conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Bill Sloman on 22 May 2010 07:45 On May 22, 1:41 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete > > >systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and > > >engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can > > >develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several > > >customers. > > > Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell > > copies of engineering for decades. > > > >Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key > > >development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes > > >skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely. > > >Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took > > >them on. > > > I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own > > company I never want to do it again. > > Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, Actually I said that John might be wise to keep out of a risky area. Since he doesn't like developing large complex systems, perhaps because he isn't good at it, this is merely endorsing his preference. > and > Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one > times is better and less risky It can be a lot more profitable - the margins on turn-key projects can be very high - and I never claimed that it wasn't risky. > than modest investment that pays 100x. John Larkin made it perfectly clear that his less ambitious projects don't always lead to successful products. A one hundred-fold return on development investment would be remarkably high. A successful and long- lived product might make it, but probably not if you discounted your cash-flows correctly. And how many products do you have to develop before you find one that is popular enough to sell persistently and in volume, without attracting the attention of the larger-small manufacturers in the area, who can afford to develop an ASIC to handle most of the electronic function to let them sell something that does the same job a lot cheaper. But James Arthur "knows" business - with the same sort of confidence with which he "knows" economics - and this sort of consideration passes him by. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 May 2010 07:51 On May 22, 2:04 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete > >> >systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and > >> >engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can > >> >develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several > >> >customers. > > >> Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell > >> copies of engineering for decades. > > >> >Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key > >> >development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes > >> >skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely. > >> >Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took > >> >them on. > > >> I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own > >> company I never want to do it again. > > >Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and > >Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one > >times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x. > > >James > > Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff > of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You > have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more, > because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say > no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead. > Poisson is a cruel distribution. > > If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you > wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real > expert at nothing-to-do. But the people I worked for who did occasional big projects were rather better at keeping me busy. > We're always developing products. We just work our way down an > infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is > churning out copies of all Some of the stuff. Even John Larkin isn't going to be able to avoid designing the occasional dud for the wrong market. > the stuff we've designed over the last 15 > years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many > orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off > Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers. And hire extra people for final test to make sure that the contract assmebler have put the stuff together right. At Fison's Applied Sensor Technology all electronic production was contracted out to assemblers, but not all the boards that we got in worked first time, and there were always a few that where the fault was hard to find. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: krw on 22 May 2010 10:45 On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Few cars sold in the US are made in 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. No, they really don't. It's usually closer to $300 than $3000 and often negative. Dealerships don't make a lot of money on the sale of a new car. <...>
From: krw on 22 May 2010 11:16 On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data. >>>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. Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I don't tempt fate, either. >>>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. Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it wasn't known.
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 11:25
On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. And then it evolved some more. Lots more. Evolution itself 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. How do you account for 90 year old ladies? 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 It's been a long time since evolution worked by single-point nuclear polymorphisms. Bodies *are* smarter than 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. > >A lot of Americans seem to want - and get - more sugar than is good >for them. Maybe they inherited a slightly less favourable genotype. Americans are the most diverse genetic mix on the planet. To say that "Americans" inherited any genotype is silly. Some specific subpopulations, like those of the Pacific Islander path, seem especially unable to handle a European (wheat, meat, dairy, sugar) diet. But people are different. John |