If you don't stand next to the water spout you don't KNOW how much water comes out. It's a pain standing there, watching the drops fill the bucket. But if you don't do it, someone else will because there are always thirsty people waiting for a drink. Time and time again I have seen this play out.
Like I have big credentials to talk. The old little pot calling the titanium kettle black. Maybe during my 50's I can live what I am preaching before I only have energy enough to push the walker.
Last edited:
Of course, I got screwed. I did the Levinson stuff on an handshake.
I did have a pretty good royalty contract with Dennesen, but he was located 3000 mi away, and very slippery.
Etc.
For the record, I actually do better with consulting. Running a company takes a lot of skills that I have very little of. I know, because I have had a few startup companies, and now I will stick to consulting. The problem is: To get enough in front, without royalties, OR to get just enough in front, to do the project, and then get royalties.
The royalties always come down to: "What have you done for me lately?"
I did have a pretty good royalty contract with Dennesen, but he was located 3000 mi away, and very slippery.
Etc.
For the record, I actually do better with consulting. Running a company takes a lot of skills that I have very little of. I know, because I have had a few startup companies, and now I will stick to consulting. The problem is: To get enough in front, without royalties, OR to get just enough in front, to do the project, and then get royalties.
The royalties always come down to: "What have you done for me lately?"
Got a butt load of cash to pay an attorney? Oh,,,, no? I thought so.
True justice is for the rich.
You don't. Breeding is a totally different thing than insertion of genes. Horizontal gene transfer is the natural homologue of gene insertion performed by humans.
+1000. There's more and better food than ever. Per capita agricultural output is at an all-time high. Paul Ehrlich is spinning in his grave.
SY, wow we agree on something! 
Scott,
Let us consider the "Let's Make a Deal" problem. You are given a blind choice of three prize containers. When you pick one the odds are 1/3 that you have a valuable prize. The host then shows you what was in one of the containers you did not choose. You are given the choice to stay or go to the remaining container. Why is it better to always go to the other container?
ES
Scott,
Let us consider the "Let's Make a Deal" problem. You are given a blind choice of three prize containers. When you pick one the odds are 1/3 that you have a valuable prize. The host then shows you what was in one of the containers you did not choose. You are given the choice to stay or go to the remaining container. Why is it better to always go to the other container?
ES
SY, wow we agree on something!
Scott,
Let us consider the "Let's Make a Deal" problem. You are given a blind choice of three prize containers. When you pick one the odds are 1/3 that you have a valuable prize. The host then shows you what was in one of the containers you did not choose. You are given the choice to stay or go to the remaining container. Why is it better to always go to the other container?
ES
I haven't got to that chapter of my Game Theory book yet. Enlighten me!
jan
The last good attorney I talked to was $1k an hour. You just happen to have that in your pocket?
SY, wow we agree on something!
Scott,
Let us consider the "Let's Make a Deal" problem. You are given a blind choice of three prize containers. When you pick one the odds are 1/3 that you have a valuable prize. The host then shows you what was in one of the containers you did not choose. You are given the choice to stay or go to the remaining container. Why is it better to always go to the other container?
ES
Monty always shows 1 of 2 junk prizes or it would be pointless.
The magic word when there's money at stake, you're the plaintiff, and the defendant has resources is "contingency."
For those that didn't follow. You picked 1 out of 3 choices so your odds of winning are 1/3. The host knows which container has the prize and always shows one that does not. So where the two unpicked containers started at 2/3 chance of having the prize, these odds did not change when the host showed the empty one. So the odds now are that your contain has the prize is still 1/3 and the odds the remaining container is now 2/3!
The Bybee is called a noise filter. I gave my opinion that it treated complex waveforms differently than simple ones. Scott seems to think this violates the rules of the game. I don't think so.
As an example of a device that would treat the amplitude of simple waveforms differently than complex ones is an all pass filter. If you just swept it with sine waves and only looked at amplitude, if it were working correctly you would not see an amplitude change. If you tried a square wave due to the phase change on the harmonics the waveform would change and you would see a different maximum amplitude. (Of course the delivered power should not change.)
I don't think Scott would think any rules were broken in this case. the ability to make a device that would change the peak amplitude is based on the foreknowledge of the behavior of the different waveforms. The passive circuit requires no smarts.
Now if we consider the case of the inductor with fine movable iron particles loosely coupled, we could also see a different behavior depending on frequency and waveform.
Now what is causing the results measured is certainly open to opinion. So when I post my results there will be enough information for those skilled in the art to duplicate my tests.
No it's not, the claim has been made that it filters "unwanted" noise in preference to a desired "noiselike" signal (which music can look like to a demon). This does violate the rules. But of course your test shows that it in fact failed to pass noise when it was the "signal".
It probably filters 'noiselike' signal that would appear about the same as unwanted noise. Jack does not like to admit to this, but I am pretty sure it can happen in some cases. Still, making the sound palatable, rather than annoying, is worthwhile too!
This is one of the reasons that we never added Bybee devices into the CTC Blowtorch. When you have a very pure though-path, you don't need them. Still, the power line is usually pretty dirty, and I have found that they tame speaker problems.
The sort of 'info' that they MIGHT absorb, is usually not recognized by Bybee's critics in any case. It is just too low in level. Mid fi would not usually detect it.
This is one of the reasons that we never added Bybee devices into the CTC Blowtorch. When you have a very pure though-path, you don't need them. Still, the power line is usually pretty dirty, and I have found that they tame speaker problems.
The sort of 'info' that they MIGHT absorb, is usually not recognized by Bybee's critics in any case. It is just too low in level. Mid fi would not usually detect it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.