Companies that went bankrupt over bad decisions

[Fred Bloggs]

Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/people-are-sharing-famous-companies-that-went-bankrupt

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:

> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.
>
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/people-are-sharing-famous-companies-that-went-bankrupt

I can't believe they have forgotten Kodak.

They invented digital photography and locked it away until all
others were better.

$25B over 20 years for development and not a single product.

Gerhard

(We happened to have a TV docu on this just a few hours ago)

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 18:53:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de>
wrote:

People are so afraid to kill their traditional products that they let
other people do it for them.

Of course, the cost-per-color-photograph has dropped by about 1000:1.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:sle0vgl4dgs65cp11...@4ax.com:

Just look at the petrol industry. Exxon has/had higher profits
than anyone at one time. They should have embraced alternative power
decades ago. Their lacking will not likely kill them because there
will be a perpetual need for petrol products, but they will not be
able to share nor command the new energy age because of stupid twerps
like Perry.

Y'all dumb motherfuckers dropped the ball. Despite all the smart
industry in Texas, oil is not one of them. Sadly, we let them claim
to OWN the oil they suck up and refine. I think prices should be
tamped down by the feds. A billion dollars a day because we all need
the juice. So sad... So fucking greedy.

[Cydrome Leader]

Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.
>>
>> https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/people-are-sharing-famous-companies-that-went-bankrupt
>
> I can't believe they have forgotten Kodak.
>
> They invented digital photography and locked it away until all
> others were better.

Nothing was locked away. Kodak's line of professional digital cameras were
amazing products, and in some respects have superior usability and
software to anything being made now.

Granted, this product line wasn't going to bring in billions of dollars,
but it took nikon many, many years to even catch up. Kodak sort of gave up
once they no longer had a source of good SLR bodies as Canon and Nikon
stopped supplying them. In tandem to the pro like, they sold consumer
cameras that were pretty solid for the time which were made by Chinon,
later bought by Kodak. There wasn't really anything special about cameras
made the early 2000s by them though. The canon elph series sort of nailed
it for a compact digital camera that produced good images and was
intuitive to use.

The rest of kodak, yeah, pretty stupid with standard playbook of sell
everything of value until nothing is left. Motorola did the same thing.
Every business unit they sold off it doing just fine these days.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:37:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.

Lintech - in Cambridge UK - made the first purpose built

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_beam_prober

and did well for a few years. Motorola said that their machine knocked three months off the development of the original 68k processor.

The boss - Graham Plows - was always more interested in making the machine easier to sell than easy to use. This didn't make his engineers (or his customers) very happy. One of his engineers - Neil Richardson - got hired away by Fairchild, and ended up developing a better electron-beam prober for Schlumberger. It wasn't much different, but it was easier to use and more reliable

As soon as it hit the market. Lintech didn't make another sale and shut down after they'd shipped the last machine that had been ordered before Schlumberger entered the market. I had a ringside seat, and knew the people involved.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in
news:ssq1qh$grr$1...@reader1.panix.com:

Between Kodak and Polaroid, the entire city of Rochester folded up.
One could walk down the main street and walk past a bank with a sign
that said "Your Name Here" on it. They are recovering a bit now, but
the city will not likely be anything like it once was for some time
to come.

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> >> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.
> >>
> >> https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/people-are-sharing-famous-companies-that-went-bankrupt
> >
> > I can't believe they have forgotten Kodak.
> >
> > They invented digital photography and locked it away until all
> > others were better.
> Nothing was locked away. Kodak's line of professional digital cameras were
> amazing products, and in some respects have superior usability and
> software to anything being made now.
>
> Granted, this product line wasn't going to bring in billions of dollars,
> but it took nikon many, many years to even catch up. Kodak sort of gave up
> once they no longer had a source of good SLR bodies as Canon and Nikon
> stopped supplying them. In tandem to the pro like, they sold consumer
> cameras that were pretty solid for the time which were made by Chinon,
> later bought by Kodak. There wasn't really anything special about cameras
> made the early 2000s by them though. The canon elph series sort of nailed
> it for a compact digital camera that produced good images and was
> intuitive to use.

Right, I bough one sometime around 1996. It cost about 30% more than comparable cameras, but I considered it to be worth it because it was backed by a high performance company. It did not disappoint, it was an excellent product.

[bitrex]

On 1/25/2022 12:37 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.

America Online, it could never seem to find a way to break out of its
dial-up model into the full social media market segment.

It had a leg-up on all the others but couldn't really figure out what to
do with people who had broadband other than try to throw ads at them,
but without the benefit of any desirable content to go with it.

[bitrex]

I think Kodak's big revenue stream was from consumer film sales, and
consumer film processing. There were basically two suppliers for
whatever consumer-grade film-roll camera you had in the early 90s, Kodak
or Fujifilm.

You still got your vacation pictures processed at a drug store kiosk in
1996, and consumer digital cameras were a $1000-equivalent-2022-dollars
curiosity. In 2006 consumer digital cameras were commodities and CCDs
that were good enough were already being included in many cell phones,
and high-end cell phones were getting 5MP cameras a year or two after that.

[bitrex]

Shockley Semiconductor, if Shockley's genes made him so smart why didn't
his company make any money.

[Fred Bloggs]

He was a sociopath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight

[Cydrome Leader]

Yup, and pretty much all the major labs were owned by Kodak anyways.

> You still got your vacation pictures processed at a drug store kiosk in
> 1996, and consumer digital cameras were a $1000-equivalent-2022-dollars
> curiosity. In 2006 consumer digital cameras were commodities and CCDs
> that were good enough were already being included in many cell phones,
> and high-end cell phones were getting 5MP cameras a year or two after that.

In all fairness, nobody has ever answered what kodak should have done, even in
hindsight. They primarily produced a consumer product that was going to go away,
one way or another. The replacement products also went away. I can almost excuse
their implosion, unlike Motorola. Semiconductors and phones never went obsolete.

The only thing I can think of is just drop the consumer products and live on as
their sold-off divisions do making industrial stuff for the printing industry.
They did the reverse- sell all the units that could continue to produce products
to prop up the failing film unit.

The only typewritter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap
(price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and
possible.

I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always
been able to adapt to the times. They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but
it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its
place.

[bitrex]

I don't know either. I believe revenues from film sales and processing
were very good in the mid 90s; the population had grown and the economy
was doing pretty good and aside from Fujifilm what else was the consumer
gonna do if they wanted to snap pictures?

I expect the last thing anyone expects is for a business model to be on
the verge of collapse right when it's making more money than most
involved can remember. Fuji was a big zaibatsu in the Japanese style
though they had their fingers in many pies, already, difficult to see
Kodak rapidly becoming a big player in some other consumer electronics
segment or petrochemicals or what have you.

> The only thing I can think of is just drop the consumer products and live on as
> their sold-off divisions do making industrial stuff for the printing industry.
> They did the reverse- sell all the units that could continue to produce products
> to prop up the failing film unit.
>
> The only typewritter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap
> (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and
> possible.
>
> I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always
> been able to adapt to the times. They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but
> it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its
> place.

<https://www.amazon.com/Microchip-Idea-Genesis-Revolution-Created/dp/0738205613/>

The claim is that TI and Fairchild were always thinking two or three
steps ahead of the competition, and in the old days at least, Fairchild
was perhaps better at this even than TI was.

But even in nominally capitalist societies it seems rare that many will
really love you for doing that; shareholders and associated industries
and the participants Moms and Dads, even, weren't big into what they
were doing. "You got a good thing going! You just figured out a reliable
way to make a transistor using process A and sell them at $15 each,
people are clamoring to get them even at that price but you've hardly
even produced that many and you're already talking about plan B, making
some new thing you're going to sell at a _loss_? WTF"

[bitrex]

On 1/27/2022 12:49 PM, bitrex wrote:

>> I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that
>> has always
>> been able to adapt to the times. They've jettisoned entire lines of
>> products, but
>> it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to
>> take its
>> place.
>
>
> <https://www.amazon.com/Microchip-Idea-Genesis-Revolution-Created/dp/0738205613/>
>
>
> The claim is that TI and Fairchild were always thinking two or three
> steps ahead of the competition, and in the old days at least, Fairchild
> was perhaps better at this even than TI was.

Incidentally a number of the claims in the first reviews of that title
are fairly accurate but it's not a one star book, maybe a three-star. It
was written by a business-guy, not an engineer. And there are some odd
choices about who to include like he dotes on An Wang a lot but DEC is
given short shrift. /shrug

[bitrex]

Seems likely, from what I've read he spent more time being paranoid
about whether someone was trying to steal from him than actually working
towards having something worth stealing.

