In Reply to: Re: A Graphical Explanation involving Sampling posted by Rod M on February 17, 2000 at 19:33:54:
I appreciate the thought that you probably meant by including the link, however, I would just as soon forget that thread altogether. In fact, I am so embarrased by the whole affair that I have decided to refrain from further posts; I will enjoy from a distance, thank-you. Much praise to Werner, jj, and others who contributed and ultimately did an admirable job of explaning where I could not. I am humbled.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RodM. . . - patentguy 08:11:23 02/18/00 (19)
- Re: RodM. . . - Rod M 13:50:12 02/18/00 (15)
- Re: RodM. . . - Mart 09:43:02 02/19/00 (14)
- You mean, "it can" - jj 14:04:41 02/19/00 (13)
- Re: You mean, "it can" - Mart 14:08:05 02/19/00 (12)
- There's no such THING, Mart. That's where you err. - jj 14:18:54 02/19/00 (11)
- so by infinite duration - Mart 14:35:10 02/19/00 (10)
- The example is not recursive... - jj 14:42:47 02/19/00 (9)
- care to design one? - Mart 14:56:17 02/19/00 (8)
- Design what? - jj 15:55:09 02/19/00 (7)
- Re: Design what? - Mart 18:39:24 02/19/00 (6)
- Ahhh.... - jj 19:35:44 02/19/00 (5)
- who doesn't cheap out? - Mart 22:42:19 02/19/00 (4)
- Sorry, I never name specific equipment - jj 10:10:14 02/20/00 (3)
- Re: Sorry, I never name specific equipment - Mart 18:34:57 02/20/00 (2)
- Hmm.... - jj 19:39:17 02/20/00 (1)
- very true... - Mart 20:46:42 02/20/00 (0)
- in all modesty - petew 10:44:17 02/18/00 (1)
- Thank you for sharing (nt) - jj 11:35:33 02/18/00 (0)
- I wouldn't feel bad about this... - jj 09:38:46 02/18/00 (0)