Randy Yates wrote:
> 
> jim wrote:
> > Randy Yates wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If so, can you please tell me what in my request to be addressed
> > > by my name (or otherwise other content in my post) classifies me
> > > as arrogant?
> >
> >
> > I don't think anybody said your initial request revealed arrogance. As I
> > see it. It was plain ordinary fruitcake after the initial request was
> > made. It subsequently became "arrogant fruitcake" with your follow-up
> > posts.
> >
> > -jim
> 
> Is this the same identityless "jim" that wrote the following response
> to Rick Lyons in this newsgroup in the recent past:
> 
>   Everybody else seems willing to tiptoe around that turd pretending
>   it doesn't stink. I'm sorry I had to rub your nose in it, but that is
> 
>   how a puppy gets house trained.
> 
> ???

Yes, but not to worry I'm working on it. I have enrolled in my local
chapter of IA (Identityless Anonymous)

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jim wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
> >
> > If so, can you please tell me what in my request to be addressed
> > by my name (or otherwise other content in my post) classifies me
> > as arrogant?
>
>
> I don't think anybody said your initial request revealed arrogance. As I
> see it. It was plain ordinary fruitcake after the initial request was
> made. It subsequently became "arrogant fruitcake" with your follow-up
> posts.
>
> -jim

Is this the same identityless "jim" that wrote the following response
to Rick Lyons in this newsgroup in the recent past:

  Everybody else seems willing to tiptoe around that turd pretending
  it doesn't stink. I'm sorry I had to rub your nose in it, but that is

  how a puppy gets house trained.

??? 

---RY

Randy Yates wrote:

> 
> If so, can you please tell me what in my request to be addressed
> by my name (or otherwise other content in my post) classifies me
> as arrogant?


I don't think anybody said your initial request revealed arrogance. As I
see it. It was plain ordinary fruitcake after the initial request was
made. It subsequently became "arrogant fruitcake" with your follow-up
posts. 

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
> news:B5SdnXGyyocM-FjZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>
> >> If, on the other hand, the post was genuine, I think your
> >> response was entirely reasonable.
> >>
> >> Just my two cents.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> jeh
> >>
> >>
> > I was certainly surprised by it.
> >
> > I'll take your advise and de-plonk him, and see what
> > happens.
> >
>
> My sincere apologies for sticking my nose where it didn't
> belong and trying to excuse the outrageous behavior of an
> arrogant fruitcake who richly deserves exactly what he got.
> You were right and I was wrong.

John,

Is this definition of arrogant the one you intended
(from
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Arrogant)?

Arrogant \Ar"ro*gant\, a. [F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of
     arrogare. See Arrogate.]
     1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant
        claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue
        degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to
        persons.
        [1913 Webster]

              Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate. --Shak.
        [1913 Webster]

     2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding
        from undue claims or self-importance; -- applied to
        things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.
        [1913 Webster]

     Syn: Magisterial; lordly; proud; assuming; overbearing;
          presumptuous; haughty. See Magisterial.
          [1913 Webster]

If so, can you please tell me what in my request to be addressed
by my name (or otherwise other content in my post) classifies me
as arrogant?

--Randy

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message 
news:B5SdnXGyyocM-FjZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@web-ster.com...

>> If, on the other hand, the post was genuine, I think your 
>> response was entirely reasonable.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>>
>> --
>>
>> jeh
>>
>>
> I was certainly surprised by it.
>
> I'll take your advise and de-plonk him, and see what 
> happens.
>

My sincere apologies for sticking my nose where it didn't 
belong and trying to excuse the outrageous behavior of an 
arrogant fruitcake who richly deserves exactly what he got. 
You were right and I was wrong.

John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:1153764087.448643.174360@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Suppose we have a signal y(t) that is composed
> > of white noise of unknown variance n(t) and potentially
> > a sinusoid of known power s(t) and known frequency
> > F, so that
> >
> >  y(t) = s(t) + n(t).
> >
> > The object is to detect the presence (or not) of
> > s(t).
> >
> > Is it better to simply filter the signal y(t) as
> > narrowly as possible and then set a detection
> > threshold, or would it be better to compare
> > the power in some off-band bandwidth
> > of y(t) to the power about F and make
> > a determination?
> >
>
> I would say that it is better to estimate the ratio of the
> signal power to the noise power.  I have recently created an
> "auto-squelch" function that does just that.  I feed it a
> power spectrum (a set of squared-magnitude FFT coefficients)
> that include both your "signal band" and a larger "channel
> band".  The first thing I do (convenience only) is convert
> the spectrum to dB. by computing 10*log(f_i) on each
> frequency component.  Then I split the spectrum into two
> arrays, preserving the original ordering.  The "noise" array
> gets the first third and the last third of the spectrum.
> The "signal" array gets the center third.
>
> To estimate the noise, I apply a median filter to the
> "noise" array and take the median value as the noise level.
> To estimate the signal, I convolve a FIR filter with the
> signal array, saving the result of each convolution if it's
> larger than any result previously seen.  When I get done, I
> compare the largest estimated signal component with the
> noise level plus a threshold.  If the signal component is
> larger, I open the squelch.
>
> The coefficients of the FIR filter are chosen to produce a
> Least-Mean-Squares estimate of the value at the center of a
> data window that can be represented by a 2nd-order
> polynomial.  The size of the data window is chosen to insure
> that the Variance Reduction Factor of the filter is at least
> 10 dB.

Hi John,

Sorry for the delay - in responding to the other issues in this
thread I almost neglected to respond to you.

Thanks for throwing me a bone! However, I lose you
around the point where you say

  To estimate the signal, I convolve a FIR filter with the
  signal array, saving the result of each convolution if it's
  larger than any result previously seen.

If you wouldn't mind explaining more I would like to hear more.

--Randy

Hi Jerry,

I appreciate your efforts to bring understanding and peace to the
situation. I don't think peace is forthcoming, but I do sincerely
appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

--Randy

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> John E. Hadstate wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >>>[snip incredibly offensive, possibly drunken, rant
> >>>attributed to Randy Yates]
>
> > I have monitored this group for a long time--not as long as
> > you have--but a long time.  I don't think I have ever seen a
> > similar post by Randy Yates.  For that reason, I urge you to
> > consider the possibility this post was a "Joe Job" by some
> > fruitcake with whom Randy has had a disagreement.
> (snip)
>
> All Randy Yates post this year are from the same IP address.
>
> Ones from last year had a different address.
>
> It is not impossible to forge IP addresses, the easiest being
> to hack into someones computer, but it doesn't seem likely.
>
> I have to say, though, I have been reasonably satisfied with
> Randy's posts over the years.   I have been in some disagreements
> with him, but usually friendly enough.

Thanks for that, Glenn. It has been a pleasure to "spar" with
you over the years as well. "Wisdom is found in a multitude
of counselors."

My hope is that no one on this list misconstrues a technical
disagreement with personal enmity. The two are totally
separate issues, the current situation notwithstanding. 

--Randy

Randy Yates wrote:

   ...

> Tim, if you really feel the same way, you need to
> replonk me.

Randy,

To me, it wasn't simply the imparting of the information about how you 
want to be addressed, but that the way you put it seemed imperious. I 
don't mind your saying what you want -- I'll try to accommodate you when 
I remember -- but while you can always tell someone how you want to be 
treated, it's out of bounds to prescribe how another will behave.

I do think its a cultural matter. If we spoke face to face, you surely 
wouldn't expect me to begin each turn with "Randy comma". Many of the 
interchanges here are like an ongoing conversation. Those who see it 
that way -- I'm one -- jump right in with the meat of the matter. In any 
case, what you asked for -- it seemed to be a demand -- isn't respect, 
but the cultural trappings of respect in certain settings.

Congratulations on finally going home.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
> news:9cednf0kr6-NvVjZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@web-ster.com...
> > Randy Yates wrote:
>
> >> [snip incredibly offensive, possibly drunken, rant
> >> attributed to Randy Yates]
>
> Tim,
>
> I have monitored this group for a long time--not as long as
> you have--but a long time.  I don't think I have ever seen a
> similar post by Randy Yates.  For that reason, I urge you to
> consider the possibility this post was a "Joe Job" by some
> fruitcake with whom Randy has had a disagreement.  Granted,
> such festivities are much more common in the Badlands of
> sci.crypt than they are here, but USENET is full of creeps
> and their numbers seem to be exploding.  Merely disagreeing
> with one of these brain-damaged cretins, no matter how
> mildly, is sufficient to trigger their wrath. None of the
> newsgroups in which I am a participant permits PKI-certified
> signed messages, so it's difficult to tell when some coward
> posts a message and attributes it to someone else.
>
> If, on the other hand, the post was genuine, I think your
> response was entirely reasonable.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> --
>
> jeh

John et. al,

Where is reason here? Do you really think asking for a personal
greeting, especially in this context (i.e., between two old-timers)
is so completely out of line? I wonder why.

Regarding Jerry's comments about widening horizons, I don't
believe this is a matter of cultural insensitivity. I believe there
are certain absolute standards of respect that go across all
cultures and all times.

Regarding the authenticity question, yes, it really is me. How
do you know? I guess you don't. But you can call me and
talk to me in person. My phone number is 408-465-7076
(PST) until Thursday, then I'm back home in NC. That
is also why my IP addresses have changed - while I've
been away from home (since April 16th), I've been
posting through Google news rather than Earthlink's
usenet news server.

Tim, if you really feel the same way, you need to
replonk me.

--Randy