conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 19:34 Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >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 > > Small chips ?:-) Maxim rejects! ;-) -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 19:35 "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. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: dagmargoodboat on 21 May 2010 19:41 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
From: krw on 21 May 2010 19:43 On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:01:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:20:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:51:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roth IRAs). >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >>>>>>>>>>>>> things are only taxed once. >>>>>>>>>>>> You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their >>>>>>>>>>>> lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that >>>>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>>> Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. >>>>>>>>>> When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid >>>>>>>>>> even more (if you have saved after-tax money). >>>>>>>>> I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms. >>>>>>>> erp. ^^^^/pre >>>>>>> Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs >>>>>>> and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving >>>>>>> now :-) >>>>>> I figure i can only semi-retire. Maybe in 10 years. OK pension, medical >>>>>> included. Not as much saving as paying off house. Well over $1000/mo >>>>>> there. I have spreadsheets and can use them. The outlook is not grim >>>>>> but not flush, so i go to about half time as a consultant. The >>>>>> consulting pays for the cake, bread and butter will be taken care of >>>>>> unless the Damnicrats deficit spend everything away. >>>>> If you can imagine comfortably making ends meet with a 50% consulting >>>>> workload then you are better off than most people. I know grown men who >>>>> are doing min-wage jobs right now just so they don't lose the family >>>>> home. And they might still lose it. >>>> Hell, I can imagine retiring *well* on 25% consulting workload. In fact if I >>>> thought it would last I'd still be "retired", contracting as I was doing two >>>> years back. That would be my ideal retirement, AAMOF. >>> >>> However, I assume you have a nice big pension coming towards you from >>> big blue. The vast majority of younger people have zilch in that domain >>> because companies have stopped that practice a long, long time ago. >>> Instead, the people now get to pay for super-fat plum pensions of state >>> workers, which is a powder keg that is going to go kablouie pretty soon >>> here in CA. >> >> Not big and certainly not "super-fat plum" (works out to about 35% of my >> salary for the last ten years), but yes. ... > > >35% is pretty darn good. > > > It's also a "fully funded" >> retirement plan[*], so not a Ponzi scheme. I didn't have nearly as many 401K >> years or company match years, either. Basically, the "pension" is still there >> but there is more responsibility on the employee to save for his retirement. >> This has the advantage of making the retirement far more secure and portable. >> I know a *lot* of people who were laid off before they could get enough time >> in. I was sweating it for the last couple of years (and counting days until I >> was untouchable ;). >> > >I've never really understood this vesting rule for pensions. It entices >companies to fire employees "just in time". IMHO they should still get >something, at least if it was a layoff. You do, just the rules change. If I was laid off before my 30th anniversary I still would have collected just not as much, or later. There was a fairly sharp slope for the last five years. >> [*] Medical is not, so comes out of income. It's not a great plan so I don't >> use it. > > >I met one engineer from IBM who kept his medical plan because he was >allowed to, and declined the one at the new company (which was actually >pretty good). There are many plans, but none are great. AIUI, they kick in about $7K/yr, which can fund a decent individual plan but sucks for a family plan. A middling plan would have cost us around $700/mo, IIRC. My wife has her own insurance though her employer but it's still significantly more expensive. I run the numbers every year.
From: krw on 21 May 2010 19:48
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. |