Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
John Fields
Guest
Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:55 am
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?
JF
You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.
---
As do I.
Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:09 pm
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?
JF
You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.
---
As do I.
Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.
JF
Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
I used to not get along with my mother-in-law, but over the last few
months, I've developed quite an attachment for her. It goes over her
head, and a strap comes down under her chin to keep her mouth shut.
John Fields
Guest
Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:19 am
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:09:08 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?
JF
You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.
---
As do I.
Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.
JF
Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.
---
Then you're obviously not be an intelligent adult.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:42 pm
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:19:08 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:09:08 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?
JF
You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.
---
As do I.
Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.
JF
Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.
---
Then you're obviously not be an intelligent adult.
JF
You have admitted you are a troll. You have also stated that I am no good at trolling. Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
It turns out a Chinese food deliveryman who was thought to be missing, was actually stuck in a Manhattan apartment building elevator for 4 days.
The man is ok, but the building's owner is charging him $1,500 rent.
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:11 am
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
Indeed.
---
Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.
---
Wrong on both counts.
My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.
Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.
A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:56 pm
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that. You were boasting about being a very good troll, or a better troll than me, or something like that.
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
Indeed.
---
Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.
---
Wrong on both counts.
My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.
Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.
A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.
But I'm not a troll at all.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
Officer: Soldier, do you have change for a dollar?
Soldier: Sure, buddy.
Officer: That's no way to address an officer! Now let's try it again. Soldier, do you have change for a dollar?
Soldier: No, SIR!
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:39 pm
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.
---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.
An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.
It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.
---
Quote:
You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.
---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.
What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.
---
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.
---
Quote:
---
Indeed.
---
Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.
---
Wrong on both counts.
My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.
Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.
A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.
But I'm not a troll at all.
---
Yes, you are.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:44 pm
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.
---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.
An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.
It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.
You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.
Quote:
You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.
---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.
What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.
That's near enough.
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.
Stop trying to chat me up. I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.
Quote:
---
Indeed.
---
Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.
---
Wrong on both counts.
My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.
Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.
A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.
But I'm not a troll at all.
---
Yes, you are.
No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it, just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts. I just reply to people for conversation, or when I disagree with a point they've made.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"
John Fields
Guest
Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:12 am
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.
---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.
An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.
It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.
You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.
---
It's not 'pedantic' it's 'semantic', and if you don't know the
difference between the two perhaps I gave you too much credit for
knowing anything about the emotional baggage one agrees to take on when
one 'admits' to an accusation made by another.
And, BTW, your refusal to CR LF for your readers' convenience is a sure
sign of a troll at work.
A low-grade troll who only wants to annoy and bring attention to himself
by making his readers pay to read his drivel, but a troll nonetheless.
---
Quote:
You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.
---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.
What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.
That's near enough.
---
So, you admit to being hooked?
---
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.
Stop trying to chat me up.
---
Stop flattering yourself...
Since you think that you're the one who's in control, all you have to do
to make the whole thing go away is stop replying.
---
Quote:
I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.
---
A woman who isn't interested in you?
A man who is?
Eewww...
Why are you in a group like that?
---
..
..
..
Quote:
But I'm not a troll at all.
---
Yes, you are.
No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it, just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts. I just reply to people for conversation, or when I disagree with a point they've made.
---
Oh, how wonderfully benign...
You get to define it all away and wind up, according to you, _just
perfect_.
How about your refusal to CR LF on your end when you've been apprised
that your infinitely long line length is annoying?
Surely you're not stupid enough to think that doesn't wind people up
when you tell them that even though you know how to fix the problem you
won't, and it's their problem if they want to read you.
Or, maybe you are.
JF
Dave J.
Guest
Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:35 am
In MsgID<op.upvij6nw4buhsv_at_i7> on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, in
sci.electronics, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
Quote:
No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it,
just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts.
No no, that sounds more like a 'September-ite' AKA an AOLer.
A troll (a real one, the ones that are fun to watch from a distance) is
the one who'll make *one* posting, and then retire to watch a thirty plus
posting flame-roast-thread comprised of the ensuing argument between the
*other* subscribers.
One distinguishing factor between a truly skilled troll and a beginner is
whether initial cross posting is necessary to fan the flames.
Sadly they've become an endangered species these days. Pretty much
displaced by gangs of cross-posting childish vandals (usenet equiv of
hooded chavs) who see a cascade as a mark of artistry.
//---------------------
OB-Sci: Anyone know a UK source of tunnel diodes?
OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low cost
devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be nice
(compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort of
EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither a
PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..
//----------------------
Dave J.
John Fields
Guest
Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:55 am
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:35:06 +0000, Dave J. <requiem_at_freeuk.com> wrote:
Quote:
In MsgID<op.upvij6nw4buhsv_at_i7> on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, in
sci.electronics, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:
No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it,
just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts.
No no, that sounds more like a 'September-ite' AKA an AOLer.
A troll (a real one, the ones that are fun to watch from a distance) is
the one who'll make *one* posting, and then retire to watch a thirty plus
posting flame-roast-thread comprised of the ensuing argument between the
*other* subscribers.
One distinguishing factor between a truly skilled troll and a beginner is
whether initial cross posting is necessary to fan the flames.
Sadly they've become an endangered species these days. Pretty much
displaced by gangs of cross-posting childish vandals (usenet equiv of
hooded chavs) who see a cascade as a mark of artistry.
---
Nice. :-)
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:04 pm
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:12:35 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
You have admitted you are a troll.
---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.
WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.
---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.
An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.
It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.
You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.
---
It's not 'pedantic' it's 'semantic', and if you don't know the
difference between the two perhaps I gave you too much credit for
knowing anything about the emotional baggage one agrees to take on when
one 'admits' to an accusation made by another.
You're being pedantic again.
Quote:
And, BTW, your refusal to CR LF for your readers' convenience is a sure
sign of a troll at work.
No it's lazyness, impoliteness, and perhaps a superiority complex.
Quote:
A low-grade troll who only wants to annoy and bring attention to himself
by making his readers pay to read his drivel, but a troll nonetheless.
---
I don't care how much attention I get, I just have conversations.
Quote:
You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.
---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.
What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.
That's near enough.
---
So, you admit to being hooked?
---
No.
Quote:
You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.
---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.
Stop trying to chat me up.
---
Stop flattering yourself...
Since you think that you're the one who's in control, all you have to do
to make the whole thing go away is stop replying.
---
I don't want it to go away.
Quote:
I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.
---
A woman who isn't interested in you?
x.
Quote:
A man who is?
tick.
Quote:
Eewww...
a grebe.
Quote:
Why are you in a group like that?
Crosspost.
Quote:
But I'm not a troll at all.
---
Yes, you are.
No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it, just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts. I just reply to people for conversation, or when I disagree with a point they've made.
---
Oh, how wonderfully benign...
You get to define it all away and wind up, according to you, _just
perfect_.
How about your refusal to CR LF on your end when you've been apprised
that your infinitely long line length is annoying?
Surely you're not stupid enough to think that doesn't wind people up
when you tell them that even though you know how to fix the problem you
won't, and it's their problem if they want to read you.
Or, maybe you are.
It isn't a problem if people have decent software.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
Lawyers should never ask a Southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grand motherly, elderly woman to the stand.
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams.
I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me.
You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs.
You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned!
Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defence attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too.
He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem.
He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state.
Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women.
One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."
PCPaul
Guest
Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:53 pm
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:35:06 +0000, Dave J. wrote:
Quote:
OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low
cost devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be
nice (compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort
of EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither
a PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..
The Arduino family seems to be gaining ground as playthings - based on
the Atmega uControllers.
There's a whole IDE, libraries etc for the asking, and a kit can be had
for £15 or so from the US via EBay.
Bob Larter
Guest
Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:44 am
Peter Hucker wrote:
Quote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
The IR sensor might be one of the dual sensor (expensive!) type that
also include a microwave T/R motion sensing circuit. That would be very
likely to interfere with wireless networking systems. The security
company should be able to tell you for sure.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave J.
Guest
Sun May 03, 2009 12:36 am
In MsgID<gjDpl.288$Lc7.132_at_text.news.virginmedia.com> on Thu, 26 Feb 2009
20:53:32 GMT, in alt.electronics, 'PCPaul' wrote:
Quote:
OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low
cost devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be
nice (compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort
of EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither
a PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..
The Arduino family seems to be gaining ground as playthings - based on
the Atmega uControllers.
There's a whole IDE, libraries etc for the asking, and a kit can be had
for £15 or so from the US via EBay.
Hey, thanks for that, a slightly more focused search on the subject has
brought back loads of interesting sample projects.
Loads to read about and scheme over. I haven't yet managed to find a write
up on straight ASM programming, all they seem to push is some sort of
compiled magicery. Also, shame it's so tiny on the RAM / eeprom front in
these days of gigabytes for tenners. For the price it's a marvelous
shortcut, including additional bells/whistles over what I'd consider
standard for a single chip proc. Just, like I say, puzzlement that it
doesn't seem to have caught up with what should be possible in this
decade.
Thanks again
PS: I completely missed this msg initially because the 'clever' crosspost
checking on this client decided I must have read it already.
Dave J.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
