Post by thread:[EE] adding more tags...

'[EE] adding more tags...'

> Can someone add a hardware tag for things like amplifiers,

> hardware, and fpgas?

Discuss them in [EE], and if those discussions reach a volume

that annoys everyone, the powers that be might create a new tag.

It generally fails when you try to encourage discussion by creating

a place to have that discussion...

BillW

Aye, but what if I want all materials related to electrical engineering

design, but don't want *everything* engineering...

On 1/5/06, William Chops Westfield <spam_OUTwestfwTakeThisOuTmac.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}>

>

> > Can someone add a hardware tag for things like amplifiers,

> > hardware, and fpgas?

>

> Discuss them in [EE], and if those discussions reach a volume

> that annoys everyone, the powers that be might create a new tag.

> It generally fails when you try to encourage discussion by creating

> a place to have that discussion...

>

> BillW

>

> -
Shawn Wilton wrote:

> Aye, but what if I want all materials related to electrical engineering

> design, but don't want *everything* engineering...

Then read the piclist with a news/mail reader that can handle message

threads and mark the threads that are not of interest to you as "ignored"

and you won't be bothered with them again. Create filters on keywords that

are of interest to you to mark the messages that contain them. Make

state-of-the-art mail/news reader interface design work for you... :)

Gerhard

> Aye, but what if I want all materials related to electrical 

> engineering design, but don't want *everything* engineering...

A) Live with it.

B) Filter posts by keywords at your end.

The problem with more tags is that it tag are complex enough already,

especially for newbies and people who don't see the value of the tag system.

Also, this is, after all, the [PIC] list and the [OT] and [ee] tags were

really only made because:

A) Some people would rather die than shut up. (Movie "Fierce Creatures"

Character: Bugsy. Also my stepson Sean.)

B) It can be nice to have social conversations with engineering types while

protecting the time of those who are too busy to do so.

C) MIT is hosting the list, not I, so the cost is paid by someone else.

(guilt, guilt, guilt)

Be happy we have [ee] at all. I was against it at first.

---

James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin

.....jamesnewtonKILLspam@spam@piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone

http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786

PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com

What use is it to discuss uControllers if you can't discuss how to interface

them, or the bits they interface?  Gotta have EE.  Can't even understand why

you would be against it.  Adds *so* little processing overhead, I doubt it's

even noticeable.

On 1/5/06, James Newton, Host <jamesnewtonKILLspampiclist.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}>

> > Aye, but what if I want all materials related to electrical

> > engineering design, but don't want *everything* engineering...

>

> A) Live with it.

>

> B) Filter posts by keywords at your end.

>

> The problem with more tags is that it tag are complex enough already,

> especially for newbies and people who don't see the value of the tag

> system.

> Also, this is, after all, the [PIC] list and the [OT] and [ee] tags were

> really only made because:

>

> A) Some people would rather die than shut up. (Movie "Fierce Creatures"

> Character: Bugsy. Also my stepson Sean.)

>

> B) It can be nice to have social conversations with engineering types

> while

> protecting the time of those who are too busy to do so.

>

> C) MIT is hosting the list, not I, so the cost is paid by someone else.

> (guilt, guilt, guilt)

>

> Be happy we have [ee] at all. I was against it at first.

>

> ---

> James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin

> .....jamesnewtonKILLspam.....piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone

> http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786

> PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com

>

>

> -
> What use is it to discuss controllers if you can't discuss 

> how to interface them, or the bits they interface?  Gotta 

> have EE.  Can't even understand why you would be against it.  

> Adds *so* little processing overhead, I doubt it's even noticeable.

Could be, and was, part of [PIC]. Actually if it has to do with interfacing

a PIC to something, that is STILL part of [PIC]. See the list FAQ:

http://www.piclist.com

But people wanted to talk about stuff that was not directly about PIC's but

still about engineering. The people who only wanted to talk about PICs would

get pissed off about that. So we made [OT]. Then someone who wasn't getting

OT heard about a great engineering discussion on the OT and got all pissed

off that they missed it. So we made [EE]. 

Now posts have to be sorted VERY carefully. The main one for me is this: If

it directly involves a PIC, use [PIC]. I try to enforce that one. Or rather,

gripe at people (offlist) when they post things that have nothing to do with

PICs in the [PIC] topic.

Then, if it doesn't involve a PIC, but it is still about engineering, use

[ee]. 

Then if it has nothing to do with engineering, use [OT]. 

This is why I won't allow more topics. It's difficult enough to sort

messages as it is. It may seem simple to you, but you don't have to deal

with people getting it wrong all the time. <grin>

Not to mention [AD] and [BUY] which keep the sellers and buyers out of the

ire of those who wear rose colored glasses.

And then [sx] and [avr] which pretty much don't get used (my bad idea).

---

James.

I don't think then a bad idea, perhaps they are yet to bloom?

John Ferrell    

http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "James Newton, Host" <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTTakeThisOuTpiclist.com>

> And then [sx] and [avr] which pretty much don't get used (my bad idea).

>> And then [sx] and [avr] which pretty much don't get used (my bad 

>> idea).

>I don't think then a bad idea, perhaps they are yet to bloom?

I, and others, use them occasionally.

But the main problem is bad Karma - having denied life to the 

incipient [TECHO]tm and [WOT] tags so that they die aborning he has 

brought down malaise & pestilence upon the heads of his own creations. 

If he creates the new tags which so justly cry out to be introduced 

and forwards them to everyone in the address books of everyone on the 

PICList's[tm] AND nobody breaks the chain then Bill Gates will give 

each of us $US10,000 (less 5% in California, double or nothing in 

Nevada)(YMMV) AND we will all be able to have much better 

conversations to boot. But he still holds out ... :-(

        RM

You know, I've done some thinking on the subject and I think the PIC, AVR,

SXWhatever tags should all be changed to uC for microcontrollers.

I know there are plenty of people on here that use AVRs, (nobody uses sx,

hehe, j/k).  And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic crowsd to

AVR discussion, and vice versa.  Besides, what applies to one uc, *usually*

applies to another.  Unless you're discussing specific chips, or asm

constructs.

On 1/7/06, John Ferrell <johnferrellspam_OUTearthlink.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}>

> I don't think then a bad idea, perhaps they are yet to bloom?

>

> John Ferrell

> http://DixieNC.US

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "James Newton, Host" <@spam@jamesnewtonKILLspampiclist.com>

> > And then [sx] and [avr] which pretty much don't get used (my bad idea).

>

>

> -
Shawn Wilton wrote:

> And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic

> crowsd to AVR discussion,

Not this piece of the PIC crowd.

******************************************************************

Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC

consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

> > And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic

> > crowsd to AVR discussion

It's apples and oranges though. Micros are just too different

to sustain any sort of conversation. "We do it this way on the

AVR",  "Oh ?, well, good for you" sort of thing. Scenixes don't

really come into the mix because they are so simple. All they

do is through s/w. You could compare algorithms and i/f [EE]

between the various micros but that's about it. Start getting

specific about Mega registers and people will just drift away

or filter out [AVR]. I know I would. Not [SX] because I use

them. Although because they lack f/w modules, the problems

people face with the Scenix are relatively quite simple (still

frustrating as hell of course until you know the answer) and

don't need a lot of discussion

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 12:48 -0800, Shawn Wilton wrote:

> You know, I've done some thinking on the subject and I think the PIC, AVR,

> SXWhatever tags should all be changed to uC for microcontrollers.

> 

> I know there are plenty of people on here that use AVRs, (nobody uses sx,

> hehe, j/k).  And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic crowsd to

> AVR discussion, and vice versa.  Besides, what applies to one uc, *usually*

> applies to another.  Unless you're discussing specific chips, or asm

> constructs.

Sorry, but there are probably alot of people who subscribe to the PIC

list just for what's in the PIC thread. Putting AVR and other uC's into

it would probably cause a good number of people to leave.

I personally have zero interest of seeing non PIC stuff. If I was

interested in AVR stuff I'd join an AVR list, or at least post under the

AVR tag.

TTYL

-----------------------------

Herbert's PIC Stuff:

http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

> I personally have zero interest of seeing non PIC stuff. If I was

> interested in AVR stuff I'd join an AVR list, or at least post under the

> AVR tag.

I like seeing what's going on in other processors.

I wasn't always an AVR guy either you know.. :)

At one time, I wrote PIC code. (and Z8, and Z-80, and 8051...)

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 20:21 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:

> > I personally have zero interest of seeing non PIC stuff. If I was

> > interested in AVR stuff I'd join an AVR list, or at least post under the

> > AVR tag.

> 

> 

> I like seeing what's going on in other processors.

> I wasn't always an AVR guy either you know.. :)

> At one time, I wrote PIC code. (and Z8, and Z-80, and 8051...)

It's not a matter of not wanting to see what's going on with other

processors.

Look at it this way: if I want Italian food, would walking into a

Chinese restaurant make much sense?

I have nothing against the AVR personally, it's just that I'm very

familiar with PICs, and haven't had a reason to go with anything else.

I have done "educational" designs with other MCUs (Zilog, AVRs,

Freescale, etc.), but those were just for keeping abreast of what's out

there. On the PICLIST I come for the PIC info.

If you feel strongly about it, there's nothing stopping you from

creating a "general MCU" list.

TTYL

-----------------------------

Herbert's PIC Stuff:

http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

>

>

> If you feel strongly about it, there's nothing stopping you from

> creating a "general MCU" list.

Well, I did create AVR-chat a few years ago. :)

On 1/8/06, David VanHorn <KILLspamdvanhornKILLspammicrobrix.com> wrote:

> >

> >

> > If you feel strongly about it, there's nothing stopping you from

> > creating a "general MCU" list.

>

> Well, I did create AVR-chat a few years ago. :)

> --

Is it the same as the avr-chat used

to be at

            http://avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat

and now at

            http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat?

There are a lot of AVR related sites and mailing lists so I think it is

a good idea to remove [AVR] tag and use [EE] instead. avr-gcc

list is pretty good with very high signal to noise ratio. ;-) avr-libc

list is also not bad. avrfreaks.net is quite good as well.

I would like to have another tag called [IT] though since quite some

people do not like it to appear in [EE].

Regards,

Xiaofan

Shawn Wilton wrote...

>...And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic crowd to

>AVR discussion, and vice versa.

You're missing something really, REALLY basic, here: the reason

the tags are there in the first place, is so we can **MAKE OUR

OWN DECISIONS** about what we do and don't want to see.  Believe

it or not, this "pic crowd" is not some bunch of little children

who need a nanny deciding for them what they should be "exposed"

to.

If and when I decide I want to read AVR-related stuff, I can turn

on the [AVR] tag all by myself, thank you.  I don't need someone

like you deciding that it would be a "good idea" for me to read

it.

>

>

> Is it the same as the avr-chat used

> to be at

>            http://avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat

> and now at

>            http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat?

No.

The original list AFAIK was started by a guy named Kalle in south africa.

Things got a bit heated there, so I started my own list on E-groups, then

migrated it to my own server for about two years, then back to e-groups

before e-groups got eaten by yahoo.

> If and when I decide I want to read AVR-related stuff, I can turn

> on the [AVR] tag all by myself, thank you.  I don't need someone

> like you deciding that it would be a "good idea" for me to read

> it.

I have no tag filtering and I can't remeber the last [AVR] post. So if

anyone wants more AVR coverage why not start it yourself?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------

Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl

consultancy, development, PICmicro products

docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

I'm glad to hear you're a big boy not in need of a nanny.

Comforting...Really.

On 1/8/06, Dave Dilatush <RemoveMEdavedilatushTakeThisOuTcomcast.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}>

> Shawn Wilton wrote...

>

> >...And it would really be a good idea to expose the pic crowd to

> >AVR discussion, and vice versa.

>

> You're missing something really, REALLY basic, here: the reason

> the tags are there in the first place, is so we can **MAKE OUR

> OWN DECISIONS** about what we do and don't want to see.  Believe

> it or not, this "pic crowd" is not some bunch of little children

> who need a nanny deciding for them what they should be "exposed"

> to.

>

> If and when I decide I want to read AVR-related stuff, I can turn

> on the [AVR] tag all by myself, thank you.  I don't need someone

> like you deciding that it would be a "good idea" for me to read

> it.

> -
> You're missing something really, REALLY basic, here: the reason> the tags are there in the first place, is so we can **MAKE OUR> OWN DECISIONS** about what we do and don't want to see.  Believe> it or not, this "pic crowd" is not some bunch of little children> who need a nanny deciding for them what they should be "exposed"> to.

PICList is like a virtual train moving in a universe.Some hold on for many years; some – just for one post.Some gave birth to diamond posts leaving them shining along the path,those posts with knowledge, tolerance and humanism.Some gave birth to posts with hatred, intolerance, those garbage postsalong the path.That's the life.The "pic crowd" is nor a crowd; it's a community of humans holding tothe virtual train for the unknown to me reason. Tried to figure thereason out, but did not succeed yet.

Mike.

(Hey Russ, do I gain "The Russ' literature disciple" title? ;-)