conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: John Larkin on 15 May 2010 21:15 On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 13, 6:27�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >Actually, I know that it isn't important - if you have a tertiary >> >> >qualification from a European educational institution, you are going >> >> >to be fluent in English. What I don't know is why you think otherwise >> >> >- I could ask you to explain, but I don't fancy being directed to the >> >> >irrational output from some right-wing propaganda mill. >> >> >> So, you don't know much about the world. >> >> >Or so you'd like to think. You still haven't told me why you think >> >that language is important in this context, but retreated behind your >> >earlier - unsupported - claim. Bankers have been managing financial >> >trasactions across linguistic boundaries for the past few thousand >> >years. It isn't difficult, and they've had lots of practice. >> >> I'd explain, except that you told me just above not to explain. > >No. I told you not to get your explanation from your usual suppliers. I do my own thinking, so I'm the usual supplier. But surely, as worldly as you are, you can figure it out yourself. John
From: Nico Coesel on 16 May 2010 08:45 Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Nico Coesel wrote: >> Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Nico Coesel wrote: >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY >>>>> >>>>> You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >>>>> to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >>>>> spend your way out of the problem. >>>>> >>>>> This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >>>>> been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. >>>> My gut feeling says this is all a bunch of nonsense. Countries are >>>> still waiting in line to start using the Euro: >>>> >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8678073.stm >>>> >>> Maybe they should wait a little until the exchange rate versus whatever >>> they are using now has dropped some more? Yesterday it fell to under $1.24. >> >> The exchange rate is probably fixed already. Before the euro was >> actually introduced the exchange rates where already fixed. Balancing >> exchange rates between European countries has been going on for a long >> time: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Currency_Unit >> > >Yeah, but: Nothing will prevent any country (and the people living >there) from buying bonds denominated in USD or other currencies before a >switch and then selling them at a convenient time later after the >multiple crises in Europe have settled. Hoping that they do settle soon ... People don't gamble with currencies. They buy gold and other metals. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Sloman on 16 May 2010 09:05 On May 15, 5:40 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On May 15, 12:50 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown > > >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown > >> >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> >> >>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their > >> >> >>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were > >> >> >>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on > >> >> >>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety > >> >> >>> relief valves they would not pay out. > > >> >> >[snip] > > >> >> >>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work > >> >> >>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. > >> >> >>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. > > >> >> >> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the > >> >> >> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away > > >> >> >We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two > >> >> >or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the > >> >> >mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level > >> >> >of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. > > >> >> That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire > >> >> unemployed labor cheap. > > >> >At the time, the mechanisation of agriculture was decreasing the > >> >demand for agricultural labourers in the country, so they moved into > >> >the cities to find work. > > >> >> As other mill owners got into the act, they > >> >> had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. > > >> >They didn't have to compete; they could agree to divide up the > >> >labourers availalble and pay them the same subsistence rate. Cartels > >> >and trusts formalised the process by which evil factory owners > >> >conspired to rip off their employees, and employers who upset the > >> >apple-cart by offering higher pay could sudenely find that they > >> >couldn't buy the feed-stock from which their products were > >> >constructed. Why do you think that US first introduced anti-trust > >> >legislation in 1887? > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law > > >> >> The > >> >> laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building > >> >> materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and > >> >> transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new > >> >> technology. > > >> >If the factory owners didn't reduce wages to reflect the new, lower, > >> >cost of living ... > > >> >> Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes > >> >> productivity. > > >> >Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits > >> >of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and > >> >labour. > > >> Competition does that, and anti-trust laws make companies compete. > >> Unfortunately, no laws make unions compete. So business reacts > >> logically, by leaving the country or going out of business. > > >> But what would you know about productivity? > > >More than you do, obviously. The Germans have strong trade unions, > >well-protected by law, and German companies are neither out-sourcing > >nor going out of business. > > >You seem to be getting your ideas about "productivity" from the usual > >right-wing propaganda mills, > > No, I get my ideas about productivity by doing it, and helping other > people do it. Your career seems to have been punctuated by a series of > technical failures; the most productive thing you have done is quit > designing electronics. We thank you for that. Oddly enough, my designs weren't technical failures - they all worked pretty much as intended, and if the firms involved had been in state to put them into production and get them into the hands of customers, they would also have been commercially successful, if the original demands of the marketing people had been well-founded. The shaped-beam electron beam microfabricator project foundered because the cost of finishing the project turned out to be more than Cambridge Instruments could afford (largely because they'd mismanaged getting the S.360 electron microscope into production and couldn't produce it fast enough to satisfy the demand from the market) - which wasn't a technical failure (or at least not in an area that I could do anything about). The digital stroboscopic electron beam tester was canned after we'd built a working prototype - the problem was that we would have needed to sell 18 over about eighteen months to get the necessary cash flow, and the original marketing estimates turned out to have been about 50% too high. It didn't help that the original marketing specification had included an irrational demand that we should be able to place our 500psec wide sampling pulse with a precision of 10psec, which meant that the timing electronics had to be built around Gigabit Logic's GaAs parts, making the development a little more demanding than it needed to have been (not that we ran into many unanticipated problems with the ultra-fast bits of the circuit). When I proposed using GaAs to solve the problem, I thought that I was satirising the technical specification, but unfortunately the solution I sketched was actually technically feasible - I really am a good circuit designer and systems engineer, and even my jokes will really work. The smaller stuff did better, perhaps because marketing had a clearer idea of what the cusotmers actually wanted and needed. Since I got to answer the questions from production and final test when they ran into problems in producing my stuff (which didn't happen often) I think I too can also claim to have tested my ideas about productivity by actually doing it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 16 May 2010 09:53 On May 15, 11:05 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 4:49 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 7:16 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On May 13, 5:02 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those > > > > with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load. > > > > Right. That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other > > > animals' bread, greedy thing that she was. She had broad shoulders.. > > > I think you are mixing your metaphors. If you want to refer to > > Orwell's "Animal Farm" you had better read it first. > > > > > This falls a > > > > long way short of Marx - > > JL > Marx was kind of an idiot. > > BS > The same kind of idiot as Darwin, who > BS > laid out the obvious facts that > BS > nobody had noticed before. > > Your knee jerks when somebody assails Marx. > Then you compaare it to ... SCIENCE! LOL > > It's a cult like religion to you. Marx certainly is worshipped as a diety by some nitwit left-wingers, just as he is rejected as some kind of evil diety by nitwits like you. His real contribution to economics was that he looked at trade and productivity statistics and used tehm as the basis of his arguments. That was the true revolutionary development for which he deserves credit, and the Fabian Society were his real disciples. As a prophet, he wasn't up to much. > > > "The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., > > > that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely > > > requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." > > > --The Communist Manifesto > > > > See what I mean? > > > That pretty much describes the state of industrial workers in > > Victorian England before the trade union movement got under way. Marx > > was describing the way the world worked at the time when he wrote > > that, based - in part - on the data that he got from Friedrich Engels, > > who not only supported Marx financially, but also provided a lot of > > the social statistics on which Marx based his work. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels > > > Marx's economic writings were much more evidence-based than those of > > his contemporaries. If Marx is a kind of idiot, it is the kind of > > idiot that we should see more often. > > > Your comment demonstrates that you don't understand why industrial > > workes are no longer paid a bare subsistence wage, and the > > contribution that Marx made to the process that changed their > > condition. > > > > Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep, > > > a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. Engels in turn > > > coasted off the family business. Marx made his living guilt-tripping > > > Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists > > > today. > > > There was nothing pseudo-academic about Marx. He revolutionised > > academic economics, in part by exploiting statistical data about the > > actual economies of the time, quite a bit of which was collected by > > Engels. > > Marx and Engels are like deities to you! Hardly. They both did useful - and in fact revolutionary - work, but they were both decidedly fallible human beings. > You seem to prize academia over real world experience. Engels worked recorded a load of real world facts, and Marx took advantage of them. That is what useful academics do, and that it what I admire in their work. I'm probably more aware than you of the uselessness of academic input that isn't based on real world experience. > Not every idea that enters the College (arena) > of thought is inherently patently true. Obviously not. As Popper says, if a theory can't be falsified, it isn't science. > You worship Noam Chomsky too, don't you? Worship is a strong word. I respect him, both for his contribution to linguistics in the 1950's which revolutionsied the field, and for his evidence-based analyses of US foreign policy. Since you don't seem to understand what evidence involves, the may not appeal to you in the same way. > > > "To each according to need" really means "From you to me." "Dear > > > Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo > > > P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM" > > > Perhaps. Marx didn't have an appealing personality. But he was doing > > important - ground-breaking - work, and Engels saw its value and > > provided the financial and intellectual support that allowed Marx to > > get on with it. > > > That you don't see its value reflects your - negligible - intellectual > > status as a right-wing nitwit. > > > > Marx's moronic precepts ruined scores of countries, and killed tens > > > of millions, maybe hundreds. > > The Bolshevik version of Marxism, with its emphasis on the "leading > > role of the party" has damaged a lot of countries, and killed a lot of > > people. The problem isn't with Marxism, but the concentration of power > > into the hands of an unrepresentative and irresponsible elite - the > > Communist party in Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's > > Cambodia killed a lot of people, but the Nazi Party in Hitler's > > Germany, the Fascist parties in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain > > weren't far behind, despite their violently anti-Marxist ideologies. > > What? Your GOD didn't foresee the greedy > limitations in the real world? An ACADEMIC?? Nah. That Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot used Marx's writings to justify mass murder doesn't say much about Marx, any more than the deaths in the various wars of religion have much to do with the nature of the religions being used to justify the violence. This is the kind of academic point that you seem ill-equipped to understand. > > > "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean > > > the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form > > > of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no > > > need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a > > > great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying > > > it daily." --The Communist Manifesto > > > But, dim-witted Marx had it exactly bass-ackwards--industry was the > > > very salvation for the proletariat, pulling them up out of poverty. > > Only after the trade union movement forced industrial employers to pay > > their workers at above subsistence levels. Sometimes they achieved > > this by direct strike action, but more often far-sighted employers > > anticipated trade union activism by improving conditions of work to > > make the jobs of trade union recruiters more difficult, in much the > > same way as Bismark invented modern universal health care as a way of > > stealing votes from his socialist political rivals. > > You think your attitudes are SCIENTIFIC FACT, right? I think they are based on reliable evidence. Where's your counter- eidence? > > > "Industry?" you ask? Productivity-amplifying machines, powered by > > > fossil fuels. Let's get rid of those, shall we? > > > Why? You do like introducing silly straw-man arguments. > > Why do liberals accuse others of straw man > arguments so frequently? Kinda stuck in > a high school (ACADEMIC) debate society mode? No. I'm stuck on the idea that someone who accuses me of the wanting to get rid of productivty amplifying machines because they run on fossil fuels is a liar who is trying to claim someting that isn't true - something that he should know isn't true. This is bad argument in any context. > > It would be a > > much better idea to improve industry so that the machines didn't have > > to be powered by burning fossil fuels, but understanding how one might > > do this requires a better grasp of technological possiblities than you > > have ever demonstrated. > > > > > from each according to the abilities, to each > > > > according to their needs - and is compatible with a society where some > > > > people can afford fancier cars, bigger houses and finer wines than > > > > their neighbours, though the rich no longer have access to the > > > > services of a truly deprived under-class who will do almost anything > > > > to save their kids from starvation. > > > > Socialist countries are the ones who crush their peoples in poverty, > > > and whose people flee to the USA, not the reverse. > > > And your statistical evidence for this unlikely story is? > > Forty years ago, the USA did offer a higher standard of living than > > any other country in the world, but that hasn't been true for quite > > some time now. It still offers respectable material prosperity, but > > education and health care are both now so expensive that immigrants > > from the more prosperous parts of Europe have to be confident of > > getting very well paying jobs before they could contemplate making a > > permanent move. > > You got rejected because you're a Marxist, Bill? Since I'm not a Marxist, nor anything like it - I visted US Army ECOM at Forth Monmouth in New Jersey in 1970, back when I had an Australian security clearance to "most secret" - this probably isn't true. I did apply for a couple of jobs in the US during the 1970's, but it's more likey that my formal training - as a Ph.D. physical chemist - didn't impress the people who were assessing the aplications. > The INDIANS are flooding in on tricked up H1b visas > and most of them are very much CAPITALISTS! So what? > > > > > This guy makes your case for you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0wwK7fggOs&NR=1 > > > > > The link doesn't work for me, and if it had worked I imagine that its > > > > content would be just as half-baked as your argument. > > > > Pity. A conspiracy idiot. He makes your case well. > > > And what is the "conspiracy" to which you think I might be referring? > > You right-wing nut cases > > You DO realize that being a Marxist and > citing Engels places you firmly into > KOOK LEFT territory, right? Only from the KOOK far-right point of view. The - few - academic economists I've met regard Marx and Engels as part of their academic background, though they do know better than to mention Marx or Engels to Americans, who have been propagandised to see them as avatars of the anti-Christ. > To you, almost EVERYBODY is relatively right wing! Not really. In Europe and Australia I'm boringly middle of the road. > It's not like Marxists are seen as main stream thought, Bill! > LOL > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > BS > do seem to share a number of delusions, > BS > but that can be explained without resorting > BS > to any conspiracy - simple-minded nitwits > BS > like simple solutions, and lack the historical > BS > insight to realise that these solutions > BS > haven't worked in the past and are even > BS > less likely to work now. > > Translation: > Your ( ad hom) opponents are short sighted and > their solutions have failed, so we should do what YOU say. > > Isn't that what that paragraph of pseudo-intellectualism said? Not exactly. The nitwits who are posting here aren't primarily short- sighted but actually ignorant, which is why they propose solutions that have failed to work in the past. And I've not made any suggestions of my own in this thread, so it would be difficult for you to do what I say, since I'd not told you what to do, besides learning a bit more about the subjects that you choose to pontificate about. > Your first language IS English isn't it?? You've just failed elementary Englsh comprehension, so you really aren't in any position to ask, but English is my mother tongue. I did learn some French and German during my secondary schooling in Tasmania, and a smattering of science Russian at university, but English is the only language I write with any competence, though my spoken Dutch is pretty fluent. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 16 May 2010 09:54
Nico Coesel wrote: > Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Nico Coesel wrote: >>> Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Nico Coesel wrote: >>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >>>>>> to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >>>>>> spend your way out of the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >>>>>> been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. >>>>> My gut feeling says this is all a bunch of nonsense. Countries are >>>>> still waiting in line to start using the Euro: >>>>> >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8678073.stm >>>>> >>>> Maybe they should wait a little until the exchange rate versus whatever >>>> they are using now has dropped some more? Yesterday it fell to under $1.24. >>> The exchange rate is probably fixed already. Before the euro was >>> actually introduced the exchange rates where already fixed. Balancing >>> exchange rates between European countries has been going on for a long >>> time: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Currency_Unit >>> >> Yeah, but: Nothing will prevent any country (and the people living >> there) from buying bonds denominated in USD or other currencies before a >> switch and then selling them at a convenient time later after the >> multiple crises in Europe have settled. Hoping that they do settle soon ... > > People don't gamble with currencies. They buy gold and other metals. > Oh, then I suggest you ask George Soros about that :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |