Seriously, Tektronix?

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
[...]

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.
Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?
I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.

So you are just putting up with red tape instead of doing something
about it?

You bet! Fighting red tape gets to be career limiting. ...

That has never fazed me, ever. I just don't put up with red tape. If
they want to fire me for striving towards higher efficiency, fine, so be it.

... The pile is
way too deep for anyone's scissors to cut, much less the "new" guy.
Any Quixotic passions I ever had are long gone. I have real work to
do.

"Real work to do" is exactly why I fought red tape. Because afterwards I
and scores of other engineers could do our work more efficiently.
Someone has to stick out his neck and risk the flak, and that was often
yours truly.

I think we are very different personalities in that respect.

That ain't my style, never was. Yeah, I've got my scars from
those efforts but it was worth it.

Nope. Not even close. I long ago learned to pick my battles.

I picked my first professional red tape fight 6 months into my first job
as a freshly minted engineer. And won. From then on we were no longer
bound by "established distributor channels" and could buy components
overseas if we so desired. This sped up projects and most of all
production ramp-up, big time.

That wasn't my first red tape fight in life, plenty happened before that.

... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.
So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong.

Then why are you working where you are now?

Because I like what I do? Because they pay me? Because I like where
I live? I could go on. Life is never perfect and if they want to blow
*their* money on stupid things, let them.

Well, I have a different philosophy on that. Maybe that's why I am so
happy being self-employed. I am not opposed to being an employee but the
only way I'd agree to that status is "no red tape". That part of
employment is not negotiable with me. Never was.

... All large companies are the same.

Absolutely not.

You're wrong as you've ever been. They are, by their very nature,
bureaucratic money wasters.

<sigh>

Let me give you a very easy case: Do you honestly think there is no
significant difference between UPS and Fedex?

... It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.

That has other reasons. One being unions.

"one of"

And now you know a core reason for the answer to the question above. Or
maybe still not ...

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.

Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.

I have no ISO cert for my biz and it works quite well. I do have
procedures in place though, which I created myself.

Your biz works for you because you're insignificant. ...

Oh, yeah, that's why my clients send me checks. Right.

[...]

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).
With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.
No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.
Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant.

http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Quote "These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S.
workers, ..."

Insignificant?

Please understand what's being talked about before making such
irrelevant arguments. Yes, each one is insignificant.

You don't seem to understand what it is that made America a
technological leader in many areas. Most of the time it's the little
guy's ideas. The days of big labs like Bell are over, gone, finito. They
ain't coming back. Well, at least not unless the whole country would
turn socialist and in that case we'd lose technical leadership positions
galore.

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser?

$100B with 400,000 employees is $250k/employee/year. The companies I
usually deal with can do better than that. Now I don't want to diss this
result, it's a respectable number. But technological leadership, to a
large extent, went out the window around 1992 IMHO. I think it was
finished when they screwed up OS/2 as a product. That was hands-down the
best OS back then. IBM engineers were among the best and probably still
are, the problems were much higher up.

... Did you bring in $100B last year?

I don't have to. Again, I do not believe that large corporate structures
are the best way to do business. Because it usually isn't. I enable
other companies to bring in the big dough, and get rewarded for that.

[...]

The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"? Good grief!

Times the number it happens per year, it is very profound. Because when
R&D expenses are consistently way above 10% of revenue without
commensurate results shareholders can become impatient, quickly.

Control and processes are *required* in large enterprises. That's
part of the problem of growing and why so many companies fail in the
transitions.

Strangely, the ones I was/am involved in as an employees or consultant
don't. And that's dozens. They understand that it's largely them who can
write procedures for control and processes, and they do so. They do have
to stick by the rules of agencies and they often use me to guide them
through that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

<snip>

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser. They stopped being an engineering company because they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering, trying to lock their customers into a sub-optimal style of computation and computer management.

They used to be one of the companies like HP was and Apple is now, who could charge half-as-much again for their hardware as their competitors could, because they had a reputation for selling hardware that worked well.

They threw that away trying to lock their customers into good but old-fashioned hardware.

What they've managed to salvage is still worth $100B per year, but the company is a shadow of its former self.

<snip>

The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"?

It isn't the few thousand dollars that's profound, but the freedom (or lack of it) to go out and buy cheap equipment now, from wherever it's available, as opposed to having to get your equipment through a buying department, from qualified suppliers.

Cambridge Instruments did very well out of selling IBM "specials" - bits of gear built to an unrealistic specification which had to be constructed as one-off's at about $1M a throw.

Good grief!
Control and processes are *required* in large enterprises. That's
part of the problem of growing and why so many companies fail in the
transitions.

Sure. But "control and processes" can become ends in themselves, and strangle the company, or a least make it so slow-moving that everybody else can eat its lunch.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:40:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
[...]

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.
Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?
I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.

So you are just putting up with red tape instead of doing something
about it?

You bet! Fighting red tape gets to be career limiting. ...


That has never fazed me, ever. I just don't put up with red tape. If
they want to fire me for striving towards higher efficiency, fine, so be it.

You never worked for a large company, either. You'd never get
anything done (hardly efficient).

... The pile is
way too deep for anyone's scissors to cut, much less the "new" guy.
Any Quixotic passions I ever had are long gone. I have real work to
do.


"Real work to do" is exactly why I fought red tape. Because afterwards I
and scores of other engineers could do our work more efficiently.
Someone has to stick out his neck and risk the flak, and that was often
yours truly.

If my work isn't done, I don't have a job. I'm not paid for what
other people do. Or don't.

>I think we are very different personalities in that respect.

No, I think you're talking about something with which you have no
experience.

That ain't my style, never was. Yeah, I've got my scars from
those efforts but it was worth it.

Nope. Not even close. I long ago learned to pick my battles.


I picked my first professional red tape fight 6 months into my first job
as a freshly minted engineer. And won. From then on we were no longer
bound by "established distributor channels" and could buy components
overseas if we so desired. This sped up projects and most of all
production ramp-up, big time.

Again, you obviously have never worked for a large company. There is
reason for an "approved vendor list" and good reason people aren't
allowed to deal with any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

That wasn't my first red tape fight in life, plenty happened before that.


... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.
So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong.

Then why are you working where you are now?

Because I like what I do? Because they pay me? Because I like where
I live? I could go on. Life is never perfect and if they want to blow
*their* money on stupid things, let them.


Well, I have a different philosophy on that. Maybe that's why I am so
happy being self-employed. I am not opposed to being an employee but the
only way I'd agree to that status is "no red tape". That part of
employment is not negotiable with me. Never was.

Yes, we are obviously different. I'm not telling you how you work.

... All large companies are the same.

Absolutely not.

You're wrong as you've ever been. They are, by their very nature,
bureaucratic money wasters.


sigh

Let me give you a very easy case: Do you honestly think there is no
significant difference between UPS and Fedex?

Difference, sure. Do they waste bucketloads of money? You bet! I'll
bet their pilots can't even buy fuel at the 7-11 of their choice,
either.

... It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.

That has other reasons. One being unions.

"one of"


And now you know a core reason for the answer to the question above. Or
maybe still not ...

No, it's not the core reason. If that were true, non-union government
entities would be efficient. Clearly, that's not the case.

[...]


Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.

Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.

I have no ISO cert for my biz and it works quite well. I do have
procedures in place though, which I created myself.

Your biz works for you because you're insignificant. ...


Oh, yeah, that's why my clients send me checks. Right.

$100B? Yes, sorry to burst you bubble, but you are.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).
With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.
No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.
Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant.

http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Quote "These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S.
workers, ..."

Insignificant?

Please understand what's being talked about before making such
irrelevant arguments. Yes, each one is insignificant.


You don't seem to understand what it is that made America a
technological leader in many areas. Most of the time it's the little
guy's ideas. The days of big labs like Bell are over, gone, finito. They
ain't coming back. Well, at least not unless the whole country would
turn socialist and in that case we'd lose technical leadership positions
galore.

Again, you show that you can't read.

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser?


$100B with 400,000 employees is $250k/employee/year. The companies I
usually deal with can do better than that. Now I don't want to diss this
result, it's a respectable number. But technological leadership, to a
large extent, went out the window around 1992 IMHO. I think it was
finished when they screwed up OS/2 as a product. That was hands-down the
best OS back then. IBM engineers were among the best and probably still
are, the problems were much higher up.

It's nice that you prove my case for me.

... Did you bring in $100B last year?


I don't have to. Again, I do not believe that large corporate structures
are the best way to do business. Because it usually isn't. I enable
other companies to bring in the big dough, and get rewarded for that.

OK, so you admit that I'm right. You are insignificant.

The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"? Good grief!


Times the number it happens per year, it is very profound. Because when
R&D expenses are consistently way above 10% of revenue without
commensurate results shareholders can become impatient, quickly.

Utter nonsense. $1000 for every scope they've ever bought wouldn't
pay the groundskeeping for a year.

Control and processes are *required* in large enterprises. That's
part of the problem of growing and why so many companies fail in the
transitions.


Strangely, the ones I was/am involved in as an employees or consultant
don't. And that's dozens. They understand that it's largely them who can
write procedures for control and processes, and they do so. They do have
to stick by the rules of agencies and they often use me to guide them
through that.

They don't have processes and procedures? That's *really* strange!

 

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:40:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

[...]

Control and processes are *required* in large enterprises. That's
part of the problem of growing and why so many companies fail in the
transitions.

Strangely, the ones I was/am involved in as an employees or consultant
don't. And that's dozens. They understand that it's largely them who can
^^^^^^^^^^
write procedures for control and processes, and they do so. They do have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

to stick by the rules of agencies and they often use me to guide them
through that.

They don't have processes and procedures? That's *really* strange!

Read the above again. I've underlined it for your convenience.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2014 9:38 AM, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
The larger, higher resolution display is a definite plus compared to
the basic Rigol.
I'm a little confused which units you are referring to. Are you
saying you upgraded the firmware on the Hantek USB scope or a standard
benchtop model? They make both.

I'm referring to a benchtop model, DSO5102B. I should have checked
the model number before posting!

I will say "wrong results" is pretty much a show stopper. That is the
single most basic requirement for the scope that it show you valid
data at all times.

That's why we went back to Rigols and the Hanteks ended up in storage.
I updated one and now it seems better, but I have not done extensive
testing.

Well, after seeing results from a client with the Hantek scope I have to
agree. I suggested that they return it for refund. The 20MHz/48MSPS USB
scope is clearly sub-par in performance.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <btfqabF2f9sU1@mid.individual.net>, invalid@invalid.invalid
says...

Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2014 9:38 AM, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
The larger, higher resolution display is a definite plus compared to
the basic Rigol.
I'm a little confused which units you are referring to. Are you
saying you upgraded the firmware on the Hantek USB scope or a standard
benchtop model? They make both.

I'm referring to a benchtop model, DSO5102B. I should have checked
the model number before posting!

I will say "wrong results" is pretty much a show stopper. That is the
single most basic requirement for the scope that it show you valid
data at all times.

That's why we went back to Rigols and the Hanteks ended up in storage.
I updated one and now it seems better, but I have not done extensive
testing.


Well, after seeing results from a client with the Hantek scope I have to
agree. I suggested that they return it for refund. The 20MHz/48MSPS USB
scope is clearly sub-par in performance.

At the shop we have a Hantek hand held, the one with the AB generator
in it. It works very well actually.

I've seen a few PC USB scopes not do so good. Part of which I think
is the fault on the PC side, software included.

As for a 20Mhz scope, well, that is kind of hitting the bottom isn't
it?

Jamie

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?
They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then
they started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the
pilferers ...
They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an
engineering company so they don't need them all. Are you saying
that the $100B/yr is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser. They stopped being an engineering company because
they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering, trying to lock their
customers into a sub-optimal style of computation and computer
management.

They used to be one of the companies like HP was and Apple is now,
who could charge half-as-much again for their hardware as their
competitors could, because they had a reputation for selling hardware
that worked well.

They threw that away trying to lock their customers into good but
old-fashioned hardware.

What they've managed to salvage is still worth $100B per year, but
the company is a shadow of its former self.

As I said, it all began to slowly unravel when they screwed up the
marketing of OS/2.

snip

The thread was about the purchase of used equipment where you
said it can't be done in a large corp. That has a profound and
detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There are
reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market.
In the end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud
but after meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so
much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"?

It isn't the few thousand dollars that's profound, but the freedom
(or lack of it) to go out and buy cheap equipment now, from wherever
it's available, as opposed to having to get your equipment through a
buying department, from qualified suppliers.

Exactly. I have seen projects that did not come off the ground at all
because XYZ Corporation had a policy not to buy at auction but the
budget would not allow to buy new. It's a foolish policy. This is one
reason why I declined an offer working towards a Ph.D. and hightailed it
away from my university the millisecond I had my degree in hand.

Cambridge Instruments did very well out of selling IBM "specials" -
bits of gear built to an unrealistic specification which had to be
constructed as one-off's at about $1M a throw.

