| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 01:57PM -0500 On 12/28/2021 2:28 PM, rbowman wrote: > Debugging is more complex. Usually only one part fails, so all you need to do is debug to that. But most people think debugging is harder than it really is, IMHO. It's because they have the mentality of throwing parts at the problem. Instead of the mentality that should be taught which is to debug it first. a. Understand how the system works b. Segregate the system into testable components c. Isolate the one component that has failed Replacing it is (usually - but not always) the easy part. How many times have you seen someone ask on s.e.r how to fix a non-functional microwave and someone invariably claims you should replace the diode, without even explaining to that person how to debug if it's actually that diode? How many times have you seen someone ask on r.a.t how to fix an overheated cooling system and someone claims you should replace the thermostat (without even explaining to that person how to debug to see if it is the thermostat)? How many times have you seen someone ask on a.h.r how to fix a non starting electrical pump motor and someone tells him to replace the capacitor? How many times have you seen someone ask how to fix a sputtering engine and someone claims you should pour seafoam into it (without even debugging)? How many times has someone said their car wouldn't start and someone else immediately tells them to replace the battery or alternator (without debug)? This almost complete and total lack of debug is pervasive everywhere. While a _lot_ of things get fixed by "throwing parts" at them, I agree with you that "debugging is more complex" than just throwing parts at a car. A classic example of where people throw parts is when they don't understand the system which is why debug starts with (a) understanding the system, and debug ends with (c) isolating the bad part. What I was taught in the fifties was the process of debug is three steps. a. Understand b. Segregate c. Isolate What I see people do instead is a single step (which might be three steps). a. Replace b. (If that didn't work) Replace (something else) c. (If that still doesn't work) Replace (another part) You see this all the time with ABS related debug where they replace each wheel sensor or the ABS control modules or even brake components without first isolating the problem to the failed component. Rarely is more than one component failed, right? That's a good question though to ask, philosophically speaking, on debug. How often in your experience has the problem you're trying to fix been caused by multiple failed components? |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 02:12PM -0500 On 12/28/2021 11:50 PM, rbowman wrote: > with a butcher." > https://www.azquotes.com/author/13418-George_Bernard_Shaw > Apropos to some of the threads in this group... That's a good quote where the threads you speak of are filled with either the rabit Democrats being completely ignorant of anything science related, and at the same time the rabid Republicans being just as completely ignorant that getting the highly modified genetic material injected into your arm causes your cells to explode making the spike protein which your body treats both as a "toxin" and an "antigen" - which is what the immune system eventually (a few steps down in the process that they don't understand) create short lived antibodies to (and other immune components, as the immune system is freaking complex by all accounts). Perhaps a simpler way to summarize the politicized science problem set is Rabid Democrats: It's your body my choice Rabid Republicans: It's my body my choice Normal people: It's a difficult decision given the risk of death is almost zero (it's 99.8% likely you won't die in the USA overall and 99.9998% likely to survive if you're a child aged from 5 to 11 in the USA from October 2020 to October 2021 according to the CDC's own figures). The science shows that most people (well more than half) don't even get any symptoms even as almost all of those people who are immune to the disease are seropositive (which is the case for _many_ immunities such as those to the common cold or the flu). Some, paradoxically, aren't even seropositive even as the virus itself has a relatively high human transmissibility. However, enough of actual science. Nobody seems to care about the science. Certainly science isn't what the rabid {Democrats,Republicans} care about though. They only care about the politics. So far it seems _all_ the rabid {Republican,Democrats} are ignorant of the science (quite a few, frankly, are rather stupid - which can't be cured). The end result though is a politicized scientific experiment. Rabid Democrat: I'm scared shitless of a disease so do what I tell you to! Rabid Republican: I'm scared shitless of the government so I don't trust you! |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 03:18PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 2:12 PM, knuttle wrote: > zero (it's 99.8% likely you won't die in the USA overall and 99.9998% likely > to survive if you're a child aged from 5 to 11 in the USA from October 2020 > to October 2021 according to the CDC's own figures). I want all the statements I make to be completely scientifically correct. Particularly since rabid {Democrats,Republicans} don't care about science. Hence I apologize that I accidentally added an extra unnecessary "9" where the chance any one child has in the USA of not dying from Covid is 99.998% a. Search term: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+children+ages+5-11 b. First link: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/planning/children.html (The CDC says to vaccinate them.) c. Second link: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf (The CDC says kids have a 0.002% chance of dying from it.) Obviously they don't care about the children per se. Because the risk of Covid to chidlren is less than that of the flu. What they care about is the children infecting the adults. Even so, any one adult has a 99.8% chance of not dying from Covid. However, even 0.2% of a big number is a lot of people overall. For example, the risk to the United States is 0.2% of 350 million. That's about 700,000 people (which includes the already very sick). But for any one individual in the USA, the risk is clearly 0.2%. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignoring the scientific facts. |
| "John" <olu@gmail.com>: Dec 30 07:30AM +1100 knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote >> 2020 >> to October 2021 according to the CDC's own figures). > I want all the statements I make to be completely scientifically correct. They never are. In spades with stupid claims about "genetic therapy" and how mRNA vaccines work. |
| Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid>: Dec 29 10:37PM +0100 On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 07:30:55 +1100, John, better known as cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: <FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread> -- FredXX to Rodent Speed: "You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity and criminality is inherited after all?" Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Dec 29 05:00PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 2:12 PM, knuttle wrote: > Perhaps a simpler way to summarize the politicized science problem set is > Rabid Democrats: It's your body my choice > Rabid Republicans: It's my body my choice If that was true, how do you account for the Texas Republican abortion laws? You just make up stuff to suite your agenda at the moment. |
| "John" <olu@gmail.com>: Dec 30 09:04AM +1100 Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote > If that was true, how do you account for the Texas Republican abortion > laws? > You just make up stuff to suite your agenda at the moment. That's what 'Arlen' always does. |
| Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid>: Dec 29 11:07PM +0100 On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:04:34 +1100, John, better known as cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: <FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread> -- Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed: "Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll." MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 29 04:56PM -0700 On 12/29/2021 11:57 AM, knuttle wrote: > How many times have you seen someone ask how to fix a sputtering engine and > someone claims you should pour seafoam into it (without even debugging)? And sometimes it's an informed decision... Pull the Keihin jug or pour a slug of SeaFoam into the tank and see what happens. No more sputtering, decision loop complete. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 29 05:00PM -0700 On 12/29/2021 03:04 PM, John wrote: >> laws? >> You just make up stuff to suite your agenda at the moment. > That's what 'Arlen' always does. Yeah, I'm starting to have a little deja vu all over again. |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 08:31PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 3:30 PM, John wrote: >> I want all the statements I make to be completely scientifically correct. > They never are. In spades with stupid claims about > "genetic therapy" and how mRNA vaccines work. Rod Speed (which is who you are), Find us even a single scientific definition of mRNA that does not have "stupid claims" of it being either "genetic material" or related to "genes" (or both) in that definition. When you give up, then look at yourself in the mirror when it's proven that easily that you are the one making the "stupid claims" that aren't backed up in the science. Since you're too stupid to even do the search, here, I'll help you: https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+mRNA |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 08:50PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 5:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > If that was true, how do you account for the Texas Republican abortion > laws? > You just make up stuff to suite your agenda at the moment. Most people who are rabidly political, like you appear to be, are too stupid to understand what I'm going to say below, which means I'm wasting my time because you likely don't have anywhere near the required intellectual capacity to comprehend what I'm about to explain to you. You're not only ignorant. You're also stupid. But let's assume you were simply ignorant. OK. Let's go. 1. The situation: The rabid Democrats essentially want to take away your right to own a gun while the rabid Republicans essentially want to take away your right to have an abortion. 2. The history: Essentially, the right to own a gun was enshrined in the Constitution, just as the right to have an abortion was enshrined in the Roe v Wade decision. 3. The rationale: It's impossible for me to explain to you and other idiots like you the rationale of the founding fathers, but suffice to say it's probably the most discussed topic in American history _why_ the founding fathers put it as the number two amendment (just after free speech) in the Bill of Rights. We are not going to hash it out here, so we can just point to what the Supreme Court has determined which is that it stands as a right that everyone can own a gun and we leave it at that (since Usenet isn't the place to change what the Supreme Court already decided long ago). Likewise with what the Supreme Court decided on abortion. They decided it was a situation of medical privacy. Is it? Who cares. It's what the Supreme Court decided and we have to leave it at that since they decided it was her body her choice long ago. 4. How they play those games: Given we have two rights, one which the rabid Democrats want to take away from us, and one which the rabid Republicans want to take away from us, the question is whether you recognize _how_ they each go about trying to take away our rights?f Clearly you're too stupid to recognize _how_ they go about trying to take away your rights, but most people of average intelligence and above can easily see that they can't go frontal on them. 5. Why can't they go frontal? They can't go frontal because that is too strong a "fortress" to defeat directly with a frontal attack. That is, the rabid Democrats can't go frontal against the Bill of Rights and the rabid Republicans can't go frontal against the "right to privacy" any more than the Germans could go frontal against the Maginot Line. 6. So what do they do then when they can't go frontal? They chip away at the walls. One by one, they make laws which _all_ reduce your protections under the Bill of Rights and under Roe v Wade. Every one of those laws chips away at the right you have today to own a gun and to have an abortion. Neither side gives a shit about the Constitution. Neither side gives a shit about the Supreme Court. The rabid Democrats will chip away at your right to own a gun until that right no longer exist. The rabid Republicans will chip away at your right to have an abortion until that right no longer exists. Neither side cares _how_ they chip away at your rights. They just chip away any way they can get away with. |
| Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>: Dec 29 09:58PM -0400 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote > Yeah, I'm starting to have a little deja vu all over again. Knuttle has been around for decades. But this John guys is brand new. You do realize who this "John" is you're speaking with, don't you? Rod Speed Blocko Michael Trew Jim Joyce Dean Hoffman lkpo John They're all one and the same. And more. |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 09:01PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 7:56 PM, rbowman wrote: > And sometimes it's an informed decision... Pull the Keihin jug or pour > a slug of SeaFoam into the tank and see what happens. No more > sputtering, decision loop complete. What does all those smoke particles do to the super expensive cats? |
| "John" <olu@gmail.com>: Dec 30 01:19PM +1100 knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote > Find us even a single scientific definition of mRNA that does not have > "stupid claims" of it being either "genetic material" or related to > "genes" (or both) in that definition. The problem is with the word THERAPY, not genetic. |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 09:29PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 9:19 PM, John wrote: >> "stupid claims" of it being either "genetic material" or related to >> "genes" (or both) in that definition. > The problem is with the word THERAPY, not genetic. Rod Speed, Why do you always play your silly games with word semantics such that you create your own personal definition of what "therapy" means but only to you? Now that you can't deny that mRNA is genetic material, you are playing you silly little games about what the treatment of the disease should be called. Since you're too stupid to even look up usage examples, I'll do it for you. https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+therapy Example in use: "a course of antibiotic therapy" |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Dec 29 09:57PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 8:50 PM, knuttle wrote: > Most people who are rabidly political, like you appear to be, are too > stupid > to understand what I'm going to say below, which means I'm wasting my time You got that right Arlen Nut-All. You wasted your time. |
| knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>: Dec 29 10:13PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 9:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > You wasted your time. Plonk. |
| "John" <olu@gmail.com>: Dec 30 02:39PM +1100 knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote >>> "genes" (or both) in that definition. >> The problem is with the word THERAPY, not genetic. > Why do you always play your silly games with word semantics Words matter with rigorous science. > such that you create your own personal definition of what "therapy" means > but only to you? Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Dec 29 11:28PM -0500 On 12/29/2021 10:13 PM, knuttle wrote: > On 12/29/2021 9:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> You wasted your time. > Plonk. Sheese, I get plonked for being honest. Not fair! |
| Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Dec 29 08:37PM -0800 On 12/29/2021 8:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: |
| Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Dec 29 08:37PM -0800 On 12/29/2021 8:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>> You wasted your time. >> Plonk. > Sheese, I get plonked for being honest. Not fair! Getting plonked by the nutto. Priceless! |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Dec 29 09:03PM -0800 On 12/29/2021 02:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> Rabid Republicans: It's my body my choice > If that was true, how do you account for the Texas Republican abortion > laws? Religion. Real shame those people can't separate religion from politics. You'd think that they'd be smarter. Once you allow a god to tell you what you should do all limits are off. -- Cheers, Bev Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned. |
| Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid>: Dec 30 10:34AM +0100 On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 14:39:26 +1100, John, better known as obnoxious cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: <FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread> -- williamwright addressing Rodent Speed: "You are an insecure blathermouth with an inferiority complex." MID: <j08dicFcuptU1@mid.individual.net> |
| Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid>: Dec 30 10:59AM +0100 On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 21:58:19 -0400, Mayayana wrote: > Knuttle has been around for decades. > But this John guys is brand new. > You do realize who this "John" is you're speaking with, don't you? Of course, he does! But his abnormal need to blather endlessly is such that he will gladly ignore it, time and again. Yep, many of the senile blabbermouths here ARE that pathetic. <BG> |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic"
Post a Comment