conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 05:26 On May 20, 3:41 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On May 20, 12:50 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 May 2010 14:35:20 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On May 19, 3:43 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >> >> > On May 18, 5:19 pm, John Larkin > >> >> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:20:40 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> >>> The alternative do-nothing approach, as practiced by Hoover in 1929, > >> >> >>> leads to vast tracts of industry standing idle with 25% unemployment, > >> >> >>> dramatically reducing production and consumption. > >> >> >>> The argument isn't about "producing as much as you consume" - it's > >> >> >>> about maintaining consumption and production under circumstances where > >> >> >>> both would otherwise collapse. > >> >> >>> Managing the transition back to balanced budgets without crimping the > >> >> >>> level of economic activity too much isn't a trivial job, and the banks > >> >> >>> don't help by bleating about financial responsiblity as if their US > >> >> >>> colleagues hadn't created the problem in the first place by being > >> >> >>> totally irresponsible. > >> >> >> With your understanding of dynamics, it's a good thing you don't > >> >> >> design electronics. > > >> >> > With your understanding of dynamics, it is a miracle that you can.. > > >> >> > As you should know, I can use the Ziegler-Nichols step response test > >> >> > to tune a PID controller. This is tolerably primitive (Ziegler and > >> >> > Nichols published their test in 1942, the year I was born) but > >> >> > adequate in a lot of practical situations. I know about more > >> >> > sophisticated schemes - such as state variable control - but happily > >> >> > I've yet to run into a situation where I needed to use one. And my > >> >> > Ph.D. thesis was on the reaction dynamics of the thermal decompostion > >> >> > of nitrosyl bromide, which involved simulating a non-linear process (a > >> >> > second order rate law, perturbed by self-cooling). Your own background > >> >> > is probably less sophisticated. > > >> >> Here goes the bragging again. > > >> >Not exactly. The half-wit claims that because I don't share his > >> >economic opinions, I don't have enough understanding of dynamics to > >> >design electronics. It's very much an apples and pears comparison, but > >> >it's also flat-out wrong, as I've gone to the trouble of pointing out.. > >> >If using objective facts to point out that John has made an idot of > >> >himself again is "bragging", then I am stuck with bragging - I did get > >> >the Ph.D. in that area, and I'm not going to lie about it in a effort > >> >tp project a modest persona. > > >> >> How come that John, probably not that much different in age from you, > >> >> makes tons of money designing and building electronics, right now, has > >> >> created tons of jobs, and you don't? > > >> >He's more interested in making money than I am, and his expertise does > >> >seem to lend itself to lower value systems than I worked on. > > >> Systems that don't sell have no value. Systems that sell thousands of > >> copies at 4:1 margins have value. > > >IBM and HP could get away with a 6:1 margin. > > >Quite a lot of the gear that I worked on did get sold. The electron > >beam microfabricator project got canned before we'd started a single > >printed circuit layout - and managements relutance to let us send out > >the first circuit for layout was a clear indictator that they were > >contemplating canning the project. > > >The electron beam tester prototype was never demonstrated to a > >potential customer - the departing boss who should have been chasing > >customers hid in his office and worked on his next job, while the > >people who took over the task of selling the machine after he finally > >resigned decided that there weren't enough potential customers without > >going to the trouble of letting one of them see the machine in action, > >which was probably a mistake, since the machine collected its data > >impressively faster (as it has been designed to do - the whole massive > >investment in digitising the data collection was justified on that > >basis). > > >If the machine had been actively sold, it would have been worth a > >bundle. > > >> >Setting > >> >up your own company to make electron microscope or phased array > >> >ultrasound machines probably takes more capital than even John could > >> >have got his hands on, and was never one of my ambitions. > > >> I started with essentially no capital. I've never believed in raising > >> a lot of money and then developing a complex product; that path has > >> about a 90% failure rate. I developed modest products, sold them, and > >> worked my way up. But designing megabuck instruments doesn't appeal to > >> me; each one will take years of development and support, and I don't > >> have that sort of attention span. Six or eight designs a year is more > >> fun. > > >Inadequate attention-span. Did you have ADHD as a kid? I happen to be > >particularly good with complex systems, and that influences what I do > >and what my employers have wanted me to do. > > ><snip> > > Not trusting in reincarnation, I plan to do as many things in life as > I can. Doing things includes finishing them properly and moving on... > ideally leaving documentation for production to make copies for a > decade or two. That's not called "inadequate attention span", it's > called "productivity." Try it some time. Nobody has ever complained about my documentation - except perhaps to complain that I've given more detail than was absolutely necessary, which I justify by pointing out that keeping documents intelligible after ten or twenty years does require making explicit the thinking behind some of the choices. I can't say I particularly enjoy writing up stuff, but it's part of the job, and I've done more than enough of it know that I'm good at it. The sort of "attention span" that you might be seen as lacking isn't so much temporal as spatial. You don't seem to have the inclination to get your head around all the aspects of a complex system - either elaborate scientific instruments or complex social questions. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 05:37 On May 20, 5:25 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Spehro Pefhany wrote: > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:37:16 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> Few countries are unlucky enough to have their economy depend on a > >> single product. Australia would have to tighten its belt a lot if the > >> market for iron ore declined signficantly. Carrying on as if the > >> absence of such a single product is a sign of economic malaise is > >> evidence that you don't know enough about economics to make a useful > >> contribution to this kind of discussion. > > > I wonder to what extent the collapse in shipping prices contributed to > > the problems there. The cost of shipping a TEU (container) from Asia > > to North America was approximately zero at the beginning of the year, > > rather than the usual few thousand dollars. Compare with, say, oil, > > which has been relatively stable despite the near collapse in the US > > financial markets. > > While Bill may think that the Greek shipping companies are a major GDP > contributor I am afraid I'll have to burst that bubble. It accounts for > a mere 5% of their already paltry GDP: > > http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60R2P020100401 > > Quote: "Shipping is one of the top contributors to Greece's 240 billion > euro ($323.7 billion) economy along with tourism and construction. It > accounted for about 5 percent of GDP in 2009." > > Tourism is a major source of income there. Or to some extent, was. Folks > from Europe tell me that Greece has become quite expensive and they > prefer other areas such as Turkey. Same type of climate, more bang for > the buck or Euro. So now shipping may account for a few more percentage > points but not because of growth ... Joerg wants to be able to identify a big single contributor to a countries GDP before he can believe that that country is viable, when - in fact - countries that depend on a single industry are exceedingly vulnerable to changes in the business or technical environment. Most countries get their income from a wide range of activities, so a 5% contribution to GDP is big, for a single industry . The fact that Jeorg can't be bothered working out how Greece - almost - supports itself doesn't make them the hopeless basket case that he claims. > Then an interesting tidbit from the above link, quote: "Greek shipping > companies have to pay a tonnage tax but are exempt from income taxes on > profits from operating Greek registered vessels." Ahm, well ... So the owners of the Greek shipping fleet had enough money to bribe a few legislators - US residents shouldn't find that surprising. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 05:44 On May 20, 6:28 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:46 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > > > > >Spehro Pefhany wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:37:16 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>> Few countries are unlucky enough to have their economy depend on a > >>> single product. Australia would have to tighten its belt a lot if the > >>> market for iron ore declined signficantly. Carrying on as if the > >>> absence of such a single product is a sign of economic malaise is > >>> evidence that you don't know enough about economics to make a useful > >>> contribution to this kind of discussion. > > >> I wonder to what extent the collapse in shipping prices contributed to > >> the problems there. The cost of shipping a TEU (container) from Asia > >> to North America was approximately zero at the beginning of the year, > >> rather than the usual few thousand dollars. Compare with, say, oil, > >> which has been relatively stable despite the near collapse in the US > >> financial markets. > > >While Bill may think that the Greek shipping companies are a major GDP > >contributor I am afraid I'll have to burst that bubble. It accounts for > >a mere 5% of their already paltry GDP: > > >http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60R2P020100401 > > >Quote: "Shipping is one of the top contributors to Greece's 240 billion > >euro ($323.7 billion) economy along with tourism and construction. It > >accounted for about 5 percent of GDP in 2009." > > >Tourism is a major source of income there. Or to some extent, was. Folks > >from Europe tell me that Greece has become quite expensive and they > >prefer other areas such as Turkey. Same type of climate, more bang for > >the buck or Euro. So now shipping may account for a few more percentage > >points but not because of growth ... > > >Then an interesting tidbit from the above link, quote: "Greek shipping > >companies have to pay a tonnage tax but are exempt from income taxes on > >profits from operating Greek registered vessels." Ahm, well ... > > Most of Greece's shipping "industry" is actually only registration, > not Greek companies. But what would BS know. "BS", what a > descriptive set of initials. Jim - even as an ignorant American - should know better. Jack Kennedy's widow married a large chunk of the Greek shipping industry, and - despite its parochialism - the American press went to the trouble of informing the American public about it at the time. Jim may not have read those newspapers, or he may have forgotten what he was told since then, but he really should know better. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 06:24 On May 20, 9:19 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > BS > Marx was a genius, when it came to economics. > BS > As a politician, he was a dud. I do critical > BS > commentary, not fanatical support. Since you > BS > don't seem to be up to critical commentary, > BS > you may not appreciate the difference. And > BS > this is reiterating a point I made later in the > BS > post to which you are responding - you > BS > might go to the trouble of reading the whole > BS > post before you respond to particular parts > BS > of it, if you don't want to be accused of > BS > text-chopping. > > You are a NON-PRODUCER living off your wife > and promoting socialism. > > How critical can you be? Marx was a non-producer who lived off Engels, and managed to produce a large volume of useful critical work. There are other examples who make it equally clear that your point is entirely fatuous. > Wait, you mean as in the academic term > "critical thinking", right? What else would I mean? > You hope everybody gets past the idea > that you're a a NON-PRODUCER, living > off your wife and fanatically supporting socialism. Most people don't share either your stupidity or your bizarre preconceptions. > You bemoan the distrust and hostility with > which outright socialism and the political > thoughts of Marx are received by Americans. Do pay attention - I don't think much of the political thoughts of Marx, and wouldn't recommend them to anybody (except perhaps as a bad example). Marx's thoughts about economics were revolutionary, and still deserve some attention, though I'd no more recommend reading his output as economic textbooks than I'd recommend Darwin's output as biological textbooks. > After that you try to say you're > not trying to ""sell"" socialism?? Not really. Americans ignore the way the rest of the world does things, despite the fact that some ways of running a country are better managed outside the USA. Health care is the the classic example - US health care cost half as much again per head as the best foreign systems (in France and Germany) while providing no better health care for prosperous employed Americans than the French and German systems provide for everybody, while providng much worse health care for the less well-off part of the US population. Obama's rather timid attempt to inprove the US health care system is widely objected to as "socialist" as if this was valid objection in itself, which is remarkably stupid, reflecting many years of irrational anti-socialist propaganda in the US media, which does seem to have taken root in the kind of brains that can't do critical thinking (such as yours). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 06:29
On May 20, 8:56 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor > > > > <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory > >insurance > >JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and > >neither > >JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's > >really no > >JA > point in debating you on this. > > >Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that > >it's like arguing religion with a Moonie. > > >Come on! An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who > >argues for socialism? > > >It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag. > >"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." > > Sloman is just so plain ignorant he doesn't know what ignorant means. Jim Thompson is just so plain ignorant that he thinks that you can get mange on the tongue. Hell - he's so dim he reacts to Greegor's posts. > Don't mind me interjecting, I'm just tweaking my filter system to make > sure I get _anyone_ who "plays" with BS. Jim dislikes being reminded that he is an ignoramus who doesn't appreciate just how very little he actually knows. -- Bill Sloman |