Well ....
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/19/2014 8:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:49:49 -0500, wrote:

Servo systems on the ships were 400 hz and I am sure the air force
guys will jump in and talk about the power systems on their planes.
You know the difference right away when you touch it. You get a ring,
not a hum..

===

400 Hz systems on planes date back to the days of World War 2. It was
well understood that higher AC frequencies saved considerable weight
on power components like transformers and servos.


One thing about switch mode supplies ... there are many types and
selection is dependent on application. Like everything their design is a
compromise between performance, cost and other operating parameters.

I think many run at converted frequencies of 50khz and higher, depending on application.

At one company we had a pass transistor power supply. That POS was always
a problem in certain areas of the country. Would pass every spike on the
power line through to the output. The Rockies with lots of lightning were
always faulting the disk controller.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you. Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer to eat
because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers here.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality of it
is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks. Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/

Have fun...

Well ....
 

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

It is still hunting. Hog hunting may be the most popular hunting we
have here, right behind alligators.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 11:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a
fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you.
Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer
to eat
because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult
concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers
here.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with
homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered
salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were
morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality
of it
is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks.
Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/


Have fun...


The "fun" part is the crap you believe.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Well ....
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:39:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 11:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a
fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you.
Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer
to eat
because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult
concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers
here.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with
homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered
salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were
morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality
of it
is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks.
Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/


Have fun...


The "fun" part is the crap you believe.


Check out pages 4 and 5, Toad.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

I hope you don't mind the nickname 'Toad'. Using the 'F' word all the
time wasn't very nice. I don't know why anyone would call themselves
something starting with the 'F' word anyway.

Using 'T' for 'Toodle' is much more appropriate, don't you think?

"Toodle Off and Die" sounds nice...has a ring. Doncha think?

And all the upper case letters and asterisks is just, well,
pretentious. Doncha think?

It's like something a narcissist would do.

Besides, there's always the physical resemblance to consider. Just
remember to keep that smile on your face!

http://tinyurl.com/kof5s9l

Well ....
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:37:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

It is still hunting. Hog hunting may be the most popular hunting we
have here, right behind alligators.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

Well ....
 

On 11/20/14 7:35 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:37:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

It is still hunting. Hog hunting may be the most popular hunting we
have here, right behind alligators.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.


snerk Doubtful

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Well ....
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

Would that require a weapon of ass destruction?

Well ....
 

Wayne. B
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

"Would that require a weapon of ass destruction? "


Weren't you just admonishing me for making uncalled for comments?

Well ....
 

On 11/20/2014 12:33 PM, True North wrote:
Wayne. B
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

"Would that require a weapon of ass destruction?"


Weren't you just admonishing me for making uncalled for comments?



You have to admit though. It was pretty funny.