Prev: PC = Personal Copier :)
Next: Low Freq. Capacitor Charger
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 May 2010 14:29
On 5/24/2010 12:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


>> 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.
>
> So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
> decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
> around.
>
> John
>


Don't forget baby formula. Whenever people get up on their hind legs
and tell me how I should eat, I reply "My answer to nutritionists?
Margarine and baby formula."

We know that you need vitamins, and that being fat is very bad for you.
Beyond that, there isn't much content to most nutritional doctrine,
AFAICT.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
From: John Larkin on 24 May 2010 17:21
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:31:34 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?
>
>Because in the dim and distant past for hunter gatherers salt intake was
>important to maintain electrolyte balance and not always available. Salt
>was used as a currency in the ancient world - hence salary.
>
>If you stuff your face like crazy your body will quite happily absorb
>and store all the calories it can get for future lean times. But it does
>you no good at all to be morbidly obese - why on earth do you think it
>is a good idea to overdose on salt?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>No he is right. It is easily possible with a western diet of processed
>food to completely overwhelm the kidneys ability to get rid of excess
>salt. The result is higher salt levels in the blood leading to
>hypertension or raised blood pressure with associated risk of stroke or
>heart attack.
>>>
>>> Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.
>>
>> Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
>> levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
>> blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
>> breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.
>
>It is pretty good in most healthy people, but there are a lot of
>unhealthy people about thanks to heavily processed popular junk food
>diets with massive amounts of fat, salt and sugar added to everything.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>Urushiol can be very unforgiving. It also forms the basis of Japanese
>lacquer - safe enough once it has cured but hell to work with. You can
>never be sure if you have become sensitised.
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
>> decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
>> around.
>
>The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and
>excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril.

So far so good. I can outthink and outski most people 1/2 or 1/3 my
age. I eat and drink what my body wants, but I'm careful to not let it
be fooled by things that evolution hasn't adjusted for yet, like trans
fats and fake flavors and cilantro. Exceptions are made for Crunchy
Cheetos, beer nuts, and dark chocolate, all worth dying for.

People are like bears and pigs; we can eat most anything.

John

From: John Larkin on 24 May 2010 17:26
On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote:

>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.

I've done systems work. Lots of it. The economics stink, and the time
pressures interfere with sleeping and skiing.

You are equally skilled at not doing simple electronics and not doing
complex systems.


>
>> 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.

He does stuff. You don't.

John


From: krw on 24 May 2010 18:40
On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>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:

<snip>

>>>>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.
>
>Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
>levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
>blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
>breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.

Of course, but it isn't perfect. Not very well on the input side, no. You
can easily overload the output regulation. You can stop being stupid now.

>>
>>>>>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.
>
>So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
>decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
>around.

Not most, just the ones you want to remember.
From: krw on 24 May 2010 18:42
On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:32:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>> ... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
>>>> implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
>>>> Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
>>>> much.
>>>
>>> That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
>>> I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.
>>
>> You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
>> Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.
>
>
>I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after,
>for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders.

They were appointed.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: PC = Personal Copier :)
Next: Low Freq. Capacitor Charger