Mini-circuits pHEMT designer's kit

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:22:52 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate 
> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because...

Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his
peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.   His peers know their business.
Larkin, for one, makes reference to things he's seen in that
journal, it does have good content (though, like datasheets, quality varies).

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: 

> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> 
>> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate 
>> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because... 

> Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his 
> peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.   

Anything is possible, but people change.

> His peers know their business. 

Are "his peers" dicks, too?

> Larkin, for one, makes reference to 
> things he's seen in that journal, it does have good content (though, 
> like datasheets, quality varies). 

The *real world* excludes (alleged) patents, education, and most writing. 
Those things have negative value unless they are sold or used. Lots of 
educations going to waste nowadays. The issuance of a patent is definitely
not based on usefulness. 

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:04:32 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>=20
> > jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:=20
> >=20
> >> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate=20
> >> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because...=20
>=20
> > Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his=
=20
> > peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.
>
> Anything is possible, but people change.

But not usually in the ways that John Doe likes to claim.

> > His peers know their business.
>
> Are "his peers" dicks, too?

Some of them probably are.

> > Larkin, for one, makes reference to=20
> > things he's seen in that journal, it does have good content (though,=20
> > like datasheets, quality varies).
>
> The *real world* excludes (alleged) patents, education, and most writing.=
=20

Really? John Doe's grasp of what might be "real" isn't impressive. He seems=
 to think that Donald Trump is "real" ..=20

> Those things have negative value unless they are sold or used.

Some patents have quite a lot of "real world" effect. Education isn't exclu=
ded from any real world - everybody gets educated to some extent, though Jo=
hn Doe seems to have less of it than he needs. Writing is generally held to=
  be a useful skill, though the quality of what gets written does vary - Jo=
hn Doe's output is pretty much the pits.

> Lots of educations going to waste nowadays. The issuance of a patent is d=
efinitely  not based on usefulness.

How could it be? The basis of patent is that it offers protection for an or=
iginal idea, and you can't reveal enough of that idea to get any strong evi=
dence that it is useful until you have got the protection of a patent. John=
 Doe posts a lot of nonsense but that proposition is remarkably silly, even=
 for him.

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney