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

John, You know what, John? You are adequately showing your own stupidity when you continually credit me with statements or beliefs that I have never stated nor suggested. Everyone of your posts have been filled with them, seems someone's culture is getting the best of you because you are wrongly applying others comments or opinions. Seems everyone else is responsible for postings but you can just assume that you read the message in sed so that is the whole world, regardless of whether there are 100 group addresses in the headers. Seems you simply accepted others comments but now regurgitate them credited to me. Sorry I don't have time to discuss this with such stupid people that can't even keep facts separated from their personal fantasies/desires.

Adios, tiron intolerante.

Brad Velander.

So you are also so going to feign ignorance of google's user profiles? Oops, sorry it is the other person's responsibility to announce for JOHN FEILD's benefit that I am posting from group XYZ. Where is your knowledge and culture on this one, I had not seen you announce that you were posting from group ABC. So this is only my problem, I did not state from which group I was posting, doesn't apply for others and especially not for John! Hypocrite!

Edict? Naw that is too complicated John, have you ever heard of facts? Seems not because you don't even recognize one when you see one.

I guess you are the eternal kid that was going to jump off the cliff because someone else did as well.

Liar!

While no one elected him to police USENET, there are

Thank you for just refuting your own "Yes" and confirming my statement as factual. You don't get to stretch or embellish your understanding of what i wrote, you just confirmed precisely what I wrote, no more no less. JeffM was not elected to police Usenet.

Again I am guilty and JeffM is innocent! You are absolutely blind aren't you!

Wow, I didn't know that you were going to criticize JeffM, especially when you describe his actions and style perfectly..

John, you had better recheck your facts buddy, anarchy, anarchist, promoting anarchy are all terms used thus far. So are you just proving your own stupidity again? Why don't you contain your comments to items which you can accurately discuss. It wasn't only JeffM either, several other posters as well but I didn't bother to check which groups they were posting from. So it was not so easily missed if you actually read the content of the thread before making up more lies.

Wrong John. You are so simply forgetting what started the thread. An "abrasive" overzealous wannabe Usent cop named JeffM behaving badly, berating other's posts and just generally being rude all in the name of these are the rules.

I don't know, John Field/JeffM/others that insist on these rules and attack those who suggest their rules are crap?

I forgot, intelligence has more than 2 syllables. Sorry to have posed a question that went right over your head John.

Yes, so you are suggesting that others follow standards that you do not even follow? Your posts have not been as so described, you use this interspersed method of quoting and replying. So contrary words and actions again. I have seen many times that people refer to bottom posting and there being logic behind it. Right off the bat I see one glaring logic flaw. It is typically not possible to quickly preview the message for the new content, typically you will only see the quoted text from the previous post, where is the logic in that? It is completely illogical to have to scroll through the previous message (again) to get to the post's new content or contribution. Do you put bibiographies, references and footnotes at the beginning of books?

So does *stubbornness*

--but that doesn't mean that if you posess the latter you also have the former.

sci.electronics.design.

(And, guys, let's please be a little more considerate with people from outside North America and Europe. Not everyone in Asia has the luxury of being able to use a computer every day. I speak from experience.)

Here's what I found on Atlanta, from Google

using the words "atlanta source code atpg" (but without the quotes)

37: Test Generation and Fault Simulation Software

(Contributed by Dr. Dong Ha of Virginia Tech)

Two automatic test pattern generators (ATPGs) and a fault simula- tor for combinational circuits were developed at Virginia Tech, and the source codes of the tools are now ready for public release. ATLANTA is an ATPG for stuck-at faults. It is based on the FAN algorithm and a parallel-pattern, single-fault propaga- tion technique. It consists of optional sessions using random pattern testing, deterministic test pattern generation and test compaction. SOPRANO is an ATPG for stuck-open faults. The algo- rithm of SOPRANO is similar to ATLANTA except two consecutive patterns are applied to detect a stuck-open fault. FSIM is a parallel-pattern, single-fault simulator. All the tools are written in C. The source codes are fully commented, and README files contain user's manuals. Technical papers about the tools were presented at DAC-90 and ITC-91. All three tools are free to univer- sities. Companies are requested to make a contribution of $5000 but will have free technical assistance. For detailed in- formation, con- tact:

Dr. Dong Ha Electrical Engineering Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 TEL: 703-231-4942 FAX: 703-231-3362 snipped-for-privacy@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu

I couldn't find a whole lot on "Hope". Then again, I only searched for about 15 seconds. :)

So it looks like Atlanta's not quite open-source, but should be available at your university. Contact Dr. Ha for more information...

Good luck!

As was mentioned early in the thread, this is why multi-posting is a terrible idea. The question was answered 2 weeks ago.

--- I think what I've been doing all along is referring to (or rather, pointing out) your self-centered bullheadedness in refusing to post in ways which are considered to be universally acceptable and, to a lesser extent, the motivation for that type of behavior.

---

--- Now you're showing your ignorance of one of the technical aspects of posting to USENET.

If you write a malformed post and send it 100 groups by crossposting it, and I read it in sed, it will be be just as malformed in all the other groups you crossposted it to.

---

--- LOL, what you're saying is you're out of ammo, but you want to duck out by saving face with that last little flamelet.

OK, you're dismissed.

---

--- Adios? No. Hasta la proxima vez, pendejita.

---

--- Feign? Not at all. I _am_, in fact, ignorant of Google's user profiles. I don't access Usenet through Google, but through Giganews' servers and only use Google for searching their USENET archives and for Googling and Google Earthing, of course.

---

--- The thing that you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't really matter to me what group you were, or are, posting from, I responded to the posts which landed on sed and I replied to them from there.

---

--- Nor had I intended to, until the issue came up, since that's usually of no concern in a normal discussion.

---

--- If that were your _only_ problem, we could clear it up quickly by stating that it's hardly hypocritical since, in a normal discussion, the group the poster is posting from is immaterial and what _does_ matter is the form and content of the post.

But it's certainly _not_ your only problem, as evidenced by your antisocial stance so far.

---

--- OK, I'll use simpler words next time.

---

--- Now, now... be careful.

That's the kind of sloppy logic which can lead to your ears getting pinned back even further.

---

--- That's just dopey, but it does provide some insight into the problem that you're having with top posting in terms of the flight of the arrow of time.

Consider your use of: "as well", above.

The correct usage would be: "Brad jumped off the cliff and then John did, as well.", but you've got the cart before the horse with what amounts to: "Brad jumped of the cliff as well, and then John did."

Can you see the temporal conflict there and how it relates to your wanting to place the answer prior to the question, so to speak?

And what do you mean by "the eternal kid"?

---

--- Got your attention, huh?

If a liar refutes his lie before someone else does does that leave him a liar? Nope, dope.

The point is, and was, that guidelines for netiquette exist and that some of his links pointed to those guidelines.

---

--- Absolutely not.

Jeff was guilty about being abusive, but he tempered that by offering information supporting his viewpoint.

You, on the other hand, are not only guilty of being abusive, you've offered nothing other than your own narcissistic view of why you're right and everyone else is wrong.

---

--- You know very well I was referring to you, and your attempt to try to shift the focus from you to JeffM is a typically sophomoric trick. Just what I'd expect from someone like you.

---

--- OK, so I missed some of it and you _have_ been accused of anarchistic behavior by several people. Those accusations and your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." attitude just add fuel to the fire burning to prove that you're basically a misanthrope.

---

--- Regardless of what started this thread, what I chose to do was to comment on _your_ remarks, which I considered to be inappropriate.

Again, JeffM offered abrasive commentary coupled with help, while all you've done so far is bitch and whine.

---

--- I see you trim to _destroy_ context...

I suggest adhering to guidelines which the majority accepts as useful. You insist on others following your rule of no rules, which is always detrimental.

---

--- Intelligence has _no_ syllables. The word: 'intelligence' has four.

Nor can a post be intelligent or knowledgeable.

The poster can, but there's little evidence of that existing on your end.

---

--- Not at all.

You must have missed it, but my very first post (or somewhere thereabouts, I'm not going to look it up) to you indicated that "in-line" posting was considered to be OK, and why shouldn't it be? If you want to make an immediate comment about something, you make it where the something you want to comment about occurs. Duh...

The whole point of adhering to posting guidelines is to make it easier for everyone using the medium to be "on the same page" and, therefore, to make communications easier.

What throws a monkey wrench into the works is when someone like you comes along with a the preconceived notion that your way is the best way and, dammit, that's the way it's going to be no matter how many people complain.

---

--- The trick is not to quote _everything_, but what is relevant to the reply, in order to give the reader a quick brush-up on what's being replied to, specifically, and also to indicate _who's_ being replied to, since often a reply posted with no context and no source attribution can be construed as coming from any number of sources, muddling the meaning of the reply.

---

--- No, but these aren't bibliographies, references, or footnotes, they're more like ongoing conversations, where the chronology of the content is what matters.

Finally, since you seem to be so dead-set against bottom posting, I suspect you've never tried it, so you really have no basis in fact for your dislike of it.

Why don't you try it for a while and see what happens?

You might be surprised.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

Strongly suggest you assume Lotus position and chant above mantra until you begin to achieve enlightenment. At present you are doomed to repeating cycles upon the wheel of karma.

Or, if you'd prefer another venacular: "been there, done that, boring!"; you are describing your own posts.

begin to

wheel

The subject was: could you give me the source codes of Hope and Atlanta?