[bitrex]

On 1/27/2022 10:32 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Imagine how big a PITA you have to be if even Robert Noyce can't stand
you, who AFAIK never exactly had a reputation as a "laid back and
relaxed"-type of guy.

It's like that time Dave Mustaine of Megadeth was talking about Axl Rose
of Guns n Roses and said something like "He's just...he's just a really
self-absorbed person. He won't listen to anyone." this was Dave Mustaine
saying this.

[bitrex]

On 1/25/2022 1:02 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 18:53:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>> Xerox was poised to take over the world, and they blew it.
>>>
>>> https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/people-are-sharing-famous-companies-that-went-bankrupt
>>
>> I can't believe they have forgotten Kodak.
>>
>> They invented digital photography and locked it away until all
>> others were better.
>>
>> $25B over 20 years for development and not a single product.
>>
>> Gerhard
>>
>> (We happened to have a TV docu on this just a few hours ago)
>
> People are so afraid to kill their traditional products that they let
> other people do it for them.

Nowadays, other people don't even have to work too hard at the killing:

<https://i.redd.it/lzp2zv0mk4e81.jpg>

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:

> The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.

They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.

> I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.

They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.

> They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.

Something relatively cheap and nasty ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

SNIPPERMAN, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about. A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> >
> > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> > > I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> > > They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
>

> Sloman, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about.

Flyguy does like to claim that. Since Flyguy doesn't know what he is talking about he makes the claim more or less non-stop.

> A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.

Flyguy doesn't know enough about the semiconductor business to know that everybody - not just Texas instruments - always made at least three grades of devices - military, industrial and commercial - for three different temperature ranges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_temperature

He probably doesn't know that Texas Instruments had a nasty habit of making "industry standard parts" to their own data sheets which offered lower performance than their competitors. Back in the 1970's when I had to put together company specifications for semiconductors (mostly op amps) we had to work out whether we could live with the TI parts.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> > >
> > > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> > > > I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> > > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> > > > They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> > > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
> >

> > SNIPPERMAN, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about.

>
> Flyguy does like to claim that. Since Flyguy doesn't know what he is talking about he makes the claim more or less non-stop.
> > A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.
> Flyguy doesn't know enough about the semiconductor business to know that everybody - not just Texas instruments - always made at least three grades of devices - military, industrial and commercial - for three different temperature ranges.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_temperature

Hey SNIPPERMAN, who says that I DIDN'T know that? You, as usual, jumped to conclusions (not that you can jump all that high). What you DON'T KNOW is that the automotive specifications are much more strict than the industrial, which includes FAR MORE than just temperature.

>
> He probably doesn't know that Texas Instruments had a nasty habit of making "industry standard parts" to their own data sheets which offered lower performance than their competitors. Back in the 1970's when I had to put together company specifications for semiconductors (mostly op amps) we had to work out whether we could live with the TI parts.

Oh, what YOU know is from the 70's. Newsflash: that was FIFTY YEARS AGO! You, as usual, KNOW NOTHING!
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> > > >
> > > > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> > > > > I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> > > > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> > > > > They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> > > > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
> > >

> > > Sloman, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about.

> >
> > Flyguy does like to claim that. Since Flyguy doesn't know what he is talking about he makes the claim more or less non-stop.
> >
> > > A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.
> >
> > Flyguy doesn't know enough about the semiconductor business to know that everybody - not just Texas instruments - always made at least three grades of devices - military, industrial and commercial - for three different temperature ranges.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_temperature
>

> Hey Sloman, who says that I DIDN'T know that?

You did. You seemed to think that Texas Instruments selling into the automotive market made them uniquely special.

> You, as usual, jumped to conclusions (not that you can jump all that high). What you DON'T KNOW is that the automotive specifications are much more strict than the industrial, which includes FAR MORE than just temperature.

What makes you think that? I posted a link to a website that made exactly the point about other temperature ranges, so I didn't need to spell it out.

The temperature differences are the obvious difference - hermitic packages can survive in tougher environments than plastic packages, and we all know about that too (and have done for decades).

> > He probably doesn't know that Texas Instruments had a nasty habit of making "industry standard parts" to their own data sheets which offered lower performance than their competitors. Back in the 1970's when I had to put together company specifications for semiconductors (mostly op amps) we had to work out whether we could live with the TI parts.
>
> Oh, what YOU know is from the 70's.

Some of it is.

