 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / CAD / March 2006could you give me the source codes of Hope and Atlanta?
The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. In my study,I need to use the two programs,but I don't know where I can get the two programs,so I come here for help. If you know where I can get the two programs ,it's appreciate for you to tell me the place where I can get the codes by the email. If you have anyone of the two programs, it's appreciate for you to send it to my email. My gmail is yyq787@gmail.com. Thanks very much. >The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. >I don't know where I can get the two programs Perhaps you could refine this search string: http://www.google.com/search?q=sourceforge.net+intitle:Hope+OR+intitle:Atlanta . . >My gmail is yyq787@gmail.com. You don't really "get" Usenet. do you? Perhaps you don't even understand that you're accessing Usenet. (Google Groups is only 1 way to do so --some would say the LAME way. (I am not one of those.) http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Usenet Any information that is transmitted privately instead of being posted to the group will obviously not be available to everyone. As you are posting from the Usenet ARCHIVE at Google, this should be impressed on you even more . If, OTOH, you are just too lazy to return here for your answer, piss off. Hey gee, looky here, now JeffM is multi-posting. Go back in your hole troll!  SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > >The Hope and Atlanta are two open source ATPG programs. >>I don't know where I can get the two programs [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If, OTOH, you are just too lazy to return here for your answer, > piss off. >Hey gee, looky here, now JeffM is multi-posting. > Brad Velander. When you can properly define the terms you use, someone might take you seriously. In the meantime, become educated: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/browse_frm/thread/7b7c0624 331012bb/3958f18673b5f374?q=EVERY-group-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-appear+*-proper-answer-* -*-*-given+much-easier-*-*-*-*-what's-going-on+*-frowned-on+*-correcting+*-polit e-*-mention-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+Just-because-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-does-not-mean-*-*-*-*-*-* +*-Followup-To-*+*-*-*-too-lazy-*-*-*-*-*-appropriate-*+*-*-_perfect_-*-*-*-*+*- *-*-*-two-groups-*-*-aren't-*-different . . >Go back in your hole troll! When you stop top-posting, maybe someone will take your opinion seriously. In the meantime you're just another clueless moron. What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar (yeah, not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs (sci.electonics.design, sci.electronics.cad, sci.electronics.misc, & sci.electonics.equipment) and then again singularly to (sci.electronics.cad)? In my book it would still be multi-posting ESPECIALLY when it is done by a.sholes complaining about other's actions. Chiding this user once was not enough for you, you have to do it twice within one newsgroup? Why do we all have to read your dribble more than once? Re: top posting. Trying to make up more of your own rules again, huh? Well dream on troll. Maybe someday if you campaigned very diligently you might get 'most' software coders to apply such a practice in their code, until then lay off the users. Here JeffM read this, directly quoted from Usenet FAQs (Oh I forgot, JeffM actually hasn't ever read these because if he had and he was an intelligent being he would have understood and not be always trying to shove his own petty little rules down other's throats!) : "WORDS TO LIVE BY #1: USENET AS SOCIETY -------------------- Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them. The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills. -- Nick Szabo WORDS TO LIVE BY #2: USENET AS ANARCHY -------------------- Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off. -- Unknown" So I piss you off, you piss me off. Get used to it because no matter how much your little mind craves dominance, control and conformity, you and your henchmen buddies don't rule Usenet! Nobody does! So take all of your petty little rules and quips and stuff them where the sun don't shine because you are making up this crap and anyone can make up completely opposing crap and try shoving it down everyone's throats with just as much authority as you carry. SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > >Hey gee, looky here, now JeffM is multi-posting. >> Brad Velander. >> > When you can properly define the terms you use, > someone might take you seriously. > In the meantime, become educated: > When you stop top-posting, > maybe someone will take your opinion seriously. > In the meantime you're just another clueless moron. >What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar <(yeah, not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs >(sci.electonics.design, sci.electronics.cad, sci.electronics.misc, & >sci.electonics.equipment) >and then again singularly to (sci.electronics.cad)? > Brad Velander IF they WERE *identical*, then you would have a point *besides the one at the top of your head). . . >In my book it would still be multi-posting Asstated several times, when you start conforming to the norm, and learn the vocabulary, then AND ONLY THEN wiill your opinion carry any weight. . . >Re: top posting. >Trying to make up more of your own rules again, huh? Observe the method used by the MAJORITY of experienced Usenet posters. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/e259a5ca 51d0730/62ce424a66ab320b?lnk=st&q=engineer+*-*-that-poor-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-emula te-* You know what you can kiss, Jeff? So go ahead put on your filters or whatever else you want to do, you're a troll trying to bully and scare others into conforming to your ideals and rules. Such a small tormented mind, that it must try to control and meld that which was created without control for a very real and well understood reason by it's creators. You and all your henchmen can just go away and enjoy your social club amongst yourselves where you can make all the rules you want and do whatever you want to enforce them. On Usenet you're trolls, just looking for that bridge to call home where you can scare the locals with you vivion of what is right and wrong. FYI, the norm on Usenet is that there is no norm, no law, no unwanted moderation, no rulers, no rules! Only trolls that want to try and control the world! Smmmmoooocccchhhhh! There's a big wet one for you, you intellectually challenged troll! SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > >What, now you are going to claim that you didn't post very similar > <(yeah, not identical) replies twice, once to the grouping of NGs [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > by the MAJORITY of experienced Usenet posters. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/e259a5ca 51d0730/62ce424a66ab320b?lnk=st&q=engineer+*-*-that-poor-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-emula te-* >FYI, the norm on Usenet is that there is no norm > Brad Velander Go ahead. Continue to remain ignorant. I understand that you can't see patterns with your head up your a.s like that. Making things difficult on others and calling it a "style" is moronic. Usenet has survived stupid people like you and will continue to. Everyone else knows that you couldn't be more WRONG. Just f.ck off you idiot, There are no rules, you have no right to try and dictate how or what others post. You're just an intellectual bullie trying to feel powerful, or is it simply feel useful, by trying to regulate and make others conform to your petty little view of the world and how they should use Usenet. They need to ship more like you off to Iraq, a new twist on the Darwin awards. Seems only you and some of your fellow henchmen are the ones experiencing difficulties or ignorance. Making claims about Usenet that anybody can refute and you cannot defend. Intellectually challenged by variety and variation? Can't figure things out for yourself unless it is presented in a specific format? You're precisiely the reason that Usenet was created without rules and regulations. To keep a.sholes like you from any legitimate attempt to rule Usenet. You are welcome to supply legitimate references that aren't of your own making! C'mon, what's wrong there Jeffy Pooh, can't supply any references that are valid or other than your own making/dribble? If you weren't such a liar and bully you would admit your wrongs or supply valid references for your claims. When challenged all you can do is fall back to your own claims and insist that your foes are wrong, well prove it or shut up. Supply soem Usenet referecnes backing your claims or slither back into your hole. SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > >FYI, the norm on Usenet is that there is no norm >> Brad Velander [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Usenet has survived stupid people like you and will continue to. > Everyone else knows that you couldn't be more WRONG. >supply legitimate references > Brad Velander If the concept of empirical evidence evades you, you are simply hopeless. If you can't discern a pattern from the postings of Usenet veterans, it is useless for me to to try to convince you. Remain in your own little realm. No one takes you seriously anyway. I'm very sorry for my behavior that I've post so many the same imformation on the google group,I will never same mistake for ever. And that's my first time to use the google group. Don't apologize, I would suggest that you do look up the Usenet FAQs and just familiarize yourself with them. They are light reading, not onerous nor very complicated. In short, Jeff and his buddies are trying to make up rules where they have no authority. They choose to pick on seemingly new newsgroup users and you became one of their latest victims. You owe them no apology, you did nothing wrong and you did not break any rules. JeffM and his henchmen are typical pseudo-intellectual bullies trying to mold the world to their liking. Sort of "Pinky and the Brain" types that feed off each other and support each other regardless of the legitimacy of their claims or actions. SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > I'm very sorry for my behavior that I've post so many the same > imformation on the google group,I will never same mistake for ever. And > that's my first time to use the google group. yyq787 @ gmail.com wrote: >I will never [make the] same mistake [forever]. >...that's my first time [using] the google group. It's obvious that, despite having posted to Usenet hundreds of times, Brad.has never bothered to read anything like this: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:A6TIDwud-1IJ:gloria-brame.com/glory/jour3.ht m+lurk+zzz+observe-*-the-*-*-style-*-*-*-*+qq-qq+adapt-your-own-*-accordingly (A good read for a newbie.) Another Beginners' Guide: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:t3PDy-35EzkJ:www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet /guide/guide.html+Before-you-post-*-*-*+lurk-for-a-while Brad is what we call "clueless". His notion of *anarchy* is just stupid; all groups have norms. Here's one more you missed with your recent post: context: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.dance/browse_frm/thread/7d7206245406b31a /d2a254b71a556333?q=they-don't-see-*-*-*-*-Google+You-don't-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-previo us-post+click-*-show-options-*+click-THAT-Reply-link+only-leave-enough+zzz+If-yo u-don't-*-*-*-*-your-reply+faqs It's easy to miss for Google Groups newbies because when Google re-crafted their site, they did it poorly IMO. More stuff here: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8PaSp2kKbWoJ:www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html+j ust-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original+zzz+One-to-Many-Communicat ion+qqq+to-give-a-context . . Often, when someone first posts to Usenet (especially Google Groups), he has a burning hunger for an answer to a question. Tunnel-vision sets in and he doesn't stop to realize that others may be interested in the topic as well. Multi-posting gets HIM the answer, but it makes it difficult for OTHERS who are trying to follow the topic. This has always been obvious to me; I'm just amazed that others don't get it immediately. What more made up and illegitimate references Jeff? How about something from a Usenet authority? Why can't you supply some Usenet references Jeff? What are you hiding from Jeff? What a little weinie! It is easy to see how people like Hitler/Dubya rise to power, even in the U.S. of A. Norms are not dictated, norms occur naturally without threats and recriminations from little dictator/a.sholes like you! SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > yyq787 @ gmail.com wrote: >>I will never [make the] same mistake [forever]. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > This has always been obvious to me; > I'm just amazed that others don't get it immediately. >Norms are not dictated, norms occur naturally without threats > Brad Velander (Still top-posting; still clueless; still pig-headed) ...or (in your case) completely ignored. You must be a real joy in gatherings of people. People who don't lurk, observe, then EMULATE what already exists remind me of a guy who is new to an organization and, at the 1st meeting he attends, stands right up and starts blathering away about someting that the group has discussed many times before and has consistantly rejected. Oh just f.ck off, I have watched weinies like you, your henchmen and others trying to bullie other users for over a decade now. Your the one lacking social skills and demeanor trying to force compliance with your bullying tactics. I have no problem within social circles since I allow others to express themselves in the fashion they feel comfortable with and take away the real issues or topics within their discourse, not complaining of the format in which it was presented. What group has consistently rejected what? You and your buddies, wow what a group. Like I said most people (that is not your little group) have no problems with these less initiated posters, seems only you and your gang have lacking social skills, when things are not presented within your desired rigid templates. Ignorance is your refusal/reluctance to accept that Usenet has no rules and it is open to all and whatever fashion they use to put their queries or contributions forward. Without interference or threats from low-life bullies like yourself. Pigheaded is the manner by which you continually attempt to justify your false rules using completely unsanctioned papers/posts/opinions of a select small group of people that have absolutely no authority to impose such rules. I will always be top-posting because I have no problem with memory or recalling previous posts and I don't like having to read/scan through the previous references in order to find the new contributions. Can't see why you want the previous references prior to reading the original contributions. In conversation do you repeat the previous contributions prior to contributing your new ideas? SignatureSincerely, Brad Velander. > >Norms are not dictated, norms occur naturally without threats >> Brad Velander (Still top-posting; still clueless; still pig-headed) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > about someting that the group has discussed many times before > and has consistantly rejected. >Can't see why you want the previous references >prior to reading the original contributions. > Brad Velander In most cases, that's true. The *other* cases reflect just how much you don't get it. When you learn the meaning of "context" (the usual definition will do), perhaps you'll understand. BTW, reposting ALL of the previous comment EVERY TIME is generally considered *part* of the top-posting paradigm (which is so reviled) and in *most* cases THAT part is even more dumb than not making the post read like a dialog --instead of something that jumps backward and forward in time. (Now we're getting back to the *others reading the thread as well* thing that the newbie missed and which you still apparantly haven't grasped. . . >In conversation do you repeat the previous contributions >prior to contributing your new ideas? I certainly don't repeat it AFTER I'm through with my contribution. Examine your own twisted logic and your own posting style. It's a lousy analogy anyway. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.