Oh, it's already quite dead. That's why it's so important to rescue the
Lost Will from it.
Bullshit.
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
Why? Does it say where the money is hidden?
Rich The Philosophizer said:He is, and has been since before you were even conceived.
When do you plan to start listening?
Kryten said:If I start hearing voices in my head, I'll see a doctor/psychiatrist.
Something you should do instead of posting your pseudo mystic babble here.
We don't put electronics posts into religious newsgroups,
So don't put religious posts into electronics newsgroups.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax said:Er... I do occasionally.
Kryten said:I presume there were good reasons.
If someone there was having a spiritual crisis, you would not offer
irrelevant suggestions about electronics.
Rich the Newsgroup Wacko seems to proffer his belief system as the solution
to everything, even a cure for cancer. Sheesh!
I agree.
For far too long it has been padded out by people like Ivor Catt (or Imor
Twatt IMHO) waffling about stuff so esoteric that only a few like-minded
gasbags are bothered to argue with. And as for the obsession with high-end
audio, it is hardly going to make a difference unless you work for a hi-fi
company. HiFi is so Hi that remaining % is in the placebo domain...
I have a glance at E&WW when I visit my local library / newsagent, but I
haven't seen anything I would part with hard cash for.
When I was a kid (1980s!) I bought mags to get ideas for neat things I could
make and do.
Elektor is better at this but I reckon most of each serious project is a
microcontroller system.
Heck, who can't design that bit? Or it is a trivial circuit from a
chip-maker's app note.
I reckon they ought to just make one microcontroller foundation (CPU, LCD,
KBD) and just publish the add-on bits for particular projects.
Trouble is, the standard for something cool to make has long exceeded what
amateurs can make at home.
At one time for example, Byte mag might have published an article for a
frame grabber that was way cheaper than commercial ones. Nowadays, you can
buy USB TV dongles for less than an hour or two of most engineer's time.
Circa 1980, you could design a significant commercial product in your garage
with COTS parts, and become a major player if you had a few hundred bucks
(e.g. Steve Jobs and Apple). I can design better products than that today,
but commercial standards have improved a thousand fold. Magazine projects
can't really compete!
Winfield Hill wrote
To which I reply "we are!"
To paraphrase Andy Warhol, "In the future, everyone will be famous for
fifteen megabytes".
(or whatever the typical limit is at the time)
I have filled my own 15 MByte of web space with stuff personally polished by
me.
I have now got another site with a 50 MByte quota!
The other problem is that not many engineers are good writers.
Winfield Hill and Paul Horowitz an exception of course.
I was a technical author for four years, so I hope I can write fairly well.
But most engineers I meet are not good communicators.
Often they have the attitude that if they have to explain something you are
too stupid to be worth the effort of explanation.
It is true magazines have declined, but then again you can google for what
you want and discard a lot of the crap...
Have they done a transcranial magnetic stimulator?
In the future, everyone will be Shashdotted.
If I start hearing voices in my head, I'll see a doctor/psychiatrist.
Something you should do instead of posting your pseudo mystic babble here.
We don't put electronics posts into religious newsgroups,
So don't put religious posts into electronics newsgroups.
Yes, and you don't swim in our toilet. Been there, done that.Er... I do occasionally.
I presume there were good reasons.
If someone there was having a spiritual crisis, you would not offer
irrelevant suggestions about electronics.
Rich the Newsgroup Wacko seems to proffer his belief system as the solution
to everything, even a cure for cancer. Sheesh!
Kryten wrote:
Perhaps you would eg DIY ECT
If you're interested in exploring some options, there are instructions,Hmm?
Hmm, I've wanted to make a rectocranial rectifier ever since I
worked for my first boss, and whenever I've seen a rectocranial
inversion.
If you're interested in exploring some options, there are instructions,
and sort of an explanation of what "inner listening" is, at
http://www.godchannel.com .
Yeah, it's outside science. Yeah, it comes off as maniacal rantings of a
lunatic.
So what? I'm a scientist, after all
- that means one who endeavors to find answers, no?
And if the existing tools can't reach the object of your
investigation, you have to invent new tools, right?
And is it not true
that a declaration of "It couldn't possibly be" is about the most
blockheaded fundie-level faith, that's actually contrary to the spirit of
science itself?
Who told me I know everything there is to know about the way reality
works? Or, more importantly, who told _you_ that what they told you about
the way reality works is all there is to the way reality works?
John said:Well, Cyril Bateman and occasionally others are struggling to keep it
alive. The problem is undoubtedly that very few people have the time
and/or inclination these days to write articles for publication.
Winfield Hill said:john jardine wrote...
I just got my January issue, with the 4th Cyril Bateman article.
While this article alone makes the issue worthwhile for me, there
were plenty of other good things to grab my attention. Not one to
declare EW down and out, I recently renewed my 3-year subscription.
Plus I'll make a submission sometime soon to keep the ball rolling.
