I design electronics at the heart of some of the biggest scientific and industrial projects on the planet. And you don't. So it sounds like my limited "scientific stuff" is more useful than your limited "scientific stuff." I'm sure it's more fun.
You are all hat and no horse. *DO* something.
Oh, what's your opinion of the latest revelations of fraud in climate sciences?
John
[snip]
Finally! Admission :-)
[snip] ...Jim Thompson
It is, if you collect miniatures.
Bwahahahahahaha! I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)
-- ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
to
Fatal to whom? I'm not dead, so it obviously isn't me. I know I'm not dead, so I obviously know something, which is fatal to your argument, thus proving me superior to you.
The fatal flaw does seem to be in your argument. It wouldn't be kind to wish you better luck next time - you realy don't have what it takes to compete with grown-ups.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
e:
rote:
_ is a
e of
a sense
uld be
ur
king
yhim,
-ur
Which does suggest a certain basic competence in circuit design. Since this is design for a small market, the competition isn't all that fierce, and the most important skill is the ability to predict the areas where the design might fall over, so you don't have to spend too much time on debugging and redesign. It's not an area where brilliance and innovation are all-important.
Not at the moment, nor for some years now.
imited
It's certainly more useful during the working day.
I certainly enjoyed it when I was doing it.
I think I'll get myself a new aortic valve.
More denialist propaganda
Even more denialist propaganda, from a distinctly unsavoury source.
Seems to be human error rather than fraud. The IPCC is supposed to repackage the peer-reviewd literature in a form that makes it accessible to general public. Since the bad data clearly wasn't from the peer-reviewed literature they've boobed - as they admit.
The IPCC is a collection of human beings, and human beings screw up from time to time - as you should be aware, even engineers have drop- offs from time to time and there are explicit error-detecting and error-correcting procedures built into most systems for documenting the design and construction of complex mechanisms
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Most people see this an undeniable fact. You choose to differ.
ound its axis,
A delusion that you keep trying to foist on me - based on my preference for simpler explanation of Joel Koltner's joke.
10K ECL, and...You can get away without constant impedance tracks over buried ground plane, if you are careful - Motorola explicitly claimed to have degraded the edge speeds to make it easier to use than their earlier flavours of ECL. Once again, you have invented a straw man, and are now flogging it to death.
John Fields goes on and on. One hestitates to think how much bandwidth he'd waste if he had something real to complain about.
Do Texan's call their peckers "beaks"? In Australian and British English a "beak" is a nose.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Most of which was by choice, hence, IDIOT.
All our boys rely on MY gear.
MirrorMask!
MaskMirror!
He thinks that he rates the volcanic fury of Mt St Helens, when all he really rates is that of a lukewarm burp hole at Yellowstone.
Quick! Turn on the lights!
It is called a colloquialism, you obviously brain dead ditz!
You have a complex about declaring your claim of superiority, don't cha, old man? Ever seek help for that mental illness? The reason I ask is because you rate being superior to none of us humans. Maybe you are superior to a dung beetle.
You keep missing the fact that there is no competition taking place, and that it is you who is clearly the 'biggest loser' in this thread, much less these groups.
You lost all credibility when you declared one of the most commonly used chips in the world as being obsolete and no longer viable, when the fact is that the description you keep spewing about it fits *you*.
Most people?
Your declarations of statistical facts are 100% invalid.
All one needs do is examine the source.
You chose to be an absolute idiot because you refuse to admit that you were wrong then, and are now as well.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required