Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461231 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-22 03:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-05-31 17:53 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 140 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-22 03:02 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-22 03:51 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 08:26 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-22 21:23 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-23 14:07 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-23 12:00 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:48 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 17:55 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 11:48 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 12:39 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-28 16:02 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:46 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 12:43 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 21:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-23 03:36 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:02 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-23 21:07 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:50 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-22 06:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 08:21 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-23 00:07 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 21:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-25 18:03 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 14:41 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-26 09:07 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 08:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 10:08 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 10:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 12:15 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 12:29 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 13:41 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 16:21 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 19:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 19:09 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:58 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-27 06:13 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-27 05:51 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 12:11 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 13:25 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:57 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-27 21:14 +0100
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 07:50 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 04:55 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 17:57 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 19:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 20:15 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 08:04 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 04:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 06:29 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 14:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 09:34 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:44 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 09:49 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 10:58 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 12:07 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 13:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 13:06 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 12:26 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 13:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 13:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 13:49 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 14:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 16:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 18:41 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 00:36 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 05:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-29 07:50 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-30 07:44 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:33 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:25 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:32 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 15:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 18:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:04 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-31 10:11 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:27 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-31 10:39 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 08:31 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 22:34 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 15:50 +0100
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 22:38 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 21:36 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-31 16:01 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:46 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 21:56 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-31 05:01 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:03 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-31 07:09 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-31 14:23 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:30 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-31 14:21 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-05-31 17:00 +0200
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:40 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:49 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 15:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 15:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 08:03 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 15:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-30 23:27 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 12:33 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-26 10:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-27 06:10 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:53 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 08:06 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 16:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 09:37 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-31 13:50 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 12:12 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:53 -0400
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pcoticterlkfhh16fpibdm9vdtn86m37qf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462442 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:25:20 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:39:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>On 05/31/2017 10:27 AM, rickman wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> No one is saying there is no such thing as beauty. The point is that
>>> the definition of beauty depends on many factors. It is not an absolute.
>>
>>That's the error I'm talking about. Beauty is _not_ in the eye of the
>>beholder.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>
>But there is a radical range of variation between humans. Some people
>actually hate chocolate, some actually like cilantro. Some men like
>the bodies of slim women, some like ample ones, some don't care for
>either.
>
>Is this worth a hundred million dollars?
>
>https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/18/arts/18BASQUIAT/18BASQUIAT-master1050.jpg
>
>Lots of people thing that's high art.
Self portrait ?>:-}
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qfpticti6gfv46ecrf8ftqcmb8reaclana@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462443 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:31:24 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:25:20 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:39:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs >><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>>On 05/31/2017 10:27 AM, rickman wrote: > >[snip] >>>> >>>> No one is saying there is no such thing as beauty. The point is that >>>> the definition of beauty depends on many factors. It is not an absolute. >>> >>>That's the error I'm talking about. Beauty is _not_ in the eye of the >>>beholder. >>> >>>Cheers >>> >>>Phil Hobbs >> >>But there is a radical range of variation between humans. Some people >>actually hate chocolate, some actually like cilantro. Some men like >>the bodies of slim women, some like ample ones, some don't care for >>either. >> >>Is this worth a hundred million dollars? >> >>https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/18/arts/18BASQUIAT/18BASQUIAT-master1050.jpg >> >>Lots of people thing that's high art. > >Self portrait ?>:-} > > ...Jim Thompson Given that the "artist" is dead now, it's pretty realistic. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 22:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ognu9i$on5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462433 |
Phil Hobbs wrote on 5/31/2017 10:39 AM: > On 05/31/2017 10:27 AM, rickman wrote: >> Phil Hobbs wrote on 5/31/2017 10:11 AM: >>> On 05/30/2017 10:04 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> John Larkin wrote on 5/30/2017 9:53 PM: >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 17:33:09 -0700 (PDT), pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be best to include every mosfet property in every >>>>>>>>> schematic >>>>>>>>> symbol: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure--plus maybe a big zener to illustrate avalanche behaviour and >>>>>>>> a small tank of magic smoke. ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have to stop someplace--Big- and Little-Endians just disagree >>>>>>>> about exactly where. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>>> >>>>>>> Resistors have capacitances (several), inductance, tempcos, and >>>>>>> nonlinearity. Inductors have parasitics. We don't show any of that on >>>>>>> the schematic symbols. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When we design review a circuit, if we are not intimately familiar >>>>>>> with each part, we pull up the data sheet >>>>>> >>>>>> Circuit strays and nonlinearity are features of everything at some >>>>>> level. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no issue with how you folks do things. You make lots of good >>>>>> stuff, and you're happy with your process. >>>>>> >>>>>> I just think that a couple of small strokes of a pencil are a very >>>>>> small price to pay for a vast improvement in the representation of >>>>>> the physics of a fairly complex and very common part like a MOSFET. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>> >>>>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >>>>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. >>>>> >>>>> Schematics are art. >>>> >>>> Art has no absolutes. One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Art >>>> >>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/12668/one-mans-trash-another-mans-art >>>> >>>> https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297286/one-mans-trash-is-another-mans-art.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.sidandjim.com/one-man-s-art >>>> >>>> https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/photos/a.100797840666.101835.13652355666/10152057191590667/?type=3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The idea that there is no such thing as beauty--i.e. the Good as an >>> object of desire--is one of the philosophical errors that got us where >>> we are today. >> >> No one is saying there is no such thing as beauty. The point is that >> the definition of beauty depends on many factors. It is not an absolute. > > That's the error I'm talking about. Beauty is _not_ in the eye of the > beholder. So which eye defines beauty? Or is there an ASME spec? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ogml8j$t6e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462420 |
On 31/05/2017 15:11, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 05/30/2017 10:04 PM, rickman wrote: >> John Larkin wrote on 5/30/2017 9:53 PM: >>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. >>> >>> Schematics are art. >> >> Art has no absolutes. One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Art >> >> http://mentalfloss.com/article/12668/one-mans-trash-another-mans-art >> >> https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297286/one-mans-trash-is-another-mans-art.html >> >> >> http://www.sidandjim.com/one-man-s-art >> >> https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/photos/a.100797840666.101835.13652355666/10152057191590667/?type=3 > > The idea that there is no such thing as beauty--i.e. the Good as an > object of desire--is one of the philosophical errors that got us where > we are today. There are many variations on what is art and what isn't. Some of the conceptual modern art is literally utter rubbish and has been mistaken for trash - notably a used ashtray at Eyestorm Gallery if memory serves. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260 It's only value is in the brand name of the "creator", and the anticipated "appreciation" in market value that goes with it. Some of the other stuff is at least in some part clever or interesting but largely relies on mainly dealers creating a market for it amongst the super rich with more money than sense. Sawn in half sharks for instance. I have seen some pretty silly modern art with ludicrous prices (especially some of the things I know the cost of making). But where do you place some of the organic bronze castings of Henry Moore or carvings of Barbara Hepworth? When new they were controversial but today they are well regarded and sometimes stolen to order. One of the curiosities is that judgement of beauty in faces is sort of hard wired. Too much or too little facial asymmetry looks ugly or other worldly respectively. Notably the elves in Lord of the Rings were chosen for having exceptionally symmetric faces. Film stars mostly are more symmetric than in the average population but not perfect. The evolution of music over the centuries is probably the most complicated art form of all though. Stravinsky was cutting edge avant garde only a century ago where now it is mainstream classical music. Schoenberg's atonal music still remains inaccessible to most listeners. Once you add the possibilities that arise from modern jazz and later electronic synthesisers the gamut of possible music just exploded. You can really only tell good music or art by what is still being played or looked at a few hundred years later. The rest is just ephemera. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ognugh$pv7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462438 |
Martin Brown wrote on 5/31/2017 10:50 AM: > On 31/05/2017 15:11, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 05/30/2017 10:04 PM, rickman wrote: >>> John Larkin wrote on 5/30/2017 9:53 PM: > >>>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >>>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. >>>> >>>> Schematics are art. >>> >>> Art has no absolutes. One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Art >>> >>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/12668/one-mans-trash-another-mans-art >>> >>> https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297286/one-mans-trash-is-another-mans-art.html >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.sidandjim.com/one-man-s-art >>> >>> https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/photos/a.100797840666.101835.13652355666/10152057191590667/?type=3 >>> >> >> The idea that there is no such thing as beauty--i.e. the Good as an >> object of desire--is one of the philosophical errors that got us where >> we are today. > > There are many variations on what is art and what isn't. Some of the > conceptual modern art is literally utter rubbish and has been mistaken for > trash - notably a used ashtray at Eyestorm Gallery if memory serves. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260 > > It's only value is in the brand name of the "creator", and the anticipated > "appreciation" in market value that goes with it. The brand name? So anonymous art is always worthless? How about cave drawings? Certainly some don't think much of cave drawings as some have been covered by graffiti. > Some of the other stuff is at least in some part clever or interesting but > largely relies on mainly dealers creating a market for it amongst the super > rich with more money than sense. Sawn in half sharks for instance. I have > seen some pretty silly modern art with ludicrous prices (especially some of > the things I know the cost of making). So art is defined by the market price? > But where do you place some of the organic bronze castings of Henry Moore or > carvings of Barbara Hepworth? When new they were controversial but today > they are well regarded and sometimes stolen to order. > > One of the curiosities is that judgement of beauty in faces is sort of hard > wired. Too much or too little facial asymmetry looks ugly or other worldly > respectively. Notably the elves in Lord of the Rings were chosen for having > exceptionally symmetric faces. Film stars mostly are more symmetric than in > the average population but not perfect. > > The evolution of music over the centuries is probably the most complicated > art form of all though. Stravinsky was cutting edge avant garde only a > century ago where now it is mainstream classical music. Schoenberg's atonal > music still remains inaccessible to most listeners. > > Once you add the possibilities that arise from modern jazz and later > electronic synthesisers the gamut of possible music just exploded. You can > really only tell good music or art by what is still being played or looked > at a few hundred years later. The rest is just ephemera. Why does being popular define art? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rnntic1nccbqdmitb1anl9lq9apjlh7vh6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462420 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:11:01 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 05/30/2017 10:04 PM, rickman wrote: >> John Larkin wrote on 5/30/2017 9:53 PM: >>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 17:33:09 -0700 (PDT), pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>>>> It would be best to include every mosfet property in every schematic >>>>>>> symbol: >>>>> >>>>>> Sure--plus maybe a big zener to illustrate avalanche behaviour and >>>>>> a small tank of magic smoke. ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> You have to stop someplace--Big- and Little-Endians just disagree >>>>>> about exactly where. >>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>> >>>>> Resistors have capacitances (several), inductance, tempcos, and >>>>> nonlinearity. Inductors have parasitics. We don't show any of that on >>>>> the schematic symbols. >>>> >>>>> When we design review a circuit, if we are not intimately familiar >>>>> with each part, we pull up the data sheet >>>> >>>> Circuit strays and nonlinearity are features of everything at some >>>> level. >>>> >>>> I have no issue with how you folks do things. You make lots of good >>>> stuff, and you're happy with your process. >>>> >>>> I just think that a couple of small strokes of a pencil are a very >>>> small price to pay for a vast improvement in the representation of >>>> the physics of a fairly complex and very common part like a MOSFET. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> >>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. >>> >>> Schematics are art. >> >> Art has no absolutes. One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Art >> >> http://mentalfloss.com/article/12668/one-mans-trash-another-mans-art >> >> https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297286/one-mans-trash-is-another-mans-art.html >> >> >> http://www.sidandjim.com/one-man-s-art >> >> https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/photos/a.100797840666.101835.13652355666/10152057191590667/?type=3 >> >> > >The idea that there is no such thing as beauty--i.e. the Good as an >object of desire--is one of the philosophical errors that got us where >we are today. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs Modern architecture, for sure. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcdhobbs@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <337f9965-f50a-4ae3-9e47-fd117e6a7de6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462377 |
>The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. You're really fond of your symbol, and that's okay with me--it's not a moral or theological issue after all. In this instance I disagree aesthetically as well as practically. Cheers Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 16:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vvtXA.12398$EH.794@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #462393 |
On 31/05/17 14:36, pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote: >> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. > > You're really fond of your symbol, and that's okay with me-- > it's not a moral or theological issue after all. By which you mean "it's not an issue with any rational ground" and hence admitting some possibility of ending the debate :) The truth is, different designers have different *needs* from their symbols. Phil often cares about and so likes to be reminded of the physics, where Larkin and I like to remember it only when we need to. > In this instance I disagree aesthetically as well as practically. My argument wasn't aesthetic. A simpler symbol is easier to recognise. A parrot is very recognisable, unless it's in a flame tree, when the same parrot becomes almost completely invisible. Why fill your visual field with noise? Whether you need to be reminded of the physics or structure is truly a personal thing. That doesn't make it ungrounded, just contingent on your own needs. > Cheers > Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v8euicd8g8pl2jjhasfach5ag20ue08plh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462395 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 16:01:31 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote: >On 31/05/17 14:36, pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote: >>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or >>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic. >> >> You're really fond of your symbol, and that's okay with me-- >> it's not a moral or theological issue after all. > >By which you mean "it's not an issue with any rational ground" >and hence admitting some possibility of ending the debate :) > >The truth is, different designers have different *needs* from >their symbols. Phil often cares about and so likes to be reminded >of the physics, where Larkin and I like to remember it only when >we need to. > >> In this instance I disagree aesthetically as well as practically. > >My argument wasn't aesthetic. A simpler symbol is easier to >recognise. A parrot is very recognisable, unless it's in a >flame tree, when the same parrot becomes almost completely >invisible. Why fill your visual field with noise? > >Whether you need to be reminded of the physics or structure >is truly a personal thing. That doesn't make it ungrounded, >just contingent on your own needs. Not that I disagree with you but the purpose of a schematic is to convey information to others. It's generally accepted that the designer knows what the circuit does. I don't mind a complete symbol for CAD drawings but I'm not going to doodle in all the lines when making a napkin schematic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 21:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ogl7l9$9c1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462363 |
pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote on 5/30/2017 8:33 PM: >>>> It would be best to include every mosfet property in every schematic >>>> symbol: >> >>> Sure--plus maybe a big zener to illustrate avalanche behaviour and a small tank of magic smoke. ;) >>> >>> You have to stop someplace--Big- and Little-Endians just disagree about exactly where. >> >>> Cheers >> >>> Phil Hobbs > >> Resistors have capacitances (several), inductance, tempcos, and >> nonlinearity. Inductors have parasitics. We don't show any of that on >> the schematic symbols. > >> When we design review a circuit, if we are not intimately familiar >> with each part, we pull up the data sheet > > Circuit strays and nonlinearity are features of everything at some level. > > I have no issue with how you folks do things. You make lots of good stuff, and you're happy with your process. > > I just think that a couple of small strokes of a pencil are a very small price to pay for a vast improvement in the representation of the physics of a fairly complex and very common part like a MOSFET. ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT! This entire conversation is about one line segment. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogmbbb01j7n@drn.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #462378 |
rickman wrote...
>
> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT!
> This entire conversation is about one line segment.
Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot.
That never bothered me, heck, did it for 45 years.
To me it's more about the larger, cluttered symbol.
I like the simplicity. But I think we got carried
away in AoE III; there are places it'd have made
more sense. Plus, originally I wanted to make our
readers familiar with both styles.
--
Thanks,
- Win
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 09:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462409 |
Winfield Hill wrote on 5/31/2017 8:01 AM: > rickman wrote... >> >> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT! >> This entire conversation is about one line segment. > > Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot. Nope, look again, one stroke. You draw the vertical line and the arrow in either case. For one symbol you add a third line for the source. > That never bothered me, heck, did it for 45 years. > To me it's more about the larger, cluttered symbol. > I like the simplicity. But I think we got carried > away in AoE III; there are places it'd have made > more sense. Plus, originally I wanted to make our > readers familiar with both styles. Why would the size change??? Cluttered??? I think this is a very small mountain being made from a rather large molehill. I don't have my copy of AoE III handy. Do you have a section that shows both symbols and explains why you are using both? If not, all you have done is to confuse the reader. No one expects to see two symbols used for the same thing in a single tome. I really can't believe this conversation is even happening. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ogmiqu01u20@drn.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #462412 |
rickman wrote...
>
>Winfield Hill wrote on 5/31/2017 8:01 AM:
>> rickman wrote...
>>>
>>> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT!
>>> This entire conversation is about one line segment.
>>
>> Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot.
>
> Nope, look again, one stroke. You draw the vertical line
> and the arrow in either case. For one symbol you add a
> third line for the source.
Ah, you draw the source wire first, running it halfway
up the symbol, that's a shortcut. I usually draw the
MOSFET first, then start connecting it to other things.
--
Thanks,
- Win
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogmjl0$qgc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462419 |
On a sunny day (31 May 2017 07:09:34 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in <ogmiqu01u20@drn.newsguy.com>: > I usually draw the > MOSFET first, then start connecting it to other things. That is normal, first the cicuit diagram, then build it. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 10:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ogmjrq$f4k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462419 |
Winfield Hill wrote on 5/31/2017 10:09 AM: > rickman wrote... >> >> Winfield Hill wrote on 5/31/2017 8:01 AM: >>> rickman wrote... >>>> >>>> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT! >>>> This entire conversation is about one line segment. >>> >>> Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot. >> >> Nope, look again, one stroke. You draw the vertical line >> and the arrow in either case. For one symbol you add a >> third line for the source. > > Ah, you draw the source wire first, running it halfway > up the symbol, that's a shortcut. I usually draw the > MOSFET first, then start connecting it to other things. Actually I don't. I draw the symbol by drawing the channel, the three connections to the channel and then start connecting the three terminals. There is but one line segment different no matter how you draw it, the extra connection to the channel. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <q4otic9kpa4q3h008bme6b3ona21ort9oi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462419 |
On 31 May 2017 07:09:34 -0700, Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >rickman wrote... >> >>Winfield Hill wrote on 5/31/2017 8:01 AM: >>> rickman wrote... >>>> >>>> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT! >>>> This entire conversation is about one line segment. >>> >>> Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot. >> >> Nope, look again, one stroke. You draw the vertical line >> and the arrow in either case. For one symbol you add a >> third line for the source. > > Ah, you draw the source wire first, running it halfway > up the symbol, that's a shortcut. I usually draw the > MOSFET first, then start connecting it to other things. I think a schematic looks good if various horizontal and vertical lines align. So I draw the wires first, aligned with other nearby wires, and then add the components, in this case the source/drain wires. Our "insulated-gate bipolar" symbol looks good. I have a big wonderful whiteboard (with dedicated lighting) that has a faint background grid. That lets me draw nice aligned sketches. And I do official schamatics on blue-grid D-size vellum. The global alignments matter more to appearance than the detail line quality. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Clamp.JPG https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/DC_DC3.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Driver_Sh_1.JPG (ugly jog on that trig led one-shot, bad planning) -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogmjgg$q69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462412 |
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 May 2017 09:03:51 -0400) it happened rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me>: >I really can't believe this conversation is even happening. Indeed, I remember a movie, long ago, where Popes men came and almost got into a fistfight about: 'If Jesus had a purse or not'. Don't remember the name of the movie...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ogmlr6$u4c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462422 |
On 2017-05-31 16:21, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 31 May 2017 09:03:51 -0400) it happened rickman > <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me>: > >> I really can't believe this conversation is even happening. > > Indeed, I remember a movie, long ago, > where Popes men came and almost got into a fistfight about: > 'If Jesus had a purse or not'. > Don't remember the name of the movie... > That might have been 'The name of the rose', an adaptation of Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I think the argument was 'did he, or did he not, own the clothes he was wearing?' There were lots of stabs at religious zeal in the story. Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdntic1jd1rv3ru6rk3ijhtg6t3r7pemsv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462439 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:00:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>On 2017-05-31 16:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Wed, 31 May 2017 09:03:51 -0400) it happened rickman
>> <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> I really can't believe this conversation is even happening.
>>
>> Indeed, I remember a movie, long ago,
>> where Popes men came and almost got into a fistfight about:
>> 'If Jesus had a purse or not'.
>> Don't remember the name of the movie...
>>
>
>That might have been 'The name of the rose', an adaptation
>of Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I think the argument
>was 'did he, or did he not, own the clothes he was wearing?'
>There were lots of stabs at religious zeal in the story.
>
>Jeroen Belleman
One of my favorite movies. Replay it often... always spot another
nuance.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <stotic5vj8fk4s4jois69okdrsq3320pd6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462439 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:00:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >On 2017-05-31 16:21, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Wed, 31 May 2017 09:03:51 -0400) it happened rickman >> <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me>: >> >>> I really can't believe this conversation is even happening. >> >> Indeed, I remember a movie, long ago, >> where Popes men came and almost got into a fistfight about: >> 'If Jesus had a purse or not'. >> Don't remember the name of the movie... >> > >That might have been 'The name of the rose', an adaptation >of Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I think the argument >was 'did he, or did he not, own the clothes he was wearing?' >There were lots of stabs at religious zeal in the story. > >Jeroen Belleman That guy was really hard to read. Rose was better than his others. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web