more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 18 Apr 2010 11:38 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:15:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Apr 16, 6:38�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Apr 14, 2:01�am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Apr 13, 9:58�pm, John Larkin >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412.html >> >> >> >> >> > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's >> >> >> >> > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. >> >> >> >> >> > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the >> >> >> >> > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having >> >> >> >> > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would >> >> >> >> > split off hydrogen is still under development. >> >> >> >> >> Humor. It's a higher function. >> >> >> >> >Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have >> >> >> >been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for >> >> >> >at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- >> >> >> >conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and >> >> >> >irrelevant joke. >> >> >> >> >As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely >> >> >> >functional. >> >> >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require >> >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different >> >> >> perspectives. >> >> >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his >> >> >idea of humour. >> >> >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. >> >> >Since your information about my design ability is defective, I don't >> >see any reason to trust your opinion about his. Both are likely >> >invented to make you feel better. >> >> >> And he has a great singing voice. >> >> >According to Edmund Crispin, the resonant space inside the head >> >requried for a great singing voice uses up skull volume that could >> >otherwise have been occupied by brains, and James Arthur's mindless >> >endorsement of right-wing idiocies does imply that his skull is >> >largely empy. >> >> >> And he's a pretty good cook. >> >> >Who isn't? >> >> >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. >> >> >I don't sing - not enough resonat spaces inside the skull - though I >> >do play the piano (without much experise). I do cook. And I do design >> >electronic circuits from time to time, despite your inability to >> >process information to the contrary. >> >> >> >> You wouldn't understand. >> >> >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of >> >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the >> >> >mirror ... >> >> >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. >> >> >I've been trying to get another job for the past six years. It hasn't >> >worked, but not for want of effort. You've needed to learn a bit more >> >about the world outside electronics for a whole lot longer, and >> >there's absolutely no evidence that you've realised this yet, let >> >alone done something about it - the books you do claim to read are all >> >neatly packaged misinformation designed to make Republicans feel happy >> >about their favourite delusions - anytime now you will be quoting from >> >Sarah Palin's text-book on international politics (which someone is >> >probably ghosting for her even now). >> >> Wow, I never knew that Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope and P G >> Wodehouse and William Shakespeare were Republicans. That's actually >> comforting, and makes sense. They all understood how the world works. > >Since the books I was referring to were the ones that you had >previously claimed - in this forum - to have read, which didn't >include any of the authors listed above, you aren't entitled to claim >that I think that any of the authors listed above are Republicans. > >P.G.Wodehouse mght well have voted Republican if he had the chance - >when he was stuck in German-occupied France he did collaborate with >the Nazi occupiers to the extent of making a radio-broadcast, which >made him distinctly unpopular in the UK for the rest of his life. As opposed to most of the French, who herded their fellow citizens into boxcars. His "collaboration" was apparently naiive and innocent. He was pretty much an American anyhow, so his popularity in post-war UK is sort of moot. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 18 Apr 2010 15:38 On Apr 18, 6:39 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 18, 2:59 am, John Larkin > > I'm reading "The Big Short" about the mortgage meltdown. Cool stuff. > > One hopes that you get James Arthur to read and understand it - the > reviews suggest that the author puts the blame firmly on the banks, > where James Arthur seems to think that the US administration was at > fault, somehow compelling the banks to make insanely irresponsible > loans That's what my neighbor thinks too. He's a banker. After Barack Obama and ACORN got Clinton to push the Community Reinvestment Act, a gang of Clintonista thugs visited his workplace, recounts he, and explained to the bank rather clearly that "you *shall* make these loans," loans they did not want to make. > before selling them on a "securitised" bonds. It's also true that government-run Freddie and Fannie actively sought, sponsored, bought, securitized, then sold loads and loads of these mortgages and related derivatives. IOW, they made market in them, were part of it, and their executives profited from it. But, then, they were staffed with Clintonistas too--Frank Raines, Rahm Emmanuel, etc. Cronyism--that's part of the magic of government-oversight. Once it became obvious Barney Frank did his best to point out this problem. Not. And it seems a number of Wall Street Democrats realized, at some point, they could make big buxs by deliberately buying the bad stuff, and simultaneously betting against it--the Magnetar play. It still ultimately comes down to bad loans--if the loans were sound, there would be no losses, period. But, with Clinton's Freddie and Fannie teams gobbling them up, life was great, wasn't it? -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 20 Apr 2010 00:22 On Apr 19, 11:16 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > >He did become an American citizen in 1955. Like Lindbergh, his Nazi > > >taint was weak enough not to upset American opinion. > > > Gosh, you are one nasty piece of work. > > And the Tea Party movement represents an attractive aspect of modern > America? Absolutely, yes. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/america_s_constitutionalist_revolt Great people, smart, informed. The Democrats are terrified, so they're smearing them. Liberals are vicious. -- Cheers, James Arthur "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win." --Ghandi
From: dagmargoodboat on 20 Apr 2010 00:25 On Apr 19, 9:24 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Apr 18, 6:39 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 2:59 am, John Larkin > > >> > I'm reading "The Big Short" about the mortgage meltdown. Cool stuff. > > >> One hopes that you get James Arthur to read and understand it - the > >> reviews suggest that the author puts the blame firmly on the banks, > >> where James Arthur seems to think that the US administration was at > >> fault, somehow compelling the banks to make insanely irresponsible > >> loans > > >That's what my neighbor thinks too. He's a banker. > > >After Barack Obama and ACORN got Clinton to push the Community > >Reinvestment Act, a gang of Clintonista thugs visited his workplace, > >recounts he, and explained to the bank rather clearly that "you > >*shall* make these loans," loans they did not want to make. > > >> before selling them on a "securitised" bonds. > > >It's also true that government-run Freddie and Fannie actively sought, > >sponsored, bought, securitized, then sold loads and loads of these > >mortgages and related derivatives. IOW, they made market in them, > >were part of it, and their executives profited from it. But, then, > >they were staffed with Clintonistas too--Frank Raines, Rahm Emmanuel, > >etc. Cronyism--that's part of the magic of government-oversight. > > >Once it became obvious Barney Frank did his best to point out this > >problem. Not. > > >And it seems a number of Wall Street Democrats realized, at some > >point, they could make big buxs by deliberately buying the bad stuff, > >and simultaneously betting against it--the Magnetar play. > > >It still ultimately comes down to bad loans--if the loans were sound, > >there would be no losses, period. But, with Clinton's Freddie and > >Fannie teams gobbling them up, life was great, wasn't it? > > Read "The Big Short." It's amazing. > > John Noted. Thanks. --James
From: dagmargoodboat on 20 Apr 2010 00:40
On Apr 19, 5:16 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 18, 9:38 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > And it seems a number of Wall Street Democrats realized, at some > > point, they could make big buxs by deliberately buying the bad stuff, > > and simultaneously betting against it--the Magnetar play. > > > It still ultimately comes down to bad loans--if the loans were sound, > > there would be no losses, period. But, with Clinton's Freddie and > > Fannie teams gobbling them up, life was great, wasn't it? > > Fredie and Fannie didn't have any mechanism for finding out how bad > the loans were. I posted a link last year of either a Freddie or a Fannie employee saying yes, they knew. Everyone knew the loans were bad, and everyone knew what kind of loans were being offered. It wasn't a secret, they were saturation- advertising: on radio, with telemarketers, and with robocallers. I got several calls a day. Everyone knew. Someone offered me an investment in some sort of mortgage-backed security, 12-14%, guaranteed yield. I gave a two-word answer. The second word was "no." And, as a matter of fact, under Obama the GSEs were advertising more of the same--I posted a link a few months ago. FHA, NINJA, 97%, IIRC. -- Cheers, James Arthur |