Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #739941
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: good post on LinkedIn |
| Date | 2026-01-31 16:25 +1100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10lk3oo$2kic9$6@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <1rpr404.iw4vr1dacqtvN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> <10lii4e$26717$1@dont-email.me> <30lpnkp9erjgkk0hr8lrbt3kjikbhjnqnn@4ax.com> <10linik$28gp2$1@dont-email.me> <2v9qnkh3kdj1b0seonq6g1vsduq2i94ra9@4ax.com> |
On 31/01/2026 8:53 am, john larkin wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:51:16 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 31/01/2026 3:04 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 02:18:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31/01/2026 12:43 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote: >>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 30/01/2026 9:15 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote: >>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> The only electronics I did as a kid was to build a completely passive >>>>>>>> crystal set >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we may quote that in replies to some of your future posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> It didn't include any parts with gain, or any power source. What's your >>>>>> preferred description of the classic crystal set? >>>>> >>>>> The part that caught my eye was: " The only electronics I did as a kid". >>>>> Many of us spent our childhood teaching ourselves electronics - so we >>>>> may remind you of this difference next time you start making disparaging >>>>> remarks about other engineers' knowledge and abilities. >>>> >>>> John Larkin seems to think it gives you some kind of advantage. >>> >>> Of course it does. As there is a huge advantage to learning chess or >>> math or languages or soccer when you are young. Actually doing stuff >>> involves practical feedbacks and acquired instincts. >> >> Instincts are what you were born with. What you get from doing stuff is >> habits. >> >> Learning stuff too early can instill bad habits, and they are hard to >> unlearn. >> >> Languages aren't learned any faster if you learn them young, and some >> aspects of language can't be learned at all by very young kids. >> >>> University education seldom installs much in the way of instincts >>> either. It's too rigid and formalized, and too late. >> >> Since instincts are what you get with your genome, universities can't >> install them at all. >> >> Formal instruction at university is formal. It's mostly accompanied by >> practical classes, which are a lot less rigid. >> >> The complicated stuff that most people learn at university mostly can't >> be instilled into adolescents - some rare kids can learn it early, but >> they tend to be exceptionally clever and need exceptional power of >> concentration. About 30% of the undergraduate intake doesn't ever get >> any kid of degree, and probably shouldn't have started at all. >> >>>> If you taught yourself when you were a kid, you didn't have a >>>> well-qualified teacher. >>> >>> A mentor with instincts is great if you are lucky enough to have one. >> >> Instincts come from the genome. What good mentors have is experience, >> and some understanding of what that experience has taught them. >> >> Electronics has advanced a lot over the past fifty years, and mentors >> are correspondingly less useful as teachers. >>>> At least when I got into it, I did have a >>>> university library and book-shop to draw on and did get some advice from >>>> people who really knew what they were doing. >>> >>> Obviously too late. >> >> What's obvious to you is what you want to see. Trump is even more deeply >> into wishful thinking than you are. >> >>>> I learned a lot when I started doing electronic engineering as my main >>>> job, and had some really skilled teachers and examplars, as a well as >>>> lot of colleagues who merely thought that they knew what they were >>>> doing, and earned a few disparaging remarks. A few disparaging remarks >>>> got published as comments in the Review of Scientific Instruments. >>> >>> I sometimes read RSI when it's available. The circuits are hilarious. >> >> They tend to be functional, rather than elegant, and not always all that >> up-to-date. I once got very rude about a paper lauding the use of 1Ok >> ECL which got published after ECLinPs had been around for a few years. >> >> 10k ECL was about four times faster than TTL/CMOS, but ECinPS was four >> times faster again. The same paper described a ripple carry counter >> where the carry propagation wasn't fast enough to match the maximum >> count rate claimed. No mention at all of a synchronous counter. >> >> It was a particularly horrible example, quite the worst I've ever seen. > > A true ripple counter is as fast as its first flop. Rubbish. The state of the outputs of a multistage ripple counter isn't useful until the increment has rippled through every stage. I once set up a system that prevented the system from latching the outputs until a 4usec retriggerable monostable triggered by an incoming count had timed out. It was useful in the application, but I didn't like it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-29 14:26 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 09:04 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-29 17:57 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 10:59 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 00:48 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-29 17:01 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 01:28 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-30 15:14 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 11:52 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 16:05 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 12:34 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:29 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 20:59 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-01 03:06 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-02 00:17 +1100
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-31 23:21 +0000
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 16:22 -0800
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-02-01 02:13 +0000
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-31 19:31 -0700
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-02-01 21:58 +0100
Re: Excel and accountants, good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-02-01 14:36 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 03:56 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 15:23 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 14:36 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 21:31 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-30 14:59 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-01-30 10:15 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 00:06 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-01-30 13:43 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 02:18 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 08:04 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 03:51 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 09:46 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 20:00 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-01-30 22:49 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-30 22:52 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 16:02 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 13:33 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 01:31 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 19:16 +0000
Re: history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-31 23:10 +0000
Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 23:25 +0000
Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-02-01 02:43 +0000
Re: Sorry re history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn OrangeFish <OrangeFish@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-01 18:00 -0500
Re: history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-02-01 22:11 +0100
Re: history of Fortran, good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-02-01 14:42 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 21:36 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 15:53 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 16:14 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-01-31 11:21 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:34 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-01-31 21:42 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 13:36 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 21:57 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-01 03:10 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-02 00:37 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-01 07:36 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-03 16:27 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-02-01 22:21 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-01-31 09:00 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 15:45 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 14:26 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 13:53 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-01-31 16:25 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:41 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-01-31 17:33 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 10:07 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-31 11:26 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-01 22:04 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-02-01 07:38 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-02-03 16:37 +1100
Re: good post on LinkedIn Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2026-01-30 15:06 +0100
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 11:55 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2026-01-30 11:27 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 18:54 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 23:26 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-01-31 09:22 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-31 02:50 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 04:36 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> - 2026-01-30 09:24 -0500
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 09:56 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 10:05 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> - 2026-01-30 14:22 -0500
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 19:09 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> - 2026-01-30 22:16 -0500
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 22:27 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 03:40 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-30 22:46 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 15:20 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-01-31 08:44 -0700
Re: good post on LinkedIn Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-01-31 17:13 +0000
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-31 07:55 -0800
Re: good post on LinkedIn john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-01-30 08:15 -0800
csiph-web