Thank you, yes.
Actually, that works well too :-)
My only LSD experiences are second hand, that is true. I was not trying to be accurate about it.
My attitudes to drugs are based on my knowledge of drugs and my experience with people who have used them. But that is all irrelevant here.
A coin always in heads up position becomes predictable after toss.
Greg
I see you are getting to know our John...
Rick C.
--+ Get 6 months of free supercharging --+ Tesla referral code -
But only after picking the right problem.
That's only if you don't get to pick your own problems. One's technical taste improves with experience, so the amount of time wasted on ideas that don't work is reduced. And even then, I often learn stuff that comes in very handy sometime later.
For instance, back about 1992, I had this ultrasensitive interferometric particle counter for finding and tracking contamination inside plasma etch chambers. It used a very well-behaved but expensive frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser, so for commercialization purposes I decided to switch to a 150-mW diode laser. Sounds simple, right?
It actually took almost a year, off and on, and in the process I learned an enormous amount about controlling diode lasers. It was more than I wanted to know, but it's paid off over and over on that and other projects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
and it's the same one everybody else will pick. How can progress ever happen?
- not spend months and millions investigating the
I can do that in minutes, or overnight. Sometimes it takes a week. Other people help. It's mostly a matter of attitude.
And "bizarre" really means "not invented here."
We invent things and then we sell them. Customers generally have as little imagination as competitors. We almost never accept NRE, because we absolutely want to own our IP.
Absolutely. A new design should deliberately flounder in confusion for a while, and entertain a lot of wild ideas. We plan for that. The bad thing to do is seize on a mediocre idea and implement it.
You can make money doing a superb implementation of a common idea, but so can too many other people.
I use FPGAs, discrete logic, software, ASICS, analog or digital processing, whatever mix works best. But you gat an astounding amount of signal processing per dollar in an FPGA, so it's often a good choice. I wish I could show you my new instant-lock PLL; it couldn't be done any other way.
I've noticed that. Sometimes you explore a weird idea, give it up as stupid, and have it pop up as the ideal solution to a different problem, maybe years later. Weirdness beneficially accumulates.
Phil and I have brainstormed together, sometimes with a customer, and it works.
Laser diodes have a lot of electrical and optical personality. Often we learn things (like PIN diode effects, or optimum drive for gain switching) that the makers don't know about. "Diode" sounds simple.
'Fraid so. He did complain once that people didn't like him and pick on him. So to some extent he wants to be liked. He just doesn't know how to make friends.
But he does have competition for most obnoxious animal.
gregz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal- september.org:
I guess English is not your first language.
No coin toss has ANY outcome that is reliant on a preveious toss.
It really is that simple.
Here's one... No coin tosser can reliably or selectively repeat post toss coin positions.
The only tosser you dipshits are is salad tossers!
Mostly by incremental progress - gradual improvements. Big leaps to something radically different do occur, but they are much rarer. (It is not unlike evolution, so it does not surprise me that you fail to understand this.) And the big leaps don't come from thinking "can we make this network out of bananas?", they come from knowing different things and bringing in ideas from outside areas.
Perhaps to you it does. You are American - Americans are (in my experience) more concerned with "not invented here" than other people.
The coin toss of a two headed magicians coin is entirely predictable. The trick is in the sleight of hand needed to make the swap.
Martin Brown wrote in news:q2p3v6 $1ta8$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:
toss.
toss.
predictable.
repeat
You do understand the term NOT, right?
"A coin". We all know what that is. We being the intelligent posters in the group.
Are you on that hay ride?
Or are you some dufus that thinks the coin edge or some other physical element of a coin's shape is some manageable, predictable element of the event(s)?
Don't confuse Nymbecile.
And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome, AlwaysWrong?
John S wrote in news:q32di9$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
You're a drunken old man. You can't even read.
John S wrote in news:q32di9$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Dumbshit. The 'upped you' part was a reference to the fact that I BOUGHT the software, and you likely perform s*****ad google searches.
And Wolfram is the entity which DOES use the bar, even on their site.
John S wrote in news:q32e0a$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
F*ck off and die, putz!
No, I purchased Wolfram. No, they do not use the bar on their site.
All you want to do is argue and insult. I was trying to help you but you are clearly beyond help. You obviously have no math or engineering abilities. You have been lying and faking it all along. I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you. Which is why you are known here as AlwaysWrong. I wash my hands of you (literally).
John S wrote in news:q32ilc$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Bullshit. You have spent years insulting me and participating in the insult regimen of the trolls. You cannot for even a second expect me to afford you any credence in your posts as if they were geniune and civil in nature. You are on the automatically skeptical of your motives list, dig?
I do not need your 'help' and that particularly not in the manner in which you delivered it.
John S wrote in news:q32l6d$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
No, dumbfuck. My statement was that 100 like tosses are possible, and they are. The I stated that IT COMES DOWN TO the probability of that happening. And that probability is a very small number.
You are the one that has since made all the stupid statements.
Grow the f*ck up, putz.
snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I made no such statement.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required