But isn't Cambridge Instruments also a shadow of it's former self now?

Good grief! Control and processes are *required* in large
enterprises. That's part of the problem of growing and why so many
companies fail in the transitions.

Sure. But "control and processes" can become ends in themselves, and
strangle the company, or a least make it so slow-moving that
everybody else can eat its lunch.

You need controls and processes. But mostly it is no some obscure
external power that writes those. Some people fail to understand this
but it's usually people in your own company that write them. ISO then
requires that you stick to those procedures. I work a lot to procedures
here at my office (I usually work alone) and most are set by me.

Of course, it goes without saying that procedures must be written in a
responsible way and by people who know what they are doing. They also
must stick with the law. For example, to my amazement, even some
engineers do not understand that in many fields you must create a design
history file set. In med tech the FDA will become very unfriendly if
some company doesn't adhere to that. That can go all the way to padlocks
on the door (seen that at a competitor).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <btfqabF2f9sU1@mid.individual.net>, invalid@invalid.invalid
says...
Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2014 9:38 AM, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
The larger, higher resolution display is a definite plus compared to
the basic Rigol.
I'm a little confused which units you are referring to. Are you
saying you upgraded the firmware on the Hantek USB scope or a standard
benchtop model? They make both.
I'm referring to a benchtop model, DSO5102B. I should have checked
the model number before posting!

I will say "wrong results" is pretty much a show stopper. That is the
single most basic requirement for the scope that it show you valid
data at all times.
That's why we went back to Rigols and the Hanteks ended up in storage.
I updated one and now it seems better, but I have not done extensive
testing.

Well, after seeing results from a client with the Hantek scope I have to
agree. I suggested that they return it for refund. The 20MHz/48MSPS USB
scope is clearly sub-par in performance.

At the shop we have a Hantek hand held, the one with the AB generator
in it. It works very well actually.

I've seen a few PC USB scopes not do so good. Part of which I think
is the fault on the PC side, software included.

As for a 20Mhz scope, well, that is kind of hitting the bottom isn't
it?

Sure, but to check serial comms of uC port pins and minor analog stuff
it has good enough specs. On paper. In reality we had serious overshoot
and offset. My 40 year old 10MHz Hameg oscilloscope that I donated to a
school performed flawlessly in all those respects. Why is it that so
many young engineers fail to learn from their forefathers?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Slowman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

>They stopped being an engineering company because they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering,

They were an engineering company.

>trying to lock their customers into a sub-optimal style of computation and computer management.

Clueless, as usual.

Matters not, as long as the keep paying me for nothing.

<snipped the rest of your bullshit, unread, as usual>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 00:26:26 UTC+10, Joerg wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?
They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. The
they started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the
pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an
engineering company so they don't need them all. Are you saying
that the $100B/yr is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser. They stopped being an engineering company because
they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering, trying to lock their
customers into a sub-optimal style of computation and computer
management.

They used to be one of the companies like HP was and Apple is now,
who could charge half-as-much again for their hardware as their
competitors could, because they had a reputation for selling hardware
that worked well.

They threw that away trying to lock their customers into good but
old-fashioned hardware.

What they've managed to salvage is still worth $100B per year, but
the company is a shadow of its former self.

As I said, it all began to slowly unravel when they screwed up the
marketing of OS/2.

snip

The thread was about the purchase of used equipment where you
said it can't be done in a large corp. That has a profound and
detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There are
reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market.
In the end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud
but after meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so
much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"?

It isn't the few thousand dollars that's profound, but the freedom
(or lack of it) to go out and buy cheap equipment now, from wherever
it's available, as opposed to having to get your equipment through a
buying department, from qualified suppliers.

Exactly. I have seen projects that did not come off the ground at all
because XYZ Corporation had a policy not to buy at auction but the
budget would not allow to buy new. It's a foolish policy. This is one
reason why I declined an offer working towards a Ph.D. and hightailed it
away from my university the millisecond I had my degree in hand.

Cambridge Instruments did very well out of selling IBM "specials" -
bits of gear built to an unrealistic specification which had to be
constructed as one-off's at about $1M a throw.

But isn't Cambridge Instruments also a shadow of it's former self now?

Cambridge Instruments went bust in 1968 and got taken over by the Kent Instruments group. The rump company I joined in 1982 had been a loss-making fragment that Kent Instruments floated off in 1975 (when I was working for them) when they - in turn - got taken over by Brown-Boveri.

That rump - now even smaller - has a new name Carl Zeiss Microscopy Ltd, 509 Coldhams Lane, Cambridge CB1 3JS, United Kingdom

If the brand name Cambridge Instruments had been worth anything, they'd still have it.

Good grief! Control and processes are *required* in large
enterprises. That's part of the problem of growing and why so many
companies fail in the transitions.

Sure. But "control and processes" can become ends in themselves, and
strangle the company, or a least make it so slow-moving that
everybody else can eat its lunch.

You need controls and processes. But mostly it is not some obscure
external power that writes those. Some people fail to understand this
but it's usually people in your own company that write them. ISO then
requires that you stick to those procedures. I work a lot to procedures
here at my office (I usually work alone) and most are set by me.

Of course, it goes without saying that procedures must be written in a
responsible way and by people who know what they are doing. They also
must stick with the law. For example, to my amazement, even some
engineers do not understand that in many fields you must create a design
history file set. In med tech the FDA will become very unfriendly if
some company doesn't adhere to that. That can go all the way to padlocks
on the door (seen that at a competitor).

I know at least one brilliant engineer (at EMI Central Research) who didn't have a clue about that. He used to work late, and the more junior engineers working with him had to spend their mornings documenting (or - frequently - undoing)the undocumented changes he'd made to the gear they were working on.

I'd been originally been slated to be the lead engineer (under him) on that project, but I had been so rude about the technical idiocy of the whole project that he'd got me thrown off (to my enormous relief). I note that I posted about this in here in 2012.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

They stopped being an engineering company because they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering,

They were an engineering company trying to lock their customers into a
sub-optimal style of computation and computer management.

Clueless, as usual.

The usual krw claim, that might have been credible if backed up by rational argument, which isn't something that krw seems to be able to manage - there certainly no evidence that he can produce rational argument, and a lot of evidence that he can't process it when he sees it.

Matters not, as long as the keep paying me for nothing.

snipped the rest of your bullshit, unread, as usual

Krw dismisses what he can't understand - including most of what gets posted here. He's dim enough that even the other right-wing nitwits recognise that he's unusually dumb.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 19 May 2014 11:46:51 UTC+10, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <31c0d92c-8750-4a6c-856d-1c380f2edc28@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
I know at least one brilliant engineer (at EMI Central Research) who didn't have a clue about that. He used to work late, and the more junior engineers working with him had to spend their mornings documenting (or - frequently - undoing)the undocumented changes he'd made to the gear they were working on.

I'd been originally been slated to be the lead engineer (under him) on that project, but I had been so rude about the technical idiocy of the whole project that he'd got me thrown off (to my enormous relief). I note that I posted about this in here in 2012.

You most likely are the one that made all the bad undocumented changes
that had to be corrected!

A remarkably silly claim, even for Jamie.

I can picture you now walking into a professional establishment waving
your paper work around and saying "I know more than any one here, the
only difference is, you guys have been here longer"

Jamie's untrammelled imagination can produce six impossible images before breakfast. Quite why he sees any point in sharing them with us escapes me.

After I'd been in a job for about two years I did tend to know more about it than most of the people I was working with, including some who'd been there longer. This could be embarrassing, and I did what I could to make it less painful. This obviously didn't extend to tolerating designs that incorporated obsolescent integrated circuits because "that was what had been used before". Oddly enough, the one guy explicitly I picked on for doing that was a very good engineer indeed, but a little too willing to accept existing designs. We stayed friends despite the comment, and are still on good terms - he has always known that I think highly of his skills.

> That just sums it up, don't it?

It sums you up. You've obviously never been in that position, nor had to cope with being in that position.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it
doesn't show him up as a total moron.

"Scarcely relevant"? You're someone to talk, Slowman. You've a never
has been, as has everyone you've ever been associated with.

Whereas krw is something else.

They stopped being an engineering company because they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering,

They were an engineering company trying to lock their customers into a
sub-optimal style of computation and computer management.

Clueless, as usual.

The usual krw claim,

Correct, as usual.

By which krw means that his claim is something that he believes. He has no concept of connecting what he "knows" with anything going on in the world outside his head.

rest of Sloman rant snipped due to lack of interest in reading any
more nonsense

What does krw need to read for? He knows everything already. Quite a bit of what he knows is wrong, but he lacks a functional error-correcting mechanism.
He's got the first bit - he can scan incoming data and test whether it agrees with what he knows - but he lacks the other half, which would set a "less than perfectly reliable" flag on what he knows when it starts showing frequent conflicts with incoming data.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <31c0d92c-8750-4a6c-856d-1c380f2edc28@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

I know at least one brilliant engineer (at EMI Central Research) who didn't have a clue about that. He used to work late, and the more junior engineers working with him had to spend their mornings documenting (or - frequently - undoing)the undocumented changes he'd made to the gear they were working on.

I'd been originally been slated to be the lead engineer (under him) on that project, but I had been so rude about the technical idiocy of the whole project that he'd got me thrown off (to my enormous relief). I note that I posted about this in here in 2012.

You most likely are the one that made all the bad undocumented changes
that had to be corrected!

I can picture you now walking into a professional establishment waving
your paper work around and saying "I know more than any one here, the
only difference is, you guys have been here longer"

That just sums it up, don't it?


Jamie

 

On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

"Scarcely relevant"? You're someone to talk, Slowman. You've a never
has been, as has everyone you've ever been associated with.

They stopped being an engineering company because they'd been doing the wrong kind of engineering,

They were an engineering company trying to lock their customers into a
sub-optimal style of computation and computer management.

Clueless, as usual.

The usual krw claim,

Correct, as usual.

<rest of Slowman rant snipped due to lack of interest in reading any
more nonsense>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:30:19 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then
they started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among
the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it doesn't show him up as a total moron.

I only put what you said into context, Slowman. You said it.

Putting something "into context" involves demonstrating it's relationship with some other aspect of reality. Krw's claim was of a rather lower order, and had no more relation to reality than anything else krw ever posts.

The poor fool doesn't know what words mean and post cliches in contexts where they don't actually fit. It's ironic when you think about it - which is a trick krw can't manage.

> <Sloman's usual meandering nonsense unread>

krw can't process anything of any complexity. Put in a dependent clause and a sentence has meandered out of his comprehension.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it
doesn't show him up as a total moron.

I only put what you said into context, Slowman. You said it.

<Slowman's usual meandering nonsense unread>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 09:33:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2014 18:28:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:30:19 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid..invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

<snip>

I only put what you said into context, Sloman. You said it.

Putting something "into context"

involves demonstrating it's relationship with some other aspect of reality. Krw's claim was of a rather lower order, and had no more relation to reality than anything else krw ever posts.

> means that I've carved off all of your obfuscation.

It may strike you as obfuscation, but that would be because you don't want to understand the point involved (and probably couldn't have if you had wanted to).
Snipping the "obfuscation" without marking the snip is text-chopping, another of your less-than-charming habits. If you had really thought that what I wrote was intentionally over-complicated (which, as I probably need to remind you, is what "obfuscation" means) you could have proved the point by expressing the same though more concisely, always assuming that you had the wit to understand the point in the first place

> <nothing worth reading in any of Sloman's moronic posts>

Curious how anything that krw doesn't want to understand becomes "moronic". Technically speaking, a moron is somebody with a mental age of between 8 and 12, and telling a 12-year old that they were guilty of "obfuscation" would probably be a waste of time, so krw can't even manage self-consistent lies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 09:46:22 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2014 19:33:31 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 18:28:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:30:19 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

<snip>

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it doesn't show him up as a total moron.

I only put what you said into context, Sloman. You said it.

Putting something "into context"

means that I've carved off all of your obfuscation.

nothing worth reading in any of Sloman's moronic posts

Ignore him. Your life will be enriched.

How could krw's life be enriched? He knows all he wants to know already.
That fact that much of what knows isn't so means that - from our point of view, if not his - his life is in serious need of enrichment, but he's in no position to comprehend this.

He's achieved nirvana - or what he sees as nirvana. The fires of desire, aversion, and delusion haven't actually been finally extinguished for him - he still wants people to take him seriously - but any capacity for change, let alone enrichment, is gone.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 19 May 2014 18:28:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:30:19 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2014 12:13:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2014 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:52:32 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:23:31 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:

snip

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then
they started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among
the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

IBM is a loser.

Spoken like the real loser you are, Sloman. They've only doubled in
value over the last five years.

Having ceased to be what they used to be in 1990's. That they are now successful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.

So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that,
anyway.

Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it doesn't show him up as a total moron.

I only put what you said into context, Slowman. You said it.

Putting something "into context"

means that I've carved off all of your obfuscation.

<nothing worth reading in any of Slowman's moronic posts>