Alternative to AVR Butterfly?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:38:15 -0000, in comp.arch.embedded larwe
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>(I'm a libertarian and an atheist, in case you hadn't guessed).

Excellent.



martin

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:10:19 -0000, in comp.arch.embedded
mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:

>
>"You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right
>with God, and not by his faith alone."  James 2:24

whats that in C ?


martin

On 19 Jun, 05:53, "mc" <l...@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
> Does anybody make a cheap single-board computer with microcontroller and LCD
> display, like an AVR Butterfly except that the LCD is easy to use?  The
> Butterfly's LCD is segment-addressable and if you want digits or characters,
> you have to create them yourself.
>
> A 5.0-volt power supply (instead of the Butterfly's 3 V) would also be handy
> since I have to have 5.0 V for the equipment to which I'm interfacing.
>
> Thanks!

Its not that difficult to make a few characters !!
Why so many lazy programmers around these days?
In my day it was aseembler or nothing !

On Jun 27, 5:10 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, tell me... what "scientific breakthroughs" have other countries
> accomplished which could not have been accomplished here (because

Does it matter? You don't grasp the underlying point.

There exists a broad spectrum of research activity, at one end being a
ragged philosopher staring into a rock, thinking little of import and
harming nobody. At the other end is probably someone like Dr. Josef
Mengele (in his pre-South-America heyday). Someplace between those two
zones, every person who bothers to think about the issue draws a line
in the sand and says "beyond this point, it's unethical". A different
person who is willing to go a little further is more likely to make a
discovery.

A person who lets paternalistic others choose where that line is drawn
is being intellectually lazy.

Furthermore, curtailing any sort of research is a very, VERY dangerous
step down the road to book-burning. As soon as someone tells you "that
knowledge is forbidden; seek it not, my child", that's a damn good
reason to try and learn more, in my view.

Of course, this issue is only the tip of the iceberg; the current
administration has ignored and/or suppressed lots of good science that
was politically inconvenient. As, no doubt, the previous did, and the
next will do. Politics and science are incompossible.

So, would you object to a doctor doing a biopsy on a tumor cut off
your arm, on the grounds that it contains at least some viable DNA
that could theoretically be grown into a complete organism?

On Jun 27, 5:30 pm, martin griffith <mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:10:19 -0000, in comp.arch.embedded

> >with God, and not by his faith alone."  James 2:24
>
> whats that in C ?

// assume runtime environment initialized by higher power
void main(void) { // comes from void, returns to void
do {
follow();
} while (!fCrisisofFaith);
halt_catch_fire(); // going to hell
}

On Jun 27, 5:28 pm, martin griffith <mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote:

> >(I'm a libertarian and an atheist, in case you hadn't guessed).
>
> Excellent.

Both are dirty words in this time and place. Sigh. Where's Howard Dean
when you need him... only halfway likeable presidential candidate that
has existed in my adult lifetime. And only halfway, at that.

On Jun 27, 5:29 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 5:10 pm, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So, tell me... what "scientific breakthroughs" have other countries
> > accomplished which could not have been accomplished here (because
>
> Does it matter? You don't grasp the underlying point.


Sure, it matters.  You said:

> To paraphrase that: you admire the current administration bravely
> buying votes from fundamentalist Christians by exporting scientific
> breakthroughs to other countries.


I sense a great deal of anger here.  Why be angry?


> There exists a broad spectrum of research activity, at one end being a
> ragged philosopher staring into a rock, thinking little of import and
> harming nobody. At the other end is probably someone like Dr. Josef
> Mengele (in his pre-South-America heyday). Someplace between those two
> zones, every person who bothers to think about the issue draws a line
> in the sand and says "beyond this point, it's unethical". A different
> person who is willing to go a little further is more likely to make a
> discovery.


There's a reason it's unethical; it's not arbitrary by any means.
Destruction of a life to save another life without that first life's
permission is unethical; it's quite simple.


> A person who lets paternalistic others choose where that line is drawn
> is being intellectually lazy.
>
> Furthermore, curtailing any sort of research is a very, VERY dangerous
> step down the road to book-burning. As soon as someone tells you "that
> knowledge is forbidden; seek it not, my child", that's a damn good
> reason to try and learn more, in my view.


Seek it if you like; this is a free universe.  Forcing taxpayers to
fund it is a different story.


> Of course, this issue is only the tip of the iceberg; the current
> administration has ignored and/or suppressed lots of good science that
> was politically inconvenient. As, no doubt, the previous did, and the
> next will do. Politics and science are incompossible.
>
> So, would you object to a doctor doing a biopsy on a tumor cut off
> your arm, on the grounds that it contains at least some viable DNA
> that could theoretically be grown into a complete organism?


No.

Michael

> Its not that difficult to make a few characters !!
> Why so many lazy programmers around these days?
> In my day it was aseembler or nothing !

Just how old are you, Marra?  I was a tiny baby when Fortran came out 
(1958).

On Jun 28, 12:57 am, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:

> I sense a great deal of anger here.  Why be angry?

My philosophy requires that I honor everybody else's right to believe
in whatever they need to get them through the day (up to the point
that they try to impose their belief system on me directly or
indirectly). It does NOT require me to remain tacit about hypocrisy
(religion veneered with politics).

> Destruction of a life to save another life without that first life's

And here is an unbridgeable gap. This is not a life; it's a lump. And
furthermore a lump that was already destined for destruction. Stem
cell research of this type is essentially trash-picking.

> Seek it if you like; this is a free universe.  Forcing taxpayers to
> fund it is a different story.

My tax dollars are funding religious schools, the war in Iraq, and
numerous other minority interests that I don't believe in and, in many
cases, I think are morally unjustifiable - where's the difference?

There is no reconciliation possible between your viewpoint and mine;
it is computed that in excess of eleven thousand persons have on
several occasions suffered death rather than submit to break their
eggs at the smaller end.

John E. Perry wrote:
> larwe wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 10:45 am, "John E. Perry" <j...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>> Notwithstanding larwe's silly sneer against the current administration
>> So if you agree with it, why dub it "silly" - unless you are casting
>> yourself as sily?
>>
> 
> The sneer about anti-science is what I was referring to.  This
> administration is not substantially more or less anti-science and
> technology than any of the preceding ones.
> 

As far as I can tell (as an outsider, but one who reads about such 
things - including the opinions of American scientific magazines like 
Scientific American and National Geographic), this administration is 
very much more anti-science than preceding ones.

But I agree that the certainly did not start the trend, especially in 
the education sector, where falling standards in all subjects (and 
maths/science in particular) is a problem much wider than just the USA.

> There's plenty to despise in Bush's mess without inventing more.
> 
> jp