You mean "why bother" understanding things before trashing them?
Ah. Ye olde evolutionary struggle. When outranked, there are two ways to improve one's standing. One is to raise yourself up. That's hard work. The other, to tear someone else down. That's easy.
James Arthur
from one
lence between
eful
reason
No it isn't. No country can survive that doesn't enforce its laws. That's essential.
If you can't see the difference then you might read some on political philosophy--the reasons and purposes governments are formed, the powers they're given, not given, and why people consent to them. The American "Declaration of Independence" is a good start.
People voluntarily band together and form governments to provide for their common defense. For this, they willingly contribute. This is the first and primary purpose of any government.
That's a completely separate question from whether Bill Sloman-- educated at public expense--chooses or doesn't choose to reject jobs he feels are beneath his dignity, and prefers to live permanently at his fellow citizens' expense.
James Arthur
education,
electronics they
matter how
chosen.
widgets are
some of the
seem to
cards where he
Materials
very
Should I believe a spec sheet, or my Tek TDR?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
ur
Whose trashing them? John's products are fine, just not quite as awesomely complicated or as insanely good as he likes to claim.
Who is tearing John down? His self-valuation is a little higher than his performance can sustain - probably higher than any actual human being could sustain - but pointing this out falls quite a long way short of "tearing him down".
He is something of an ego-maniac - he wouldn't be the most frequent poster on sci.electronics.design, with 28701 posts to his name if he wasn't into self-publicity - and this eminence does earn him a certain amount of deflationary heckling.
And what makes you think that I feel out-ranked? My ego may not be quite as over-inflated as John's, but I'm fond enough of the sound of my own voice to be fourth on the frequent poster list, with 16839 posts to my credit. If I were interested in the pecking order, I wouldn't be wasting my time being rude about your intellectual failings, which are rather more dramatic than John's, because you are a long way down the pecking order from either of us, and even further below the serious candidates for the top of the local pecking order, like Spehro Pefhany, who rarely says anything that isn't seriously worth listening to.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
That depends on whether the specification sheet has changed since
1990. Your supplier may be shipping you stuff that beats the specification sheet today, but if he finds a way to make the parts more cheaply and still meet the specification sheet tomorrow, you could end up with egg all over your face.-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ey from one
valence between
the
seful
is
d reason
I'm afraid you are confused. Your opinions don't have the force of law, and the process of taking money from you as tax and paying it out to social security recipients is perfectly legal, no matter how much you may resent it.
If seriously antiquated, like pretty much everything you quote on political philosophy.
seems to be your hero - scarcely a contemporary figure, let alone particularly sane.
That's not necessarily true. Military defence is important, but so are roads and drains, caring for the sick (particularly if they are suffering from an infectious disease) looking after widows and orphans and maintaining amicable relations with neighbouring communities - carrying a big stick is only half the job.
As if I ever got offered a job that I could have rejected. I did get told that I was over-qualified once or twice, which I found decidedly irritating.
And while I did get a government research grant that carried me through my Ph.D., the economics of that deal were that I was getting about half what I would have been paid in industry if I'd been working at a proper job, and doing a whole lot of stuff that would have been looked after by technicians if I'd been in a proper job. What it came down to was that I paid - in deferred earnings - about half the cost of my education.
I was well aware of this at the time - the Australian government printed and circulated short papers on a variety of economic subjects in the 1950's and early 1960's, and one of them explicitly discussed the costs and benefits of tertiary education in precisely those terms.
The Australian government didn't do as well out of me as they might have done - I spent most of my working life in the UK - but the Australian government got the benefit of a whole lot of tertiary- educated migrants from the UK, so it probably comes out more or less even.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
's all a
of
eed
Military spending, including funds spent on veterans, amounts to 54% of the federal budget:
ll is it
So, your will does not line up with God's will. That doesn't make giving to the poor immoral -- that rather sounds like you're immoral.
Unless it just so happened that there were enough charity to support all the poor (something that can and does occur within small groups, but not when you're talking nations of millions, AFAICT), I'd have to say I disagree: Having some of your funds taken (yes, by force) so as to benefit others can absolutely be in the best interest of society. I mean, I find it amazing that people would even debate that basic concept...
But as usual, I fully support your efforts to attempt to convince people otherwise. ...although I think it really is a bit intellectually dishonest to equate "lawfully enacted taxes that pay for entitlements" with "theft."
(And of course I do fully agree that the devil is in the details; I think everyone would agree that there is such a thing as too many entitlements, people just differ on where that point.)
Well, um, it's not like I'm alone in finding some degree of entitlements "legitimate." Likewise, you can certainly find people out there who don't believe that, e.g., building public roads is a legitimate purpose of the federal government.
Again I (mostly) disagree: In many cases Peter is robbed so little it has negligible effect on his industry, whereas it's quite possible to be able to take Paul from being a non-productive citizen who's a drain on the system to one who's quite productive in his own right.
At a philosophical level, I'm OK with the idea that it's better for a few people to have a bit less so that many can have much more. I suppose that does make me a bit of a communist (or perhaps socialist if I'm enlisting the government to perform the redistribution of wealth?), but I see nothing wrong with the concept that the best way to run a country is a mixture of a very healthy dose of capitalism along with some socialism around the edges to even things out a bit. Many successfully countries have used this formula for centuries now, after all.
---Joel
I'd almost say it's more like, "...their common well-being." The most immediate threat to one's well-being is (or at least historically was) attack from "outsiders" and hence the first order of business reasonably was forming a military defense... but shortly after that, well-being also translates into people being able to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves when the unexpected happens: Legs get broken so you can no longer hunt for awhile, people get old and frail but their family will not or cannot support them, etc.
Even if you believe that, defense *is* a power granted to the government in the Constitution. I know that doesn't impress any lefties, but it is a fact. BTW, (individual) welfare is not.
it
It's nice that you're able to speak *for* God. Even GWB only claimed to speak
*to* God.
Fathead. Idiot.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
It made no sense then.
Since about 1820, global GDP has grown at startlingly close to 4% per year. 1.04 ^ (2012-1820) is 1863.807. Population has grown at a much slower rate - 9:1.
So one person produces 200+ times as much - on average - since the Constitution was ratified. The distribution of production is also no doubt skewed. nobody will argue that. For a basically Pareto shaped distribution, a shift in the alpha of 200:1 means you live in an entirely different system. For bimodal normal distros, it's even more extreme.
Despite three-six generations of welfare, the overwhelming mode in American society is for people to work - when they can find work. Part of the cost of 200:1 average increases in productivity is people being not quite up to that level of productivity for various reasons.
but beyond that, production is increasingly not even a function of human effort any more. We've managed to make production a fully emergent property. I can attest that it's entirely possible for a highly productive company to have no clue about how they do it.
I think - and this is like... horrid hypothesizing on my part - that what we're *really* seeing is people seeing that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We don't know how we do it, nobody really owns the process. When that ignorance makes something fail, the market quickly signals it, sramt people fly in and build a replacement. It mostly works, and we move on.
Or the smart people build a replacement in advance, enabled by superior tech. We don't even see the failures then.
But it strains credulity for us to expect every person alive to push that rock up the increased slope of the production curve. And even given *that*, it is testimony to the adaptability of our species that people mostly deal with it, when there's adequate general liquidity of the factors of production for them to do it.
The chronically unemployed haven't disappeared - they've gone on disability, unless they had the means to retire in fact.
-- Les Cargill
MA
I'm not the fathead that can't find the specification for the SMB connectors he's now using.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
You're a fathead for lecturing me about stuff I know about, and you don't.
You're an idiot for saying that, in effect, everybody who makes good SMBs (which, as far as I can tell, is everybody who makes SMBs) will, one day, all decide break them, leaving me with zero suppliers and the cited egg on face.
If you deconvolve the 37 ps risetime that I measured from the 28 ps risetime of my scope, that leaves a calculated 24 ps risetime for all the cable and connectors in my picture, or about a 14 GHz bandwidth, with a very clean step response.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Don't you read the manual? it's all in there.
--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)
e SMA
You obviously don't know as much about the subject as you should, or you'd be able to find that data sheet that gives the manufacturer's guarantee of high frequency performance, rather than mouthing off about what you think your measurements mean.
At the moment I'm not making money by persuading people that I do known about small discontinuities in high frequency nominally non- dispersive transmission lines, and it's been a few years since I've opened my copy of Peter C. L. Yip's "Hogh Frequency Circuit Design and Measurements" (ISBN 0-412-341603-3) for a couple of years now. It had a few useful formulas for calculating the widths of microstrip lines of particular impedances, and a few more for calculating the impedances of microstrips of known width.
I wouldn't put myself forward as the kind of expert you claim to be, but I actually do know something about the subject, and it's based on more that slapping a few test circuits together.
Your an idiot for not finding a data sheet that spells out what they promise to keep on achieving, rather than relying on your own slap- dash experiments and optimistic interpretations of the results.
You didn't "deconvolve" the observed risetime, but rather subtracted the square of the known rise-time of your scope from the square of the observed risetime of your signal, and took the square root of the result, which is exactly what I used to do some twenty years ago, but at least I knew enough not to dignify the process with the title "deconvolution".
Do you have a copy of Norbert Wiener's book? My betting is that you didn't even known that it existed.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Here's a screen shot from my deconvolution program, intended to turn an ugly TDR into a perfect TDR. It evolves a FIR that, convolved with a bumpy-lumpy step, makes it into a beautiful step. It uses my own time domain, non-transform algorithm that's very fast.
All I need to do now is finish the TDR box.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
here SMA
You mean that you didn't know enough about the subject to pull a reliable algorithm out of the literature, perhaps because the literature relies on less subjective criteria than "ugly" and "bea
How much does the lumpy-bumpy discontinuity have to change before the output of the convolution looks ugly again?
Hmm. And fit a quart into a pint pot?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
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.