more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Apr 2010 18:27 On Apr 21, 8:26 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 21, 10:43 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:13 pm, John Larkin > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, John Larkin > > > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:16:16 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> >On Apr 18, 5:38 pm, John Larkin > > > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:15:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > >> >> <bill.slo...(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: > > > <snip> > > > > >> >> 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. > > > > >> >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? > > > > The question is, as usual, irrevant, but the answer is emphatically > > > yes. > > > The Tea Party movement resemble the Nazi's in being right-wing > > nitwits, and believing in any number of things that don't happen to be > > true. > > Naturally, only a Nazi could think that a government spending over > 160% of its annual income is unsustainable, or that $1T+ annual > deficits projected for the entire next decade could possibly be any > sort of problem. I don't think that anyone would claim that governemnt spending runnning at 160% of annual income is sustainable - least of all the people responsible for doing it to keep the economy turning over after the banks had engineered - and apparently deliberately burst - a property bubble. Since the US has been tolerating an annual international trade deficit of several hundred billion dollars for some years now, and it is now close to a trillion a year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade it's surprising that you worry about similar numbers showing up in your internal accounting. <snipped more crocodile tears> > > It took the Nazis a couple of decades to progress from believing > > in right-wing nonsense > > The Nazis were socialists, promoting themselves as a > union^H^H^H^H^Hworker's rights party. Actually, they promoted themselves as an anti-socialist party who were going to be tough on unions and very tough on communists. It wasn't just their anti-semitism that appealed to Henry Ford and inspired him to subsidise them. http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm > > to the extent of beating up people whose ethnic > > origins they didn't like, to believing in it to the extent that they > > tried to exerminate everybody who fitted that particular description. > > You're describing the President, who's told us that doctors hack off > limbs and cut out tonsils, for money, that we should hate insurance > companies, bankers, oil companies, and pretty much anyone he disagrees > with. Hate and envy, never substance. Can you quote some exact words? I can't recall him saying anything of the sort, and his supporters haven't beaten up anybody recently - or at least not to the extent that gets reported in the international press. > He just doesn't kill them, that's the difference. That's change you > can believe in. Neither has Sarah Palin - yet - but the Tea Party movement is still young, and much more recent than the organisation that got Obama into the White House by entirely peaceful means. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Apr 2010 09:26 On Apr 20, 6:40 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Sure. It was general knowledge, but Freddie and Fannie had no way of officially knowing, and no mechanism for rejecting loans on the basis that they had been made to less-than-credit-worthy clients. The banks that made the loans had to be assumed to be competent. > 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. But Freddie and Fannie weren't officially set up to act on that knowledge. IIRR legislative attempts to give them that kind of power had failed because the Republicans thought that it was too much like government intervention in the free market. > 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." That wouldn't have required much sense. 12-14% return implies very high risk investment. > 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. So what. Presumably they were engineered to fail, like the Goldman Sachs offerings, and potentially profitable for people other than investors. You do seem to be taking a while to clean out the criminal elements in your banking system. Presumably acting too fast would have frightened the economy straight tback into recession. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Apr 2010 09:45 On Apr 23, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 21, 6:02 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> Truth is my business. I'm fairly good at it. > > >Where your busniess is concerned you may have some regard for truth - > >if you made a claim on which you couldn't deliver, your customers > >would have means and motive to derail your little red waggon. > > --- > "If?" > > Your petty little world seems to revolve around 'ifs' which you try to > promote as real but which are nothing more than idle conjectures which > you try to support by latching on to others' coattails. And your argument hinges of interpreting an entirely hypothetical "if" intoeduced to calify an argument as if it had something to do with the real world. Grow up/ > You're a circuit designer? > > Show us something real instead of the insults you eternally proffer as > excuses for not performing, and maybe we'll believe you. > --- You wouldn't, since you don't understand circuit design for anything much more complicated than a 555. > >Outside that arena, you regularly make implausible and unsupported > >claims, because you don't know any better. > > >> You have no business, so your beliefs can drift all around, unguided by real-world feedback. > > >Or so you'd like to think. > > --- > However conveniently blind you've forced yourself to be, JL has a > business which is making money so, since you're a sink, he's right and > you're wrong. Only if you attach magical powers to the owners of not-yet-failed businesses. Johm likes to think that since his business makes money, his delusions about other subjects have to be taken seriously. If you could do joined up logic you'd be able to detect the weakness of that argument. > Unless you're buying his stuff, in which case you'd both be winners. Assuming that I needed it in the first place. > >I spend a lot more time learning about the wider world than you do, > > and I keep my beliefs rather more closely tied to demonstrable evidence.. > > --- > Nonsense. > > What you do is read what sounds good to you and then reject the rest as > hogwash since it supports a viewpoint with which you disagree, and then > declare your opinion imprimatur. Actually, that is what John does. I read rather more widely, and a lot more sceptically, not that you would have any way of knowing. > >> Mostly you just like to be mean. > > >By which you mean that I don't respond to your posts with the sort of > >flattery which you seem to think should be offered to someone who runs > >a business which hasn't yet gone bankrupt. > > --- > I don't think it's flattery that John's looking for, in my view it's > something like respect in that he's been able to carve himself out a > niche where he can compete with the likes of HP and Fluke on his own > terms. > > And, make enough money that he can pay the folks who are helping him, to > help him. > > Good on him. In so far as he confines himself to potnficating about stuff in the area, he gets respect, even from me. He seems to want the same respect when he pontificates about stuff he knows very little about. Since you know even less, this may not be obvious to you. > --- > And now, let's take a look at you... > > Here we have,before us, a failure who isn't just a failure, but a > failure who isn't intelligent enough to realize that he's a failure. A failure? I've failed to get a job recently, but none of Dutch employment agents expects anybody of my age to succeed in that, and think that I'm slightly crazy because I keep trying. the stuff I did when I was in work was tolerably impressive to the people who were equipped to understand it - which you are not. > What should we do with him? In your case, stop posting about stuff you don't understand. It does serve the useful purpose of revealing how dim you really are, but we get plenty of evidnece of that from your other posts. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 23 Apr 2010 11:02 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:19:31 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DFFJECICZMUC5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=224202619 > > >MIT does one of these silly press-release scientific breakthroughs >about once a week, and EE Times prints them all. They are turning >themselves into Popular Mechanics. > >John The latest issue of EE Times is 42 pages. John
From: Jim Thompson on 23 Apr 2010 11:08
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:02:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:19:31 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DFFJECICZMUC5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=224202619 >> >> >>MIT does one of these silly press-release scientific breakthroughs >>about once a week, and EE Times prints them all. They are turning >>themselves into Popular Mechanics. >> >>John > > >The latest issue of EE Times is 42 pages. > >John For a more salacious delight, note the thickness (thinness) of Time Magazine and Newsweek. The lapdog media are dying off. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy |