usenet weirdness

As said, for a fanatic worshiper of The S*it anyone criticizing it will be lacking education, knowledge and understanding. It's a part of your faith. That's how it's training idiots like you.

I was working one time at a fabless semiconductor outfit, who, you know, made chips for daughterboards like for accelerating string-search or deflate compression, and were making some IP for JPEG2000, then as I was learning about "standard logic" and "custom logic", then I started learning VHDL or Verilog about the pins and a bunch of different great ideas among a team of a dozen or so electrical engineers, who for example had been involved in JPEG the committee's and standards processes with respect to their being members of IEEE and so on and about the usual account of actual "engineers" in USA and their oath and license and so on, vis-a-vis "software engineers".

So anyways I had heard of free-form 3-D IC since I knew about planar circuits and vias, then learning about standard logic, I noticed that the roller and shifter planar circuits could be put together a simple 3-D IC circuit a "roller/shifter" or "barrel shifter" as I described it, would make a concurrent parallel operation of a serial operation.

Anyways, that would be "patently obvious" to those "skilled in the field" besides that there's a usual account of "prior art" as ingenuity, that there being "prior art" or "being obvious to those skilled in the field" mostly invalidates claims for "patents", for a sufficiently wide definition of "skilled".

Sure, whatever works is practical, like equivalent series resistance or the constants of capacitors or inductors in RLC circuits.

While that's so, circuits are _always_ ideally RLC or resistor inductor capacitor circuits, even if they don't have any resistors or inductors or capacitors.

Are there any simple ideal electrical components that aren't resistors, inductors, and capacitors?

Says you, ....

It's agreeable that as a source of authority that it's been abused its interpretation many times.

Neo-Aristoleans are _not_ Full-Aristotleans, Neo-Platonists and Neo-Stoics are neither, Neo-Hegelians don't have a full dialectic, Heidegger and Wittgenstein will say anything and later deny it, and Sartre refuses Nietzsche.

That said the usual idea of universalism, for example, and the perfection of nature, is often after the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric, that we are not misanthropes.

So, as reasoners would be ideal and of accounts of full Aristotleanism and Hegelianism, and a nice sort of Stoic Platonist accout, the "Supreme" and "Omni" is "super-scientific", so, doesn't not exist.

"Atheists are religious, too, ...."

Often enough it's just that any particularly involved field has practical and pragmatic realities that the SR or GR doesn't explain, and furthermore that the "effects" relevant in their field by themselves contradict the "severe abstraction the electrical or mechanical reduction".

It takes a rather thorough and holistic account to make sense of these things.

This is usually enough "The Blind Men and the Elephant", one of the oldest object lessons in the world.

Bell's inequalities furthermore make it clear that "quantum mechanics" was wrong about itself.

Words are a great thing. The ancient concept of "Logos" as the discourse is a central theme in accounts of reasoning since antiquity.

"Stick and stones may break my bones / yet I have a 25,000 word vocabulary."

Except that you haven't pointed out any inconsistencies

Probably not. But less limited observers are not going to able to take much from it either. "t'" is undefined. "t" presumably represents time, but you haven't bothered to tell us that. "improper seconds" are no less opaque.

If you had any "common sense" - whatever that might be - you'd be aware that the clocks in the orbiting GPS satellites have to be - and are - corrected for effects predicted by general and special relativity. The system wouldn't work if they weren't.

Back when atomic clocks were being flown between national standards to check national standards, the same corrections - while smaller - still had to be applied.

You are probably going to tell that it was a manifestation of a gigantic international conspiracy to make Einstein look good, but Einstein had been dead for fifteen years by then. Why would anybody bother?

Conspiracy theory nuts do enjoy imagining vast international conspiracies, but this is unusually absurd.

Not exactly. It's got new information which has to be reconciled with information already held by the brain. Programming involves over-writing existing information, and that's not an option available to human teachers of humans.

We process data, and we have memory. Science doesn't have any kind of direct access to our memories or our processing, which does seem to be spread out over lots of different areas of the brain. Psycholinguists are interested in the way human brains process language, and some of them have access to magnetic resonance brain scanners and can look at the brain while processing is going on. It doesn't seem to tell us any more than electroencephalograms, despite being much more bulky and expensive.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Can't say I've ever seen any of that either.

Most of the people I've known who were interested in what Einstein had to say were anything but brainless. There haven't been all that many of them. I've never met any of the very limited subgroup who know roughly what he was talking about and disagree with it, except in this sort of on-line group which exist to connect people with unusual interests, and get invaded by nut cases.

You do seem to be particular demented.

It was more about clarifying what they were disagreeing about. My understanding is they led to a bunch of experiments that resolved the issue. Some exponents of quantum mechanics were proved to be wrong, and others right. Quantum mechanics wasn't the kind of monolithic belief system that could be "wrong about itself".

Sorry, trash. "Euclidean geometry was always

Sorry, trash. Your idiot guru has defined t and t' as clock indications in 2 frames. That you're too dumb to understand his S*it is no surprise, not many of his idiot worshipers do.

Sorry, trash, that's a lie.

On 3/17/26 14:12, Maciej Woźniak wrote: [...]

What *is* a real clock? Does one even exist?

Jeroen Belleman

Except that it never had the chance to train me. I never studied it as part of any formal course.

Your own lack of education is blindingly obvious. If you'd had to do anything intellectually demanding you'd at least be able to construct less repetitive and more entertaining abuse.

Any software must be compatibile with operating system.

Programming involves over-writing

Sorry, trash, you definitely don't know what you're talking about.

, and that's not an option available to human

Sorry, trash, that's not your domain. It's mine. You're just an arrogant, ignorant idiot imagining to be an authority in a subject he has no clue.

And I don't have any kind of direct access to memories of computers I'm programming.

or our

Doesn't really matter. I'm not writing my programs in machine code, I'm writing them in C++, python, sql. Their logic is inside the text itself, they will work the same way on any hardware able to compile or interprete. And so is our logic.

, and some of them have access to magnetic

You've demonstrated it many times by snipping this question. So did your fellow idiots.

That's your impression. Wrong.

It managed. As said, what science is doing is complicated and you're dumb. Training you was not a slightest challenge.

Sure it is. All you have to see it is - to see I'm criticizing your beloved S*it. That's how you were trained.

Fabless semiconductor outfits don't make chips. They create the design and send it off to a real fab to be turned into a chip, in much the same way that regular electronics firms don't make printed circuit boards but rather create the design on a computer and e-mail the files encoding the design off to a printed circuit shop who turn the files into a optical image on photoresist, develop the image, etch away the undesired copper. stack the layers into a board, plate up the vias and send you the board. For a bit more money you can get them to load the components onto the board and send you the loaded board. I doubt if they will test it for you.

The chips that get made are just regular chips and you can put them onto any board you want to.

Barrel shifters were around thirty years ago. They got a lot more practical when you could program them into a big FPGA.

Putting multiple layers of conductors onto the surface of a chip may make them 3-Dish, but no more 3-D than a multilayer printed circuit board.

I've only got three patents, and one of them was for a trick that struck me as obvious until I'd had to explain why it was obvious to a series of people who should have been skilled in the art. I put in a patent query so I didn't to repeat the explanation, and was a bit surprised when a patent was applied for and granted.

Resistors, inductors and capacitors are never ideal.

Resistors always have series inductance (which very rarely matters), and parallel capacitance which has mattered from time to time. 0.5pF isn't much, but it can matter.

Capacitors all have an equivalent series resistance and inductance, and I've definitely had to cope with "charge soak" in some capacitors, which gets modelled as bit of extra capacitance in series with a very large resistor, and is probably air bubble getting squeezed by the electrical charge difference between layers.

Inductor are very rarely ideal. They always have series resistance and parallel capacitance, and data sheets most give the series resonant frequency, where the inductance resonates with the parallel capacitance.

John Larkin drives me nuts by posting LTSpice circuit simulations where the inductors haven't been given a realistic parallel capacitance.

There are components that are close to ideal over a limited range of current or voltage. You can buy constant current diodes, but you have to be careful how you use them and zener/avalanche diode offer about the same voltage drop over a range of reverse currents.

Voltage references can offer a very stable voltage if you drive them with with a pretty stable current.

Anything more complicated is always something of a mine-field. Good designers know how to design around the non-idealities, but it is an art.

It's also not science fiction as you claim to be...

Using refined tools and long series of experiments, Anton Zeilinger started to use entangled quantum states. Among other things, his research group has demonstrated a phenomenon called quantum teleportation, which makes it possible to move a quantum state from one particle to one at a distance.

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their pioneering work on quantum entanglement, which laid the foundation for the field of quantum information science, including quantum teleportation.

and that 'blackboard' is Albert Einstein's promotion for...teleportation.

https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/2033817198998000030/photo/1

'beam me up, Scotty.'

i notice you have a Scottish accent...

are you slow?

It's obviously a personal opinion. It has equally clearly been used by people who want their neighbours to live in harmony, but religions doesn't seem to be able to ensure that their supporting organisations are reliably well-behaved.

Claiming that God does not exist is as non-falsifiable as claiming that he/she/it does exist.

Agnosticism is the only respectable option.