Re: OT: Why welfare doesn't work!

On Sep 11, 3:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Poor baby, you're just full of excuses.  No one will hire you because
you're incompetent.  Face up to it, go over and sit in the corner and
suck your thumb ;-)

Jim-out-of-touch-reality-Thompson thinks I'm not being hired because
I'm incompetent. When he expresses an opinion outside of electronic
design he's wrong almost all the time, and he's failed to get it right
this time too.

   This is another example of why people give you so much ***. You
can't just say you disagree with Jim, you have to be the biggest ***
on the newsgroup about it.

There's a lot of competition for the that particular honour. Jim's a
leading contender - nobody else admits to having reported one of us to
the FBI for "danagerously anti-American" attitudes. Your contributions
about my career are pathetic exercises in malicious imaginative
fiction, so you don't really compete. Phil Allison is seriously
obnoxious, but since he doesn't seem to be actively malicious - as Jim
is - he's has to settle for second place.

Jim is working.

Lucky him.

 You aren't.  

I've noticed.

Jim is working state of the art.

Barry Gilbert and Geoff Widlar comes a lot closer to defining the
state of the art. Jim works for people who can't afford to have
someone that good on the staff. I've used a few of Jim's designs, and
dumped them gratefully when someone else did the job right.

You barely remember the art.  Every time you post
another attack on someone's skills, it shows how little you are capable
of comprehending, these days.

As if Mike Terrell would know. He does technician's engineer-envy to
perfection, with the obligatory element of not knowing what is
actually going on - as evidenmced by his adulation of Jim's journeyman
skills.

Rather than ask questions about new technology, you drone on about the antiques you worked
on.  How often do they sell a brand new Electron Microscope built on a 35 year old
design?

I was working at Cambridge Instruments when they revolutionised
scanning electron microscope design by using a computer - eventually a
PC - to do the detailed knob-twiddling. That was around 1985, some 23
years ago now. I am aware that thing have changed since then, as you'd
know if you could understand the technical stuff that I do post.

 If anyone is out of touch with reality it's you, for thinking
your outdated skills still matter.  You should join one of the European
antique radio newsgroups. There you might find someone who appreciates
your out of date skills.

I got into electronics when planar transistors had become cheap and
widely available, used one of the first MOSFETs to go on the market,
and went on to take advantage of every new development I could lay my
hands on. My most marketable skill has always been finding new ways to
solve problems, and that is a skill that isn't likely to go out of
date.

The Peltier-junction-based thermostat I put together in 1993 was the
first published design to use a microcontroller to deal with the
control problem posed by the fact that the watt-per-amp efficacy of a
Peltier junction changes with the temperature difference across it.
Jim Williams' subsequent application note for the LTC1923 refers to
the problem, but doesn't include the equation to work out what the
efficacy actually is (as my paper did - and I had to derive it for
myself, not that it was all that complicated to do). I still hope to
get a chance to do something else equally interesting.

Not that you'd have clue about what I'm talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.