conservation of Euros

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:34:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?


I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...


You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?


Maxim rejects! ;-)

Not possible. Gotta make chips before they can be rejected. OTOH, I reject
all Maxim chips.

Then you know what to do with them. ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 21, 5:24 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY

You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose
to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't
spend your way out of the problem.

This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's
been building for generations now. There's no quick fix.

John

Good one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatev...

The Daily Torygraph is predictable, and predictably wrong. It
publishes stuff that appeals to right-wing nitwits, which means that
their stories don't have a lot to do with reality.

In this case the story recycles a number of right-wing fantasies that
they published years ago. They were rubbish then, and they are rubbish
now, but the Daily Torygraph knows the kind of fantasies that appeal
to their readers.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmenge

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 21, 6:01 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:30:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany



speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:24:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY

You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose
to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't
spend your way out of the problem.

This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's
been building for generations now. There's no quick fix.

John

Good one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatev....

John

Paging Dr. Schadenfreude..

Oh, the US is facing similar problems. But at least we have kids and
immigrants that we can exploit.

I'm not so much happy that europe is falling apart as I am satisfied
that I have some understanding of how economic systems actually work.
I did predict stuff like this, based on the simple concept that you
can't longterm consume more than you produce, unless you steal it.
This sort of thinking is apparently beyond what learned
macroeconomists and finance ministers can handle.

The US and Canada have, I think, better longterm prospects than
europe.

If you ignore the minor fact that the US has been running a large
balance of payments deficit since Regan was president.

John's "understanding of how economic systems actually work" doesn't
seem able to integrate the consequences of this interesting fact. So
he believes right-wing pundits who tell him that Europe is falling
apart. and doesn't notice that if what they said were true, the US
would be falling apart faster, with California replacing Greece as the
horrible example of fiscal irresponsibility.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete
systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and
engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can
develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several
customers.

Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell
copies of engineering for decades.



Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key
development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes
skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely.
Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took
them on.

I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own
company I never want to do it again.


Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and
Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one
times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x.

James

Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff
of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You
have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more,
because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say
no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead.
Poisson is a cruel distribution.

If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you
wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real
expert at nothing-to-do.

We're always developing products. We just work our way down an
infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is
churning out copies of all the stuff we've designed over the last 15
years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many
orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off
Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers.

John

 

[Charlie E.]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:04:54 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete
systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and
engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can
develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several
customers.

Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell
copies of engineering for decades.



Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key
development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes
skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely.
Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took
them on.

I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own
company I never want to do it again.


Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and
Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one
times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x.

James

Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff
of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You
have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more,
because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say
no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead.
Poisson is a cruel distribution.

If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you
wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real
expert at nothing-to-do.

We're always developing products. We just work our way down an
infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is
churning out copies of all the stuff we've designed over the last 15
years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many
orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off
Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers.

John

You CAN do systems if you are small, but it requires the right mind
set. It also involves finding a lot of otherwise independent
contractors that you can bring in on a moments notice when the
proposal gets accepted.

Last year, our city decided to do a video surveillance system. I had
heard about it, and had put in my proposal. It was based on the
budget that I was told about - $80K. A few months later, I heard that
they were finally going ahead with the project, but it was now only
$40K, and that LockMart was doing it? I asked, and found out that
they had been sold on getting a full engineering study and system
design, but the up shot was that now it was a $1.2M project! I looked
at the final system, WiMAX, high class cameras with cooling (needed
here!) and all. If I had known that was what they wanted, could have
done the same project for something more like $800K, but they were
sold the bill of goods... :-(

Charlie

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:04:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/05/2010 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY

You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose
to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't
spend your way out of the problem.

This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's
been building for generations now. There's no quick fix.

John


Good one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatever-Germany-does-the-euro-as-we-know-it-is-dead.html



It might amuse you to know that a suggested name for the replacement
currency after this one fails was suggested by a Reuters financial
commentator as the New Euro or Neuro for short.


Neuro for "Northern Euro" and Souro for "Soured Euro"?

Neuro fiddles while Soured Europe burns?

It wasn't that long ago that the Europeans were bragging about the
Euro, and that it could never fail.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:59:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.


Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life'
for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower
legs, if you don't beleive me.

Vitimins D and E are also essential. They'll kill you too.

 

On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete
systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and
engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can
develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several
customers.

Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell
copies of engineering for decades.



Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key
development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes
skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely.
Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took
them on.

I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own
company I never want to do it again.

Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and
Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one
times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x.

James

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


....which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life'
for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower
legs, if you don't beleive me.

Vitimins D and E are also essential. They'll kill you too.

I take a multi vitamin, and a potassium tablet each day. If it's a
choice between taking a few years off my life from too much sodium, or
dying within a couple years after surgeons slice off body parts from too
little sodium I'd rather die of a heart attack.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

Also, some people rarely sweat, while others sweat heavily, all day
long. My dietitian agreed that a single fixed amount for everyone was
insane. One idiot doctor tried to tell me I was drinking too much water
at 64 Oz a day. He sits on his skinny ass in an air conditioned
building all day. I can sweat 64 Oz. or more per day wen I do yard
work, or am busy scrapping old computers. The A/C in my truck quit over
a year ago, and it was 86 in the house with the A/C on today.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:51:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life'
for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower
legs, if you don't beleive me.

Vitimins D and E are also essential. They'll kill you too.


I take a multi vitamin, and a potassium tablet each day. If it's a
choice between taking a few years off my life from too much sodium, or
dying within a couple years after surgeons slice off body parts from too
little sodium I'd rather die of a heart attack.

Are you trying for a DimBulb award? Of course there are reasons to take even
dangerous drugs. In the last several years of my mother's life, she was
walking a tightrope of heart and kidney drugs. Too much of one caused heart
failure, too much of the other caused the kidneys to fail. Both were required
to keep her alive. Neither are given to healthy people, for obvious reasons.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?
Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea. There is now margarine that isn't as bad, though.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

John

 

[Bill Bowden]

On May 21, 3:24 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

After that you try to say you're
not trying to ""sell"" socialism??

Not really. Americans ignore the way the rest of the world does
things, despite the fact that some ways of running a country are
better managed outside the USA. Health care is the the classic example
- US health care cost half as much again per head as the best foreign
systems (in France and Germany) while providing no better health care
for prosperous employed Americans than the French and German systems
provide for everybody, while providng much worse health care for the
less well-off part of the US population.

Actually, health care costs in the US are inflated due to the
additional R&D costs other countries don't pay.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/commentary/the-cost-of-free-government-health-care/

"Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on
the United States to pay the research and development costs for new
medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control
policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone
will suffer."

-Bill

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:40:16 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:44:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip
Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax
content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to
compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect
them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced.

And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am
against that.


Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job,
invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax.

c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider
removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular
accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law
would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls
their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -
Financial market collapse -> major new recession.
Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do.

I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead
simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In
engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to
replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can
seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will.

Please help me to understand.
The tax code is badly broken (Y/N).


Yes [X] No [ ]


We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)

Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

Please point out ways that the "Fair Tax" can blow up worse than current
tax code _____________________________________________________________.


Ok, I do it for the umpteenth time but this is the last time cause I've
got to get some work done here:

People who have diligently saved wish not to have their nest egg taxed a
second time. So, they will try to dodge that bullet. Some will retire
outside the country and take their nest egg along. Others and I am
afraid that would be the majority will rush their money out of the banks
and into real estate so they convert it to "pre-fictitious-rent"
property. A plain old financial stampede, except that this one will be
more devastating to the financial markets than anything we have ever
seen, including the housing bubble.

Next, look at countries that have VAT which is fairly similar to what
some people call "fair tax" except that they also have an income tax.
What has that triggered? Right, a rampant underground economy. I lived
there, so I know. The governments don't even have the foggiest idea how
bad that really is. People have no qualms hollering clear across a pub
"Hey, anyone know a tile setter who'll make me a good offer if I don't
need an invoice?". That is because those countries generally also slap
VAT on services. So ...

I have never played that game but, example: Bathroom needed remodeling.
Quotes $20k and up. Yikes! So I pushed out one project that wasn't too
urgent and where the client was ok with that, bought the materials for a
few thousand bucks, rolled up the sleeves and had at it. Three weeks
later we had a beautiful new bathroom with stuff in there that was
higher class that the contractor grade stuff from the quotes. "Oh, you
want those Turkish tiles with the artwork in there? Yes, dear, no
problem". Everything perfectly legit and we saved way more than $15k. An
engineer could not possibly have made that much in three weeks. I don't
think I need to explain what that does to unemployment.

And just how much of that 15K difference was labor taxes (including
meta-taxes like union dues)?

We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and
create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever.
Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a)
isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a
refund. Blah, blah, blah.

It ain't rocket science.

Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by
Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ...


All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow,
then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of
income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be
great?

And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those
accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes
our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become
another Greece.


The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00
he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and
$0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low
(which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to
break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up
some more.

That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the
November elections, at least that's what people told me

They better get in gear and campaign for the best available candidates in
the _primaries_ _coming in June in CA_. If your choice is between the
economic damage of Medfly Brown versus Meg Whitman you have foolishly
allowed your choices to be too limited. Besides there is a lot of
interesting propositions that need voted on.


Believe me, everybody in this neighborhood _is_ already in gear. There's
a reason why the tea parties grow at an amazing clip.


And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed.
Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must
surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary,
and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later.
There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need
assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the
assessment.

So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up
his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house?
Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat?
The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings
is to be had.

Not all of that cost disappears, there is still materials costs paid at
the lumber yard etc.,. Also the labor content of buildings has been
reduced significantly by removing labor taxes.


Well, this was in response to James' notion that, quote "You never need
assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the
assessment."

So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."

That is all recorded in the tax receipts.

Anyhow, tax systems get reworked or changed for one reason: To milk body
public for even more money. People don't want that.

Productive people don't want that, the parasites do. Thus, conflict.