Searching \ for '[EE] adding more tags...' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=adding+more+tags
Search entire site for: 'adding more tags...'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] adding more tags...'
2006\01\05@060936 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

> 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

2006\01\05@061638 by Shawn Wilton

picon face
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_OUTwestfwTakeThisOuTspammac.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\01\05@081639 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
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

2006\01\05@134959 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> 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
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam@spam@piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2006\01\05@153317 by Shawn Wilton

picon face
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 <jamesnewtonspamKILLspampiclist.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\01\05@180531 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> 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.



2006\01\07@110351 by John Ferrell

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


2006\01\07@135734 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> 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



2006\01\07@154836 by Shawn Wilton

picon face
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 <johnferrellspamspam_OUTearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\01\07@161028 by olin piclist
face picon face
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

2006\01\07@165040 by Jinx

face picon face
> > 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

2006\01\07@200511 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
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/

2006\01\07@202143 by David VanHorn

picon face
> 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...)

2006\01\08@002742 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
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/

2006\01\08@014105 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> 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. :)

2006\01\08@031954 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/8/06, David VanHorn <KILLspamdvanhornKILLspamspammicrobrix.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

2006\01\08@103225 by davedilatush

picon face
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.

2006\01\08@110957 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> 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.

2006\01\08@144110 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 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


2006\01\08@162812 by Shawn Wilton

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


On 1/8/06, Dave Dilatush <RemoveMEdavedilatushTakeThisOuTspamcomcast.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\01\08@205601 by Mike Singer

picon face
> 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? ;-)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...