conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Bill Sloman on 21 May 2010 07:48 On May 20, 9:49 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 20, 1:51 pm, 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. > > Hey, that makes a nice acronym: MAN-datory I-nsurance PU-rchase and > regu-LATION Bill. > > > 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? > > Bill's 67, in the Netherlands, and an expert on all things American. > As a mere American living in America, I'm glad to have such a reliable > source to redoublethink all the things I know directly and confirm > daily with experience into politically correct context: James Arthur does see America from a peculiarly right-wing perspective. I've been particularly impressed by his claims that American bankers weren't responsible the sub-prime mortgage crisis - on the basis that the politicans made them do it. As doublethink goes, that takes some beating. > Obama's a > centrist, not the ultra farthest most radical left-voting member of > Congress, and a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, not a former > associate professor and sometime ACORN subprime-pushing counsel. I see no conflict between these statements. The US congress is a collection of pretty right-wing representative, most of them elected by virtue of televison advertising campaigns paid for by the richer members of their electorates. And the brilliance of a constitutional lawyer isn't defined by the jobs he's had. > Bill's said his nanny state host makes it impossible for oldsters like > him to get a job--no one wants to hire 'cause then they're > responsible. It's not the nanny state but social attitudes that make it difficult for people over 60 to get work in the Netherlands. Some of the fine detail of the industry agreements can make it difficult for an elderly person to keep a job but that's another story. > Plus the state bribes companies to hire younger workers, > who'd really rather take welfare anywho[sic]. Or something like > that. If I've mischaracterized him I'm sure Bill will correct me. Why should I bother? James Arthur sees world through his special set of right-seeing spectacles, and gets it wrong so reliably that his output should be ignored - correcting it might suggest that he could learn form his mistakes. I don't recall that I've complained about the Dutch state bribing companies to hire younger workers, and if they do I don't know anything about it. There may be special provisions for hiring students into intern positions - I ran into a few of them while I worked in Venlo - but that's not something I'd complain about. > But he still likes it. What the hell, the money's still free-living > off other people is easy. Problem is, they don't work nearly hard > enough, and they whine. They work hard enough to have a positive national balance of trade, which the US hasn't had since Regan was president, and I haven't noticed them whining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Netherlands Perhaps you could find an example of such a "whine"? I could do with another chance to show you up as an ignorant bigot. > Wimps. Probably racists and Nazis, too. You > know, reactionaries. Every population has its racists and Nazi's. I can't stand Geert Wilders but his anti-Muslim rhetoric sells well in the US. Somebody as dim and right-wing biased as James Arthur could be stupid enough to see him as a representative Dutchman, rather than an isolated right- wing nitwit. <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 09:54 On Fri, 21 May 2010 02:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. You're being an idiot, as usual. When we design electronics, we first learn the user's technology. Jet engines, eximer lasers, tomographic atom probes, electrical power systems, NMR/MRI, FTMS, ICCD cameras, NIF fusion lasers, particle accelerators, gas pipelines, product weighing machines [1]. It's a load of fun, and it impresses the hell out of a customer when we understand his system at least as well as he does. In a sense, the electronics is the easy part. We also have to understand the customer's business and cultural needs to get and keep the business; that can be a lot of fun too. Your experience seems to be very narrow, and pretty much powerless, and mostly failures, so you make up things as you'd like them to be. Sorry, Charlie. There's nothing wrong with that, except you get pompous about stuff you know esentially nothing about. John [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?
From: Spehro Pefhany on 21 May 2010 10:01 On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:54:22 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 02:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>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. > >You're being an idiot, as usual. When we design electronics, we first >learn the user's technology. Jet engines, eximer lasers, tomographic >atom probes, electrical power systems, NMR/MRI, FTMS, ICCD cameras, >NIF fusion lasers, particle accelerators, gas pipelines, product >weighing machines [1]. It's a load of fun, and it impresses the hell >out of a customer when we understand his system at least as well as he >does. In a sense, the electronics is the easy part. We also have to >understand the customer's business and cultural needs to get and keep >the business; that can be a lot of fun too. > >Your experience seems to be very narrow, and pretty much powerless, >and mostly failures, so you make up things as you'd like them to be. >Sorry, Charlie. There's nothing wrong with that, except you get >pompous about stuff you know esentially nothing about. > >John > >[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...
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 11:06 On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(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
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 11:16
Bill Sloman wrote: > 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. > Ah, now Bill has resorted to 3rd-person addressing ... :-) >> 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, you said the Greek shipping industry is a major source of GDP. I have shown beyond reasonable doubt (_with_ links, you didn't provide any) that that is not the case. Simple, really. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |