Advice for sci.electronics.design

[Bob Stephens]

I heard a UL about a new school campus
where they didn't install concrete walks right away, but just let the kids
walk from building to building across the grass, and they put the concrete
walks where the grass was dead that next semester.

El Camino Community College in SoCal for one. I thought it was a hell of a
good idea.


Bob

 

[Jim Thompson]

El Camino Community College in SoCal for one. I thought it was a hell of a
good idea.


Bob

That's how Boston placed their streets, over the cow paths ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

That's how Boston placed their streets, over the cow paths ;-)

The modern equivalent would be to let drivers go wherever
they wanted, over lawns, etc., and then sum it up and build
the roads where the drivers preferred to go. Probably there
wouldn't be any stop lights, etc. I can see it now...

 

[Mark Zenier]

You might also be interested in this:

CHARTER: sci.electronics.design
Discussions relevant to the design of electronics circuits.

And these:

....the perceived unfriendliness of the group acts as an inhibition
to free discussions....

That's out of the Rationale for sci.electronics.basics, thus earning
you my SMARMY OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTING DIPSHIT AWARD of the year. Hell,
make that the decade.

sci.electronics was, for the seven years I'd been reading it before that
reorg, been a rough place, and this was the justification for creating
the s.e..basics "no such thing as a stupid question" policy. Not an
attempt to discipline the readers of the mainline group. (If you'd ever
seen John De Armond and Dr. Larry Lippmann going at each other hammer
and tongs, or RSW in full flower, you'd have the minor half a clue that
playing net.cop like you're trying to do just makes things worse).

You seem to be determined to follow the success of the moderator
of alt.dcom.telecom. He was so successful that two other groups
with the same topic were created to avoid him, and the traffic
of "his" group dropped by a factor of (about) four.

Mark Zenier [email protected] Washington State resident

 

[RST Engineering \(jw\)]

I believe the first time I heard of this was the (re?)building of Offutt AFB
by General LeMay.

Jim

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

This is great. You are lecturing Rich the Dreaded Libertarian
on free markets. You might as well tell Win how to write or tell
Genome how to be an asswipe.

ROFLMAO!!!! ;-D

(and, just between you, me, and the NG, I think Bob is blowing some
smoke here - when I design a widget, I have to personally track down
parts, contact vendors, maybe deal with assembly houses, negotiate
with _my_ client as to times and costs and fees, figure out who to
contact to get it to market, train salespeople, write technical
manuals, etc, etc, etc...

In other words, I have to know which tree and which graphite mine
and which eraser farm the parts come from, and what alloy is used
in the eraser holder, gin up the process to stamp/curl the tin/
steel/brass/whatever, find people who can assemble pencils or who
have machines that can make pencils - Bob's scenario sounds more
like "Evolution by Random Chance". You don't just put a bunch of
watch parts into a box and shake it until they assemble themselves
into a watch. ;-) )

And then, to pay for all that hoopla, somebody has to _buy_ the
damn thing! ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

Darn! I thought you had blacklisted me. You really should find another
hobby. This one is going to kill you. Heart attack, stroke, cancer, they
are all caused by hostility and stress.

No, they're caused by _denied_ hostility and stress.

 

[Rich Grise]

Fred, you forgot that childporn thing

Gee, after I fixed that expiration date thingie on my killfilter,
I had almost forgotten all about Fred. I see he's striving for
the "Credible Fuckheads of the Year" award again. ;-)

Dumb shit not only can't pronounce my name, he can't even SPELL
it! ;-) [apologies to actual shit for the insult, lumping you
with Bloggs]

Cheres!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

No, they're caused by _denied_ hostility and stress.

Overt hostility and anger is a killer. It keeps the immune system
revved up and whacks telomeres like crazy.

John

 

[Bob Monsen]

ROFLMAO!!!! ;-D

(and, just between you, me, and the NG, I think Bob is blowing some
smoke here - when I design a widget, I have to personally track down
parts, contact vendors, maybe deal with assembly houses, negotiate
with _my_ client as to times and costs and fees, figure out who to
contact to get it to market, train salespeople, write technical
manuals, etc, etc, etc...

In other words, I have to know which tree and which graphite mine
and which eraser farm the parts come from, and what alloy is used
in the eraser holder, gin up the process to stamp/curl the tin/
steel/brass/whatever, find people who can assemble pencils or who
have machines that can make pencils - Bob's scenario sounds more
like "Evolution by Random Chance". You don't just put a bunch of
watch parts into a box and shake it until they assemble themselves
into a watch. ;-) )

Actually, it's a well-known example used by the economist Milton
Friedman. I just spiced it up a bit.

http://tinyurl.com/ajxf4

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Fred, you forgot that childporn thing.

More than a few facts can be deduced from that picture, but I don't see
childporn; he was obviously beside himself after taking his monthly
shower at the local shelter and just had to snap that picture.

 

[Ban]

More than a few facts can be deduced from that picture, but I don't
see childporn; he was obviously beside himself after taking his
monthly shower at the local shelter and just had to snap that picture.

You didn't read that post from ABSE, it was about some computer stuff, maybe
Rich can help out, since it has gone on my server.

 

[Keith Williams]

Jim Thompson wrote...

The modern equivalent would be to let drivers go wherever
they wanted, over lawns, etc., and then sum it up and build
the roads where the drivers preferred to go. Probably there
wouldn't be any stop lights, etc. I can see it now...

Sounds like Boston to me. ;-)

 

[Guy Macon]

Overt hostility and anger is a killer. It keeps the immune system
revved up and whacks telomeres like crazy.

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their
self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react
defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility,
anger and aggression than other people.

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the
bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary,
they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of
themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down
in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder
because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

-Roy F. Baumeister, _Evil: Inside
Human Violence and Cruelty_ p 149

 

[Fred Bloggs]

You didn't read that post from ABSE, it was about some computer stuff, maybe
Rich can help out, since it has gone on my server.

Not really interested in anything that "thing" and brain-damaged,
pseudo-intellectual idiot may have to say- he mainly parrots
incomprehensible babble he cannot understand- very common among addicts.

 

[Guy Macon]

Actually, it's a well-known example used by the economist Milton
Friedman. I just spiced it up a bit.

....and by doing so you lost the core meaning[1]. You also failed
to mention that Milton Friedman was quoting Leonard E. Read.

The original is here:
[ http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html ]

(Leonard Read was re-telling Adam Smith's story. Read it here:
[ http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM ].)


[1] As evidence of this, I predict that Rich, who disagreed
with your "spiced up" version, will pretty much agree with
the original work.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

And on rereading while sober, I do, in fact see your point. Sorry
I got a little poopy there.

...and by doing so you lost the core meaning[1]. You also failed
to mention that Milton Friedman was quoting Leonard E. Read.

The original is here:
[ http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html ]

(Leonard Read was re-telling Adam Smith's story. Read it here:
[ http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM ].)

[1] As evidence of this, I predict that Rich, who disagreed
with your "spiced up" version, will pretty much agree with
the original work.

Pretty much, yup!

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Jim Thompson wrote...

The modern equivalent would be to let drivers go wherever
they wanted, over lawns, etc., and then sum it up and build
the roads where the drivers preferred to go. Probably there
wouldn't be any stop lights, etc. I can see it now...

Some years ago, Steve Allen told a joke something like, "Well,
at the rate they've been building highways in Southern California,
they've finally paved over the whole state. You don't need maps
any more - just pick a direction and drive, and there will be
concrete under you" - liberally paraphrased here, of course.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Monsen]

That's out of the Rationale for sci.electronics.basics, thus earning
you my SMARMY OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTING DIPSHIT AWARD of the year. Hell,
make that the decade.

sci.electronics was, for the seven years I'd been reading it before that
reorg, been a rough place, and this was the justification for creating
the s.e..basics "no such thing as a stupid question" policy. Not an
attempt to discipline the readers of the mainline group. (If you'd ever
seen John De Armond and Dr. Larry Lippmann going at each other hammer
and tongs, or RSW in full flower, you'd have the minor half a clue that
playing net.cop like you're trying to do just makes things worse).

You seem to be determined to follow the success of the moderator
of alt.dcom.telecom. He was so successful that two other groups
with the same topic were created to avoid him, and the traffic
of "his" group dropped by a factor of (about) four.

Mark Zenier [email protected] Washington State resident

Thanks for the historical perspective. Mark appears to some credentials
in this matter:

http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_Groups.html

 

[Bob Monsen]

Actually, it's a well-known example used by the economist Milton
Friedman. I just spiced it up a bit.

...and by doing so you lost the core meaning[1]. You also failed
to mention that Milton Friedman was quoting Leonard E. Read.

My quote sounds almost identical to the quote of Friedman in that link I
posted. I had actually read the example in a couple of other books.

The original is here:
[ http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html ]

(Leonard Read was re-telling Adam Smith's story. Read it here:
[ http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM ].)

I heard the story originally in a book by Thomas Sewell, who I believe
was a student of Friedman at Harvard. However, Friedman used the example
in an NYT oped, which I linked upthread. It's an effective example of
the invisible hand, which is exactly why I was using it. It shows that
if one attempts to control things with arbitrary rules, one inhibits
larger and more subtle effects. This is also the point that Friedman was
attempting to make, which is that the Soviet Union, by attempting
centralized control, was interfering with the positive feedback (the
'invisible hand') which allows efficiency.

The article you posted by Read also has the quote: "The lesson I have to
teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited". That is what I
had hoped to convey with the example. Using a backdoor policy to impose
moderation on this group is, in my opinion, an attempt to inhibit
creative energies.

[1] As evidence of this, I predict that Rich, who disagreed
with your "spiced up" version, will pretty much agree with
the original work.

Rich is a Libertarian. However, to my knowledge, he has not claimed any
real expertise in economics. I was simply parroting something I'd read
in one of the many popular books on economics that I've read over the
last few years. However, I have never claimed to be an economist.

By saying that my post "lost the core meaning" of the original, however,
you seem to be claiming to both understand the original argument, and to
know how I went off the rails with my posting. I challenge you to back
up this assertion, rather than just taking a pot-shot at me and running
away like some frightened child. The reason I hang out here is that I'm
interesting in learning things.

The original is preserved above.