant:

* He responds to an individual in the third person, as if they are
unworthy of his time (yet he is profligate in wasting everyone's time
with such posts, thereby demeaning by implication every reader here),

** Yes, Bill speaks about or down to you, not to you.

Whether on the phone, or not.

* He frequently mentions the demerits of other individuals not yet
involved in the current thread, thereby expanding the field of battle,

** Yes, his postings are not idea compact.

* He details surmised personal characteristics or background which are
entirely irrelevant to the topic or on which he has no definite
information, as if he is some kind of all-seeing oracle.

** Bill is a self appointed guru with a grey beard and posh pommy accent.

He also speaks slowly, so you are forced to spend a long time listening.

Simultaneously, it avoids HIM having to listen.

I can handle criticism, and I can handle seeing him criticise others -
but only where it is clearly correct and relevant to the topic.

** Requires way more insight that Bill possesses.

Bill, if you're reading this, do a little review of your posting history
and exercise a little self-reflection before replying. Apply some of
your much-vaunted psycho-analysis to your own posts, and I think you'll
see I have been kind, fair and accurate. I certainly tried to.

** Bill is not into any such navel gazing.

He truly believes he is not autistic.

Let sleeping dogs lie.


..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:02:54 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:1a579a43-f6b4-41f5-8518-02f06ad5c915@googlegroups.com:


A modern processor could format free text so that a VT100 terminal
could display it. And somebody in the Linux community has probably
done it.

You STILL do not get it.

Usenet caters to all, including folks without your precious 'modern
processor'.

In your dreams. There's no isolated antique group browsing the web with steam-powered Babbage machines, much as you might like the idea, and I'm no more likely to cater to their imagined needs than anybody else.

> Squirm, Billy, squirm!

Squirming is more your sort of activity than mine. You've got quite a lot to squirm about - peddling your fatuous fantasies is a decidedly obnoxious activity, even if you haven't worked out quite what's wrong with it yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney