> Unlike some, I don't think there are bad questions.

For some unusual values of bad.

eg not to pick on the current questioner,but I fail to see how this
could be a "good question".

 " ... i need to get the analog output values of the sensors to the
screen ..." fails to let the would be answerer know what is known,
what is wanting to be known, what the necessary assumption set is,
what "the screen" is. And to boot it's almost certainly NOT what is
wanted as it in no way directly serves the aim (ie why should the
follower care what is on the screen?)

This nicely fails the fundamental directive in the cited article. ie
if the roles of questioner and answerer were reversed, could the
current questioner understand the question? I certainly can't. I can
generate probabilistic images of what may be being asked and what may
be wanted. I can  look at the prior given cct diagram (which I should
not need to do.) But I don't thing the asker or answerer are well
served.


       Russell


..









There are stupid
> answers though.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.