Super duper hype fast FET driver?

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

But you haven't persuaded the FBI to arrest them and lock them up in
prison for decades, as you would be doing if your policies against
dangerous addictive drugs were even vaguely internally consistent.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/23/2011 11:41 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 08/23/11 00:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:50 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 08/22/11 15:24, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Far from true.
Whhooooosh. So far over your head, you've got no idea there's even a
place where such ideas could exist. BTDT.

BTW, I have nothing against any individual, and respect you and Joerg
more highly than almost anyone else here. Just don't get the impression
that means I think you're right . I merely believe Jeremiah, that "The
human heart is more deceitful than all else". It's incredibly difficult
to clearly see and understand the things we can see or interact with
physically, and impossible for things we can't - about those we can only
have opinions. And luckily, that doesn't even matter much, and certainly
doesn't impede our ability to lead an ethical and productive life.
Knowledge of God is primarily knowledge by acquaintance,

Yes, I've been down that psychic rabbit-hole too. Like anyone, I can set
up mental simulations of many people I've never even met, and with enough
time, become convinced they're real, as happened when I was converted.

You were obviously badly disappointed, and I'm sorry about that. A
close relative of mine became a Jehovah's Witness, spent about 20 years
working very hard at it, and then quit completely when the cultists
didn't live up to their own rhetoric. He's now an atheist who dabbles
in the occult. That's what's so horrible about cults--their lies can
keep people from meeting the God who is there. (I don't know what
franchise you folks belonged to--it isn't just cults that can have that
effect, unfortunately, and I'm sure it's happened in my franchise too.)

I'm an adult convert myself--I was a mechanistic atheist until about 20
years ago, when I discovered two things. The first was that the
mechanistic world view is inherently self-contradictory because it makes
thought impossible. The second and much more important is that God
really answered my prayers, in ways that I could not possibly have made
up because they occurred outside me in very close time synchronization
with the prayer, and addressed to the needs and conditions of several
people at once. It would have taken way more faith _not_ to believe, at
that point. That kind of choreography is one of the footprints of the
Holy Spirit. Another is Joy.

And it's been happening for 20 years or more, including some pretty
showy stuff, at least by my lights. Mostly, though, it's just what
you'd expect from a love relationship--enjoying being together, and
missing it when apart. If you're ever in New York, drop by for a beer
and I'll tell you about it. God really is amazing, and it has nothing
much to do with me or anyone else.

Christianity considered as a philosophical system is entirely consistent
with honestly conducted science

That's just not true. Science indicates there never was a time when the
world was good, when the lion lay down with the lamb, and there never
will (or should) be. It was simple and became complicated; that's
the arrow of time; it's not a description of a process of corruption,
which monotheists call sin.

The idea of sin isn't a consequence of monotheism, it's a matter of
common observation, and forms part of the data that go into all religion
and all psychology whatsoever. The vocabulary is different, but there's
nothing in the so-called modern view that's actually new--the idea that
evil is merely the result of ignorance of the good is as old as Socrates
(400ish BC) and probably much older. It's just wrong, is all.

All it takes to get a good picture of the power of sin is to try obeying
your conscience _exactly_ for a month or so. It's impossible, and
that's an experimental fact, not a dogma. That's the Bad News that
makes the Gospel the Good News--that we aren't stuck there: God has set
us free by His sacrifice of Himself in our place.

The idea of the fall is the most pernicious

evil ever to befall humankind, immensely damaging to societies and
individuals alike. The attempt to recreate or return to a situation that
never did and never can exist is a total waste of time and effort. We
must look forward to what can be, not backward.

If you were going to a place that emphasized guilt and duty to the
exclusion of grace and freedom, you've been cheated out of the gift.

It has been well said that "in Christianity, salvation is a gift and
morality is gratitude." Karmic religion, where we have to save
ourselves by struggling, isn't Christian at all. If we try doing that
in our own strength, there are only two possible outcomes: exhaustion or
hypocrisy. It has to be done in God's strength, or not at all.

As St Paul says to the Corinthians, "...I am the least of the apostles,
unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not
in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it
was not I, but the grace of God which is with me."

That bit in Isaiah 11 about the lion lying down with the fatling is
about the restoration of God's first intention, after the end of the
present world. It's a promise that the hurts of the world will be
healed, and ours along with them. Every wrong will be righted and every
tear will be dried. God is the one who restores. Addressed to the
Israelites who were slaves in Babylon at the time, it was one of God's
ways of proclaiming His love for them, and for us. It isn't about
temporal progress or lack of it.

Christianity moreover almost totally destroyed science, as known to the
Greeks and Romans, and it was left to the Muslims to preserve and extend
it.

Christianity invented modern science. The whole scientific enterprise
rests on the expectation that physical events are regular, i.e. if you
repeat an experiment sufficiently carefully, you get the same result as
before.

Muslim science was pretty much limited to mathematics and astronomy. If
you read Ptolemy's "Almagest' (its Arabic name), you'll find that the
classical, Arabic, and medieval European cosmologies all agreed that
nothing ever changed above the orbit of the Moon--i.e. that the heavens
were mathematical and the Earth was capricious. That's not actually a
scientific outlook at all. It was the Judaeo-Christian idea that the
apparently capricious world was actually ruled by laws, because it comes
from the mind of God, who is "a God of order and not of chaos."

Johannes Kepler said that the greatest thing about his work was
"thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Seriously - Europe had even forgotten how to build arches! Europe

only rediscovered science in the 12th century or so,

Western Europe was repeatedly overrun by wave after wave of bloodthirsty
barbarians, from the fourth century to the tenth--Huns, Vandals, Alans,
Goths, Vikings, and probably some I've left out. That's why the Dark
Ages were dark; Rome didn't fall by itself.

In places where the barbarians were excluded, like Byzantium, or which
they missed, like parts of Ireland, the learning was never lost, but
treasured and preserved, sometimes under the most difficult
circumstances. The rest of the continent was like one big Afghanistan,
and for the same reason--there was nothing left standing, and people's
minds were focused on survival.

Once they got rid of the Vikings, about 1050ish, the revival of Western
Europe was startlingly fast--in the High Middle Ages, not the
Renaissance, well before anything much arrived from outside. The
development was all in new directions, such as Gothic architecture,
courtly love and new music and art that were nothing like their
classical models. Chesterton's biography of St. Francis of Assisi is a
good read on that point.

for example when

the great library of Toledo was opened and found to be full of books in
a Latin from which 50% of the words, and 95% of the concepts had been
lost. The universities were founded upon the attempt to re-learn the
knowledge of the ancients - and even that was only possible because
religious authority (and even royal authority) was beginning to be
questioned.

You're identifying Christianity with Western civilization. Christian
Byzantium maintained and in some ways extended classical civilization
right up to the point where it was sacked and burned by the (Muslim)
Turks in 1453--well after the high point of the Italian Renaissance.

...I'm sorry about that. But unforgiveness like that will...
....
The way unforgiveness eats people up isn't theology, though, it's a
matter of common observation.

The relevance? Oh, I see, your ideology doesn't allow you to conceive of
of a person who has lived inside the kind of loving Xian community you do,
and who has now left and is adamantly opposed to their conception of truth,
who is not also eaten up by guilt, loathing and spiteful thoughts - but is
instead happy, productive, well-adjusted, and leading a highly ethical
life. I suppose I should feel offended by your prejudice, but I've worn
those blinkers too. Now I just feel mellow about it. It was a happy time
with good sincere people, even though their lives were being sapped by
trying to re-create an unreality.

As I said, I'm an adult convert, so there's nothing on the outside of
the Church that I'm frightened of. It's just that I've met God, and
have met other folks who know Him, and that has become the most
important thing in my life. It also doesn't require me to believe lies
about science, which is the second most important thing to me. (Well,
okay, third, after my family.)

1 Corinthians 13:8-13:
"Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for
tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our
knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the
perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a
child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish
ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I
know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully
understood.
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of
these is love."

The bitterness of your attack, and your repeated references to having
'been there, done that' is what makes me think that there's
unforgiveness as well as disappointment. If that's so, it's very
dangerous, as I know from hard experience.

I come from a family where there was a fair amount of unforgiveness, and
I've seen what it can do--I came along after most of the causes had
blown over, and even so it has taken me a long time to get really free
of it myself--the only way I know of is by praying continually for my
enemies. Periodically I discover some more, so it's a continuing
process. Nothing of that sort is completely fixable in this world, but
God can turn it to good nonetheless.

Sorry your barbs didn't stick. I've been where you are, spent years in many
different kinds of Christian communities and experienced all they had to
offer, and now I'm profoundly sure that you're wrong.

I'm sorry that you didn't find God there--unfortunately, not every place
with a cross on top is a good place to meet Him. But He's here.

And I'm not aiming any barbs at you, I just think you're wrong about
God's relationship with us, and I think that you and some others on this
thread are missing something amazing that you could have for free. I've
lived on both sides of the fence myself, and God certainly doesn't need
me to defend Him. It's a freely offered gift, that we're free to refuse.

I'm not bitter at

all, though I do think my time might have been better spent elsewhere.
It's not that I'm an atheist; I'm far from that confident. It's just that
the ideas of theism don't and cannot answer any question I care about.

You seem to have cared about it very much, at one time. I just want to
encourage folks to find a place that's faithful to the Apostolic
tradition--the whole tradition, not just the post-1500 tradition, and
still less the post-1900 tradition--and soak in it. To worship, and
pray, and read Scripture, ideally with some other folks who know God.

God honours all honest seekers--don't give up, and do make sure you've
got the real deal. It's out there to be found. (It feels a bit odd at
first, talking to a God that one isn't sure is there, but He doesn't
leave us in that place.) He's really there. It's really true.

Anyhow, this isn't really the place to continue this discussion. I also
have
written more on the subject, elsewhere, though I don't publish much of it.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere.


Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill



lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 3:12 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization.

Actually, you need to note that energy replace slavery in our
civilisation. At the moment quite a lot of that energy is being
generated by burning fossil carbon, but ti also comes from nuclear
plants, hydro-electric power schemes and wind-mills, as well as the
odd solar-powered generating plant.

We don't need to stop using energy just because burning fossil-carbon
has bad long term consequences, and it looks very much as if we could
replace most of it with solar power in a few decades if we set out
minds to it.

One can admit all manner of horrible things caused by them, but that's
the basis of a pretty compelling reductio ad absurbum.

The absurdity resides in the proposition that burning fossil carbon is
the only way of generating energy - it's not. A more rational argument
might object to a possible reduction in living standards if we went
over to more expensive solar power generation to replace it, but we
only spend 8% of our GNP on energy at the moment, and while going over
to solar power - at twice the price - would put a crimp in the economy
if it happened tomorrow, the changeover has to be spread over a decade
or two, and by the time the installed base of solar power generators
approaches he capacity of the fossil-powered generating plant, the
economies of scale on the vastly increased production of solar power
generators will have made solar power cheaper than fossil-carbon
generated power anyway, even if OPEC hasn't jacked up the price of oil
in the meantime.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

The professional purveyors of financially advantageous mis-
information to people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking do seem to have fed you a load of
codswallop. Try think about what is actually going on, rather than
uncritically absorbing and regurgitating denialist propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 3:00 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

But you seem to be perfectly happy to let professional purveyors of
financially advantageous mis-information prey on people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking.

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

You are very tedious and very stupid, and have very little to say
about electronics.

None of which is either true or relevant, but while John Larkin
objects to the abuse he thinks he gets in other poeoples posts, he
does seem to think that it is perfectly okay for him to dish it out
when he can't come up with a snappy one-liner.

Reasoned counter-argument does seem to be quite beyond him. He
probably wouldn't be much good at it if he tried, but I doubt that we
will ever find out.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 3:10 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:05 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
snip

Legalising soft drugs drops the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

They are running the experiment right now in Northern California.
The people who participate are making pretty good money.

So?

So yeah. Until the feds get involved...

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

The tobacco companies? Yeah, they do.

My wife gave up cigarettes many years ago, but she remains addicted to
coffee. Tobacco clearly does  more harm than coffee, so people get
less upset about the dealers who make money from selling coffee, but
they are equally guilty of "professional predation' in the sense of
exploiting a human weakness for their own profit.

Cigarettes didn't do that much harm either.

They cause - and are causing - quite a few people to die earlier than
they would have done if they had never smoked - about 14 years
earlier. This strikes me as "harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Mortality

That was never the point. The people who put the Surgeon's
General report more or less admitted that - they could
quantify it only at a level of rough order of magnitude.
If you died of something they'd kill you with, you
had at most a 50% chance of the smokes having
actually caused it. This against specific pathologies
with mortality rates in the 20% range.

So what. Non-smokers get lung cancer, and some smokers who get lung
cancer would have got it even if they hadn't smoked, but if you smoke
you've got at least ten times the chance of getting lung cancer.
Correlation isn't causation, but we've got a pretty good idea of how
smoking makes it more likely that you'll get lug cancer.

Chemotherapy has much higher mortality rates.

Of course. You get chemotherapy after you have developed cancer will
kill you if you don't get chemotherapy, and the optimum level of
chemotherapy is going to have an appreciable chance of killing you
before it kills the cancer. It's not a comparable situation.

*Of course* people who could quit should, but it's not
like the epidemiology of it all really ever made sense.

If it didn't make sense to you, you didn't study the right texts.

That didn't matter; there was a narrative and that replaced facts.

Nonsense.

People lived in houses painted with lead paint, with
asbestos fireproofing, coal heating, in cities with massive
quantities of lead from ethyl gasoline. They worked in machine
shops with particulates at ... many times the "safe" level, or
with chemicals like methylene chloride.

Both smokers and non-smokers.The smokers were more a lot likely to die
of lug cancer.

Prior to say, what, 1950, nobody even *thought* about
this stuff. Probably later.

In 1912, American Dr. Isaac Adler was the first to strongly suggest
that lung cancer is related to smoking. In 1929, Fritz Lickint of
Dresden, Germany, published a formal statistical evidence of a lung
cancer-tobacco link, based on a study showing that lung cancer
sufferers were likely to be smokers.In 1950, Richard Doll published
research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between
smoking and lung cancer. This is usually cited as the seminal study.

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...

Most of them have - however - noticed that modern advertising
techniques can increase demand.

Or not. Modern advertising is largely playing to an empty room.

The comapanies that pay for the advertsing don't think so, and they
spedn quite a lot of money testign the effectiveness of their
campaigns.

Nobody seems to have seriously tried
to use the same techniques to reduce demand. The "Just Say No"
campaing may have been conceived as a step in that direction but the
campaign money doesn't seem to have been spent on buying even
minimally competent advertising talent.

Gee, I ran into some druggies when young and they were the best "Just
Say No" thing I ever ran into. Worked like a champ.

Which is more than you can say for the "Just Say No" campaign.

Lenny Bruce used to claim that the war on drugs represented a
conspiracy between the FBI and Maffia to keep the price of drugs high..
It's a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

Lenny Bruce was full of it.

Probably. His official cause of death was "acute morphine poisoning
caused by an accidental overdose" though it has been suggested that
police may have sexed up the area around his corpse as an act of
posthumous revenge.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 2:57 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

But you haven't persuaded the FBI to arrest them and lock them up in
prison for decades, as you would be doing if your policies against
dangerous addictive drugs were even vaguely internally consistent.

How do you suggest I persuade the FBI to do that?

You, and the people who share your attitude, might have tried writing
to your congressman. I haven't yet heard of any public campaign to
have the tobacco company executives who paid for the lying pro-tobacco
campaign to be put behind bars. Drug-pushers on million dollar
salaries don't seem to attract that kind of attnetion.

Moron.

Clearly you don't know what the word means.

What is moronic is the war on drugs. The Great Experiment proved that
prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and the US spent the time since
Repeal proving that it doesn't work for other drugs of addiction
either. You voted for the nitwits who keep on supporting it anyway,
which doesn't make you very bright.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 25, 2:58 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>    wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com>    wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

It would probably have to be pretty invasive to be particularly
effective, but self-consistency is always to be recommended, even if
it doesn't actually minimise damage.

That's just... no, self-consistency is only useful in the service of a
well established set of principles. Even then, the result
may well be Mandarinism.

You can't claim to have a rational policy if it isn't self-consistent.
That isn't Mandarinism - unless simple rationality is too Mandarin for
you.

You cannot impute proper behavior from first or even second order
principles.

Who is "imputing behaviour"? Come to think of it, what would imputing
proper behavior involve?
Proper behavior for the obese obviously involves losing weight, but
there don't seem to be any particularly effective ways of inducing
that behavior, short of surgical intervention in the gut.

Life is not a theorem. A theorem is arguably
the least ... interesting form of knowledge. Don't get me wrong,
I like theorems in the proper context, but people are far too
complex to be tractable in that manner.

So where did the theorem come from, and what might it consist of?

I could not have provided a better example of purist mandarin
technocracy if asked. You *just don't know enough*,Bill. Not
"you" you - nobody does. What's it like in there? Nobody knows.

In where? We certainly don't know how the human appetite/satiation
system works. We do know that it works better for some people than
others, and we may eventually be able to adjust it so that it works
properly for everybody, but that's a long way off and it may turn out
to be impossible for at least some of the population.

And it's not like the people who do work with things like
nutrition standards can really be reliable - they don't know
what your system works like.

Some of that information may become accessible when we can read ands
interpret individual genomes, but again that's some way off.

Getting excited about the damage drug addicts do to themselves while
ignoring the way food addicts wreck their health is distinctly silly.

So howzabout we ignore both of those unless we have a personal
stake in it? Is that so hard?

It's what I'd advocate. If people really want to do drugs it makes
sense to make sure that the drugs they use are pure and the same from
one batch to the next. You can discourage them by keeping the price
high, but if you make the price too high, drug-smugglers wil sell them
less pure and less consistent drugs, which would rather defeat the
purpose.

My personal experience was a doctor ready to put me on statins when
I have never had high cholesterol in my life. *Low* cholesterol. I made
her get a different test at a different lab, and sonofagun, the first
test was off a lot.

It happens.

The only thing that really does seem to help with obesity is surgical
adjustments of the stomach

No! I actually have a friend who has beaten morbid obesity, and that
was not the right thing to do at all. He's taken a *specific* dietary
regime ( which doesn't include carbs, interestingly enough - so his
glucose and insulin levels are amazing ) and very specific
exercise.

Anecdotal evidence isn't a good basis for public policy. Dietary
regimes combined with exercise do work for some people, but nowhere
near enough to get the Cochrane Collaboration recommend it as a
standard evidence-based treatment.

That's like "gee, kinda looks like plumbing in there, don't it Bob?
Lets put a flow restrictor in."

The changes to the plumbing don't explain the effectiveness of the
treatment.

No! It's a control/feedback problem and that's how it has been managed
in his case. it works. it was terrifyingly difficult, and may
fail at any moment.

It seems that the surgery is a reliable way of managing the control
and feedback. Some people have made suggestions about what might be
going on but research is on-going.

You and I are among the first or second generation that *has never
really been hungry*. It's all outta calibration in there. Doesn't
that make more sense?

Not really. Rich people have been able to get fat since we took to
living in cities. It used to be a mark of social status, but plenty of
the rich and powerful managed to avoid obesity - lokk at their
portraits in museums and art galleries.

and the top of the digestive system and
that is seriously invasive. If we get a better grip on the way
appetite control works in people who don't get fat - and fails to work
in people who do - we may come up with less invasive treatments that
do work, but it may take a while.

I can't disagree there. But when people made some sort of Social
Darwinist... or even moderately Dickensian approach, it's just
plain wrong.

Agreed. I'm not proposing that society insists on appetite-limiting
surgery for the grossly over-weight, just observing that it is the
only treatment available that actually works in a useful proportion of
cases.

Again: we know *very little* about either of these problems. If
you use the right angle on it, they may not really even *be* problems,
At least not problems for which there is a general public
good solution.

Obesity is certainly a health problem for the people who suffer from
it. "On average, obesity reduces life expectancy by six to seven
years: a BMI of 30–35 reduces life expectancy by two to four years,
while severe obesity (BMI > 40) reduces life expectancy by 10 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity

It's less damaging than smoking, which shortens life by 14 years on
average, but it's certainly not compatible with a long and healthy old
age.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 24, 9:37 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 24, 12:41 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 23, 5:58 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
langw...@fonz.dk wrote:
On 22 Aug., 20:07, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Nico Coesel wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:08 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net>  wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:03 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 08/22/11 06:45, Joerg wrote:
I won't judge anyone who does that, that's not up to me. Personally I
would not do it because it is squarely against biblical teaching, and I
try to live by that.
Would that be the biblical teaching in favor of genocide, or witch-burning?
What you think is Christian is predominantly the interpretation and
ideology
of your chosen cultural group, with some ideas drawn from another stone-age
group; neither of which is informed by rational inquiry or material
realities.
Far from it.  Properly, the Church is organized so that no one is
without supervision, precisely because all of us, ministers and laity
Keep on dreaming. Over here in NL and in Belgium there is a big
scandal going on concerning pedophiles in the church. There are dozens
of victims!
And its not limited to NL and Belgium:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/HOUSE+OF+HORROR%3B+100+set+to+sue+over+...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53545205/Torture-Assassinations-Vaccine-Tri...
Right now its dinner time over here but I suddenly lost my appetite!
I'd certainly have had to be asleep to miss it, especially since it came
out in 2002 in the US.  Nor is it limited to the Church--schoolteachers,
for instance, have a far worse record, at least over here.
As a Dutchman, if you really want something to turn your stomach, try
investigating the origins of all those trafficked slave women in the red
light district of Amsterdam.  IIRC about 4 out of 5 were trafficked from
Russia and eastern Europe, and they suffer rape and worse, continually,
until they're too sick or too worn out to be worth anything any more.
Well, if you want to see unhappy women you should go to the red-light
district. However, your information is a bit outdated. Many laws and
regulations have been put in effect to minimize the possibility of
human trafficking and enslavement. It is very difficult to get a
permit to open a sex-club (aka massage salon). Even the well known
Yab-Yum has been closed down by the local authorities because there
where rumours the owners had ties with the criminal circuit.
Outdated? From what I have heard they have discovered a new source of
"revenue" and are now taxing the redlight districts:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KMSBS81&show_article=1
it's a job/business, why shouldn't they pay tax like everyone else?
So we look the other way when the question regarding the residency
permit comes up?
Being a "sex worker" is a legitimate job in the Netherlands, and
people coming from those eastern European countries that are now part
of the recently extended European Union don't need any kind of
residency permit anyway.
You still need the Vergunning to Verblijf, just like I did. That's what
a Dutch couple that was here three weeks ago told me. They know that for
a fact because one of them is from the EU but not a Dutch citizen.
I doubt if you'd need it now. My wife and I both needed them in 1993
because we are Australian citizens, but one of my wife's English
colleagues who moved to the Netherlands at the same time didn't have
to bother.
Then you may have been in the country illegally

If we were, the the guys at the police station didn't seem to realise
it.

snip - responded to that bit earlier
Yeah, let's leave it at that. To me abortion is killing a human being,
plain and simple. Nobody can tell me "the child would have no future",
because it would have.

This is a point of view, but not one that is shared by the majority.
Trying to enforce your point of view does more damage than that
majority is prepared to tolerate. ...

Nope. It may be the majority in your area, never been to Australia. It
is most certainly not the majority in our area. And that is a good thing.

... Jon Kirwan has elaborated the same argument vis-a-vis banning drugs..

I certainly understand his concerns. On the other hand I really don't
want to ever see all the drug-caused damage again that I saw in NL.

There doesn't seem to be much of it around now. Our neighbours are old
enough that we go to a couple of funerals every year, but they seem to
die of cancer rather than over-doses of illegal drugs.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 23, 9:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 23, 2:43 am, Mark Robarts <mrstar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just as a matter of interest. That people didn't live much past 35 is a common misconception.  The average life expectancy of 35 is a result of a very high infant mortality rate and does not mean that people did not live to be 90 (or that people did not previously die slowly and painfully).

Oh sure, I know that.  Bill regularly conflates longevity, life
expectancy, and medical care quality as a way of promoting socialized
medicine.

Life expectancy figures are easily accessible, and make the point that
US health care isn't a good as it might be. I'm not promoting
socialised medicine as such - France and Germany both have universal
health care and compulsory medical insurance, but they do use the
system Bismark invented to steal a march on his socialist political
opponents, so James Arthur is being a trifle dishonest in describing
their system as "socialised medicine".

The UK National Health system is genuinely socialist, works pretty
well, and is appreciably cheaper than the French and German systems,
which in turn cost about two thirds of what the
American system costs, per head. The extra money does buy marginally
better health care.

In the old days you'd get a hang nail, it got infected, and you were
dead.  Antibiotics and sanitation by far are responsible for most of
our longer life expectancy today.  The next levels of life expectancy
come from not joining a gang, driving carefully, and not eating
yourself to death (common in America).

We cure a bunch of things that used to be fatal, like cancers, but I'm
not sure that adds much LE.  America does that much better, for
example, but the deficit from overeating outweighs it.

American cancer care is the best in the world, if you can get it,
which doesn't amke it all that much better than French or German
cancer care.

I'm not sure that you can blame the US life expectancy deficit purely
on over-eating.

Life expectancy varies with lots of thing. Socio-economic status is
one of them

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849870/?tool=pubmed

It's good for about a five year difference in life expectancy for
white and African-American individuals in contemporary Calfornia.

In Australia the difference goes down to about 4.4 years for males and
2.7 years for females.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/ses/ses_lomidhilex.asp

Australia is nearly as overweight as the US - 67.4% as opposed to
74.1% - but substantially less obese - 18% as opposed to 33.8%.

Obesity is more prevalent in the lower social classes, but only the
highest socioencomic status white Californian males - with a life
expectancy of 79.4 years - beat the average Australian males - 78.6
years, while the Californian males from the second catagory (out of
five) did appreciably less well - at 77.2 years.

Even the highest socioeconomic status white Californian females did
worse - at 82.7 years - than the average Australian female at 83.5
years.

The US medical system is notorious for short-changing the less well
off, but it doesn't seem to offer all that much to the better-off
either.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 3:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

But you seem to be perfectly happy to let professional purveyors of
financially advantageous mis-information prey on people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking.

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

You are very tedious and very stupid, and have very little to say
about electronics.

None of which is either true or relevant, but while John Larkin
objects to the abuse he thinks he gets in other poeoples posts, he
does seem to think that it is perfectly okay for him to dish it out
when he can't come up with a snappy one-liner.

Reasoned counter-argument does seem to be quite beyond him. He
probably wouldn't be much good at it if he tried, but I doubt that we
will ever find out.

Try making reasoned arguments about electronics, if you remember
anything about that topic.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill



lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Given the trends in California weather and snowpack, my kids will be
very happy about the consequences.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 25, 2:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

But you haven't persuaded the FBI to arrest them and lock them up in
prison for decades, as you would be doing if your policies against
dangerous addictive drugs were even vaguely internally consistent.

How do you suggest I persuade the FBI to do that?

You, and the people who share your attitude, might have tried writing
to your congressman. I haven't yet heard of any public campaign to
have the tobacco company executives who paid for the lying pro-tobacco
campaign to be put behind bars. Drug-pushers on million dollar
salaries don't seem to attract that kind of attnetion.

You, and the people alarmed about climate change, should try to
personally reduce your carbon footprint.

Moron.

Clearly you don't know what the word means.

"Sloman" gets pretty close.

What is moronic is the war on drugs. The Great Experiment proved that
prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and the US spent the time since
Repeal proving that it doesn't work for other drugs of addiction
either. You voted for the nitwits who keep on supporting it anyway,
which doesn't make you very bright.

I don't vote.

John

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 25, 6:00 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

And your example countries are?

Germany had a much lower drug problems in the 80's and I happened to
live smack at the border, on the Dutch side. Crossed it daily. So I had
years of daily comparison.

The only countries that I've adduced - France versus the Netherlands,
has the less permisive Frence regime stuck with a slightly worse drug
problem than the more permissive Netherlands.

The US has a bigger drug problem than either, and its the world leader
in the - misconceived - "war on drugs".

I live in a rural setting quite similar to where I lived in NL. I don't
even see anything remotely similar to the grief that I saw back there in
the 80's. But again, as Nico hinted, that was the 80's, I do not know NL
recently except as a visitor and those visits were too brief.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Nico Coesel]

Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...

Demand is created by marketeers, but economists clearly don't need to
know about marketing.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:02:12 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

A health policy doesn't have to be "self-consistent". What is should
do is maximize health, whatever ways it can.

Law enforcement can work to reduce the availability of heroin, but it
can't do anything about fried chicken.

John

 

[langwadt@fonz.dk]

On 25 Aug., 19:04, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:02:12 -0500, Les Cargill









lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com>  wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

A health policy doesn't have to be "self-consistent". What is should
do is maximize health, whatever ways it can.

like free health care for everyone so health problems are caught and
treated
early?

Law enforcement can work to reduce the availability of heroin, but it
can't do anything about fried chicken.

they could do the same as they do with drugs; ban it and put anyone
who
breeds chicken, fries chicken or are caught with a chicken, in prison

I've always found it a bit odd that a country, that prides it self on
individual freedoms, the right to own as many guns as you like and
the
government staying out of peoples business, spends so much time money
and effort on preventing individuals from using certain drugs, even
to
some extend alcohol

not to mention regulating what word and parts of a human body that
are
just too strong for tv. Who that can choose to get married and what
kinds
of porn that consenting adults can choose to make without going to
prison


-Lasse

 

[The Phantom]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:59:05 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Folks,

Have to drive around a hundred pF or so in parallel with maybe a few
hundred ohms blazingly fast. 10-12V amplitude, transitions ideally
sub-nanosecond from 10-90% both directions. Not too boutiquish or
unobtanium (which excludes certain companies ...) and not more than a
few Dollars. Shouldn't introduce noise when low. Low quiescent current,
preferably under 20mA.

Looked around and the fastest one I could see is this dude:

http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ZXGD3003E6.pdf

Not too much data but it gets into the 2nsec range. Anyone aware of a
driver with even more testosterone?

Of course the ideal scenario would be a push-pull MMIC with 15V or more
supply voltage but that ain't going to happen. Same with RF switches,
even if they could take 12V they are surprisingly slow in switch action.

Ok, could roll my own, of course. But that gets to be involved and a bit
too big for this project.

This logic family:

http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/74/74AC00.pdf

is very fast. The fastest scope I have has a measured rise time of 1 nS and the
output of a 7fAC00 with all 4 gates in parallel shows a ries time of just over 1
nS. It's only a 5 volt logic family, but it would give a very fast edge to
drive something else, such as a 2N7000.

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:02:00 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:14:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:13 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:27:00 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:52 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 21, 12:17 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On 20/08/2011 3:34 AM, Joerg wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On 20/08/2011 2:46 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

143 lines of pompous bilge, none on the subject of fet drivers.

John Larkin loves posting about fet drivers - he can make implausible
claims about how fast and cheap his are, and pose as the expert
electronic engineer that he wants to be accepted as.


John posts actual scope plots. So when he says that a transition happens
in under one nanosecond and proves it with a scope plot I don't know
what you mean by "implausible". Just because some people or datasheets
say it can't be done does not mean it can't be done. Also, he can show
the proof in revenue Dollars.

Now if someone had the opposite sex of the 2N7002 or a PNP with 15V+ and
no "saturation hold" that would be great. The BSS84 and it's siblings
ain't that hot.

Have you tried any pfets?

I haven't played much with pfets as really fast switches. Right, a
complement to the 2N7002, push-pull against a 7002, with the same
12-cent gate drivers, would be interesting, and might solve your
problem. Just ignore the shoot-through maybe.

I'll put that on my slow-day experiment list. All I need now is a slow
day.

Why doesn't somebody make p-channel gaasfets? The world wonders.

John

I don't suppose you have considered the carrier velocities in the
material? Also as compared with Silicon?

?-)

 

On Aug 25, 7:04 pm, The Phantom <phan...@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:59:05 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Folks,

Have to drive around a hundred pF or so in parallel with maybe a few
hundred ohms blazingly fast. 10-12V amplitude, transitions ideally
sub-nanosecond from 10-90% both directions. Not too boutiquish or
unobtanium (which excludes certain companies ...) and not more than a
few Dollars. Shouldn't introduce noise when low. Low quiescent current,
preferably under 20mA.

Looked around and the fastest one I could see is this dude:

http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ZXGD3003E6.pdf

Not too much data but it gets into the 2nsec range. Anyone aware of a
driver with even more testosterone?

Of course the ideal scenario would be a push-pull MMIC with 15V or more
supply voltage but that ain't going to happen. Same with RF switches,
even if they could take 12V they are surprisingly slow in switch action.

Ok, could roll my own, of course. But that gets to be involved and a bit
too big for this project.

This logic family:

http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/74/74AC00.pdf

is very fast.  The fastest scope I have has a measured rise time of 1 nS and the
output of a 7fAC00 with all 4 gates in parallel shows a ries time of just over 1
nS.  It's only a 5 volt logic family, but it would give a very fast edge to
drive something else, such as a 2N7000.

When those were brand-new I pressed a preliminary sample into service
as a 100MHz linear amplifier.

Plenty fast, but they don't like that! I had to add a Vdd limiting
resistor, otherwise they fry themselves.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur