If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:08:06 +0100
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly >> Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable, maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.
Whether it's Fortran or Assembly Language or Java or Cotlin or whatever,
they all do the same things with a different syntax.
If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
Tell us one thing Swift can do that an Assembly Language program can't do. Name just one.
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
On 22/04/2022 08:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:08:06 +0100
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in
Assembly Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high
level languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large,
portable, maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly
too large and complex to be written in assembler and have been for
decades.
Well yes and no.
You would be surprised at how many "#ifdef X86" a linux kernel probably
has. And how many compiler optimisations may need to be tweaked to port software between different targets.
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
in those circles circa 1980.
Personally I usually talked about burning or
blowing an eprom.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if there are any changes.
you're not fooling anyone.
Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
you do it with an (e)prom programmer.
the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
this approach.
In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
there are any changes.
you're not fooling anyone.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:52 -0400, nospam wrote:
In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
there are any changes.
you're not fooling anyone.
Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
you do it with an (e)prom programmer.
the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
this approach.
There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs,
(electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:52 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or blowing an eprom.
one does not 'code in hex'
and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data
one does not 'code in hex'
O RLY? Try telling that to Steve Wozniak, who didn't have access to an assembler when he created the Apple I's firmware.
and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data
...and the process by which data is stored in an EPROM is called what? The device that does it is called what?
I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable, maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or blowing an eprom.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has >>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't
uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or
blowing an eprom.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and >> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I
hadn't
yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the
eprom
for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU wire-wrapped board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my "parts" bins. <https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots, etc.
To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
experience, if
I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the 80s,
I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
it's not 1980 anymore, and he's using the term to mean writing
software, not writing to an eprom.
but even if he is using it to mean writing to an eprom, it would be
*less* relevant, since anyone can press a few buttons to do it.
Personally I usually talked about burning or
blowing an eprom.
as did everyone who actually did it, including myself.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't >> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom >> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
changing a couple of bytes is not anywhere close to 'coding in hex'.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
exactly the point.
some people did that 40 years ago, including myself.
almost nobody does that now, nor do they program in assembly.
with very rare exception, compilers can do a *much* better job at
writing assembly than humans can, particularly with modern processors.
There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs,
(electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.
context matters.
arlen was babbling about programming in assembly versus high level
languages.
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.
It's a basic marketing principle, pushed by marketroids (and adopted as
an article of faith by J. Random Luser) since long before Apple existed:
"If we don't have it, you don't need it."
sms wrote:
Lewis is wrong of course.
The folks on the c.s.r.p group may not be familiar with the iKooks, where
all the iKooks have the _same_ response in _any_ topic that purports to mention the lack of basic functionality of their beloved product line.
In this case, it's FM radio - where they claim that it exists in another form, and that nobody wants it anyway, and that most phones don't have it, etc., all of which are always wrong since most phones _do_ have it.
Just not iPhones.
In article <t3uth2$1361$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.
nospam wrote:
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
The fact you completely lack education is why you deprecate textbooks.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.
I doubt you have one nospam since you brazenly fabricate everything.
Let's see a picture of that wire-wrap gun, nospam, next to your iPhone.
Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool. <https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>
And yes, you know that's my iPad since it's asking me to log in again: <https://i.postimg.cc/zDMxn7hb/parts02.jpg>
BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?
I didn't think so.
You _fabricated_ everything you claimed, nospam.
Every word from you is a brazen fabrication which you _never_ back up.
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.
I don't believe a word you say nospam because you fabricate everything.
BTW, here's _my_ rasperry pi and the transducers to go along with it. <https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers
And to prove it's mine, here's a shot of it next to my iPad. <https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts
The difference between you and me is I don't fabricate my education.
You do.
Let's see a _single_ shot of your proof nospam.
Show us just one!
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.
...but no old, crufty books? No sale!
On 2022-04-22, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <t3uth2$1361$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.
...but no old, crufty books? No sale!
I remember an EPROM programmer box, about the size of a dictionary in those days which was, whitish, cream colored, as I recall, with a really nice ZIF socket and a spring-loaded lever and a keypad (as I recall) as you noted.
the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be
uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex >> keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
this approach.
they did do that long ago, as did i. certainly not now.
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
there are any changes.
you're not fooling anyone.
Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
you do it with an (e)prom programmer.
the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
this approach.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if
anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex
coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they
are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom
Programmer" so
programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't
uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about
burning or
blowing an eprom.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled
it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because
I hadn't
yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed
the eprom
for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex
without
bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes
change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU
wire-wrapped
board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my
"parts" bins.
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots,
etc.
To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
experience, if
I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the
80s,
I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.
As I recall, I would read the SAMS guides (from Radio Shack?) for the Motorola 68701, which has an onboard EEPROM, and then I'd write the
code by
hand, generally resorting to hex (as you did) simply because of
_how_ it's
programmed into the 68701.
I'd pop the 40-pin MPU out of the ZIF socket of the wire-wrapped
board and
then I'd place it into the EEPROM programmer which would burn it in.
You had to eventually feed it the hex code so you learned that a
LDA (load
accumulator A) was a certain hex code and _that_ is what you wrote
your
programs in (since you had to do the translation to hex anyway).
It appears this nospam, who, let's be clear, has a low IQ and no
education,
doesn't realize that's how it was done with EEPROMS in the olden days.
Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.
I doubt you have one nospam since you brazenly fabricate everything.
Let's see a picture of that wire-wrap gun, nospam, next to your iPhone.
Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>
BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?
On 2022-04-22 11:52 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if
anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex
coding.
one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they
are for
I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code
into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom
Programmer" so
programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that
wasn't uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about
burning or
blowing an eprom.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand
assembled it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer
because I hadn't
yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table
driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and
needed the eprom
for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex
without
bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes
change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU
wire-wrapped
board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my
"parts" bins.
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses,
pots, etc.
Oh, my!
To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
experience, if
I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from
the 80s,
I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.
Then you, sir...
...are broke.
It's clear that it's you, nospam, who has never designed microcontroller boards, where in the 80's, that's what I did, and I used these parts then:
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
Some _books_ I used to learn about design of microcontrollers are thus.
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
You did _everything_ by hand in those days, including hex coding.
Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't >> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom
for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without >> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
changing a couple of bytes is not anywhere close to 'coding in hex'.
You're an idiot, nospam.
In those days, you wrote the _entire_ program in hex.
with very rare exception, compilers can do a *much* better job at
writing assembly than humans can, particularly with modern processors.
One of my best friends made zillions in the early days of Google, writing compilers, and he claims that his compiled results are more efficient than hand coding - where the guy is a genius (unlike you, nospam), so it may very well be the case.
i definitely have one. it's in a box somewhere in storage and i'm not
going to bother digging it out for a troll.
Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>
i had one of those too.
eventually, i got a wire wrap gun, which was a lot more fun.
BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea
what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?
yes.
It's clear that it's you, nospam, who has never designed microcontroller
boards, where in the 80's, that's what I did, and I used these parts then:
oh yes i did, as well as ttl/cmos before microcontrollers were common.
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
no, not everyone.
Some _books_ I used to learn about design of microcontrollers are thus.
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
biomedical instrument design is the best way to learn about hex coding
and microprocessors.
in fact, medical certification requires the firmware to be written
entirely in hex.
You did _everything_ by hand in those days, including hex coding.
yep, i sure did, even feeding paper tape or punched cards into the
reader and sometimes toggling in instructions on a front panel.
except that was a long time ago and no longer relevant.
You're an idiot, nospam.
In those days, you wrote the _entire_ program in hex.
no, you wrote it in assembly and then converted it to hex, sometimes by
hand.
things are different now.
with very rare exception, compilers will produce better optimized code
than what humans can do, especially on modern processors, for reasons
well beyond your level of understanding.
What I would do is design a circuit and then hunt around for the right cap
or resistor or transistor, and, if I had it, then great. If not, I would change the circuit since going to radio shack was always a hit or miss.
You, on the other hand, have _never_ designed a circuit in your entire life.
Unlike you, nospam, I did use punched tape and punched cards and also unlike you, I toggled the boot address at the bottom of the PDP 11, which, I'm sure you're completely unaware, many research institutes used as their computers.
nospam wrote:
What I would do is design a circuit and then hunt around for the
right cap
or resistor or transistor, and, if I had it, then great. If not, I would >>> change the circuit since going to radio shack was always a hit or miss.
radio shack charged ridiculous prices for parts.
We bought the Kodak sensors to make parking alarms way back then.
The price seemed reasonable at the time.
Same with the speech synthesizer ICs that we bought from Radio Shack.
I think I got all my SAMs books there too (although I don't recall).
it was only useful if you needed something *now*.
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts. <https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
What I would do is design a circuit and then hunt around for the right cap >> or resistor or transistor, and, if I had it, then great. If not, I would
change the circuit since going to radio shack was always a hit or miss.
radio shack charged ridiculous prices for parts.
it was only useful if you needed something *now*.
otherwise, mail order.
You, on the other hand, have _never_ designed a circuit in your entire life.
oh yes i have. many of them, but that was several lifetimes ago.
Unlike you, nospam, I did use punched tape and punched cards and also unlike >> you, I toggled the boot address at the bottom of the PDP 11, which, I'm sure >> you're completely unaware, many research institutes used as their computers.
actually, i used a pdp-8, which was *octal*.
the hex coding came later.
and since this is crossposted to r-pi, to keep it on topic, right next
to me is an rpi with pidp on it.
<https://github.com/tangentsoft/pidp8i>
Jolly Roger wrote:
now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of
micro sd cards.
...but no old, crufty books? No sale!
None of the iKooks has _any_ education
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts. <https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
Nicely illustrating how ridiculous Radio Shack's prices were.
Your "ERZC14DK201U" varistor is still available today...
...for $1.00...
...for a package of 2.
You paid $1.59 for one what must be conservatively estimated as at least
30 years ago. Checking the CPI for inflation from 1992 until now, you
paid more than 6 times as much as you should have.
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
otherwise, mail order.
I don't remember ever doing mail order for basic TTL ICs, but maybe.
I'd buy the Forest Mims' series and make circuits like with the 555 timer.
You've never told the truth in your life so why would I believe you now?
At least I own a raspi (although it was given to me for free long ago).
In article <t3vb08$9jj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
those look like they're from the 1970s. why are they still unopened?
otherwise, mail order.
I don't remember ever doing mail order for basic TTL ICs, but maybe.
i did.
the back pages of popular electronics, radio electronics and similar magazines had numerous ads, including polypaks, james, olson,
lafayette, plus heathkit for entire kits.
<https://live.staticflickr.com/4009/4455981283_26760272eb_k.jpg> <https://live.staticflickr.com/2778/4455979995_b11b12c8c6_k.jpg>
I'd buy the Forest Mims' series and make circuits like with the 555 timer.
the 555 was an incredibly useful chip.
You've never told the truth in your life so why would I believe you now?
why would anyone believe someone who changes his nym more often than
his underwear?
At least I own a raspi (although it was given to me for free long ago).
only one? i have a bag full of them. they're cheap.
unfortunately, they're very backordered, with estimates that it will
resolve sometime in 2023, causing the prices on ebay to be ridiculously
high.
fortunately, i have a bunch which should last through the drought.
In article <t3vc25$17i$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
Nicely illustrating how ridiculous Radio Shack's prices were.
Your "ERZC14DK201U" varistor is still available today...
...for $1.00...
...for a package of 2.
You paid $1.59 for one what must be conservatively estimated as at least
30 years ago. Checking the CPI for inflation from 1992 until now, you
paid more than 6 times as much as you should have.
the 1970s is a more likely estimate.
using 1975 for the middle of the decade, $1.59 then would be $8.50 now.
a bigger question is why does he have 50 year old parts in unopened packaging?
Therefore I am a bit defensive with this subject.
A 2 GB data cap used to listen to 192 kbps MP3s maxes out at about ~
1400 minutes or 23.3 hrs. As most podcasts, news programs, and radio streams are streamed at 128 kbps or lower (often 64 kbps for
podcasts), you're looking at 34h 43min of content / month. For _video_
a 2 GB data cap is pretty rough, but for audio data really not so.
Even if people used their data plan solely for streaming (which they don't) a 35 h quota will burn down quite quickly if you listen to music for 4 to 6 hours
per day.
My parts bin still has some of those Radio Shack parts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0mcbKNS/parts04.jpg> Radio Shack spare parts
those look like they're from the 1970s. why are they still unopened?
otherwise, mail order.
I don't remember ever doing mail order for basic TTL ICs, but maybe.
i did.
the back pages of popular electronics, radio electronics and similar magazines had numerous ads, including polypaks, james, olson,
lafayette, plus heathkit for entire kits.
<https://live.staticflickr.com/4009/4455981283_26760272eb_k.jpg> <https://live.staticflickr.com/2778/4455979995_b11b12c8c6_k.jpg>
I'd buy the Forest Mims' series and make circuits like with the 555 timer.
the 555 was an incredibly useful chip.
You've never told the truth in your life so why would I believe you now?
why would anyone believe someone who changes his nym more often than
his underwear?
At least I own a raspi (although it was given to me for free long ago).
only one? i have a bag full of them. they're cheap.
unfortunately, they're very backordered, with estimates that it will
resolve sometime in 2023, causing the prices on ebay to be ridiculously
high.
fortunately, i have a bunch which should last through the drought.
I'm hard-pressed to find a person who spend 4-6 hrs a day listening to
music on a 2 GB data cap. This feels to me like a bit of a unicorn. I
On 2022-04-19, Richard Falken <nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z10261.fidonet.org> wrote:
Therefore I am a bit defensive with this subject.
I'd love to see statistics about this FWIW if you're based in the
US. I'm helping out a few friends working for a local government
trialing out telecoms regulations. Data caps this low are indeed
terrible, and rural service is often the one where providers try to
cut corners the most (understandably because rural areas have low
population density and generally low incomes from the potential
subscriber base.) Rural users are often treated the worst due to the economics and a lack of awareness for rural users to be able to
complain in the necessary places. But generally, according to the
surveys my friends have run, internet isn't _this_ bad. Data caps are
higher (high enough to consume some Youtube) and speeds are, well,
okay but not good.
Nonetheless, I've been working on improving Android mirroring onto Windows but some day I might take a look at that free raspi and see what it can do.
What's interesting is I published well over a dozen tested Android apps.
Nonetheless, I've been working on improving Android mirroring onto Windows >> but some day I might take a look at that free raspi and see what it can do.
given that you can't even get android sample code to work, you are
going to have all sorts of problems getting a raspberry pi to do much
of anything.
and how do you reconcile that claim with the fact you could not get
android sample code to work?
In article <t46lvq$gdv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
What's interesting is I published well over a dozen tested Android apps.
so which apps on the google play store are yours?
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my ass all
by myself."
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line of code.
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my ass all >>> by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line of code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know you
cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my ass
all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line of
code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know you
cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
On 2022-04-26 2:20 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my
ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line of
code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know you
cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
Nope. So wrong.
On 26/04/2022 15:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 2:20 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my
ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line of
code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know
you cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
Nope. So wrong.
Yep. which makes you a liar.
All scientists operate on the basis of theories that cannot be proven to
be correct.
On 2022-04-26 9:05 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 15:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 2:20 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my >>>>>>> ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line
of code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know
you cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
Nope. So wrong.
Yep. which makes you a liar.
All scientists operate on the basis of theories that cannot be proven
to be correct.
But they don't state that those theories are fact.
In fact, they explicitly understand that those theories are simply the
most useful thing they have.
Amazingly, you are even more ignorant than you first appeared to be.
On 26/04/2022 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 9:05 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 15:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 2:20 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe my >>>>>>>> ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be
bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line >>>>>>> of code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know
you cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
Nope. So wrong.
Yep. which makes you a liar.
All scientists operate on the basis of theories that cannot be proven
to be correct.
But they don't state that those theories are fact.
Oh yes they do.
I see you haven't spent time listening to scientists on the media.
In fact, they explicitly understand that those theories are simply the
most useful thing they have.
Especially 'climate scientists'
On 2022-04-27 2:43 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 9:05 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 15:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-26 2:20 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/2022 01:28, Alan wrote:
On 2022-04-25 4:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
Lewis wrote:
"I wrote an app" is about as impressive as "I managed to wipe >>>>>>>>> my ass all
by myself."
The _adults_ will notice how Lewis & nospam always prove to be >>>>>>>> bullshitters.
Neither Lewis nor nospam has _ever_ written even a _single_ line >>>>>>>> of code.
Something which you cannot know is a fact, and moreover, you know >>>>>>> you cannot know it to be fact.
So stating it AS fact makes you a liar.
In that case all scientists are liars.
Nope. So wrong.
Yep. which makes you a liar.
All scientists operate on the basis of theories that cannot be
proven to be correct.
But they don't state that those theories are fact.
Oh yes they do.
Nope.
I see you haven't spent time listening to scientists on the media.
In fact, they explicitly understand that those theories are simply
the most useful thing they have.
Especially 'climate scientists'
Give an example.
And yet, since there is no centre, we are at the centre of the universe
*we can see*.
Brian Cox appears not to understand eaither relativity or Quantum theory.
Name me one supporter of the hypothesis of catastrophic Mann made
climate change that says that their hypothesis is anything but fact.
Only the bleeding edge of psychicists understand that a model that
explains how things happen and predicts then reliably, is not a fact. It
is a model that reliably predicts how things happen.
The rest call it 'scientific fact''
In the case of Mann made climate change it has failed to make a single reliable climate prediction, *ever*.
your apple id has been disabled, likely because of multiple failed
login attempts because you chose to use a disposable email address and
a password you have long since forgotten, something which you bragged
about doing 'for security'.
But if you were expecting a DIY repair to be a way of saving money, then you might be a little disappointed. Apple's pricing for some of the most common replacement parts is very similar to what it'll charge you to do the repairs at an Apple Store, even when you're the one delicately taking your phone apart to swap out a broken part.
You might want to look for a "tear-down" of these cables, before you go spouting off nonsense about something you clearly do not understand.
There's a lot more to a lightning cable, USB cable, thunderbolt cable,
etc. That "a bunch of wires and two connectors".
Anyone know of such a thing at a not-too-outrageous price?
How is it you're so consistently an idiot about everything?
it is rather impressive, isn't it?
AAA batteries are always physically smaller than AA batteries and
devices that are designed to take AAA batteries will pretty much NEVER
accept an AA battery.
don't confuse the poor child.
he might think 'n' batteries are bigger yet.
2. AAA cost about the same as AA which means they cost twice as much.
(another way to look at it is they last half as long)
Wow. Wrong again!
indeed.
3. Eliminating one battery size reduces the amount of storage in my
battery drawer of Costco sizes of D, C, AA, and 9V batteries.
And if you have devices that need AAA batteries?
nothing a good lathe can't fix.
nospam wrote:
The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 231:51:07 |
| Calls: | 55 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 50,127 |
| D/L today: |
34 files (4,425K bytes) |
| Messages: | 275,411 |
