conservation of Euros

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.

I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.


What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic

retailer/wholesalers).

b. The percentage of labor in the COGS even for products made in the US
is much smaller than they anticipate.

If the
government stops taking out SS and IRS taxes from my paycheck, I have
more to spend. I can then afford these now 'higher' prices of that
$1, plus $.23 fair tax, plus the sales tax of $.09, so it is now
$1.33.

As for savings, I don't sweat it as much. Yes, it makes my post-taxes
savings less valuable, but it also removes a lot of taxes on my
earnings and interest!
I'm interested in saving the time and energy I waste avoiding tax land-
mines. That's worth a lot--at least a couple weeks a year. More like
three, methinks.

There'll be new tax land-mines, like who gets to pay ficticious rent
tax, how much, and who doesn't. Et cetera.
That part still seems iffy, yes.
IMHO the whole idea is iffy. Fair means it has to be fair to just about
everyone and not just part of the population. And that's not the case.
The only hole I see in it is savings, that we both object to. I may not agree
(or understand completely) the economics of taxing large items (homes and
cars) heavily.
Much of that will depend on how property tax on homes and use tax on
vehicles gets changed. 40 years of property tax adds up.

You can bet on it that a certain kind of politician will only agree to
all that if it result in a serious net increase in taxes squeezed out of
the public.

That is all of them.


See, now you know another reason why I am against this change


[...]

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 22, 7:58 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"keith...@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.

There you go again. All that regulation wasn't designed - it evolved.
It stopped evolving when it kept the body healthy enough through the
child-bearing and child-raising years to guarantee that the phenotype
would pass on its genotype. It certainly includes stupidities
equivalent to the recurrent laryngeal nervein the giraffe, which is
metres longer than it needs to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

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.

The regulatory mechanisms aren't excellent. They are just mostly good
enough - that's the way evolution works. Single-point nuclear
polymorphisms mean that many of them don't work as well as they did in
your remote ancestors, which is also the way evolution works, since it
discards a lot of less- than advantageous random changes in pursuit of
the occasional advantageous random change

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.

A lot of Americans seem to want - and get - more sugar than is good
for them. Maybe they inherited a slightly less favourable genotype.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 22, 1:41 am, dagmargoodb...@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,

Actually I said that John might be wise to keep out of a risky area.
Since he doesn't like developing large complex systems, perhaps
because he isn't good at it, this is merely endorsing his preference.

and
Bill *knows* business.  Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one
times is better and less risky

It can be a lot more profitable - the margins on turn-key projects can
be very high - and I never claimed that it wasn't risky.

 than modest investment that pays 100x.

John Larkin made it perfectly clear that his less ambitious projects
don't always lead to successful products. A one hundred-fold return on
development investment would be remarkably high. A successful and long-
lived product might make it, but probably not if you discounted your
cash-flows correctly. And how many products do you have to develop
before you find one that is popular enough to sell persistently and in
volume, without attracting the attention of the larger-small
manufacturers in the area, who can afford to develop an ASIC to handle
most of the electronic function to let them sell something that does
the same job a lot cheaper.

But James Arthur "knows" business - with the same sort of confidence
with which he "knows" economics - and this sort of consideration
passes him by.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 22, 2:04 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

But the people I worked for who did occasional big projects were
rather better at keeping me busy.

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

Some of the stuff. Even John Larkin isn't going to be able to avoid
designing the occasional dud for the wrong market.

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.

And hire extra people for final test to make sure that the contract
assmebler have put the stuff together right.

At Fison's Applied Sensor Technology all electronic production was
contracted out to assemblers, but not all the boards that we got in
worked first time, and there were always a few that where the fault
was hard to find.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.

I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.


What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

No, they really don't. It's usually closer to $300 than $3000 and often
negative. Dealerships don't make a lot of money on the sale of a new car.

<...>

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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.

Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.

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.

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

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.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 22, 7:58 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"keith...@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.

There you go again. All that regulation wasn't designed - it evolved.

And then it evolved some more. Lots more. Evolution itself evolved.

It stopped evolving when it kept the body healthy enough through the
child-bearing and child-raising years to guarantee that the phenotype
would pass on its genotype.

How do you account for 90 year old ladies?

It certainly includes stupidities

equivalent to the recurrent laryngeal nervein the giraffe, which is
metres longer than it needs to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

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.

The regulatory mechanisms aren't excellent. They are just mostly good
enough - that's the way evolution works. Single-point nuclear
polymorphisms mean that many of them don't work as well as they did in
your remote ancestors, which is also the way evolution works, since it
discards a lot of less- than advantageous random changes in pursuit of
the occasional advantageous random change

It's been a long time since evolution worked by single-point nuclear
polymorphisms. Bodies *are* smarter than 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.

A lot of Americans seem to want - and get - more sugar than is good
for them. Maybe they inherited a slightly less favourable genotype.

Americans are the most diverse genetic mix on the planet. To say that
"Americans" inherited any genotype is silly. Some specific
subpopulations, like those of the Pacific Islander path, seem
especially unable to handle a European (wheat, meat, dairy, sugar)
diet. But people are different.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 22, 2:04 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

But the people I worked for who did occasional big projects were
rather better at keeping me busy.

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

Some of the stuff. Even John Larkin isn't going to be able to avoid
designing the occasional dud for the wrong market.

Of course not. Maybe 50% of our designs are profitable. So we design
lots of stuff. That wey, we make money on the winners and learn stuff
from the apparent losers.

What's surprising is that practically everything I've designed, or
even partially designed, turned out to produce useful knowledge or
offshoots, often many years later, often in most unexpected ways.

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.

And hire extra people for final test to make sure that the contract
assmebler have put the stuff together right.

Testing grows almost linearly with volume, except that it's mostly
automated these days, and building another test rack isn't hard.

John

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

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.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

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)?

Over there most likely 30% or a bit more, don't remember. Fact is the
Laffer curve rung true, big time. Meantime the VAT there has gone up
even more, by another four percentage points or so. Guess what that did?

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.

What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?

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.

Exactly. So ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.

What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get
anything close to 10%:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html

Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic
retailer/wholesalers).

Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher
prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has
to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an
AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by
the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost
is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel.
Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea
if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities
you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search
engine is the pits, IMHO.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Charlie E.]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:12:06 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Out here in the desert, you need to keep hydrated AND salted! You may
not realize it, but just sitting around in even A/C with a <20%
humidity takes a lot of moisture out of you. Get the temperature up
to the nineties, and if you don't drink and eat salt, you get
seriously ill, fast!

Charlie

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.

What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Mine was made in Nagoya.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

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.

I am on a lot of different medications. Most remove sodium from my
body. Being diabetic doesn't help. There are short phrases mentioning
sodium in the documentation, if you wade through the 20+ pages per drug.
I am replacing what is being lost. Even with the amount I'm using, I
usually can't taste it. If I cut it back, I start getting sores that
won't heal. Go ahead and tell me you wouldn't use the required salt to
maintain your electrolytes.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joerg wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

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.


My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

Some politicains were engineers.


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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[snip]

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.


Mine was made in Nagoya.

[...]

My "Japanese" Infiniti was made in Canada

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:54:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

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.


I am on a lot of different medications. Most remove sodium from my
body. Being diabetic doesn't help.

Of course you need to replace the sodium but you have to admit that this isn't
normal.

There are short phrases mentioning
sodium in the documentation, if you wade through the 20+ pages per drug.
I am replacing what is being lost. Even with the amount I'm using, I
usually can't taste it. If I cut it back, I start getting sores that
won't heal. Go ahead and tell me you wouldn't use the required salt to
maintain your electrolytes.

Go ahead and read the thread.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:00:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Joerg wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

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.


My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.

You mean like Jimmy Carter? Yes, one engineer gives all the lawyers in
Washington a good run for their money.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.

What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.


Mine was made in Nagoya.

Why do you insist that anecdote = data?

 

[Joerg]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
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.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.

True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:00:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Joerg wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

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.


My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.

You mean like Jimmy Carter? Yes, one engineer gives all the lawyers in
Washington a good run for their money.

No. I was talking about Cliff Sterns. He was an EE in the military.


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