On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:16:53 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Wrote in message: > >> If a regular contributor here needs some work, there's nothing wrong >> with posting that fact. Might help someone else out, in fact. > >I think this is okay too. But I'll add that given the egalitarian >nature of Usenet, such privileges, if allowed at all, cannot be confined >to regular contributors. > >There is an old, possibly long-forgotten Usenet rule that says >that self-promotion of any sort must be limited to no more than >one post every two months. > >SteveIn an un-moderated group, there are no rules. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[OT] I'm Available for Work
Started by ●February 1, 2016
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:16:53 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve>>I think this is okay too. But I'll add that given the egalitarian >>nature of Usenet, such privileges, if allowed at all, cannot be confined >>to regular contributors.>>There is an old, possibly long-forgotten Usenet rule that says >>that self-promotion of any sort must be limited to no more than >>one post every two months.>In an un-moderated group, there are no rules.In the old days, rules in unmoderate groups were enforced by cancelbots. Since few servers process cancels anymore, this mechanism is gone. Steve
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:18:44 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:16:53 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve > >>>I think this is okay too. But I'll add that given the egalitarian >>>nature of Usenet, such privileges, if allowed at all, cannot be confined >>>to regular contributors. > >>>There is an old, possibly long-forgotten Usenet rule that says >>>that self-promotion of any sort must be limited to no more than >>>one post every two months. > >>In an un-moderated group, there are no rules. > >In the old days, rules in unmoderate groups were enforced by >cancelbots. > >Since few servers process cancels anymore, this mechanism is gone. > >SteveI only remember cancel bots in the context of spam deletion or ISP terms of use violations for unmoderated groups. I don't recall comp.dsp ever having such issues, although I do recall spam being pretty common up to only a few years ago. But that's just my recollection, which, like all recollections, is subject to evidenciary revision. ;) Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:45:02 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:>On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:18:44 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve >Pope) wrote: > >>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:16:53 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve >> >>>>I think this is okay too. But I'll add that given the egalitarian >>>>nature of Usenet, such privileges, if allowed at all, cannot be confined >>>>to regular contributors. >> >>>>There is an old, possibly long-forgotten Usenet rule that says >>>>that self-promotion of any sort must be limited to no more than >>>>one post every two months. >> >>>In an un-moderated group, there are no rules. >> >>In the old days, rules in unmoderate groups were enforced by >>cancelbots. >> >>Since few servers process cancels anymore, this mechanism is gone. >> >>Steve > >I only remember cancel bots in the context of spam deletion or ISP >terms of use violations for unmoderated groups. I don't recall >comp.dsp ever having such issues, although I do recall spam being >pretty common up to only a few years ago. > >But that's just my recollection, which, like all recollections, is >subject to evidenciary revision. ;) > > >Eric Jacobsen >Anchor Hill Communications >http://www.anchorhill.comI use Supernews and see very little spam. The main junk is endless, off-topic, ritual flame wars by the usual few idiots. I just ignore them. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:>>In the old days, rules in unmoderate groups were enforced by >>cancelbots.>>Since few servers process cancels anymore, this mechanism is gone.>I only remember cancel bots in the context of spam deletion or ISP >terms of use violations for unmoderated groups.Yep. But, too-frequent adversising of goods or services would constitute spam, under any version of Usenet rules/etiquette I've encountered.>I don't recall comp.dsp ever having such issues, although I do recall >spam being pretty common up to only a few years ago.There usually was no need for a cancel-bot on a newsgroup such as this. Steve
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:16:53 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve > Pope) wrote: > >> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Wrote in message: >> >>> If a regular contributor here needs some work, there's nothing wrong >>> with posting that fact. Might help someone else out, in fact. >> >> I think this is okay too. But I'll add that given the egalitarian >> nature of Usenet, such privileges, if allowed at all, cannot be confined >> to regular contributors. >> >> There is an old, possibly long-forgotten Usenet rule that says >> that self-promotion of any sort must be limited to no more than >> one post every two months. >> >> Steve > > In an un-moderated group, there are no rules. > >That sounds like a rule. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●February 4, 20162016-02-04
Ha, ha, ha. Unemployed. Get a job in the service sector! Flip those burgers dude and live in a trailer park.
Reply by ●February 5, 20162016-02-05
Tim, I was chasing some of the articles you have written and noticed "Sigma-delta techniques extend DAC resolution" is supposed to be in the June 2004 issue while it is really in the July 2004 issue. They aren't making it easy to reach the articles in ESP. If you could fix your web page it would be a help. Just in case you didn't know, the entire archive portion of the embedded.com site has been redone and your direct links to the articles are broken. -- Rick
Reply by ●February 5, 20162016-02-05
In article <n8vnmb$llf$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...> > On 2/4/2016 5:01 AM, Paul wrote: > > In article <thr2bbdtvrtf39kqkfvrvo89iafhnobm5b@4ax.com>, > > jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com says... > >>....> >> I've noticed lately that people are harassing us, practically begging > >> us, to do analog stuff. But too many are small-scale physics fads, > >> which are unlikely to be enough volume to be profitable. > > > > Get several silly requests one of the silliest that did not want > > redesign but just layout the PCB had > > > > 1/ Bluetooth chip in 6 x 6 mm QFP (had to be QFP) with NO tracks under > > the device (data sheet requirement to avoid interference) > > > > 2/ PCB had to be 8 x 40 mm (remember that 6mm wide QFP) > > > > 3/ several wire points for power > > > > 4/ somewhere for the antenna > > > > 5/ Several other devices that really needed to be aligned to get > > magnetic/gyro/compass axis aligned > > > > 6/ Best of all using a latching Hall effect switch device and its > > Open Drain output to drive the 3V3 rail for all devices. > > > > As NO redeign or change of packages were permitted I said No Quote > > could just see the blame trail game on that one a mile off. > > > > I have seen too many that want to break the lawa of physics > > You didn't explain any of the difficulties to them, you just washed your > hands of it?Repeatedly but they kept saying it would fit and work, so I said NO quote. So as not able to change package or do any other redesign I did not want to be caught in blame trail etc -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/pi/> Raspberry Pi Add-ons <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Reply by ●February 5, 20162016-02-05
On 2/5/2016 12:52 PM, Paul wrote:> In article <n8vnmb$llf$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2/4/2016 5:01 AM, Paul wrote: >>> In article <thr2bbdtvrtf39kqkfvrvo89iafhnobm5b@4ax.com>, >>> jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com says... >>>> > ..... >>>> I've noticed lately that people are harassing us, practically begging >>>> us, to do analog stuff. But too many are small-scale physics fads, >>>> which are unlikely to be enough volume to be profitable. >>> >>> Get several silly requests one of the silliest that did not want >>> redesign but just layout the PCB had >>> >>> 1/ Bluetooth chip in 6 x 6 mm QFP (had to be QFP) with NO tracks under >>> the device (data sheet requirement to avoid interference) >>> >>> 2/ PCB had to be 8 x 40 mm (remember that 6mm wide QFP) >>> >>> 3/ several wire points for power >>> >>> 4/ somewhere for the antenna >>> >>> 5/ Several other devices that really needed to be aligned to get >>> magnetic/gyro/compass axis aligned >>> >>> 6/ Best of all using a latching Hall effect switch device and its >>> Open Drain output to drive the 3V3 rail for all devices. >>> >>> As NO redeign or change of packages were permitted I said No Quote >>> could just see the blame trail game on that one a mile off. >>> >>> I have seen too many that want to break the lawa of physics >> >> You didn't explain any of the difficulties to them, you just washed your >> hands of it? > > Repeatedly but they kept saying it would fit and work, so I said NO > quote. > > So as not able to change package or do any other redesign I did not want > to be caught in blame trail etcSounds like a tough one. I don't typically do just PCB layout, but I do like a challenge. Wish I could have had a crack at that. -- Rick
