Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240077 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-25 14:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2014-04-28 13:21 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-25 14:41 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 07:55 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 09:25 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 08:40 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 16:03 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-04-25 14:21 +0000
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-25 11:41 -0600
"Hadron" basically admits Windows is "lowest common denominator" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 09:24 -0400
Re: "Hadron" basically admits Windows is "lowest common denominator" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 08:39 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 10:13 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:19 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 10:31 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:34 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 12:31 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 17:04 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-25 17:44 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:33 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 08:00 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-30 09:12 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:05 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 14:07 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 14:22 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 23:57 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 16:01 +0200
The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 10:24 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-28 10:54 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 10:08 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 18:12 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 18:26 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:02 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 18:32 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 18:44 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:09 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 18:47 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 12:53 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 19:10 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 20:00 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:11 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:32 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:46 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:28 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 07:58 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:11 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 14:12 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 13:04 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:19 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:03 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:17 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 19:21 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 12:06 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 11:53 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 19:57 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 01:08 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-26 10:48 +0100
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 08:24 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-27 17:39 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 14:41 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 15:53 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 13:21 -0400
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <87bnvlpegk.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #240655 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> writes: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >>> >>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>> answer. >>> >>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >> >> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. Too much of ANYTHING breaks things, For crying out loud. Do we have to go back to 1+1 == 2? For crying out loud. >> Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more >> amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) >> >> You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you >> were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) I was. I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s but even then negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. >> >> You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about >> linux. I know more about Linux than you Kohlkopf. As I have repeatedly shown. >> Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about >> linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you >> are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that > > Yup. > > And Ian is absolutely right in attempt to clarify terms and meanings, and to > explain how there is more than one goal being effected by choosing the type > of feedback. He clarified nothing. What he DID do was, in a mealy mouthed, way show turd to be a frothing idiot. But he had to cover that up with "only half an answer". > >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick > > Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? Its probably the sound of you slurping pee pees you little weenie. Negative feedback IS USED TO STABLISE SYSTEMS END OF STORY. It is used for other things too including noise reduction. turd was wrong and you're too much of a simpering little tit to admit it. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm501$qjm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240662 |
The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: > Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> writes: > >> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >>> >>>> >>>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>>> answer. >>>> >>>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >>> >>> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. > > Too much of ANYTHING breaks things, For crying out loud. Oh, the Hadron cop out > Do we have to go back to 1+1 == 2? For crying out loud. It was claimed that negative feedback will make an amp more stable. It does, but only to a certain point. The claim is too general, because it does not mention the fact that it can make the circuit really unstable too > >>> Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more >>> amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and >>> distortion) >>> >>> You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, >>> you were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) > > I was. And you were fired because you were too damn incompetent to sweep the parking lots. If they even allowed you anywhere near those > I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s You have nothing of that kind > but even then > negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. Negative feedback is usually the easy way out. By far not the best. It is a cheap solution. It is better to use a good design, good components and then apply feedback sparingly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ft5tl9h6e5sf1ageb2tpj46auofjnbuji9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240682 |
> The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >> I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s Don't you wish that you were not a shameless, documented liar, so that someone might believe you, shithead? >> but even then negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. Not to "provide stability", you ignorant asshole. Why don't you just STFU when you don't know what you're talking about, Quack? You won't find me spouting-off in the technical areas of software design. Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and intellectual superiors, truth be damned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <357tl9hb05vo967cc4hgddm1l2v06vhjtu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
chrisv wrote: >> The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >>> >>> I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s > >Don't you wish that you were not a shameless, documented liar, so that >someone might believe you, shithead? Anyone who has been educated as an engineer (and is not a complete lying piece of shit) would, at least, be sympathetic to my points. They would not ridicule me, when I am technically correct. My correction of Flathead's (incorrect) statements was correct. The issue was not about setting gain, so that (tenuous) angle cannot be relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <458tl9houb7nenqat94rfkdcdp75e973q9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
chrisv wrote: >Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and >intellectual superiors, truth be damned. You, and your filthy friend, the "instant Google expert" Ezekreep. Is that bald-faced lying Kreep still twisting my words into "negative feedback reduces the stability of an amplifier" to attack me? Why use my actual words, when they can be "interpreted" into something not correct, right? So "honest" of the Kreep. At least you like him, eh, Quack?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 19:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljpcj7$6sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
On 04/28/2014 02:11 PM, chrisv wrote: > Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and > intellectual superiors, truth be damned. turd, you're intellectually superior to Dumb Willie, but that's about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-30 07:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ap2er0oy54tw$.1p04yt4xo3p2$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #240835 |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:28:34 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 04/28/2014 02:11 PM, chrisv wrote: > >> Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and >> intellectual superiors, truth be damned. > > > turd, you're intellectually superior to Dumb Willie, but that's about it. So is 7, and that ain't saying much either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <rr2tl9tspvc2q427pqfuj0b2eid0mtk1lk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240655 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick > > Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? The Quack asshole has real "issues" with anyone who is better- educated and/or more experienced than he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 14:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm5ls$vh8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240665 |
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >>>> pretentious dick >>>> pretentious dick >>>> pretentious dick >>>> pretentious dick >> >> Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? > > The Quack asshole has real "issues" with anyone who is better- > educated and/or more experienced than he is. He hate everyone? -- We have the flu. I don't know if this particular strain has an official name, but if it does, it must be something like "Martian Death Flu". You may have had it yourself. The main symptom is that you wish you had another setting on your electric blanket, up past "HIGH", that said "ELECTROCUTION". Another symptom is that you cease brushing your teeth, because (a) your teeth hurt, and (b) you lack the strength. Midway through the brushing process, you'd have to lie down in front of the sink to rest for a couple of hours, and rivulets of toothpaste foam would dribble sideways out of your mouth, eventually hardening into crusty little toothpaste stalagmites that would bond your head permanently to the bathroom floor, which is how the police would find you. You know the kind of flu I'm talking about. -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm1no$uo1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240654 |
On 2014-04-28 12:47 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about linux. > Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about > linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you > are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that LOL @ the slightly demented cow part. -- Silver Slimer Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter 163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 11:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <5_qdnSFQS_IEEMPOnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #240659 |
On 4/28/2014 11:04 AM, Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2014-04-28 12:47 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about >> linux. >> Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do >> about >> linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and >> because you >> are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that > > LOL @ the slightly demented cow part. > Heh. OT, I heard a funny senior joke today: An old man was at the local Senior center, and the host was giving oration on safety and fire drills. He asked what steps should be taken in case of a fire. The old man said "Big fucking ones..." which obviously wasn't the correct answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <nc2tl9lk9blm3q15oah0gcngi7n7t1fnhh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240654 |
> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. Indeed, I would say that Ian was being overly generous, Quack. *Everything* I've said on this issue has been correct, you *fscking* asshole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 11:17 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <5_qdnSZQS_KwEMPOnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #240654 |
On 4/28/2014 10:47 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: > >> >>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>> answer. >> >> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. > > It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. Unless of course you are wanting unity gain for the purposes of current drive. A small resistor from output to input usually accomplishes this. Today most of this is done with Op amps anyway. I've seen a wire attached to the output to input to achieve unity gain on certain types of op amps. > Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more > amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) > > You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you > were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) > > You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about linux. > Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about > linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you > are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <877g69pdz0.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #240667 |
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes: > On 4/28/2014 10:47 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >>> >>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>> answer. >>> >>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >> >> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. > > Unless of course you are wanting unity gain for the purposes of current > drive. A small resistor from output to input usually accomplishes this. > Today most of this is done with Op amps anyway. I've seen a wire > attached to the output to input to achieve unity gain on certain types > of op amps. None of which alters the FACT that negative feedback IS USED TO STABILISE SYSTEMS. All sorts of systems. Of course if it was configured by an idiot (ie Peter Koehlmann) it would probably blow up the system too..... That wanker Kohlmann is blowing hot air about something he also knows nothing about. The bottom line is that turdv denied NF systems maintain stability. He is an idiot and needs flushing. Quote below : -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:06 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <LM2dnRXQbtpUBcPOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #240670 |
On 4/28/2014 11:21 AM, Hadron wrote: > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes: > >> On 4/28/2014 10:47 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >>> >>>> >>>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>>> answer. >>>> >>>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >>> >>> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. >> >> Unless of course you are wanting unity gain for the purposes of current >> drive. A small resistor from output to input usually accomplishes this. >> Today most of this is done with Op amps anyway. I've seen a wire >> attached to the output to input to achieve unity gain on certain types >> of op amps. > > None of which alters the FACT that negative feedback IS USED TO > STABILISE SYSTEMS. All sorts of systems. Of course if it was configured > by an idiot (ie Peter Koehlmann) it would probably blow up the system > too..... > The problem here is what frequency are we talking about? Is it a UHF amp, Microwave amp, audio amp? As the frequency goes up, new problems arise and a different engineering discipline is needed. Today, you just buy the chip that does the job plus the data sheet that comes with it. > That wanker Kohlmann is blowing hot air about something he also knows > nothing about. > > The bottom line is that turdv denied NF systems maintain stability. > > He is an idiot and needs flushing. > > Quote below : >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 11:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <6pvsl9h70av5tv7ji33mhpsb4htc3k56er@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240645 |
Ian Hilliard wrote: > chrisv wrote: >> >> Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is >> added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" >> and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative >> feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. > >Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. I would say it's flat-out wrong, considering the context. The fact that the amount of negative feedback can be used to set the circuit's gain (and thus make the gain unsusceptible to variations in the amplifier's open-loop gain) does not mean it is "stable". Consider the context: >> Flathead wrote: >>> >>> Negative feedback is added into the amplifier circuitry in order >>> to maintain stability. >>> Too much and you will hear it. >>> Not enough and the amp will go unstable. There's a couple of flat-out wrong statements in there. Certainly, the last one is indefensible, in the context of audio amplifiers. The first one is also wrong under the technical definition of "stability" (it does *not* mean having "stable gain", despite Googled examples of people misusing it that way). >Negative >feedback reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and >compensates for distortion by cancelling out some of the input signal. One of the "many benefits" that I alluded-to is reducing distortion, yes. >If an amplifier circuit through design or implementation problems has >end to end positive feedback, it can become unstable without negative >feedback. Of course, no one has claimed that the _only_ thing that can make an amplifier unstable is (too much) negative feedback (in an amplifier that is not unconditionally stable). >Negative feedback can only have a moderating effect if there is positive >feedback in intermediate circuits within the amplifier chain. Under >these circumstances it is not uncommon for the instability to move >outside of the normal operating range. In audio amplifiers, this usually >then manifests itself as distortion, because the amplifier is being >fully driven producing RF. High-frequency oscillation. Yes, and the more negative feedback, the greater the risk of it occurring. My point all-along. >Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an answer. It's half an answer if one generously accepts the lay person's "stabilization of gain" point. I might be inclined to such generosity, were I not under attack by vicious assholes bent on attacking me (the guy with the BSEE) as "clueless" and a "liar" regarding my education. >The problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the answer. Like I said, they are not here to learn. They are here to attack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ljmntn$7jo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240107 |
On 4/25/2014 11:44 AM, Ian Hilliard wrote: > There is a lot of cross platform development around, the problem is that > the evangelists at Redmond don't want you knowing about it. Have a look at: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958 > > --- Quote --- > > Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto > standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes > to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of > the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" > analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning > the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should > write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate > stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the > new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic > sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). > "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their > early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage > should be sought and turned to our advantage. > > --- End Quote --- That's nothing compared to various lowlifes in the Linux "community": Fraud 7: "Appile should be actively barred from all schools" http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7cbc23034609637f?hl=en&dmode=source Marti: "Non-Free proprietary applications should not be included in *any* GNU/Linux distribution by default." http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b50fa67489ff74a9?hl=en&dmode=source "The government has had a history of desiring more than one source for their systems and Windows shouldn't be a choice." #22 at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=43629.0 mlw: "It has to be Linux or BSD....or something, just get rid of Windows. It doesn't matter, Mac, BSD, or Linux, geez, ANYTHING but Windows!" http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bd7ba1c950da917b?hl=en&dmode=source "windows shouldn't be a choice for anyone mang" http://www.irclog.org/freenode/suse/2006-06-19/page4.html "I'm a Unix/Linux guy... MS Windows should not be allowed in a business environment." http://www.thegearpage.net/board//showpost.php?p=15072408&postcount=8 "Microsoft should not be allowed to bake Windows into silicon and CMOS (or equivalents)." http://techrights.org/2013/03/12/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it/ Such proponents of "freedom and choice"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ljmptv$hur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240744 |
On 2014-04-28 7:23 PM, DFS wrote: > That's nothing compared to various lowlifes in the Linux "community": > > Fraud 7: "Appile should be actively barred from all schools" > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7cbc23034609637f?hl=en&dmode=source I don't entirely disagree with it. Schools would benefit from having students use free software in lieu of proprietary solutions. Not only would it allow the more curious users to take a look at the code but it would also allow users who want to continue using some of the software to do so at home, free of charge. Schools have an objective of integrating all students of all social statuses and incomes and free software allows that. Apple products do not cater to the poor at all and definitely limit how far a curious user can go when it comes to discovering the software. > Marti: "Non-Free proprietary applications should not be included in > *any* GNU/Linux distribution by default." > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b50fa67489ff74a9?hl=en&dmode=source It's not a bad idea and many distributions exclude proprietary software for legal or philosophical reasons. However, these proprietary solutions should be EASILY available to the user if he chooses to install them rather than completely barred the way Stallman advocates. > Such proponents of "freedom and choice"... Ah, point well made. -- Silver Slimer Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter 163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 01:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k3I6v.128600$Fj3.5571@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #240077 |
On 04/25/2014 07:00 AM, Hadron wrote: > Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes: > >> On 24/04/14 13:20, Hadron wrote: >>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 04/23/2014 10:22 AM, Ian Hilliard wrote: >>>>> It appears that some people have too much time on their hands. I guess >>>>> that unemployment is a bitch. So, here is a very useful link, which >>>>> should help them to become useful members of society. >>>>> >>>>> http://opensource.com/business/14/4/open-source-job-skills?sc_cid=70160000000cVxvAAE&elq=7dd4d12255494fd8bd1b3ae1c8adf9a8&elqCampaignId=19318 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>> >>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 >>>> Thunderbird/24.4.0 >>>> >>>> It's MCSE. And I see you're not posting from your Windows job. >>>> >>>> Good one, Bighead! >>>> >>>> "All the code that my teams produce is tested on a number of different >>>> platforms, using a number of different tools, on a number of different >>>> processors to detect any errors. The actual end platform is then >>>> selected based on a series of tests." >>>> >>>> LMAO! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yup. The "legend" actually pics the deployment platform AFTER design, >>> implementation, testing and, probably, user acceptance tests. What an >>> idiot Hilliard is. >>> >> >> I love how you Microsoft True Believers love to display your ignorance in >> public. In the world of true software engineering, platform is not a >> requirement. It is a dependent variable. > > Total and utter fucking nonsense for so many reasons I wont go into > it. It might be so for your dancing penguin applet. > > Yes, yes languages like Java and the platform independent UIs like Swing > etc do make real cross platform a sometimes viable offing however > generally you are then programming to the lowest common denominator > BEFORE we even start to talk about user training, infrastructure and > support. > > Someone would have to be asshole of the highest order, and that would be > you Hilliard, to design, implement and test only on Linux, for example, > when your target is... not surprisingly, the Windows desktop. > > And I can assure you that users do NOT like generic kludgy swing type > UIs. They want something responsive and native. > > You really are a fuckwit. > > next thing : I dont believe in MS. I use Debian. Did you end your diatribe by admitting to being an "asshole of the highest order?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 10:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <80cs2b-cu5.ln1@myhost.linuxnetworkbeta.net> |
| In reply to | #240321 |
Nobody wrote: > On 04/25/2014 07:00 AM, Hadron wrote: >> Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes: >> >>> On 24/04/14 13:20, Hadron wrote: >>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 04/23/2014 10:22 AM, Ian Hilliard wrote: >>>>>> It appears that some people have too much time on their hands. I guess >>>>>> that unemployment is a bitch. So, here is a very useful link, which >>>>>> should help them to become useful members of society. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://opensource.com/business/14/4/open-source-job-skills?sc_cid=70160000000cVxvAAE&elq=7dd4d12255494fd8bd1b3ae1c8adf9a8&elqCampaignId=19318 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 >>>>> Thunderbird/24.4.0 >>>>> >>>>> It's MCSE. And I see you're not posting from your Windows job. >>>>> >>>>> Good one, Bighead! >>>>> >>>>> "All the code that my teams produce is tested on a number of different >>>>> platforms, using a number of different tools, on a number of different >>>>> processors to detect any errors. The actual end platform is then >>>>> selected based on a series of tests." >>>>> >>>>> LMAO! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yup. The "legend" actually pics the deployment platform AFTER design, >>>> implementation, testing and, probably, user acceptance tests. What an >>>> idiot Hilliard is. >>>> >>> >>> I love how you Microsoft True Believers love to display your ignorance in >>> public. In the world of true software engineering, platform is not a >>> requirement. It is a dependent variable. >> >> Total and utter fucking nonsense for so many reasons I wont go into >> it. It might be so for your dancing penguin applet. >> >> Yes, yes languages like Java and the platform independent UIs like Swing >> etc do make real cross platform a sometimes viable offing however >> generally you are then programming to the lowest common denominator >> BEFORE we even start to talk about user training, infrastructure and >> support. >> >> Someone would have to be asshole of the highest order, and that would be >> you Hilliard, to design, implement and test only on Linux, for example, >> when your target is... not surprisingly, the Windows desktop. >> >> And I can assure you that users do NOT like generic kludgy swing type >> UIs. They want something responsive and native. >> >> You really are a fuckwit. >> >> next thing : I dont believe in MS. I use Debian. > > Did you end your diatribe by admitting to being an "asshole of the > highest order?" Surely a "Lying Asshole of the Highest Order?" (LAHO for short) :-D "I'm a long term Windows user and programmer." From: Hadron <qadronhuark@googlemail.com> Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu "I have to update my Milestone from XP." Hadron - alt.os.linux.ubuntu Message-ID: <iapdfj$kv3$1@news.eternal-september.org> -- "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web