On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:04:02 -0500, Foxs Mercantile
wrote:
On 3/27/2017 10:59 PM, wrote:
It's the truth, and I have a thing called "Freedom of speech"!
Funny how the "freedom of speech" usually only applies to the
person claiming it.
He who yells the biggest, loudest, and longest, wins. These days,
freedom of speech mostly means WikiLeaks and commercial advertising.
I have a similar freedom, calling out people for being ignorant
assholes when they wish to publicly display it.
Let he who knows all cast the first complaint.
On truth and democracy:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there
always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been
a constant thread winding its way through our political and
cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
ISAAC ASIMOV, "A Cult of Ignorance", Newsweek, Jan. 21, 1980
Yep. Just ask any voter for the names of their recently elected
officials. Most can name the president, and that's all. At best,
they remember the names, but not their associated office. In a way,
that's probably a good thing because if the GUM (great unwashed
masses) knew what was happening in government, we would have
continuous rioting and revolution. Political ignorance might be a
good thing.
Ignorance is worse in technical fields, and we're all to blame. As
technical areas such as computahs and electronics grow, the number of
buzzwords, acronyms, trade names, and calculations necessary to be
considered knowledgeable also grows. Jump into this maze of
technobabble, after an extended absence, and even the most intelligent
person will appear to be quite ignorant. I've had that experience
dealing with radiation, modern medicine, and cycling. I'm currently
providing a splendid example by making a fool of myself in another
newsgroup demonstrating my ignorance of lighting and optics. It's all
part of my "Learn by Destroying" paradigm, which in this case,
involves destroying my reputation. I'll survive. Would you call me
an ignorant asshole for failing to instantly assimilate the
accumulated wisdom of some 500 years of optics?
Part of the problem is that Mr Oldschool is not responding to
suggestions and answers to his questions. He usually drifts off on
another topic, as if all the effort people have put into answering his
questions was of no importance. Failure to appreciate is a capital
crime, and I certainly feel unappreciated as all my comments have not
even been acknowledged. So, I'll offer one last suggestion before I
give up.
The "classic RF probe" is a marginal and crude device that was long
ago replaced by far better amplified probes. The "classic RF probe"
quits at about 100MHz, has a rather lumpy frequency response, and will
load down high impedance circuits. If you have volts of signal to
work with in a tube device, it will work as expected. If you're
working on a modern low voltage device, you'll have problems. What's
better is a FET input RF probe, something like these, which can be
built:
http://cjh.polyplex.org/electronics/RFCascodeProbe/
http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-1GHz-Active-Probe-for-Under-20/?ALLSTEPS
If you must use tubes, I could probably design a cascode Nuvistor RF
probe for the occasion.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558