> Newsflash: that was FIFTY YEARS AGO! You, as usual, KNOW NOTHING!

Flyguy doesn't seem to learn stuff as he gets older. Newsflash - most of us haven't got Flyguy's problems. There wasn't any programmable logic around in the 1970's, and a neat idea that I had back then didn't get reduced to practice until 1993, when I finally got my hands on an ICT Place PA7024 which was (just) big enough to accommodate what I'd wanted to do back then

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> > > > > > I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> > > > > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> > > > > > They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> > > > > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
> > > >

> > > > SNIPPERMAN, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about.

> > >
> > > Flyguy does like to claim that. Since Flyguy doesn't know what he is talking about he makes the claim more or less non-stop.
> > >
> > > > A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.
> > >
> > > Flyguy doesn't know enough about the semiconductor business to know that everybody - not just Texas instruments - always made at least three grades of devices - military, industrial and commercial - for three different temperature ranges.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_temperature
> >

> > Hey SNIPPERMAN, who says that I DIDN'T know that?

>
> You did. You seemed to think that Texas Instruments selling into the automotive market made them uniquely special.

No, that is what your DELUSIONAL MIND thought - I said NOTHING of the sort.

> > You, as usual, jumped to conclusions (not that you can jump all that high). What you DON'T KNOW is that the automotive specifications are much more strict than the industrial, which includes FAR MORE than just temperature.
> What makes you think that? I posted a link to a website that made exactly the point about other temperature ranges, so I didn't need to spell it out.

What you wrote.

>
> The temperature differences are the obvious difference - hermitic packages can survive in tougher environments than plastic packages, and we all know about that too (and have done for decades).
> > > He probably doesn't know that Texas Instruments had a nasty habit of making "industry standard parts" to their own data sheets which offered lower performance than their competitors. Back in the 1970's when I had to put together company specifications for semiconductors (mostly op amps) we had to work out whether we could live with the TI parts.
> >
> > Oh, what YOU know is from the 70's.
> Some of it is.

Which isn't relevant FIFTY YEARS later.

> > Newsflash: that was FIFTY YEARS AGO! You, as usual, KNOW NOTHING!
> Flyguy doesn't seem to learn stuff as he gets older. Newsflash - most of us haven't got Flyguy's problems. There wasn't any programmable logic around in the 1970's, and a neat idea that I had back then didn't get reduced to practice until 1993, when I finally got my hands on an ICT Place PA7024 which was (just) big enough to accommodate what I'd wanted to do back then

More delusion on the part of SNIPPERMAN - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever. SNIPPERMAN's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:08:28 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> > > > > > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
> > > > >

> > > > > Sloman, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about.

> > > >
> > > > Flyguy does like to claim that. Since Flyguy doesn't know what he is talking about he makes the claim more or less non-stop.
> > > >
> > > > > A large part of TI's business is with the automotive industry. These guys are VERY astute users of semiconductors and have much tougher specs than commercial products. TI delivers those products at competitive prices and have a huge backlog of orders from them.
> > > >
> > > > Flyguy doesn't know enough about the semiconductor business to know that everybody - not just Texas instruments - always made at least three grades of devices - military, industrial and commercial - for three different temperature ranges.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_temperature
> > >

> > > Hey Sloman, who says that I DIDN'T know that?

> >
> > You did. You seemed to think that Texas Instruments selling into the automotive market made them uniquely special.
>
> No, that is what your DELUSIONAL MIND thought - I said NOTHING of the sort.

You don't think did. You are great at reading stuff and finding that it means exactly what would suit you, especially when it doesn't.

> > > You, as usual, jumped to conclusions (not that you can jump all that high). What you DON'T KNOW is that the automotive specifications are much more strict than the industrial, which includes FAR MORE than just temperature.
> >
> > What makes you think that? I posted a link to a website that made exactly the point about other temperature ranges, so I didn't need to spell it out.
>
> What you wrote.

What you thought I wrote, which isn't quite the same thing.

> > The temperature differences are the obvious difference - hermitic packages can survive in tougher environments than plastic packages, and we all know about that too (and have done for decades).
> >
> > > > He probably doesn't know that Texas Instruments had a nasty habit of making "industry standard parts" to their own data sheets which offered lower performance than their competitors. Back in the 1970's when I had to put together company specifications for semiconductors (mostly op amps) we had to work out whether we could live with the TI parts.
> > >
> > > Oh, what YOU know is from the 70's.
> >
> > Some of it is.
> Which isn't relevant FIFTY YEARS later.

Quite a bit of it is.

> > > Newsflash: that was FIFTY YEARS AGO! You, as usual, KNOW NOTHING!
> >

> > Flyguy doesn't seem to learn stuff as he gets older. Newsflash - most of us haven't got Flyguy's problems. There wasn't any programmable logic around in the 1970's, and a neat idea that I had back then didn't get reduced to practice until 1993, when I finally got my hands on an ICT Place PA7024 which was (just) big enough to accommodate what I'd wanted to do back then.
> >
> More delusion on the part of Sloman - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever.

Nothing that Flyguy can understand.

> Sloman's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.

I've been avoiding designing in their parts when I can for quite a while now. I installed one of Cambridge Instruments electron beam testers at TI-Nice around 1985, so I've probably been closer to one of their factories than you ever have. A few years later I got into TI Bedford to see their idea of an electron beam tester (which depended on a Mulvey lens). I asked how they dealt with the fact that Mulvey lenses run hot, and the boss of the project didn't like the answer I was given. The physicist who had given the answer moved on shortly afterwards.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Cydrome Leader]

Are you salty over them selling the laptop line to Acer or something? Are
you locked into TI made 4Mb DRAM chips?

[Anthony William Sloman]

I hadn't known that Texas Instruments ever made lap-tops. I was talking about the semi-conductor company, and the individual integrated circuits that it sold. products.

> Are you locked into TI made 4Mb DRAM chips?

No. I did have a development project that depended in Texas Instruments 64k serial memories back in 1979, which stopped making sense when 16k DRAMs got cheap, but that was a different kind of problem. DRAMs are industry standard parts, and nobody sane gets mousetrapped into using one that hasn't got multiple sources.

Sensible people tended to use bigger parts, even if they were a bit more expensive per bit when you designed them in because they'd stay in production for longer, usually after the originally cheaper parts had become unobtainable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Cydrome Leader]

Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:03:42 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> >> bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> >> > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> >> >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> >> >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
>> >> >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >
>> >> The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
>> >
>> > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
>> >
>> >> I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
>> >
>> > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
>> >
>> >> They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
>> >
>> > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
>>
>> Are you salty over them selling the laptop line to Acer or something?
>
> I hadn't known that Texas Instruments ever made lap-tops. I was talking about the semi-conductor company, and the individual integrated circuits that it sold. products.

They made a well respected line of business laptops for years.

>> Are you locked into TI made 4Mb DRAM chips?
>
> No. I did have a development project that depended in Texas Instruments 64k serial memories back in 1979, which stopped making sense when 16k DRAMs got cheap, but that was a different kind of problem. DRAMs are industry standard parts, and nobody sane gets mousetrapped into using one that hasn't got multiple sources.
>
> Sensible people tended to use bigger parts, even if they were a bit more expensive per bit when you designed them in because they'd stay in production for longer, usually after the originally cheaper parts had become unobtainable.

So how did they gyp you back in 1957 or whever it was? Bad batch of
TIP31s?

[Flyguy]

> > More delusion on the part of SNIPPERMAN - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever.

>
> Nothing that Flyguy can understand.
>

> > SNIPPERMAN's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.

>
> I've been avoiding designing in their parts when I can for quite a while now. I installed one of Cambridge Instruments electron beam testers at TI-Nice around 1985, so I've probably been closer to one of their factories than you ever have. A few years later I got into TI Bedford to see their idea of an electron beam tester (which depended on a Mulvey lens). I asked how they dealt with the fact that Mulvey lenses run hot, and the boss of the project didn't like the answer I was given. The physicist who had given the answer moved on shortly afterwards.
>
> --

> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Translation of SNIPPERMAN's bullshit: he is STILL pissed about some imagined grievance that is FIFTY YEARS OLD. Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 3:30:17 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:03:42 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> >> >> bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> >> >> >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> >> >> >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The only typewriter company still in business is IBM, but they never made cheap (price not quality) consumer products, so their transition was easier and possible.
> >> >
> >> > They aren't what they were, and their activities on the standards groups that I knew about was all about protecting their market share, rather than getting better standards.
> >> >
> >> >> I still think Texas Instruments is the model of a clever company that has always been able to adapt to the times.
> >> >
> >> > They've always been a crooked company, in much the same mold, always ready to shaft their customers. They have never been all that innovative.
> >> >
> >> >> They've jettisoned entire lines of products, but it was always at the right time, and there was always something new to take its place.
> >> >
> >> > Something relatively cheap and nasty ...
> >>
> >> Are you salty over them selling the laptop line to Acer or something?
> >
> > I hadn't known that Texas Instruments ever made lap-tops. I was talking about the semi-conductor company, and the individual integrated circuits that it sold.
>

> They made a well respected line of business laptops for years.

So what? I repeat - I was talking about the semi-conductor company, and the individual integrated circuits that it sold.

> >> Are you locked into TI made 4Mb DRAM chips?
> >
> > No. I did have a development project that depended in Texas Instruments 64k serial memories back in 1979, which stopped making sense when 16k DRAMs got cheap, but that was a different kind of problem. DRAMs are industry standard parts, and nobody sane gets mousetrapped into using one that hasn't got multiple sources.
> >
> > Sensible people tended to use bigger parts, even if they were a bit more expensive per bit when you designed them in because they'd stay in production for longer, usually after the originally cheaper parts had become unobtainable.
>

> So how did they gyp you back in 1957 or whenever it was? Bad batch of TIP31s?

The first integrated circuit was invented at Texas Instruments in 1958, while I was still in secondary school. I didn't have enough to do with them before the 1970's to get peeved about them. One irritating incident involved them pretending to offer a counter and display driver in a single package, which did exactly the job I needed at the time, so I ordered a bunch and laid out a printed circuit for them. The part never went into production despite the data sheet. It wasn't the only problem I had with them, and their evil habits persisted for decades - one of their data sheets left out a crucial parameter - input capacitance - in the 1990's, which was just as irritating, if less time wasting.

Their power transistors were never particularly impressive, but they did work. I scored brownie points once when a bunch of TIP29's were blowing up, and I realised that they should have been TIP29A's. The - very good - engineer who had designed the board had specified them, but the "A" suffix had been drooped by the drafting shop when they created the production drawings, which shouldn't have happened.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:20:10 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:49:31 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:08:28 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> > > More delusion on the part of Sloman - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever.

> >
> > Nothing that Flyguy can understand.
> >

> > > Sloman's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.

> >
> > I've been avoiding designing in their parts when I can for quite a while now. I installed one of Cambridge Instruments electron beam testers at TI-Nice around 1985, so I've probably been closer to one of their factories than you ever have. A few years later I got into TI Bedford to see their idea of an electron beam tester (which depended on a Mulvey lens). I asked how they dealt with the fact that Mulvey lenses run hot, and the boss of the project didn't like the answer I was given. The physicist who had given the answer moved on shortly afterwards.
>

> Translation of Slomna's bullshit: he is STILL pissed about some imagined grievance that is FIFTY YEARS OLD.

This is a typical Flyguy misapprehension. He does use the word "translation" when actually he's inventing some new and largely original narrative.
I'm not pissed off about one single incident, but rather reporting my reactions to a series of incidents spread over about twenty years, none of which got me all that irritated, but did suggest - when taken together - that Texas Instruments parts were best avoided.

> Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...

Flyguy might know about that - he's been demented for quite while now, though he doesn't seem to realise it. It doesn't seem to have taught him anything about dementia. He thinks that Joe Biden is demented because he makes speech errors - though Trump's lying propaganda may come into that since Flyguy is gullible as well as very stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:56:26 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:20:10 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:49:31 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:08:28 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > > More delusion on the part of Sloman - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Nothing that Flyguy can understand.
> > >
> > > > Sloman's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.
> > >
> > > I've been avoiding designing in their parts when I can for quite a while now. I installed one of Cambridge Instruments electron beam testers at TI-Nice around 1985, so I've probably been closer to one of their factories than you ever have. A few years later I got into TI Bedford to see their idea of an electron beam tester (which depended on a Mulvey lens). I asked how they dealt with the fact that Mulvey lenses run hot, and the boss of the project didn't like the answer I was given. The physicist who had given the answer moved on shortly afterwards.
> >
> > Translation of Slomna's bullshit: he is STILL pissed about some imagined grievance that is FIFTY YEARS OLD.
>
> This is a typical Flyguy misapprehension. He does use the word "translation" when actually he's inventing some new and largely original narrative.
> I'm not pissed off about one single incident, but rather reporting my reactions to a series of incidents spread over about twenty years, none of which got me all that irritated, but did suggest - when taken together - that Texas Instruments parts were best avoided.

Sure sounds like it. In any event TI is a major player in the semiconductor market, totally different from what you portrayed them as. Major automobile manufacturers depend upon TI, and I think they are much brighter than you.

> > Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...
> Flyguy might know about that - he's been demented for quite while now, though he doesn't seem to realise it. It doesn't seem to have taught him anything about dementia. He thinks that Joe Biden is demented because he makes speech errors - though Trump's lying propaganda may come into that since Flyguy is gullible as well as very stupid.

Lyin' Biden IS demented - he stumbles, mumbles, doesn't know where he is and forgets names of people like Obama. And your imagined wrongs fall into that category.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:47:21 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:56:26 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:20:10 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:49:31 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:08:28 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

> > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 t 10:16:12 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:41:53 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 3:50:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:29:03 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/25/2022 6:41 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Am 25.01.22 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > More delusion on the part of Sloman - this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing that Flyguy can understand.
> > > >
> > > > > Sloman's proclamations concerning TI are totally false.
> > > >
> > > > I've been avoiding designing in their parts when I can for quite a while now. I installed one of Cambridge Instruments electron beam testers at TI-Nice around 1985, so I've probably been closer to one of their factories than you ever have. A few years later I got into TI Bedford to see their idea of an electron beam tester (which depended on a Mulvey lens). I asked how they dealt with the fact that Mulvey lenses run hot, and the boss of the project didn't like the answer I was given. The physicist who had given the answer moved on shortly afterwards.
> > >
> > > Translation of Slomna's bullshit: he is STILL pissed about some imagined grievance that is FIFTY YEARS OLD.
> >
> > This is a typical Flyguy misapprehension. He does use the word "translation" when actually he's inventing some new and largely original narrative.
> >
> > I'm not pissed off about one single incident, but rather reporting my reactions to a series of incidents spread over about twenty years, none of which got me all that irritated, but did suggest - when taken together - that Texas Instruments parts were best avoided.
>
> Sure sounds like it. In any event TI is a major player in the semiconductor market, totally different from what you portrayed them as.

I never said they weren't. They got even bigger when they took over National Semiconductor.

> Major automobile manufacturers depend upon TI, and I think they are much brighter than you.

.
Lots of people depend on the semiconductor industry. Major automobile manufacturers are just a part of their market. "Second sourcing" is a good idea if you are relying on industry standard parts, and you don't buy most of the parts that are produced. The car industry is big enough to pay for application specific circuits (not that they seem to bother) and their attitude to Texas Instruments reflect the fact they buy enough parts to exert an influence.

None of us do.

What you think about other people's "brightness" isn't really interesting - you aren't all that bright yourself and your judgment sucks.

> > > Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...
> >
> > Flyguy might know about that - he's been demented for quite while now, though he doesn't seem to realise it. It doesn't seem to have taught him anything about dementia. He thinks that Joe Biden is demented because he makes speech errors - though Trump's lying propaganda may come into that since Flyguy is gullible as well as very stupid.
>

> Joe Biden IS demented - he stumbles, mumbles, doesn't know where he is and forgets names of people like Obama. And your imagined wrongs fall into that category.

Joe Biden has been making speech errors since he got into politics. He wasn't demented then, and he isn't demented now, even though half-wits like you and Trump think that it is worth making that fatuous claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

Translation: "You're right, as usual."

> > Major automobile manufacturers depend upon TI, and I think they are much brighter than you.
> .
> Lots of people depend on the semiconductor industry. Major automobile manufacturers are just a part of their market. "Second sourcing" is a good idea if you are relying on industry standard parts, and you don't buy most of the parts that are produced. The car industry is big enough to pay for application specific circuits (not that they seem to bother) and their attitude to Texas Instruments reflect the fact they buy enough parts to exert an influence.

Translation: "You're right, as usual."

>
> None of us do.
>
> What you think about other people's "brightness" isn't really interesting - you aren't all that bright yourself and your judgment sucks.

I'm brighter than you, someone who advocates nuking their OWN COUTRY!!!!

> > > > Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...
> > >
> > > Flyguy might know about that - he's been demented for quite while now, though he doesn't seem to realise it. It doesn't seem to have taught him anything about dementia. He thinks that Joe Biden is demented because he makes speech errors - though Trump's lying propaganda may come into that since Flyguy is gullible as well as very stupid.
> >

> > Lyin' Biden IS demented - he stumbles, mumbles, doesn't know where he is and forgets names of people like Obama. And your imagined wrongs fall into that category.

>
> Joe Biden has been making speech errors since he got into politics. He wasn't demented then, and he isn't demented now, even though half-wits like you and Trump think that it is worth making that fatuous claim.

I have posted links to videos that CLEARLY shows Lyin' Biden's decline in just the last TWO YEARS! Forgetting names and places (like Obummer's and Trump's) isn't just a "speech error" - it is a textbook example of dementia. And when he fell THREE TIMES going up the stairs of Air Force One ISN'T a "speech error" - it IS a loss of motor control. And the fool refuses to take a cognitive test that might put the issue to rest.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/white-house-doctor-is-hiding-joe-bidens-brain-drain-devine/
I don't give a fuck what you foreigners think, but we Americans WANT to know that our leader is up to the job, and most think that Lyin' Biden IS NOT!

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

Flyguy does search hard for places where he can claim he got something right. In this case he claimed that I'd portrayed Texas Instruments in a way that he had thought was wrong, which I hadn't.

> > > Major automobile manufacturers depend upon TI, and I think they are much brighter than you.
> > .
> > Lots of people depend on the semiconductor industry. Major automobile manufacturers are just a part of their market. "Second sourcing" is a good idea if you are relying on industry standard parts, and you don't buy most of the parts that are produced. The car industry is big enough to pay for application specific circuits (not that they seem to bother) and their attitude to Texas Instruments reflect the fact they buy enough parts to exert an influence.
> >

> > None of us do.

>
> Translation: "You're right, as usual."

Flyguy seems to think that he's right quite often. He isn't. Major automobile manufactures buy semi-conductors from all over. My 1993 milliKelvin thermosat used a Siemens SAB80C517A single chip processor, and a few years later, when I was living the Netherlands Volkswagen designed it into one of their cars, and none of the UK distributors had any in stock. I got an e-mail from Cambridge about it and managed to find and buy thirty of them from Dutch distributors and post them off to Cambridge, which kept them going until new stock arrived.

> > What you think about other people's "brightness" isn't really interesting - you aren't all that bright yourself and your judgment sucks.
>

> I'm brighter than you, someone who advocates nuking their OWN COUNTRY!!!!

But too stupid to realise that the US government nuked quite a few bits of their own country.

> > > > > Note that this is typical of geezers who are entering dementia...
> > > >
> > > > Flyguy might know about that - he's been demented for quite while now, though he doesn't seem to realise it. It doesn't seem to have taught him anything about dementia. He thinks that Joe Biden is demented because he makes speech errors - though Trump's lying propaganda may come into that since Flyguy is gullible as well as very stupid.
> > >

> > > Joe Biden IS demented - he stumbles, mumbles, doesn't know where he is and forgets names of people like Obama. And your imagined wrongs fall into that category.

> >
> > Joe Biden has been making speech errors since he got into politics. He wasn't demented then, and he isn't demented now, even though half-wits like you and Trump think that it is worth making that fatuous claim.
>

> I have posted links to videos that CLEARLY shows Joe Biden's decline in just the last TWO YEARS!

How could one video show a decline over two years?

> Forgetting names and places (like Obummer's and Trump's) isn't just a "speech error" - it is a textbook example of dementia.

Not in any textbook that I know of.

> And when he fell THREE TIMES going up the stairs of Air Force One ISN'T a "speech error" - it IS a loss of motor control.

Which does happen as you get older. Trump was famously cautious going down a very shallow ramp. It's got nothing to do with dementia.

> And the fool refuses to take a cognitive test that might put the issue to rest.

It wouldn't. Clowns like you and Trump would continue to insist that he was demented. Why dignify your fatuous assertions by appearing to take them seriously?

> https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/white-house-doctor-is-hiding-joe-bidens-brain-drain-devine/
> I don't give a fuck what you foreigners think, but we Americans WANT to know that our leader is up to the job, and most think that Je Biden IS NOT!

A noisy and rather foolish minority may think that. Quite a few of them also think that Donald Trump was up to the job.

Some 910,104 Americans have now died of Covid-19. That's 2,724 per million. Countries that did better at keeping it out - Australia comes to mind - have many fewer deaths. Australia has got up to 148 per million. If Trump had done anything effective at keeping it out the country back in 2020, many fewer Americans would be dying of it now.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney