Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240077 > unrolled thread

Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA

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.

Contents

  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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#240115

Ian Hilliard wrote:

>It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no 
>cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the 
>former and not the latter, 

You *must* know, by now, that it's both.

>I will try to educate you.

Good luck to you.  Filth like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" aren't here to
learn.  They're here to attack.

-- 
"And as we know according to your fellow idiots Kelsey and JED... as
long as a file is plain text it's automatically compatible with all
other plain text files."  -  Ezekreep, lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240837

On 4/25/2014 12:01 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
>> It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no
>> cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the
>> former and not the latter,
>
> You *must* know, by now, that it's both.
>
>> I will try to educate you.
>
> Good luck to you.  Filth like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" aren't here to
> learn.  They're here to attack.


Is cola where you learned to be an unrepentant shitheel who lies and 
curses like a 3rd grader and makes bogus attacks based on your own 
stupidity?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240861

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:33:56 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 4/25/2014 12:01 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>
>>> It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no
>>> cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the
>>> former and not the latter,
>>
>> You *must* know, by now, that it's both.
>>
>>> I will try to educate you.
>>
>> Good luck to you.  Filth like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" aren't here to
>> learn.  They're here to attack.
> 
> 
> Is cola where you learned to be an unrepentant shitheel who lies and 
> curses like a 3rd grader and makes bogus attacks based on your own 
> stupidity?

But Chris Ahlstrom likes him.

<snicker>

-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240871

On 4/30/2014 8:00 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:33:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2014 12:01 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no
>>>> cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the
>>>> former and not the latter,
>>>
>>> You *must* know, by now, that it's both.
>>>
>>>> I will try to educate you.
>>>
>>> Good luck to you.  Filth like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" aren't here to
>>> learn.  They're here to attack.
>>
>>
>> Is cola where you learned to be an unrepentant shitheel who lies and
>> curses like a 3rd grader and makes bogus attacks based on your own
>> stupidity?
>
> But Chris Ahlstrom likes him.
>
> <snicker>


ha!  That he does.

Creepy claims the following were "truths":

> chrisv: What a piece of shit liar you are, "Ezekiel".
> chrisv: You're a piece of shit, "Ezekiel".
> chrisv: You sure are a shitty and transparent liar, "Ezekiel".
> chrisv: lying fsckwit Ezekiel
> chrisv: Hey Ezekiel, you stupid piece of shit.
> chrisv: What you can expect from lying assholes like "Ezekiel"
> chrisv: bald-faced liars like "Ezekiel"
> chrisv: Even his shitty pals, like "Ezekiel".
> chrisv: that POS hypocrite "Ezekiel"
> chrisv: Are you mentally retarded, cc?
> chrisv: Apple is slimey. As are you, "Lloyd".
> chrisv: "Ezekiel" is a piece of shit,
> chrisv: DumFSck
> chrisv: "Ezekiel" You shameless fscking liar.
> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You are a filthy liar.
> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
> chrisv: "Lloyd" is simply a lying piece of shit,
> chrisv: What transparent, idiotic, lying, immoral assholes, "Lloyd"
>         and "Ezekiel" are. What filth!
> chrisv: How fscking obtuse do you want to be, "Ezekiel", you piece of
>         shit?
> chrisv: The trolling jackass filth "Lloyd" displays his ignorance
>         again.
> chrisv: Sounds like you're a piece of shit who attacks people for no
>         reason, "GreyCloud".... you fscking asshole?
> chrisv: What a fscking asshole, you are, "GreyCloud".
> chrisv: "GreyCloud" you piece of shit
> chrisv: Having fun sucking-off that vile troll, "GreyCloud?
> chrisv: You're a piece of shit again "GreyCloud"
> chrisv: Poor "Ezekiel". You are a filthy liar, a dumbshit, and a
>         fscking asshole who makes a jackass of himself on a regular
>         basis.
> chrisv: fscking filth like Flatfish
> chrisv: "GreyCloud" You piece of shit.
> chrisv: "Ezekiel" you stupid piece of shit?


chrisv is a raging kindergartener.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240878

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:12:45 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 4/30/2014 8:00 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:33:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2014 12:01 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no
>>>>> cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the
>>>>> former and not the latter,
>>>>
>>>> You *must* know, by now, that it's both.
>>>>
>>>>> I will try to educate you.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck to you.  Filth like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" aren't here to
>>>> learn.  They're here to attack.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is cola where you learned to be an unrepentant shitheel who lies and
>>> curses like a 3rd grader and makes bogus attacks based on your own
>>> stupidity?
>>
>> But Chris Ahlstrom likes him.
>>
>> <snicker>
> 
> 
> ha!  That he does.
> 
> Creepy claims the following were "truths":
> 
>> chrisv: What a piece of shit liar you are, "Ezekiel".
>> chrisv: You're a piece of shit, "Ezekiel".
>> chrisv: You sure are a shitty and transparent liar, "Ezekiel".
>> chrisv: lying fsckwit Ezekiel
>> chrisv: Hey Ezekiel, you stupid piece of shit.
>> chrisv: What you can expect from lying assholes like "Ezekiel"
>> chrisv: bald-faced liars like "Ezekiel"
>> chrisv: Even his shitty pals, like "Ezekiel".
>> chrisv: that POS hypocrite "Ezekiel"
>> chrisv: Are you mentally retarded, cc?
>> chrisv: Apple is slimey. As are you, "Lloyd".
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel" is a piece of shit,
>> chrisv: DumFSck
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel" You shameless fscking liar.
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You are a filthy liar.
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel", You shameless fscking liar.
>> chrisv: "Lloyd" is simply a lying piece of shit,
>> chrisv: What transparent, idiotic, lying, immoral assholes, "Lloyd"
>>         and "Ezekiel" are. What filth!
>> chrisv: How fscking obtuse do you want to be, "Ezekiel", you piece of
>>         shit?
>> chrisv: The trolling jackass filth "Lloyd" displays his ignorance
>>         again.
>> chrisv: Sounds like you're a piece of shit who attacks people for no
>>         reason, "GreyCloud".... you fscking asshole?
>> chrisv: What a fscking asshole, you are, "GreyCloud".
>> chrisv: "GreyCloud" you piece of shit
>> chrisv: Having fun sucking-off that vile troll, "GreyCloud?
>> chrisv: You're a piece of shit again "GreyCloud"
>> chrisv: Poor "Ezekiel". You are a filthy liar, a dumbshit, and a
>>         fscking asshole who makes a jackass of himself on a regular
>>         basis.
>> chrisv: fscking filth like Flatfish
>> chrisv: "GreyCloud" You piece of shit.
>> chrisv: "Ezekiel" you stupid piece of shit?
> 
> 
> chrisv is a raging kindergartener.

I still say he's a reverse troll pretending to be a Linux advocate
but really here to make Linux and Linux advocacy look bad.

It's really the only thing he does well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240140

Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>
>> I really am a fuckwit.

Message corrected.

> It is said that ignorance can be cured with education, but there is no 
> cure for stupidity. So, with the hope that you only suffer from the 
> former and not the latter, I will try to educate you.
>
> Most of the development that I manage is in C++. There are however a 
> large number of very good cross platform libraries to help with the 
> development. If the project uses a graphical front end, QT is a very 
> good place to start. Have a look at:
>
> http://qt-project.org/
>
> If your developers are experienced in using MFC, then the wxWidgets 
> library is a very good place to start. Have a look at:
>
> https://www.wxwidgets.org/
>
> For general programming, the Boost library is an excellent start. Parts 
> of the boost library are to be included in the next revision of the C++ 
> standard (r11). Have a look at:
>
> http://www.boost.org/
>
> For writing communications code and web servers from scratch the POCO 
> library provides a good solid basis. This is at:
>
> http://pocoproject.org
>
> The Apache foundation develop most of their software to be cross 
> platform. Have a look at:
>
> http://projects.apache.org

Some good links there.

> There is a lot of cross platform development around, the problem is that 
> the evangelists at Redmond don't want you knowing about it.

Well, I doubt "Hadron" lives in Redmond.  :-)

-- 
He has shown you, o man, what is good.  And what does the Lord ask of you,
but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly before your God?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240143

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I really am a fuckwit.
> 
> Message corrected.

Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240173

flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really am a fuckwit.
>> 
>> Message corrected.
>
> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom?

Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design,
implementation and testing before selecting a platform....

What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days.

-- 
"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]

#240630

On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote:
> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I really am a fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Message corrected.
>>
>> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom?
>
> Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design,
> implementation and testing before selecting a platform....
>
> What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days.
>

If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and 
implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple 
platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the 
preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is 
suitable. It is really quite simple.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240631 — The low road versus the high road

Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote:
>> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I really am a fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> Message corrected.
>>>
>>> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom?

LOL.  Rich irony from Flounder.

>> Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design,
>> implementation and testing before selecting a platform....
>>
>> What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days.

<chuckle>  (Rhymes with "knuckle").

> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and 
> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple 
> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the 
> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is 
> suitable. It is really quite simple.

Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
you do, Ian.  :-D

-- 
echo "Hmmm...you don't have Berkeley networking in libc.a..."
echo "but the Wollongong group seems to have hacked it in."
		-- Larry Wall in Configure from the perl distribution

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240633 — Re: The low road versus the high road

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:24:11 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really am a fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message corrected.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom?
> 
> LOL.  Rich irony from Flounder.
> 
>>> Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design,
>>> implementation and testing before selecting a platform....
>>>
>>> What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days.
> 
> <chuckle>  (Rhymes with "knuckle").
> 
>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and 
>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple 
>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the 
>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is 
>> suitable. It is really quite simple.
> 
> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
> you do, Ian.  :-D

You growing up, my comment, has nothing to do with what Ian doesn't
know about engineering, Chris Ahlstrom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240635 — Re: The low road versus the high road

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and 
>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple 
>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the 
>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is 
>> suitable. It is really quite simple.
>
>Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
>you do, Ian.  :-D

LOL.  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.

Of course, rather than taking the opportunity to learn from an expert,
the shitty trolls went on the attack, claiming that "everyone knows"
that negative feedback "stabilizes" the amplifier, and I could not
possibly be an engineer for claiming otherwise.  Failing to understand
what they Googled-up on the subject, their "instant Google expertise"
failed them mightily.

Ignorant assholes.

-- 
"Negative feedback has many benefits, but 'maintaining stability' is
not one of them.  Just the opposite, in fact.  The more negative
feedback there is, the greater the chance of *instability*."  -
chrisv, 100% correct (and proven so).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240645 — Re: The low road versus the high road

On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and
>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple
>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the
>>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is
>>> suitable. It is really quite simple.
>>
>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
>> you do, Ian.  :-D
>
> LOL.  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. Negative 
feedback reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and 
compensates for distortion by cancelling out some of the input signal. 
If an amplifier circuit through design or implementation problems has 
end to end positive feedback, it can become unstable without negative 
feedback.

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.

Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an answer. 
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.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240650 — Re: The low road versus the high road

Ian Hilliard wrote:

> On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and
>>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple
>>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but
>>>> the preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it
>>>> is suitable. It is really quite simple.
>>>
>>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
>>> you do, Ian.  :-D
>>
>> LOL.  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. Negative
> feedback reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and
> compensates for distortion by cancelling out some of the input signal.
> If an amplifier circuit through design or implementation problems has
> end to end positive feedback, it can become unstable without negative
> feedback.

It can also become unstable with too much negative feedback.
But it has to be way overdone to get it unstable.

It trades gain (as you have written) for better linearity and less 
distortion, as all amplifying stages are not really linear

< snip > 

> Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an answer.

It is, but to say that positive feedback stabilises the amp is even less of 
an answer, it gets quickly to the point where the amp starts oscillating.
In any given amp you will likely find both forms

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240660 — Re: The low road versus the high road

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>It can also become unstable with too much negative feedback.
>But it has to be way overdone to get it unstable.

I would not say that it has to be way overdone.  It is common to find
circuits that fead-back even 100% of the signal.  If someone hasn't
done the engineering to ensure that the circuit is stable under those
conditions...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240651 — Re: The low road versus the high road

Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes:

> On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and
>>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple
>>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the
>>>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is
>>>> suitable. It is really quite simple.
>>>
>>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
>>> you do, Ian.  :-D
>>
>> LOL.  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.

You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback
loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability and also to
provide noise reduction.

>
> Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative feedback
> reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and compensates for distortion
> by cancelling out some of the input signal. If an amplifier circuit
> through

Wrong. It doesnt "cancel out the input signal" whatsoever : it or a
directly attenuated multiple/fraction of it is subtracted from the
input. This is in no way cancelling anything - rather
modifying. consider a +/- sine wave sitting on top of a 5 v "carrier" or
bias. The negative feeback might only remove the carrier/bias or a portion of
it - the actual signal component modulated onto the carrier is in no way
affected.

> design or implementation problems has end to end positive feedback, it can
> become unstable without negative feedback.

You're being too nice. turdv is a fucking idiot that denied negative
feedback is used to stabilise systems. "Just the opposite in fact" is
his quote.

>
> 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.

*garble* No surprise there.

>
> Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an
> answer. The

Of course but IT IS an answer as to why its used in most places.

> 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. The fact that it "might be used for
something else" is immaterial.


>
> Ian
>

-- 
"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]

#240653 — Re: The low road versus the high road

On 28/04/14 18:32, Hadron wrote:
> Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes:
>
>> On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and
>>>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple
>>>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the
>>>>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is
>>>>> suitable. It is really quite simple.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than
>>>> you do, Ian.  :-D
>>>
>>> LOL.  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.
>
> You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback
> loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability and also to
> provide noise reduction.
>

Negative feedback increases noise, because it feeds output noise back 
into the input. There is no cancellation of noise, because it is random.

>>
>> Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative feedback
>> reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and compensates for distortion
>> by cancelling out some of the input signal. If an amplifier circuit
>> through
>
> Wrong. It doesnt "cancel out the input signal" whatsoever : it or a
> directly attenuated multiple/fraction of it is subtracted from the
> input. This is in no way cancelling anything - rather
> modifying. consider a +/- sine wave sitting on top of a 5 v "carrier" or
> bias. The negative feeback might only remove the carrier/bias or a portion of
> it - the actual signal component modulated onto the carrier is in no way
> affected.
>

Wrong, some of the output is fed in counter phase back to the input to 
cancel some of the input signal. Learn some electronics, before spouting 
off.

>> design or implementation problems has end to end positive feedback, it can
>> become unstable without negative feedback.
>
> You're being too nice. turdv is a fucking idiot that denied negative
> feedback is used to stabilise systems. "Just the opposite in fact" is
> his quote.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> *garble* No surprise there.
>
>>
>> Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an
>> answer. The
>
> Of course but IT IS an answer as to why its used in most places.
>
>> 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. The fact that it "might be used for
> something else" is immaterial.
>

Negative feedback stabilises a system iff there is already positive 
feedback. It is the positive feedback that causes the instability. A 
well designed amplifier doesn't become unstable. The main reason for 
negative feedback is that it is a quick and dirty way to compensate for 
the non-linearity of the amplifier both in E & wt.

Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240664 — Re: The low road versus the high road

Ian Hilliard wrote:

> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback
>> loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability 

No, they are *not*.  "Setting the gain" is *not* "providing
stability".  They are *different things*.

>> and also to provide noise reduction.
>
> There is no cancellation of noise, because it is random.

Quack is *such* an *ignorant* asshole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240654 — Re: The low road versus the high road

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. 
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]

#240655 — Re: The low road versus the high road

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. 
> 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

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.

>> pretentious dick
>> pretentious dick
>> pretentious dick
>> pretentious dick

Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping?

-- 
BOFH excuse #227:
 
Fatal error right in front of screen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web