Conical inductors--still $10!...

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 16.07.20 um 09:20 schrieb Bill Sloman:

James Arthur hasn\'t noticed that when people start dying of Covid-19, other people start practice social distancing of their own accord. Note the Swedish example.

It still kills a lot of people, and even the Swedes aren\'t anywhere near herd immunity yet.

In fact, Sweden was just yesterday removed from the list of dangerous
countries by our (German) government. That has consequences for
insurances etc if you insist to go there.

And herd immunity is a silly idea. It does not even work in Bad Ischgl,
the Austrian skiing resort where they sport 42% seropositives, which
is probably the world record, much higher than Sweden.

And herd immunity does not mean that you won\'t get it if you are
in the herd. It only means that the virus won\'t propagate in the herd
forever until there is nothing left. The herd won\'t die, but maybe you.

But it is a nice buzzword for the sheeple.


Like an oscillator when the loop gain is < 1.0. It may be stable just
so, but it may ring quite a long time.

Gerhard

 

[Michael Kellett]

On 15/07/2020 20:12, bitrex wrote:

On 7/15/2020 12:15 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:18:11 +0100, Michael Kellett <mk@mkesc.co.uk
wrote:

Found this on \"All about Ciruits\" -

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/micron-digital-claims-to-have-eliminated-drifting-in-imus/?utm_source=All+About+Circuits+Members&utm_campaign=a3e890e124-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_09_11_04_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2565529c4b-a3e890e124-280503221


It takes you here:

http://www.romos.io/index.asp?FPFHFGFHIRJEIJILIG

They claim an inertial measuring breakthrough:

\"Once initialized, ROMOS will experience a maximum of 0.5mm static
variance offset from true position data over its operational lifetime.\"

With a dose of snake oil.

\"Using higher dimensional computations with back-propagation, Drift is
also eliminated from positional data.\"

This sounds like the standard 6-state or 9-state Kalman Filter.  They
do work in big vector spaces.

External references are also provided to this Kalman Filter.

The information to cancel drift is not in the IMU data, so software
can do nothing to cancel drift from IMU data alone.


There is an absurd video too.

It\'s way to good (by many orders of magnitude) to be true - but what\'s
the point ?

How do they make money, are they hoping to trap just one lunatic venture
capitalist ?

I would think that a direct test would end the game, so I don\'t see
how even a lunatic investor could be fooled for long.

Micron Dynamics claims that the technology is patented, so I sent an
email asking for patent numbers.


Joe Gwinn


I don\'t see what\'s intrinsically bullshit or about claims of an inertial
measurement breakthrough vs. claims of real woo like cold fusion or
machines that run on their own power.

This doesn\'t seem quite in that same vein, and I doubt there\'s anyone
here with the qualifications to make credible commentary as to what\'s
actually possible or isn\'t with whatever machine-learning technique they
say they\'re applying. If they do have patents that\'s some amount of
credibility, I don\'t know whether I\'d trust my own evaluation of the
claims any more than the patent office, they\'re not all just
rubber-stampers who let any old thing fly.

Either they\'ll deliver, or they won\'t, most things in life tend to be
one thing or the other. But it seems like more of a gamble than an
outright \"scam\" that breaks the laws of physics without further
information. it\'s the kind of gamble VC people do day in and day out and
win or lose on, depending.

If they can\'t or won\'t provide references to the patents they claim to
have that would surely make me more skeptical

There are (at least) a couple of reasons to be sceptical:

First the term \"static variance offset\" is not standard IMU talk - if
you Google it you\'ll find one specific hit - under ROMOS !

Secondly, lets take that at face value - they seem to be saying that the
position error over the device lifetime will be 0.5mm.
From school physics you know that s = (a.t^2)/2 (s is distance a is
acceleration.
Lets assume a life of 5 years = 1.576E8 seconds
re-arranging we get a = 2s/(t^2) = 1e-3/(2.48E16) = 4e-20 m/s/s
This level of acceleration bias is not just unlikely but impossible.
Current good parts offer figures like 3ug = 3E-5 m/s/s bias instability.
If Micron Dynamics really had a 15 order of magnitude breakthrough they
would be marketing in a slightly different way.

