more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Apr 2010 15:49 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 23, 6:40�am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Apr 23, 1:57�am, John Larkin > >> > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to >> > fail. >> >> What makes you think that - apart from your habit of proclaiming >> propositions that what you'd like to be true? I've not seen any such >> claim from a trustworthy commentator. >> >> > As it will. >> >> Unlikely. The mechanics of health insurance is well understood. > >Indeed. This, heretofore, would've been impossible in the United >States: >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1266983/Cancer-survivor-barred-NHS-treatment-paying-private-doctor-ease-spinal-pain.html > >> >Then they will blame the insurance companies and >> > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. >> >> We know that you'd like to think that this will happen, and the "Tea >> Party" nutcases are happy to predict this outcome, because that's what >> they want to happen, but have you seen any such prediction from >> somebody who hasn't got an axe to grind? >> >> > As "The Great Society" laid waste to American cities, Obamacare will >> > lay waste to health care. >> >> > It's not as if they did anything that will make health care more >> > available or more affordable. >> >> Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't >> going to make health care more available and affordable for them? > >Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires >they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could >possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > >Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that >his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. >Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers >handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. > >You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. > > >James Arthur It's outrageous that they did nothing about medical liability costs, generic drugs, or the two huge insurance company goodies: antitrust exemption and state-by-state licensing. This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. John
From: Jim Thompson on 22 Apr 2010 21:02 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:44:38 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(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. > >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. >--- > >>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. > >Unless you're buying his stuff, in which case you'd both be winners. >--- > >>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. >--- > >>> 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. > >--- >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. > >What should we do with him? > >JF Sloman is a nothing. Learn to be Amish :-) ...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
From: Martin Brown on 23 Apr 2010 17:23 John Larkin wrote: > This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the > insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems > will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the > back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. At least you can say that they have learned something from Wall Street. If it is good enough for Goldman Sachs then it has to be OK? http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm The ultimate in designed to fail strategies that always pay the banker. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Apr 2010 06:40 On Apr 23, 1:57 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.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: > >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:43:39 -0700 (PDT),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. It took the Nazis a couple of decades to progress from believing > >> >in right-wing nonsense to the extent of beating up people whose ethnic > >> >origins they didn't like, to beleiving in it to the extent that they > >> >tried to exerminate everybody who fitted that particular description. > > >> OMG, the inevitable Nazi thing. > > >> The Tea Party types (and I'm not one of them) are on average better > >> educated and better off than the average American, and not > >> particularly racist. There are black, asian, and hispanic TPers. A lot > >> of the Nazi and racist stuff is in fact generated by provocateurs, of > >> which there are organized groups who try to publicly distort what is > >> basically a traditional American libertarian movement. > > >The Nazi's - like the Tea Party loonies - portrayed themselves as anti- > >socialist. The particular Tea Party lunacy that I find particularly > >unattractive is their argument that Obama's cautious move towards > >Bismark's universal health insurance is some kind of step towards a > >dictatorial totalitarian socialist state. Britain, France and Germany > >all have appreciably more comprehensive national medical insurance > >schemes, and manage to maintain representative democratic governments > >- why do the Tea Party nitwits imagine that a less comprehensive > >version of the same kind of health cover is going to turn the USA into > >some kind of Orwellian nightmare? > > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to > fail. What makes you think that - apart from your habit of proclaiming propositions that what you'd like to be true? I've not seen any such claim from a trustworthy commentator. > As it will. Unlikely. The mechanics of health insurance is well understood. >Then they will blame the insurance companies and > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. We know that you'd like to think that this will happen, and the "Tea Party" nutcases are happy to predict this outcome, because that's what they want to happen, but have you seen any such prediction from somebody who hasn't got an axe to grind? > As "The Great Society" laid waste to American cities, Obamacare will > lay waste to health care. > > It's not as if they did anything that will make health care more > available or more affordable. Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't going to make health care more available and affordable for them? If this were to true, it would be a remarkable fraud. Even Goldman-Sachs would find it impressive. In fact its just one more of your wish- fulfilments, taken over from some right-wing propaganda web-site without any thought about its plausibility. > >Or - more to the point - why do they think that articulating such > >transparent and obvious nonsense is a route to public acceptance and > >eventual political power? > > Well, let's see in November. > > >> >The Tea Party loonies aren't yet talking about "final solutions", but > >> >since they start off out of touch with reality, one - and in this case > >> >- you, should worry about how far their unrestrained and irrational > >> >prejudices could take them. > > >> Their reality is that we have too much government, and it is largely > >> inefficient, corrupt, and debilitating. They are mostly correct. > > >If you want bad, corrupt and debilitating government, you need to go > >to Africa. US and European governments are run by human beings, and > >thus imperfect, but they do work better than any other system of > >government that you can point to. > > >Your Republican nitswits have been campaigning for office for years on > >the basis that they will reduce government and government spending if > >they get into power, but when they have got into power they've done > >neither - quite the reverse. You do need apply a few reality checks > >before you recycle this electoral propaganda. > > Me, recycle propaganda? More or less non-stop. > I fact, one of the points that the TPers make is that both Republicans > and Democrats go to Washington and play the power+spending game. Try > to pay attention. They say that the system, as constituted, is > fundamentally corrupting. Which it is. Absolutely. I've commented on the obvious weaknesses of the American electoral system before now, particularly on the way that the current electoral rules allow rich supporters to buy television advertising spots to support their favoured candidate. Admittedly, Obama exploited the internet to collect enough small donations to buy more support than rich republicans could manage during the most recent presidential election, but this weakness of the system does make every elected official beholden to supporters who are rich enough to buy television advertising for them. > >> >It's not such an irrelevant question as you'd like to think, but since > >> >what you think is pretty much defined by what you'd like to be true, > >> >you can be expected to have some trouble accepting this. > > >> 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. > > >Outside that arena, you regularly make implausible and unsupported > >claims, because you don't know any better. > > I know causality when I see it, Not that I've noticed. Your ideas about evolution make it clear that you didn't think through at least one chain of causation in the sort of detail that might have lead you to a useful conclusion. > and understand reasonably simple (ie, non-chaotic) dynamic systems. That you know something about. This doesn't biology, tostart with. > Running my business involves a lot more than fiddling with > electronics. Try running a business some time and > you'll get my point. I've been close enough to people who have been runnig a business to appreciate what you are saying. You aren't that kind of broadly informed and generally interested character - you are obviously good enough to run a specialised niche business, but clearly too narrowly interested to do well in a wider environment. > >> You have no business, so your beliefs can drift all around, unguided by real-world feedback. > > >Or so you'd like to think. 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. > > >> 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. > > No, what I mean is that you never express joy, humor, optimism, > kindness, or any other non-sour emotion. What a way to live. Not so that you'd notice, perhaps. But none so blind as those who do not wish to see. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Thompson on 23 Apr 2010 17:44
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:49:33 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Apr 23, 6:40�am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> On Apr 23, 1:57�am, John Larkin >> >>> > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to >>> > fail. >>> >>> What makes you think that - apart from your habit of proclaiming >>> propositions that what you'd like to be true? I've not seen any such >>> claim from a trustworthy commentator. >>> >>> > As it will. >>> >>> Unlikely. The mechanics of health insurance is well understood. >> >>Indeed. This, heretofore, would've been impossible in the United >>States: >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1266983/Cancer-survivor-barred-NHS-treatment-paying-private-doctor-ease-spinal-pain.html >> >>> >Then they will blame the insurance companies and >>> > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. >>> >>> We know that you'd like to think that this will happen, and the "Tea >>> Party" nutcases are happy to predict this outcome, because that's what >>> they want to happen, but have you seen any such prediction from >>> somebody who hasn't got an axe to grind? >>> >>> > As "The Great Society" laid waste to American cities, Obamacare will >>> > lay waste to health care. >>> >>> > It's not as if they did anything that will make health care more >>> > available or more affordable. >>> >>> Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't >>> going to make health care more available and affordable for them? >> >>Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires >>they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could >>possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. >> >>Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that >>his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. >>Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers >>handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. >> >>You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. >> >> >>James Arthur > >It's outrageous that they did nothing about medical liability costs, >generic drugs, or the two huge insurance company goodies: antitrust >exemption and state-by-state licensing. > >This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the >insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems >will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the >back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. > >John Hay! That's _good_ for the warm bodies! VAT and CAP 'n' TRADE, good for the warm bodies :-) And I don't give a f#$% ;-) ...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 |