FM0 (bi-phase space) decoding!

"Ali" <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1145440040.735700.21020@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well i use google's interface for UseNet and its simple to view whole
> thread at a glance. Not sure how other interfaces present useNet
> threads anyhow I think we should be concentrating on problem nOw ;-)

I think you should be concentrating on getting a proper
newsreader and quit using that broken Google interface to
usenet.

Because it is possible to post correctly from Google, new
Google posters may get the benefit of the doubt, but their
credit quickly evaporates, and certainly when you start
lecturing about the whereabouts of the original post.

And to confirm that, *PLONK* !

-- 
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)

In article <1145440040.735700.21020@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ali
<abdulrazaq@gmail.com> writes
>Well i use google's interface for UseNet 

That is obvious. It is broken and ONLY works with google users. The rest
of us (that is the vast majority of Usenet users)  do not.

>and its simple to view whole
>thread at a glance. 

Then you are in a MINORITY. You are also breaking the conditions of use
of Usenet. 

>Not sure how other interfaces present useNet
>threads anyhow I think we should be concentrating on problem nOw ;-)
>
>Any good pointers for bi-phase decoding design?

the problem is your incorrect use of Usenet. 

If some one joins a conversation and is very rude people tend not to
help them.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Well that's totally personal choice and yeah its true when it comes
to broken links , the reason I use web interface is freedom from
applications (newsreaders , feedbacks  etc. ).

David wrote:
>If you want to capture both edges, it might be easier to route the
signal to two interrupt pins and configure one for rising edges, and
the
other for falling edges.  Timer captures can also be useful here.

Thanks David sounds interesting, I have tried to capture both edges on
the same interrupt pin and now i'll try to capture both edges with tow
pins. What kind of software filter I can design to eliminate the noise
factor?


Frank Bemelman wrote:
>I think you should be concentrating on getting a proper  newsreader and quit using that broken Google interface to  usenet.
>Because it is possible to post correctly from Google, new  Google posters may get the benefit of the doubt, but their  credit quickly evaporates, and certainly when you start
lecturing about the whereabouts of the original post.
And to confirm that, *PLONK* !


Hmm interesting , ain't gonna confirm anything let the readers decide
;-)


ali

Ali wrote:
> Well that's totally personal choice and yeah its true when it comes
> to broken links , the reason I use web interface is freedom from
> applications (newsreaders , feedbacks  etc. ).
> 
> David wrote:
>> If you want to capture both edges, it might be easier to route the
> signal to two interrupt pins and configure one for rising edges, and
> the
> other for falling edges.  Timer captures can also be useful here.
> 
> Thanks David sounds interesting, I have tried to capture both edges on
> the same interrupt pin and now i'll try to capture both edges with tow
> pins. What kind of software filter I can design to eliminate the noise
> factor?
> 
> 
> Frank Bemelman wrote:
>> I think you should be concentrating on getting a proper  newsreader and quit using that broken Google interface to  usenet.
>> Because it is possible to post correctly from Google, new  Google posters may get the benefit of the doubt, but their  credit quickly evaporates, and certainly when you start
> lecturing about the whereabouts of the original post.
> And to confirm that, *PLONK* !
> 
> 
> Hmm interesting , ain't gonna confirm anything let the readers decide
> ;-)
> 
> 
> ali
> 

Please don't mix up quotations from different posts in different 
sub-threads unless it is actually relevant.  If you want to use a broken 
interface because you have some masochistic aversion to using 
appropriate applications, that's your choice - but don't expect others 
to go out of their way to help you when you don't have the common 
decency to follow Usenet standards, and when you ignore advice pointing 
you in the right direction.

David

Thanks for your advice.

In article <1145446014.845199.9320@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ali
<abdulrazaq@gmail.com> writes
>Well that's totally personal choice and yeah its true when it comes
>to broken links , the reason I use web interface is freedom from
>applications (newsreaders , feedbacks  etc. ).

Top posting too.... Are yo deliberately trying to piss people off?

Do you realise how stupid your last comment was... "freedom from
applications"  like news readers.... you are using a web browser That is
an application and it is less secure than a news reader.

You clearly have little knowledge of what you are doing.   


>David wrote:
>>If you want to capture both edges, it might be easier to route the
>signal to two interrupt pins and configure one for rising edges, and
>the
>other for falling edges.  Timer captures can also be useful here.
>
>Thanks David sounds interesting, I have tried to capture both edges on
>the same interrupt pin and now i'll try to capture both edges with tow
>pins. What kind of software filter I can design to eliminate the noise
>factor?
>
>
>Frank Bemelman wrote:
>>I think you should be concentrating on getting a proper  newsreader and quit 
>using that broken Google interface to  usenet.
>>Because it is possible to post correctly from Google, new  Google posters may 
>get the benefit of the doubt, but their  credit quickly evaporates, and 
>certainly when you start
>lecturing about the whereabouts of the original post.
>And to confirm that, *PLONK* !
>
>
>Hmm interesting , ain't gonna confirm anything let the readers decide
>;-)

You he is right. You can set up the goolge reader to conform to the
rules if not you ain't going to get much help
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1145449379.967096.125030@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ali
<abdulrazaq@gmail.com> writes
>Thanks for your advice.
>
then take note. You have replies from 6 people telling you how to set up
the google interface and you haven't bothered. 

Most of the people how you are arguing with could have answered your
technical question. they haven't due to your attitude.

If you had been polite and set up the goolge interface properly you
would have had your answers already. 
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Ali wrote:
> Thanks for your advice.
> 

There is little point in thanking me for advice, when you ignore it 
completely.  Let's try this one more time, before I join the ranks of 
posters who have killfiled you:

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
  the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on
  "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
  "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

What's the gripe with the google reply feature? You aren't supposed to
reply to a message in the middle of a thread? The preferred reply
method is to only add replies at the end of the thread? (This seems
moot if the thread is sorted by date in the reader)

"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:1145467634.879724.159030@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> What's the gripe with the google reply feature? You aren't supposed to
> reply to a message in the middle of a thread? The preferred reply
> method is to only add replies at the end of the thread? (This seems
> moot if the thread is sorted by date in the reader)

The gripe is lack of context within a single message.

For example: here, I've quoted (and attributed) the bit I'm responding to.

This isn't just pedantry: it's simple netiquette.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com