more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: no_one on 24 Apr 2010 16:12 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:37:42 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > [snip] Only a village idiot finds amusement from "debating" a village idiot.
From: John Fields on 24 Apr 2010 17:00 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:12:33 -0700, no_one(a)no_one.com wrote: >On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:37:42 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >[snip] > >Only a village idiot finds amusement from "debating" a village idiot. --- Jump right in! JF
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Apr 2010 05:09 On Apr 24, 10:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:02:45 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 24, 6:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:36:07 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 23, 6:49 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >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 on interpreting an entirely hypothetical "if" > >> >> >introduced to clarify an argument, as if it had something to do with the > >> >> >real world. Grow up. > > >> --- > >> Liar. > > >> While Larkin's point was that he searches for truth, you pretend that > >> the "if" was inserted to clarify an argument when, in fact, it was used > >> in a derogatory way to infer that Larkin had better mind his P's and Q's > >> with respect to the truth of claims he makes to his customers. > > >There's nothing derogatory about that point - we all have to mind our > >P's and Q's with respect to the truth of claims that we make to our > >customers. > > But you have no customers, so the constraints on you are rather more > relaxed in that the penalty for being caught in a lie involves only a > loss of face, not of income. Perhaps. but I don't lie, and still have to put up with your unsupported and irrational claims that I do. > >Since John Larkin regularly posts nonsense when he isn't posting about > >stuff that he sells, his somewhat gnomic claim that "truth is his > >business" (which doesn't imply that he "searches for truth", as you > >claim) did need to be qualified. > > You claim it's nonsense because you disagree with it, and offer no > concrete evidence to support your claim, but rather try to muddy the > water with irrelevant tripe, your usual tactic when you're caught with > your hand in the cookie jar. I saw it is nonsense because it is wrong. I disagree with incorect statements as a matter of course. The evidence that John is wrong is fairly straightforward - his scheme requires that the genome knows which of its genes have muatated recently, and there's no mechanism by which the genetic machinery could know this, let alone act on it. John doesn't know enough to appreciate this, and I don't imagine that you are any better equipped than he is. You will - of course - describe this "as muddying the water with irrelevant tripe" which is your way of saying that you don't understand the argument. > Clearly, Larkin's statement that truth is his business needs no > qualification since either interpretation would be correct, yet you felt > you needed to take a swipe at him for putting you on the spot by > implying that truth isn't your business. John Larkin's claim that "truth is his business" does depend on him recognising truth when he sees it. Outside of electronics, he doesn't know enough to recogise "truth" with any kind of reliability, and it becomes a particularly empty claim. > >You have got it into your head that my formulation is derogatory, but > >you do have a tendency to read non-existent meanings into the text > >that you read, and a history of posting huge volumes of irrelevant > >verbiage about what you've imagined has been said. > > When dealing with honest people it's merely necessary to show them where > they were wrong and, generally, the interchange is short and cordial. Honest egomaniacs who worry about their self-image are less easy to persuade. > When dealing with the likes of you however, your chagrin at being found > in error is so great that in order to try to get away you're forced to > traverse that tangled web of insult and obfuscation you've been weaving > for so long that it takes a great deal of verbiage, all of it relevant, > in order to corner you. A claim that founders on the fact that I do post mistakes from time to time - nowhere near as often as you'd like to think - and when someone points this out I post an apology and thank them for the correction. The most recent example was the fifth post in the thread "Very low frequency 100 microvolt/sec triangle ramp with adjustable limits and slope" on the 29th January 2010. The next post in the thread was a comment from you expressing surprise, which you do seem to have forgotten. This makes your comment a mistake, for which you need to apologise. > >> A sidestep on your part in an attempt to avoid the truth. > > >What "truth"? > > --- > The truth that you'll go to great lengths in order to keep from having > to admit that you were wrong. Which happens to be a lie - see above. <snipped the remaining - equally deluded - comment> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Apr 2010 11:25 On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Apr 23, 6:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> > > 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. > > >> You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to > >> valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking > >> about. > > >My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be > >the best source for such manure, don't you? > > >> > 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. > > >> I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let > >> mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly > >> un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK > >> Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely > >> to bother. > > >Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not > >so inclined. > > >James Arthur > > Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy > of the result from the link. It's not my purpose to find Bill a Bill-approved journalist to pre- chew his cud for him. As for myself, why on earth would I depend on a journalism major with half my wits and a quarter my experience to do my thinking for me? For those who really care, the pertinent information can easily be found in the bill itself, available at the Library of Congress-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590: Get the "enrolled" bill, the one that passed, not the earlier drafts. A few highlights: o The individual mandate--excuse me "individual responsibility"-- is in Section 1501, the ban on physician-owned hospitals is set forth in Sec. 6001(a)(i). o Sec. 1514 describes how employers must now file health insurance returns on their employees, i.e., rat them out. o Sec. 10106(b) (p791) describes the penalty for not having insurance, to be enforced by the IRS. Without bothering to thrash everyone with these and more particulars, the fact that they have to force you to buy it, and have extensively specified enforcement, penalties, and surveillance, makes plain on its face that this is not a gift, and Obama hasn't graciously 'extended' anything. You have to buy government-specified (Sec. 1302) insurance, whether you want it or not. If you want more particulars, read the damn thing. I did. It's like the worst idiot's kludged design you ever had to fix, worse. The architecture is simply brain-dead. To an engineer it decompiles into the intention of a switching regulator, but where the blocks have been connected backwards, the feedback sense is backwards, connected to a fixed reference, resistors substituted for inductors, etc. It hasn't the slightest chance of providing clean, efficient, regulated power, much less making anything cheaper or better. P.S. Oh, and the bit I posted on Obamacare already officially estimated as costing 1/3rd more than advertised was widely reported in the AP, Bill's anemic Google-fu notwithstanding. P.P.S. That, BTW, isn't rocket science, it's just the establishment just now catching up on part of something I posted months ago. That's not my estimate, it's just one, simple, obvious error (or untruth) I saw in /their/ estimate. Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators swore on a stack of Bibles that Obamacare cost less than $940B for the first ten years. Real cost for the 1st decade of full implementation is estimated by several sources-- not me--at $2.5T. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Apr 2010 11:46
On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >On Apr 23, 6:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> > > 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. > > > >> You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to > > >> valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking > > >> about. > > > >My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be > > >the best source for such manure, don't you? > > > >> > 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. > > > >> I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let > > >> mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly > > >> un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK > > >> Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely > > >> to bother. > > > >Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not > > >so inclined. > > > >James Arthur > > > Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy > > of the result from the link. > > It's not my purpose to find Bill a Bill-approved journalist to pre- > chew his cud for him. As for myself, why on earth would I depend on a > journalism major with half my wits and a quarter my experience to do > my thinking for me? Because your preconceptions blind you to many aspects of the discussion? > For those who really care, the pertinent information can easily be > found in the bill itself, available at the Library of Congress--http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590: > > Get the "enrolled" bill, the one that passed, not the earlier drafts. > > A few highlights: > o The individual mandate--excuse me "individual responsibility"-- is > in Section 1501, the ban on physician-owned hospitals is set forth in > Sec. 6001(a)(i). > > o Sec. 1514 describes how employers must now file health insurance > returns on their employees, i.e., rat them out. > > o Sec. 10106(b) (p791) describes the penalty for not having insurance, > to be enforced by the IRS. > > Without bothering to thrash everyone with these and more particulars, > the fact that they have to force you to buy it, and have extensively > specified enforcement, penalties, and surveillance, makes plain on its > face that this is not a gift, and Obama hasn't graciously 'extended' > anything. You have to buy government-specified (Sec. 1302) insurance, > whether you want it or not. This is a necessary consequence of having universal health care. The rest of the civilised world doesn't find it oppressive, and it produces systems which deliver better health care than yours (averaged over the whole population) at two thirds of the price per head. > If you want more particulars, read the damn thing. I did. It's like > the worst idiot's kludged design you ever had to fix, worse. While the current American health care system is a model of perfection? Dream on. > The architecture is simply brain-dead. To an engineer it decompiles > into the intention of a switching regulator, but where the blocks have > been connected backwards, the feedback sense is backwards, connected > to a fixed reference, resistors substituted for inductors, etc. It > hasn't the slightest chance of providing clean, efficient, regulated > power, much less making anything cheaper or better. Now tell us about your current health care system, which costs half again as much as anybody else's, and delivers worse health care - particularly for the uninsured 15% and the under-insured 20%. > P.S. Oh, and the bit I posted on Obamacare already officially > estimated as costing 1/3rd more than advertised was widely reported in > the AP, Bill's anemic Google-fu notwithstanding. So post the web-site. If you can't, you are a liar. You claimed the estimates came from the HSS, but they weren't to be found on the HSS web-site. My googling skills may be anaemic, but they were enough to demonstrate that you weren't telling the whole truth. > Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators swore on a stack of Bibles that > Obamacare cost less than $940B for the first ten years. Real cost for > the 1st decade of full implementation is estimated by several sources-- > not me--at $2.5T. Several sources - none of which you can point to. Probably because they are even more obviously right-wing fruit-cakes than you are. I imagine that telling us who they actually were would shred what little remains of your crediblity. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |