could you give me the source codes of Hope and Atlanta?

The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. In my study,I need to use the two programs,but I don't know where I can get the two programs,so I come here for help. If you know where I can get the two programs ,it's appreciate for you to tell me the place where I can get the codes by the email. If you have anyone of the two programs, it's appreciate for you to send it to my email.

My gmail is snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com.

Thanks very much.

Reply to
yyq787
Loading thread data ...

The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. In my study,I need to use the two programs,but I don't know where I can get the two programs,so I come here for help. If you know where I can get the two programs ,it's appreciate for you to tell me the place where I can get the codes by the email. If you have anyone of the two programs, it's appreciate for you to send it to my email.

My gmail is snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com.

Thanks very much.

Reply to
yyq787

The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. In my study,I need to use the two programs,but I don't know where I can get the two programs,so I come here for help. If you know where I can get the two programs ,it's appreciate for you to tell me the place where I can get the codes by the email. If you have anyone of the two programs, it's appreciate for you to send it to my email.

My gmail is snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com.

Thanks very much.

Reply to
yyq787

The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. In my study,I need to use the two programs,but I don't know where I can get the two programs,so I come here for help. If you know where I can get the two programs ,it's appreciate for you to tell me the place where I can get the codes by the email. If you have anyone of the two programs, it's appreciate for you to send it to my email.

My gmail is snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com.

Thanks very much.

Reply to
yyq787

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com MULTI-POSTED:

You really DON'T "get" Usenet.

formatting link
formatting link

DO NOT MULTI-POST:

******DO NOT FAIL TO READ THIS******
formatting link
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-appear+*-proper-answer-*-*-*-given+much-easier-*-*-*-*-what's-going-on+*-frowned-on+*-correcting+*-polite-*-mention-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+Just-because-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-does-not-mean-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-Followup-To-*+*-*-*-too-lazy-*-*-*-*-*-appropriate-*+*-*-_perfect_-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-two-groups-*-*-aren't-*-different . . To all: The answer is here:
formatting link
Reply to
JeffM

No, You really dont' get it! Nobody elected you to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it. The next troll will complain that these people are cross-posting. Go find something better to do with your time, your efforts are wasted.

If you have something on topic to post then by all means post, otherwise your messages are more of a nuisance then those you are complaining about. Afterall at least their messages are usually on topic and unless people monitor all those other groups one would never even know they are multiposting.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Brad Velander

You don't get it either, stupid. There are norms for Usenet. They are based on logic. Abide by them or expect to be called on it. You need to follow the link and read it as well.

formatting link
. .

EAT SHIT AND DIE. Apologists for idiots are even worse than the idiots.

Reply to
JeffM

You should take your own advice.

Ian

Reply to
Ian Bell

Brad Velander wrote to JeffM:

Nor did they you. While JeffM's style may have been unnecessarily abrasive, the links he posted should be required reading for everyone before they're allowed on Usenet.

Now if we could just get people to realize that sometimes multi-posting is appropriate, and failure to trim replies is even worse than top posting.

--
Noah
Reply to
Noah Little

[D'oh. I cut & pasted a link other than what i intended.] Cross-posting vs multi-posting:
formatting link
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-appear+*-proper-answer-*-*-*-given+much-easier-*-*-*-*-what's-going-on+*-frowned-on+*-correcting+*-polite-*-mention-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+Just-because-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-does-not-mean-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-Followup-To-*+*-*-*-too-lazy-*-*-*-*-*-appropriate-*+*-*-_perfect_-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-two-groups-*-*-aren't-*-different . . More links re: yyq787's other faux pas: Do Not Ask for Email Responses on Usenet
formatting link
't-got-the-time-*-*-to-read-the-newsgroup-*-*+*-benefit-other-readers+Do-not-ask-for-replies-by-email
formatting link
*-*-many-people-*-*-*+do-not-ask-*-*-email-*+defeats-the-purpose-of-the-newsgroup+asking-that-answers-be-emailed

and Frithiof puts a fine point on it:

formatting link
*-*-*-your-time-is-worth-more-than-my-time+since-*-*-*-I-don't-read-this-newsgroup+phishing-for-email-adresses+zzz+*-*-*-if-you-would-e-mail-me-privately

Reply to
JeffM

You know what, I really don't get where all of you idiots start making up your own rules and telling others that they have follow them? Have you actually read the Usenet FAQs? Seemingly not because they refer specifically to the behavoir that you are demonstrating and they directly refute your "rules". There are no rules, get it idiot? So take the gist of people's posts and reply to them or not, at your discretion. Don't try imposing your rules where they don't belong and requested.

As for your comment about multi-posting, sure I agree it is legitimate in some cases. However there are too many alter-trolls out there that will also complain about that, seen it often enough. So where does that leave the less initiated, at the mercy of the whole lot of you that make up your own rules and try shoving them down everyone's throats.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Brad Velander

--
All newsgroups evolve and develop a culture which suits most of the
"members" of the various groups.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Fields

...

Probably not. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

John, Don't you have the roles reversed here? Was it not JeffM who barged in chastising and berating a neophyte poster without provocation? If you don't see it that way then you are as blind as the others. Culture is learned, the initial poster in question was not given any chance to learn the culture and was lambasted from their very first post, not once but several times by JeffM to the very same post.

If you want culture and others to learn or follow that culture you will find it best to nourish and promote such culture rather than playing God and decreeing obediance and compliance, essentially casting out the neophytes as unclean or misfit undesireables. Your approach seems quite different from JeffM's and is much more appropriate. My fight is not with your desire for a culture but with JeffM's irrational antagonistic approach that tells people they are unfit idiots before they have been given a chance to learn or develop their own appreciation for the existing culture. He then posts links to his own posts describing such rules or conduct as if he is God almighty. My fight with JeffM's rule is that they are only his personal rules and they are not official nor sanctioned. He is arrogant and obviously a megalomaniac that feels he somehow rules the group and everyone should follow his rules or leave. Sorry, nobody rules, especially megalomaniacs like JeffM. That is one of the founding principles of Usenet and you as Americans should respect that and the fact that everyone posting on Usenet is neither from a similar culture nor background of knowledge and capabilities. Hell, what is Jeff going to do if someone starts posting in Asian scripts like one of the other groups I read? Berate them as idiots as well, demand that they post in romanized scripts only?

If you could develop and somehow introduce it to new subscribers to the group to these cultural norms or desires that would be great. However, it is still not rules, compliance is still not required and nobody should be berated over non-compliance. As a free and open service, if you don't like something you have two choices, unsubscribe or apply your filters. Those are your only two guaranteed or protected options, you have no right to berate others.

New subscribers are only introduced to the Usenet FAQs and most probably do not read them. However, if they did read them they would not find mention of any rules and only explanations of how there are no rules, no enforcement and no supervision. Then they run headlong into idiots like JeffM demanding their obediance and berating them as idiots. Sorry, it is those who think they are Kings that are infact the idiots.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Brad Velander

You are a fool. Showing someone how to do something properly is not "chastising and berating". It was YOU I berated after you stated that anarchy is an acceptable norm. (Fields' description is apt; yours is deviant.) I pity any children who depend on your guidance. ISTM you won't give them any because in your fantasy world that might damage them.

I provided links that talked about lurking. I also made the parallel to meatspace where you OBSERVE first. *then* start participating.

My impression of you is that you ignore how things are done wherever you go and just make it up as you go along, expecting people to conform to you (the newbie).

Reply to
JeffM

--
No.
Reply to
John Fields

John, You had better go back and reread the thread, you are profoundly confused. My post was calm and civilized until JeffM cranked up the level with: "You don't get it either, stupid." or "EAT SHIT AND DIE. Apologists for idiots are even worse than the idiots." in his post on March 5th. So who responded in a manner "more harshly and, reducto ad absurdium". Get your facts straight John, don't just rely on your obviously skewed perception of the events. It is all archived on Google if you don't doubt my version.

As for your original comments that i had originally chosen to ignore: "Then there are always the antagonistic types, like you, who come barreling in here and, with their first or second post, try to upset things by proclaiming that there should be no rules here." Again John check your facts! I have been participating in sci.electronics.cad for close to a decade now. So kindly stop your erroneous assertions, or is that an accepted cultural norm as well? As for "proclaiming that there should be no rules here"? No proclomation needed, from day one there have been no rules, I have simply stated a fact as it applies to Usenet posting rules.

The rest of your post nicely circles around and around but what is it that you are saying. You post to be accepted, others should adapt the same culture as you find acceptable, they should agree with your accepted norms. There is one very huge message that you are conveying John, intolerance for anything other than your personal accepted norm. Is that what you wanted to say John because it is coming through very loud and clear that is your message? As it was with JeffM.

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody elected you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now is there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement? I chastised him for pretending that his/your culture were sanctioned rules or requirements and that his links to his other personal posts (across various groups) were unofficial and nothing more than personal rules (you prefer the word culture, there's no difference in this case). Actually I had to laugh hysterically at JeffM's links, most were not in the newsgroup that held the original post, so I guess the neophyte poster was supposed to know to search those other forums for these cultural rules before posting in this forum or that forum. How long is the accpet norm for cultural study of a group before venturing out to post yoru first message? How many or how far back in archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks? Isd it required that you know there are archived messages before you venture onto Usenet? LMFHO

I also find it hilarious that the whole group of you have adapted this view that I promote anarchy. What a bunch of lame phobics! Did I ever use the word anarchy, seems it must be some shared phobia for you and your group? Do you even understand true anarchy or just the typical phobic view of anarchy. Which is typically the same view shared with those anti-social youth who claim to be anarchists or to believe in anarchy but really don't know shit about anarchy. However, if both sides believe it then it must be true anarchy even if they are both sadly misinformed and missing the true realization of anarchy.

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would have found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying labels. But no, what do you and your co-conspirators do, attach a flashy phobic label to me. Read my recent posts and see if you can discover what I really believe or said as it would relate to posting on Usenet. I believe it was in a reply to JeffM but was posted to just one group (sci.electronics.cad) as the original post was.

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you or JeffM? Does it make their enquiry or contribution less worthy of inclusion? No it doesn't, so what is your really point or issue John? Again I would simply suggest that it seems you are intolerant, rather than cultured. Tricky word culture, it has all sorts of various connotations, it is clear yours is very closed and limited.

As I said, you have the choice to contribute or ignore posts/posters. That is the extent to which you can claim any control over the posters or their posting style/format to these or other Usenet groups. If you exercise that choice properly then there is no anarchy, so all of you phobics fearful of anarchy can sleeep easier if you follow those two simple options.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
Reply to
Brad Velander

Could you please elaborate further on the above?

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Don Lancaster

--
If I don't doubt your version why should I check the archives?
Reply to
John Fields

Correction: That WAS the term *I* used to describe his

**We don't need no stinkin' guidelines** attitude.
Reply to
JeffM

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.