MK

 

[Michael Kellett]

On 15/07/2020 20:12, bitrex wrote:

On 7/15/2020 12:15 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:18:11 +0100, Michael Kellett <mk@mkesc.co.uk
wrote:

Found this on \"All about Ciruits\" -

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/micron-digital-claims-to-have-eliminated-drifting-in-imus/?utm_source=All+About+Circuits+Members&utm_campaign=a3e890e124-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_09_11_04_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2565529c4b-a3e890e124-280503221


It takes you here:

http://www.romos.io/index.asp?FPFHFGFHIRJEIJILIG

They claim an inertial measuring breakthrough:

\"Once initialized, ROMOS will experience a maximum of 0.5mm static
variance offset from true position data over its operational lifetime.\"

With a dose of snake oil.

\"Using higher dimensional computations with back-propagation, Drift is
also eliminated from positional data.\"

This sounds like the standard 6-state or 9-state Kalman Filter.  They
do work in big vector spaces.

External references are also provided to this Kalman Filter.

The information to cancel drift is not in the IMU data, so software
can do nothing to cancel drift from IMU data alone.


There is an absurd video too.

It\'s way to good (by many orders of magnitude) to be true - but what\'s
the point ?

How do they make money, are they hoping to trap just one lunatic venture
capitalist ?

I would think that a direct test would end the game, so I don\'t see
how even a lunatic investor could be fooled for long.

Micron Dynamics claims that the technology is patented, so I sent an
email asking for patent numbers.


Joe Gwinn


I don\'t see what\'s intrinsically bullshit or about claims of an inertial
measurement breakthrough vs. claims of real woo like cold fusion or
machines that run on their own power.

This doesn\'t seem quite in that same vein, and I doubt there\'s anyone
here with the qualifications to make credible commentary as to what\'s
actually possible or isn\'t with whatever machine-learning technique they
say they\'re applying. If they do have patents that\'s some amount of
credibility, I don\'t know whether I\'d trust my own evaluation of the
claims any more than the patent office, they\'re not all just
rubber-stampers who let any old thing fly.

Either they\'ll deliver, or they won\'t, most things in life tend to be
one thing or the other. But it seems like more of a gamble than an
outright \"scam\" that breaks the laws of physics without further
information. it\'s the kind of gamble VC people do day in and day out and
win or lose on, depending.

If they can\'t or won\'t provide references to the patents they claim to
have that would surely make me more skeptical

There are (at least) a couple of reasons to be sceptical:

First the term \"static variance offset\" is not standard IMU talk - if
you Google it you\'ll find one specific hit - under ROMOS !

Secondly, lets take that at face value - they seem to be saying that the
position error over the device lifetime will be 0.5mm.
From school physics you know that s = (a.t^2)/2 (s is distance a is
acceleration.
Lets assume a life of 5 years = 1.576E8 seconds
re-arranging we get a = 2s/(t^2) = 1e-3/(2.48E16) = 4e-20 m/s/s
This level of acceleration bias is not just unlikely but impossible.
Current good parts offer figures like 3ug = 3E-5 m/s/s bias instability.
If Micron Dynamics really had a 15 order of magnitude breakthrough they
would be marketing in a slightly different way.

MK

 

[server]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 22:32:03 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, July 12, 2020 at 5:39:36 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 3:46:50 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 02/07/2020 06:27, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 6:03:50 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/07/20 22:01, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:09:01 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/07/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 10:34:18 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 30/06/20 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
There is a very real Deep State that supresses freedom, and it\'s a lot
bigger than is was in 1789.

Not necessarily /state/. Entrenched interests/wealth/power
usually does do that.

Some states/governments are progressive and enhance and
widen opportunities.

Have you thought that through?

How are these governments enhancing and widening opportunities?

I\'ve not only thought it through, I\'ve witnessed it.

I refer you to Germany, the UK, and similar from
the 60s onwards.

But you didn\'t answer my question, you\'ve merely made a vague statement
of \'goodness\' and posited a vague causation, to unidentified policies.

What did they do that enhanced and widened opportunities?

Many things. I\'ll mention two related to education.
The Open University (think MOOC half a century ago).
Ensuring underprivileged kids got the best education
based on their abilities, not their parents\' class[1].

That\'s constructive--class-based discrimination is wrong.

In America, national teachers\' unions are devoted to ensuring
that poor children be compelled to attend their schools, no
matter how awful the school.

But you won\'t believe anything that doesn\'t fit
into your weltanschauung, so there isn\'t much
point in my spending my time trying to open
your eyes.

I\'m very persuadable, but it has to make sense.

If you try and tell me handing out money fixes poverty,
you\'re going to have a tough time explaining how, and
rationalizing why sixty years of that has only made
things worse in the US.

[1] realise that class in the UK is similar
to race in the USA

We discriminated heavily, years ago, and we ended that,
generations ago. Anyone who wants to can get a job now.
And getting a job is virtually all one needs not to be poor.


Eliminating (or greatly reducing) poverty is no easy matter. You are
right that education plays a key part.

USA has a particular challenge in that it has such a money-dominated
culture. Tom is wrong to say that race is the American equivalent of
British \"class\" - while race has a solid part to play, it is /money/
that makes class in the USA. People associate very little with others
outside their monetary class, and the possibilities for moving upwards
in monetary class are very small.

That\'s flatly false. The statistics plainly indicate that nearly
all the people with the highest incomes started off at the bottom,
and they rarely stay at the top long.

We have almost no Marxist-notion of a fixed \'class\' one is born into,
as in Europe.

Also, nearly all the people who are counted as poor at some point,
are later not poor, and are rising up to the middle-income levels.

(Not non-existent, of course, but
small - and smaller than they used to be.)

Poverty is not about not having money in absolute terms - it\'s about
having less than others, and less than you need for your basic needs.

Poverty is about having less than you need! If you have enough, you
aren\'t poor! If you want more, work more. It\'s simple.

There are plenty of Americans who have two jobs but get their food from
food banks. There are plenty of families with two working adults that
can\'t afford to pay their rent. A job is /not/ enough to avoid poverty.

Sure it is. Minimum wage, a mere forty hours a week, is completely
survivable. Where I live you could buy a house and raise a small
family on $20k a year.

The cost of living, the cost of a place to stay, is critical. Having
enough time left over besides work to look after your family, keep
yourself healthy, have a life - that is all important.

As poverty is primarily a relative term, the key to dealing with it is
improving equality.

You have no ability to \"improve equality.\" All you can do is take one
man\'s earnings and give it to another man.

If an aspect of life can be disassociated from
money, poverty is reduced. The biggest one here is health care -
universal free health care is an absolute requirement because it stops
(or at least reduces) the cycle of poverty leading to poor health
leading to more poverty.

And there, you\'ve said it -- one man\'s wages *should* be taken to
support a man who didn\'t earn it. If one man has twice the income
that\'s not fair! If the \'richer\' man works 80 hours a week at two
jobs to support his family, and the other guy works 30 hours a week
and spends the rest of his time relaxing with his kids, that doesn\'t
matter. They\'re unequal, and that has to be fixed!

The same could be said for food, then housing, automobiles, shoes, etc.,
and it would be just as naive.

If you gave me the necessities of life, taking them from my fellow
Americans, why would I work?

If my hard-working fellow Americans realized they could get the
government to take the necessities of life from others, for their
own personal benefit, why would they work?

If stealing from my neighbor is legitimized by the vote, why wouldn\'t
I steal from my neighbor?

This is followed by education, with a similar
cycle but over a longer period (generations rather than years). Then
comes housing. Council housing schemes don\'t give you the nicest place
to live, but they give you something you can afford and you are not
forever in fear of the landlord.

And /equality/ is vital to this. In the USA, you are very keen on
means-testing - people can get support for health or other things if
they can prove that they can\'t afford to buy it themselves. In
countries that try to get a more equal society, it is the same for
/everyone/. It doesn\'t matter if you own a huge company or you\'ve never
been able to hold down a job - you have the same right to health care in
the same hospital, your kids go to the same school and you get the same
child benefits for them. Everyone feels society is supporting them,
while you contribute according to your income. If you don\'t have this
levelness and equality, you have a system where the rich are forced to
give charity to the poor, which is resented by everyone.

Your plan doesn\'t account for basic human nature -- if you working
simply gets taken to benefit your neighbor, why bother? The experiment
has been tried over and over with the same result: people stop working
as hard.

You\'re also missing a critically fundamental fact: the reason we have
*anything* at all is because someone used their brains and brawn to
produce it, usually not terribly long before we used it.

*Wealth* is created by people going out and creating things for society,
then trading the cool things they created for other things that other
people have made.

Your plan discourages that. Your plan *creates* poverty and inequality.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Some things that are devastating our lower-income people:

Cheap imported labor

Cheap imported goods

Fragmented families

Drugs

Physical, racial, and language segregation by diffusion

Great Society type disencentives to join the middle and upper income
classes, to work, to feel engaged even if the work is not really
productive.

I heard a great economist today explain these discredited Utopian
notions\' proposers can\'t imagine their simplistic schemes possibly
unfolding imperfectly.

\"Most people who talk about this don\'t even talk in terms of
\'If this then that,\' they talk about it as \'This is how the
world ought to be.\" (Thomas Sowell)

E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

I think hardware design trains some of us to think ahead more
carefully, to consider more possibilities beforehand, to test
our ideas constantly to see if they\'re making sense / working
as expected, and instills humility.

Hardware doesn\'t care how lovely your idea sounded.

There\'s nothing so humbling as a single transistor\'s behaving
not-to-plan...

I also think that hardware design is appealing to, and done by, people
who are hard-nosed thinkers by nature. But it does (often but not
always) train us to examine actual causalities, and to do simple stuff
that works, to check our work, to not make fatal mistakes.

It\'s sad when someone wants to be an electronic designer, but just
doesn\'t have the mentality to do it. We need to find other uses for
such people, if we can.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 22:49:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:20:17 AM UTC-4, Ricketty C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 11:50:17 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:50:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:13:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, July 12, 2020 at 11:19:34 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
You are like the people who initially protested the stay at home orders because they wanted haircuts. You are so shallow and self centered. Yes, parking is what this pandemic is all about.

Your logic is wrong. I enjoy current parking and traffic situations, but i don\'t believe it should or will continue this way. How it that self centered?

Many office buildings are empty now and probably will never be occupied again. This cannot be a healthy city. City government living on ticket revenues can\'t last forever.

The city population density needs to be reduced and we need to reshape the area somehow. We just have to deal with the issues sooner or later.

I don\'t encourage people to protest the stay at home order. But i don\'t encourage blind strict enforcement either.

This is silly. You want strict enforcement, where it matters, for the 14 days it takes to make sure that anybody who has the infection has manifested it by testing positive for the presence of the virus.

Not enough districts in the US have done the kind of contact tracing that lets them quarantine only the people who might be infected for the 14 days from when they might have got infected.

We have been shut-down for many times of 14 days, but the virus is not going away. The 14 days period was and is just a guess. How is Australia and Beijing dealing with renew cases anyway? Contract tracing is not possible in many part of the world, including Beijing. We are way pass that point. You guys keep repeating meaningless phases.

Not to worry, the virus will suddenly be down the memory hole as
soon as the election\'s over, not a problem at all.

During H1N1 the Obama-Biden administration stopped counting cases.

quote
\"In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there\'s an epidemic?

Some public health officials privately disagreed with the decision to stop testing and counting, telling CBS News that continued tracking of this new and possibly changing virus was important because H1N1 has a different epidemiology, affects younger people more than seasonal flu and has been shown to have a higher case fatality rate than other flu virus strains.\"
/quote
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/

Can you imagine if this president did the same?

Apparently now we\'re supposed to permanently shut down the world every
time there\'s a virus anywhere. I\'m not sure people have thought this
thing through...

Cheers,
James Arthur

Looks like it has burned out in New York, as it did in many European
countries. You can\'t have 20% of a population infected, for two or
three weeks each maybe, forever, even if the herd immunity level were
100%. Which of course it isn\'t.

The characteristic new-case waveform seems to be a rounded hump (dare
I say Gaussian?) of width 5 weeks or so. Lockdowns no doubt extend the
tail and cause secondary blips when inevitably mis-managed.

The up-swing in the US south may well be caused by air conditioning.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/14/is-air-conditioning-contributing-to-coronavirus-spread/

Australia and S Africa and Paraguay seem to be having winter bumps.

The head of the CDC commented that they think the bump in the South
coincided with Memorial Day crowds of northerners, vacationing.

I\'ve just gotten word that despite being locked down in a lock-down
state to the point of lock-down insanity, Mom\'s been exposed. So now
the wait begins.

These half-witted faux-science worshippers who haven\'t let us get
national immunity may have killed her, just as I predicted months
ago.

I\'m sorry for your mom. Even in the older age groups it is only serious 20% of the time or so. Hope she gets better or even has no real symptoms.

Yeah, I feel your pain. The faux-science worshipers will make this disease as bad as it could be. I wish people would ignore the idiots and take the advice of the real scientists like Fauci.

You mean the same Fauci who said we shouldn\'t wear face coverings but
now says the opposite? Who told President Trump it was likely to be
like a bad seasonal flu? (Which is still likely -- flu\'s no joke.)
Who advised us that we needn\'t be concerned? Who said it was contained?
Then told us we\'d have to be locked-down forever?

I like Fauci but he\'s not God, he\'s just a guy, and he\'s not better than
common sense. Wash your hands, don\'t touch your face. If you\'re sick,
stay home. If you\'ve been exposed, self-isolate. Don\'t cough on people,
that\'s rude.

People like Navarro will be the death of us all.

I think it might be wise to leave this country and only return after the US quarantine is lifted. I\'m not talking about the US imposing a quarantine on the residents, I\'m talking about the quarantine the rest of the world will be imposing on this country. Consider how bad the economy will be then!

If we\'d allowed the 2/3rds of society we know aren\'t badly affected to
go about their business normally, this thing would\'ve been over months
ago and our senior citizens safe.

Did *any* influential person, Top Scientist or politician or movie
star, suggest that? The very strong (dare I say novel?) age effect on
C19 mortality has been known for a long time now.

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.


> HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:55:32 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

Am 16.07.20 um 09:20 schrieb Bill Sloman:

James Arthur hasn\'t noticed that when people start dying of Covid-19, other people start practice social distancing of their own accord. Note the Swedish example.

It still kills a lot of people, and even the Swedes aren\'t anywhere near herd immunity yet.

In fact, Sweden was just yesterday removed from the list of dangerous
countries by our (German) government. That has consequences for
insurances etc if you insist to go there.

And herd immunity is a silly idea. It does not even work in Bad Ischgl,
the Austrian skiing resort where they sport 42% seropositives, which
is probably the world record, much higher than Sweden.

And herd immunity does not mean that you won\'t get it if you are
in the herd.

It means that if you get it and survive, you are out of the herd.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:55:32 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

Am 16.07.20 um 09:20 schrieb Bill Sloman:

James Arthur hasn\'t noticed that when people start dying of Covid-19, other people start practice social distancing of their own accord. Note the Swedish example.

It still kills a lot of people, and even the Swedes aren\'t anywhere near herd immunity yet.

In fact, Sweden was just yesterday removed from the list of dangerous
countries by our (German) government. That has consequences for
insurances etc if you insist to go there.

And herd immunity is a silly idea. It does not even work in Bad Ischgl,
the Austrian skiing resort where they sport 42% seropositives, which
is probably the world record, much higher than Sweden.

And herd immunity does not mean that you won\'t get it if you are
in the herd.

It means that if you get it and survive, you are out of the herd.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

But then GEC was an infamous \"cost plus\" government contractor
that was paid for bums on seats rather than deliverables.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

But then GEC was an infamous \"cost plus\" government contractor
that was paid for bums on seats rather than deliverables.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!

HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

But then GEC was an infamous \"cost plus\" government contractor
that was paid for bums on seats rather than deliverables.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-07-16 10:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.



HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

I almost went to work at HP Labs on Page Mill Rd in 1987 when I
graduated. Fortunately a hiring freeze delayed their offer until I\'d
already taken a postdoc at IBM.

Since I had a wife and daughter to support, I\'d probably have taken
HP\'s, which was for a permanent position, and wound up working on
magneto-optical storage and living in a hovel in some desert in the East
Bay with a monster commute. (I\'m looking at you, Pleasanton.)

The manager was a very nice woman named Barbara Shula, who was an
officer of the American Magnetics Society among other honours and
accomplishments.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-07-16 10:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.



HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

I almost went to work at HP Labs on Page Mill Rd in 1987 when I
graduated. Fortunately a hiring freeze delayed their offer until I\'d
already taken a postdoc at IBM.

Since I had a wife and daughter to support, I\'d probably have taken
HP\'s, which was for a permanent position, and wound up working on
magneto-optical storage and living in a hovel in some desert in the East
Bay with a monster commute. (I\'m looking at you, Pleasanton.)

The manager was a very nice woman named Barbara Shula, who was an
officer of the American Magnetics Society among other honours and
accomplishments.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com