conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: krw on 22 May 2010 01:21 On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"keithw86(a)gmail.com" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On- >>>>>>>> My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>>>>>>> > ><speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato >>>>>>>> > >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the >>>>>>>> > >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as >>>>>>>> > >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they >>>>>>>> > >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >You are partially right. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >John >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Small chips ?:-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Salt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the >>>>>>>recommended amount to prevent pressure sores. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost >>>>>>everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels. >>>>> >>>>>From the wikipedia page on salt... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151 >>>>>individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to >>>>>4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with >>>>>animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by >>>>>feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium >>>>>consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated >>>>>with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like >>>>>this. >>>> >>>>What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt. >>>>It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able >>>>to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage >>>>and that won't work out so well. >>> >>>Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which >>>includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial >>>junk. >>> >>>But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete >>>whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt >>>than it needs, when it could just let it pass through? >> >>If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through". > >Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs? Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the kidney doesn't work the salt builds up. >Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot >of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people >regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do >that. Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try abusing that regulation for thirty years, though. >It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead >of butter. Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a good idea. There is now margarine that isn't as bad, though.
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 01:58 On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"keithw86(a)gmail.com" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On- >>>>>>>>> My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>>>>>>>> > ><speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato >>>>>>>>> > >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the >>>>>>>>> > >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as >>>>>>>>> > >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they >>>>>>>>> > >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >You are partially right. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >John >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Small chips ?:-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Salt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the >>>>>>>>recommended amount to prevent pressure sores. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost >>>>>>>everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels. >>>>>> >>>>>>From the wikipedia page on salt... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151 >>>>>>individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to >>>>>>4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with >>>>>>animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by >>>>>>feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium >>>>>>consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated >>>>>>with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like >>>>>>this. >>>>> >>>>>What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt. >>>>>It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able >>>>>to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage >>>>>and that won't work out so well. >>>> >>>>Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which >>>>includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial >>>>junk. >>>> >>>>But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete >>>>whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt >>>>than it needs, when it could just let it pass through? >>> >>>If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through". >> >>Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs? > >Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the >kidney doesn't work the salt builds up. Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot better than any computer (or any doctor) could. > >>Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot >>of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people >>regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do >>that. > >Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try >abusing that regulation for thirty years, though. I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And everything is working fine. > >>It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead >>of butter. > >Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a >good idea. Just 90 years or so. John
From: JosephKK on 22 May 2010 06:00 On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:40:16 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:44:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> <snip> >>>> Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax >>>> content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to >>>> compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect >>>> them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced. >>>> >>> And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am >>> against that. >>> >>> >>>> Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job, >>>> invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax. >>>> >>>>> c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider >>>>> removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular >>>>> accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law >>>>> would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls >>>>> their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -> >>>>> Financial market collapse -> major new recession. >>>> Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do. >>>> >>> I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead >>> simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In >>> engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to >>> replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can >>> seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will. >>> >> Please help me to understand. >> The tax code is badly broken (Y/N). > > >Yes [X] No [ ] > > >> We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other >> _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question. >> Please point out ways that the "Fair Tax" can blow up worse than current >> tax code _____________________________________________________________. > > >Ok, I do it for the umpteenth time but this is the last time cause I've >got to get some work done here: > >People who have diligently saved wish not to have their nest egg taxed a >second time. So, they will try to dodge that bullet. Some will retire >outside the country and take their nest egg along. Others and I am >afraid that would be the majority will rush their money out of the banks >and into real estate so they convert it to "pre-fictitious-rent" >property. A plain old financial stampede, except that this one will be >more devastating to the financial markets than anything we have ever >seen, including the housing bubble. > >Next, look at countries that have VAT which is fairly similar to what >some people call "fair tax" except that they also have an income tax. >What has that triggered? Right, a rampant underground economy. I lived >there, so I know. The governments don't even have the foggiest idea how >bad that really is. People have no qualms hollering clear across a pub >"Hey, anyone know a tile setter who'll make me a good offer if I don't >need an invoice?". That is because those countries generally also slap >VAT on services. So ... > >I have never played that game but, example: Bathroom needed remodeling. >Quotes $20k and up. Yikes! So I pushed out one project that wasn't too >urgent and where the client was ok with that, bought the materials for a >few thousand bucks, rolled up the sleeves and had at it. Three weeks >later we had a beautiful new bathroom with stuff in there that was >higher class that the contractor grade stuff from the quotes. "Oh, you >want those Turkish tiles with the artwork in there? Yes, dear, no >problem". Everything perfectly legit and we saved way more than $15k. An >engineer could not possibly have made that much in three weeks. I don't >think I need to explain what that does to unemployment. And just how much of that 15K difference was labor taxes (including meta-taxes like union dues)? > > >>>> We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and >>>> create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever. >>>> Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a) >>>> isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a >>>> refund. Blah, blah, blah. >>>> >>>> It ain't rocket science. >>>> >>> Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by >>> Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ... >>> >>> >>>> All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow, >>>> then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of >>>> income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be >>>> great? >>>> >>> And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those >>> accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes >>> our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become >>> another Greece. >>> >>> >>>> The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00 >>>> he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and >>>> $0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low >>>> (which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to >>>> break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up >>>> some more. >>>> >>> That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the >>> November elections, at least that's what people told me :-) >> >> They better get in gear and campaign for the best available candidates in >> the _primaries_ _coming in June in CA_. If your choice is between the >> economic damage of Medfly Brown versus Meg Whitman you have foolishly >> allowed your choices to be too limited. Besides there is a lot of >> interesting propositions that need voted on. > > >Believe me, everybody in this neighborhood _is_ already in gear. There's >a reason why the tea parties grow at an amazing clip. > > >>>>> And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed. >>>>> Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must >>>>> surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary, >>>>> and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later. >>>> There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need >>>> assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >>>> assessment. >>>> >>> So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up >>> his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house? >>> Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat? >>> The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings >>> is to be had. >>> >> Not all of that cost disappears, there is still materials costs paid at >> the lumber yard etc.,. Also the labor content of buildings has been >> reduced significantly by removing labor taxes. > > >Well, this was in response to James' notion that, quote "You never need >assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >assessment." > >So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must >self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for >the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I >had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..." That is all recorded in the tax receipts. > >Anyhow, tax systems get reworked or changed for one reason: To milk body >public for even more money. People don't want that. Productive people don't want that, the parasites do. Thus, conflict.
From: JosephKK on 22 May 2010 06:08 On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>> >>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>> >>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>> example. >>> >>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>> >> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >> price per unit versus volume. > > >What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me. > Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic retailer/wholesalers). > >>>>> b. The percentage of labor in the COGS even for products made in the US >>>>> is much smaller than they anticipate. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If the >>>>>>>>>>> government stops taking out SS and IRS taxes from my paycheck, I have >>>>>>>>>>> more to spend. I can then afford these now 'higher' prices of that >>>>>>>>>>> $1, plus $.23 fair tax, plus the sales tax of $.09, so it is now >>>>>>>>>>> $1.33. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As for savings, I don't sweat it as much. Yes, it makes my post-taxes >>>>>>>>>>> savings less valuable, but it also removes a lot of taxes on my >>>>>>>>>>> earnings and interest! >>>>>>>>>> I'm interested in saving the time and energy I waste avoiding tax land- >>>>>>>>>> mines. That's worth a lot--at least a couple weeks a year. More like >>>>>>>>>> three, methinks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There'll be new tax land-mines, like who gets to pay ficticious rent >>>>>>>>> tax, how much, and who doesn't. Et cetera. >>>>>>>> That part still seems iffy, yes. >>>>>>> IMHO the whole idea is iffy. Fair means it has to be fair to just about >>>>>>> everyone and not just part of the population. And that's not the case. >>>>>> The only hole I see in it is savings, that we both object to. I may not agree >>>>>> (or understand completely) the economics of taxing large items (homes and >>>>>> cars) heavily. >>>> Much of that will depend on how property tax on homes and use tax on >>>> vehicles gets changed. 40 years of property tax adds up. >>> >>> You can bet on it that a certain kind of politician will only agree to >>> all that if it result in a serious net increase in taxes squeezed out of >>> the public. >> >> That is all of them. > > >See, now you know another reason why I am against this change :-) > > >>> [...]
From: Bill Sloman on 22 May 2010 07:30
On May 22, 7:58 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > > > > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin > >>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >>>><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin > >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >>>>>><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >>>>>>><mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>"keith...(a)gmail.com" wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I....(a)On- > >>>>>>>>> My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin > > >>>>>>>>> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > >>>>>>>>> > ><speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato > >>>>>>>>> > >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as > >>>>>>>>> > >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they > >>>>>>>>> > >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? > > >>>>>>>>> > >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... > > >>>>>>>>> > >You are partially right. > > >>>>>>>>> > >John > > >>>>>>>>> > Small chips ?:-) > > >>>>>>>>> Salt > > >>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the > >>>>>>>>recommended amount to prevent pressure sores. > > >>>>>>>There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost > >>>>>>>everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels. > > >>>>>>From the wikipedia page on salt... > > >>>>>>Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151 > >>>>>>individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to > >>>>>>4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with > >>>>>>animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by > >>>>>>feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium > >>>>>>consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72] > > >>>>>>...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated > >>>>>>with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like > >>>>>>this. > > >>>>>What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt. > >>>>>It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able > >>>>>to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage > >>>>>and that won't work out so well. > > >>>>Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which > >>>>includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial > >>>>junk. > > >>>>But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete > >>>>whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt > >>>>than it needs, when it could just let it pass through? > > >>>If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through". > > >>Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs? > > >Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the > >kidney doesn't work the salt builds up. > > Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of > thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot > better than any computer (or any doctor) could. There you go again. All that regulation wasn't designed - it evolved. It stopped evolving when it kept the body healthy enough through the child-bearing and child-raising years to guarantee that the phenotype would pass on its genotype. It certainly includes stupidities equivalent to the recurrent laryngeal nervein the giraffe, which is metres longer than it needs to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve > >>Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot > >>of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people > >>regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do > >>that. The regulatory mechanisms aren't excellent. They are just mostly good enough - that's the way evolution works. Single-point nuclear polymorphisms mean that many of them don't work as well as they did in your remote ancestors, which is also the way evolution works, since it discards a lot of less- than advantageous random changes in pursuit of the occasional advantageous random change > >Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try > >abusing that regulation for thirty years, though. > > I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And > everything is working fine. A lot of Americans seem to want - and get - more sugar than is good for them. Maybe they inherited a slightly less favourable genotype. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |