EAGLE Netlist conversion

flipper · Dec 21, 2012

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:25:27 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:07:48 -0600, "Vladimir Vassilevsky"
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Robert Baer"<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:bfoAs.1003$9N1.1002@newsfe13.iad...
Jim Thompson wrote:
Quick, quick...

Tune in, The big "O" is assigning BIDEN to review school shootings and
gun controls :-(

...Jim Thompson
The answer is: require all over 18 to take training for handling and use
of a gun,and GIVE each graduate one to CARRY AT ALL TIMES.
That way a rampage idiot gets perforated from at least a dozen sources.

Just put an FBI troll shitch in every newsgroup.

Arizona concealed carry requires training AND not mentally ill...

http://www.azdps.gov/services/concealed_weapons/

...Jim Thompson
NO, NO, NO..NOT concealed!!!!!!
In _PLAIN_ SIGHT! Required! Mandatory!
Potential rampage idiots will get the visual statement that
mis-action on their part would be "slightly" dangerous and then some.
And if a rampage idiot "does his thing",gets ventilated, let the
bloody mess lie there for a few hours as testimony to other potential
rampage idiots.
Set law eXplicitly saying that NOBODY can be charged except for a
medal of honor protecting citizens.

I understand your point but open carry is akin to a 'gun free zone' by
visual cue, since you know who isn't, but.concealed carry is a
'virtual' force multiplier because everyone is potentially carrying.

Ralph Barone · Dec 21, 2012

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:07:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Can someone retrieve this IEEE paper for me?

Fiori, F.; Crovetti, P.S, "A new compact temperature-compensated CMOS
current reference," Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, IEEE
Transactions on ,2005, vol.52, no.11, pp. 724- 728.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

You would rather steal it than buy it? No surprise.

Got an e-mail from IEEE today advertising their new web page where you can
report theft of IEEE intellectual property.

Tim Wescott · Dec 27, 2012

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the oldest
granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors who had
"murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do you
have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can easily
locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not intrude
on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail fouled up by the
5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson

Show the kid your wrinkles and explain that super-zoot electronics is
something you do for _other_ people, not something you have for yourself.

If your PC's aren't set up to see each other, then you're probably safe
to just hook up an access point to the router. If they _are_ set up in
some sort of an easy peer-peer network, then you'll probably have to
fiddle with the security settings on each one.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Jim Thompson · Dec 27, 2012

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:05:03 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the oldest
granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors who had
"murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do you
have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can easily
locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not intrude
on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail fouled up by the
5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson

Show the kid your wrinkles and explain that super-zoot electronics is
something you do for _other_ people, not something you have for yourself.

I keep the neighbors at bay by declaring at cocktail parties, "I make
chips"... without further explanation ;-)

If your PC's aren't set up to see each other, then you're probably safe
to just hook up an access point to the router. If they _are_ set up in
some sort of an easy peer-peer network, then you'll probably have to
fiddle with the security settings on each one.

Martin Riddle · Dec 27, 2012

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:m53nd8hq700vtvc95b1kbd0hm1u6kk7afs@4ax.com...

In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the
oldest granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors who
had "murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do
you have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can
easily locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not
intrude on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail fouled
up by the 5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson
--

You can do that easily with another (wireless) Router between your
Linksys and your cable modem.
Provided your linksys has a decent firewall, it should work.
It would look like this:

<cable Modem>---------<Wireless Router>----------< 8port linksys
Router>--------- Lan
|
|
Wireless clients

You may have to recycle the cable modem power to update the bridging to
use the new MAC address of the router.
Also, configure the Wireless Router to a different IP address of your
lan. Something like 192.168.150.1

Cheers

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 27, 2012

Jim Thompson wrote:

I keep the neighbors at bay by declaring at cocktail parties, "I make
chips"... without further explanation ;-)

Potato or Corn? ;-)

It's all peer-to-peer, but requires password log-in.

Maybe that's adequate?

I use a spare wireless router, plugged into a spare port in the main
router. That allows access to the net, but not the private network.
That makes it easy to turn off, when you don't need wireless. To make
it even more secure requires a little bit more hardware. Linksys/Cisco,
Netgear and other OEMs have some decent information on their websites.

Jim Thompson · Dec 27, 2012

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:34:56 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
<martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:m53nd8hq700vtvc95b1kbd0hm1u6kk7afs@4ax.com...
In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the
oldest granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors who
had "murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do
you have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can
easily locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not
intrude on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail fouled
up by the 5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson
--

You can do that easily with another (wireless) Router between your
Linksys and your cable modem.
Provided your linksys has a decent firewall, it should work.
It would look like this:

cable Modem>---------<Wireless Router>----------< 8port linksys
Router>--------- Lan
|
|
Wireless clients

You may have to recycle the cable modem power to update the bridging to
use the new MAC address of the router.
Also, configure the Wireless Router to a different IP address of your
lan. Something like 192.168.150.1

Cheers

Martin Riddle · Dec 27, 2012

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:0v6nd8dhs89sdihoe2ok2gibi4p1j83vfe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:34:56 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote
in message news:m53nd8hq700vtvc95b1kbd0hm1u6kk7afs@4ax.com...
In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the
oldest granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors
who
had "murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year
on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do
you have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house
with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can
easily locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not
intrude on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail
fouled
up by the 5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson
--

You can do that easily with another (wireless) Router between your
Linksys and your cable modem.
Provided your linksys has a decent firewall, it should work.
It would look like this:

cable Modem>---------<Wireless Router>----------< 8port linksys
Router>--------- Lan
|
|
Wireless clients

You may have to recycle the cable modem power to update the bridging
to
use the new MAC address of the router.
Also, configure the Wireless Router to a different IP address of your
lan. Something like 192.168.150.1

Cheers

Yep, you certainly do need to update the MAC address.

Wouldn't it be easier just to plug the wireless into an unused Linksys
port?

Then the Wireless would be on the same lan segment, I thought you wanted
it separated from your 'Stuff'.
The 8Port Linksys would keep them out.

Cheers

Jim Thompson · Dec 27, 2012

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:49:58 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
<martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:0v6nd8dhs89sdihoe2ok2gibi4p1j83vfe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:34:56 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote
in message news:m53nd8hq700vtvc95b1kbd0hm1u6kk7afs@4ax.com...
In the annual run-up to Christmas, Thompson-style... scheduled to
accommodate grandchildren in college, meeting the fiancee of the
oldest granddaughter, out-of-state grandchildren, and prosecutors
who
had "murder duty" on the 25th, we'll celebrate Christmas this year
on
Saturday, the 29th.

The first arrival, 11 years old, from Palm Springs, asked, "Opa, Do
you have WiFi? I need my WiFi!" ;-)

Presently I have a Linksys 8-port router, since I wired the house
with
CAT-5 as it was being built, 19 years ago, never thinking wireless.

I have a few spare ports on the Linksys.

What should I get as WiFi, considering the following...

House is essentially 65' x 65', so I need good range. But I can
easily locate transponder 8-10' off the floor.

How do I set it up so grandchildren can access the web, but not
intrude on any of my PC's? Already had the wife's PC's E-mail
fouled
up by the 5-year-old :-(

...Jim Thompson
--

You can do that easily with another (wireless) Router between your
Linksys and your cable modem.
Provided your linksys has a decent firewall, it should work.
It would look like this:

cable Modem>---------<Wireless Router>----------< 8port linksys
Router>--------- Lan
|
|
Wireless clients

You may have to recycle the cable modem power to update the bridging
to
use the new MAC address of the router.
Also, configure the Wireless Router to a different IP address of your
lan. Something like 192.168.150.1

Cheers

Yep, you certainly do need to update the MAC address.

Wouldn't it be easier just to plug the wireless into an unused Linksys
port?

Then the Wireless would be on the same lan segment, I thought you wanted
it separated from your 'Stuff'.
The 8Port Linksys would keep them out.

Cheers

OK. Now I understand. (Network set-up is not by best suite

flipper · Jan 5, 2013

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:33:14 -0700, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 12:42 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

My initial comment was that the Federal budget is fundamentally
different from a family budget. I like Dave Ramsey too, but he's
off base on this particular thing.

The difference is that a government can print money, and if that is done for

Please eplain, how do they print money, then pay interest on it ?

First let's change to the more accurate euphemism "create money"
rather than limiting ourselves to a printing press since the vast
majority of 'money' is not in actual printed or coin form.

So, how is money 'created'. Money is created by debt. Say you put
$1,000 (never mind, for the moment, where that came from) into a bank.
The bank can then loan 90% of it (10% is, by banking laws, required to
be held in reserve). You, of course, say you have $1,000 "in the bank"
and the person who borrowed $900 has, well, $900 so the 'money supply'
is now $1900. The same thing goes for business borrowing and, indeed,
all borrowing.

And therein lies how the government, in the original euphemism,
'prints money'. Actually, the government doesn't; the Federal Reserve
System (Fed) does. The Fed was expressly created by Congress to
'manage the money', including the money 'supply', but is considered an
independent entity, albeit supposedly under Congressional 'oversight'.
So, as far as 'creating money', the 'government', per see, is not
doing it. The government issues bonds on the 'open market' and if the
FED decides the money supply should be increased then it purchases
some and the government owes interest on those just like if anyone
else had purchased them (which answers your question).

So where did the FED get the money to 'buy' the bonds? No where. It
comes from 'thin air', poof. The FED simply writes in it's books that
it 'has' X dollars and then uses them to buy bonds (or any other
financial instrument).

As for the *actual* 'printing', the Treasury prints them but those are
'purchased' by the FED for 2 cents per note, regardless of
denomination, and then 'circulated' only to the extent the FED
determines there's is a need for 'physical dollars'. But the
'printing' of physical notes is merely a convenience for 'small
transactions' and irrelevant to money creation. They're just a
'physical representation' of a 'thin air' entry in the Fed records and
have nothing 'backing' them, such as gold or silver, other than, as
the saying goes "the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government."

The organization of the Fed is rather complex combination of
government appointees and officers elected by private (member) banks
with the 'primary' power arguably on the government appointee side.
They operate under the laws and regulations as set forth by Congress
but exercise 'their judgment' in fulfilling statutory goals. Their
'independence' comes from an idea similar to how the Judiciary is
allegedly 'independent'. I.E. the government appointee terms are
staggered and for 14 years, allegedly isolating them from the whims of
a particular administration.

The 'problem' we find ourselves in, then, comes from two sources.
First is massive borrowing by the Federal government and the second is
how the Fed is 'managing' the money supply. And while allegedly
'independent' (debatable) the Fed obviously has a 'stake' in seeing
it's 'creator', I.E. the government, survive so irresponsibility in
one can induce wacky decisions in the other, even if the latter were
sane to begin with.

That's the 'sales brochure' picture so now let me give you some scary
but real examples. The Federal government 'fabricates' most of the
'economic indicators' everyone uses to make decisions with. Yes,
really. Everyone probably knows, by now, they underestimate
unemployment by not counting people so discouraged that they've given
up active job seeking (or even simpler, fell off the unemployment
insurance rolls). See? The unemployment problem would be 'solved' if
those persistent bastards would just give up looking for work, which
was why they changed that calculation back in the Kennedy
Administration. They wanted 'full employment' and, as governments love
to so, the simple solution was to just stop counting the 'problem'
and, voile, 'problem' solved.

But that's just the beginning. The government also misrepresents
inflation by not counting, believe it or not, food and energy costs.
Really now, you don't 'need' to eat, do you? On top of that, they
'deflate' the cost of things they think have 'gotten better'. Like,
they'll see a $300 TV but note it has a 'better display' than last
years $300 TV and decide it's really only $200 in 'equivalent' value
to the previous year, so the price 'went down' despite you having to
pay $300 for one. A new telephone, with fancy features, will be
discounted but the fact it's life might be only 4 years, as opposed to
an old time rotary that lasted, say, 30 years 'doesn't matter'. Only
calculations that make things 'look good' are used because, well,
that's the 'purpose' of it. After all, that's what people vote for,
'imaginary good feelings' like "yes we can."

That's just the tip of it and if those haven't made your eye bug out
yet this one will. When prices on a thing go 'up' the government has
decided that people will then 'substitute' something cheaper, so they
don't count the thing that went up but the cheaper 'substitute'. So,
you see, if you used to eat steak but, with prices the way they were,
moved down to rump roast, then hamburger, and are now on baloney
sandwiches then, congratulations, there has been no inflation of food
prices. And whether you did or not the government 'decided' you did,
so there.

Along the same bizarre logic, if prices go up on a category of things,
like healthcare, the government has divined that people will use less
of it so they 'discount' how much of that 'increase' goes into the
inflation calculation. For example, healthcare is around 17% of the
economy but when used for calculating inflation it is weighted at only
6%, so the 'impact' of rising healthcare costs is cut to 1/3 of
actual. You do that too, right? Like, decide to not get sick this flu
season because health costs have increased. You'll just use less, so
says Uncle Sam.

These 'rosy' (arguably falsified) calculation methods were 'invented'
by the Clinton Administration because, like those before, he wanted to
'look good' too.

Getting pissed yet?

Well, they do the same thing with GDP. Basically, they fabricate a
number better than reality using bizarre logic like the inflation
numbers. For example, do you have a 'free' checking account? Well,
they decided that a checking account should actually 'cost' something
so that you get one for 'free' is counted in GDP despite there being
no transaction of any kind involved. And they do the 'reverse' of
inflation for equipment. Where they 'discounted', in inflation
calculations, what they deem to be 'better features' they inflate
their economic impact since those 'better features' are divined to
have 'more value' than what was paid for them. That's cool, eh? A
$1000 computer might be only $600 for inflation but $1400 for GDP.
Remember, it's all about 'looking good' and that keeps inflation low,
good stuff, and GDP high. What could be 'better'?

And people wonder why none of the numbers ever seem to make sense.
Well, they're not 'confused', they're right.

Btw, these 'fuzzy numbers' might make you wonder about one of the
'proposed solutions' to Social Security, which is to 'adjust' the CPI
(inflation) calculation to an allegedly 'more accurate' number
reflecting 'actual' inflation. No, what they mean is one that is in
line with the rosy 'fuzzy number' fabrication they now use.

Even the, so called, 'national debt' you hear tossed around ad
infinitum these days is a fabrication gratis the Johnson
Administration, which created the "unified budget": a 'nice sounding'
name for pretending that money borrowed from the Social Security trust
fund wasn't borrowed. That was to hide the cost of the Vietnam war and
works thusly. Social Security was running a surplus but since that is
a separate trust fund it showed up there and when the general fund
borrowed money from the trust fund it showed as general fund debt, as
it should. What he did with the 'unified' budget was include SS along
with the general fund so a SS surplus went into the debt calculation
as a surplus and, then, when we borrowed money from SS that surplus
simply went back to 0. I.E. we took X million into SS, the general
fund borrowed X million and the debt increase is 0 because we just
tossed it all into the same bucket, despite it being a separate
bucket. All the surplus is spent, but shows as 'nothing happened', and
there are a bunch of IOUs, in the form of government bonds (debt),
that shows up no where in the budget calculations (just in the trust
fund). See? That LOOKS GOOD. We get to spend X million more dollars
without showing one red cent of borrowing or of increasing the 'debt'.
So the money that has been 'saved' in the trust fund to pay for future
obligations, meaning NOW that the baby boomers are retiring, are to be
paid by government bonds they never reported as debt, but are there
anyway. This, btw, is how you get the seeming contradictory statements
about SS 'solvency' yet there is this mysterious 20 trillion of
unfunded liabilities. That's the money SS 'saved', so their books show
they have it (currently solvent), but it was 'never reported' by the
government as money borrowed (unfunded liability). Of course, ever
increasing payments 'to' Social Security, which can be nothing but
general fund deficit spending, will not 'look good' at all now that
the general fund has to pay off those bonds they never reported as
debt so it will be interesting to see what they fabricate for that
one.

In short, just about everything our government reports is fabricated
nonsense and then the Fed makes 'wise decisions' (sic) on how to
manage the money supply based on these economic fabrications, plus the
fabrications they come up with because, after all, they want to 'look
good' too.

So the people complaining that the federal budget is 'not like' a
family budget are correct, but just not in the way they meant. It's
'different' because they can lie their ass off, and get away with it,
with the only consequence being whoever comes up with the next 'good
sounding' lie gets elected because no one wants to hear 'bad news'.
"Yes we can." Yes we can, what? Don't ask.

Think I'm kidding? Okay, let's imagine we elected, today, someone who
'tells the truth'. The debt is 16 trillion and the next day he
truthfully 'corrects' it for SS debt to 36 trillion. Do you think he's
going to survive to the third day in office to correct for the
Medicare Trust Fund's unfunded liabilities? If he does the debt will
then be 76 trillion so give me odds on the 4'th day. If so and he
truthfully corrects for federal government employee pensions the debt
will be 100 trillion. Give me odds on the 5'th day.

Don't take those as 'actuals' because I may be off 10 trillion here
and there but, hey, we're not counting any of it anyway so no big
deal.

too long and there is a complete collapse then it can nationalize private
property.

But that is without doubt what some people want.

cameo · Jan 5, 2013

On 1/5/2013 7:50 AM, flipper wrote:

First let's change to the more accurate euphemism "create money"
rather than limiting ourselves to a printing press since the vast
majority of 'money' is not in actual printed or coin form.

So, how is money 'created'. Money is created by debt. Say you put
$1,000 (never mind, for the moment, where that came from) into a bank.
The bank can then loan 90% of it (10% is, by banking laws, required to
be held in reserve). You, of course, say you have $1,000 "in the bank"
and the person who borrowed $900 has, well, $900 so the 'money supply'
is now $1900. The same thing goes for business borrowing and, indeed,
all borrowing.

And therein lies how the government, in the original euphemism,
'prints money'. Actually, the government doesn't; the Federal Reserve
System (Fed) does. The Fed was expressly created by Congress to
'manage the money', including the money 'supply', but is considered an
independent entity, albeit supposedly under Congressional 'oversight'.
So, as far as 'creating money', the 'government', per see, is not
doing it. The government issues bonds on the 'open market' and if the
FED decides the money supply should be increased then it purchases
some and the government owes interest on those just like if anyone
else had purchased them (which answers your question).

So where did the FED get the money to 'buy' the bonds? No where. It
comes from 'thin air', poof. The FED simply writes in it's books that
it 'has' X dollars and then uses them to buy bonds (or any other
financial instrument).

As for the *actual* 'printing', the Treasury prints them but those are
'purchased' by the FED for 2 cents per note, regardless of
denomination, and then 'circulated' only to the extent the FED
determines there's is a need for 'physical dollars'. But the
'printing' of physical notes is merely a convenience for 'small
transactions' and irrelevant to money creation. They're just a
'physical representation' of a 'thin air' entry in the Fed records and
have nothing 'backing' them, such as gold or silver, other than, as
the saying goes "the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government."

The organization of the Fed is rather complex combination of
government appointees and officers elected by private (member) banks
with the 'primary' power arguably on the government appointee side.
They operate under the laws and regulations as set forth by Congress
but exercise 'their judgment' in fulfilling statutory goals. Their
'independence' comes from an idea similar to how the Judiciary is
allegedly 'independent'. I.E. the government appointee terms are
staggered and for 14 years, allegedly isolating them from the whims of
a particular administration.

The 'problem' we find ourselves in, then, comes from two sources.
First is massive borrowing by the Federal government and the second is
how the Fed is 'managing' the money supply. And while allegedly
'independent' (debatable) the Fed obviously has a 'stake' in seeing
it's 'creator', I.E. the government, survive so irresponsibility in
one can induce wacky decisions in the other, even if the latter were
sane to begin with.

That's the 'sales brochure' picture so now let me give you some scary
but real examples. The Federal government 'fabricates' most of the
'economic indicators' everyone uses to make decisions with. Yes,
really. Everyone probably knows, by now, they underestimate
unemployment by not counting people so discouraged that they've given
up active job seeking (or even simpler, fell off the unemployment
insurance rolls). See? The unemployment problem would be 'solved' if
those persistent bastards would just give up looking for work, which
was why they changed that calculation back in the Kennedy
Administration. They wanted 'full employment' and, as governments love
to so, the simple solution was to just stop counting the 'problem'
and, voile, 'problem' solved.

But that's just the beginning. The government also misrepresents
inflation by not counting, believe it or not, food and energy costs.
Really now, you don't 'need' to eat, do you? On top of that, they
'deflate' the cost of things they think have 'gotten better'. Like,
they'll see a $300 TV but note it has a 'better display' than last
years $300 TV and decide it's really only $200 in 'equivalent' value
to the previous year, so the price 'went down' despite you having to
pay $300 for one. A new telephone, with fancy features, will be
discounted but the fact it's life might be only 4 years, as opposed to
an old time rotary that lasted, say, 30 years 'doesn't matter'. Only
calculations that make things 'look good' are used because, well,
that's the 'purpose' of it. After all, that's what people vote for,
'imaginary good feelings' like "yes we can."

That's just the tip of it and if those haven't made your eye bug out
yet this one will. When prices on a thing go 'up' the government has
decided that people will then 'substitute' something cheaper, so they
don't count the thing that went up but the cheaper 'substitute'. So,
you see, if you used to eat steak but, with prices the way they were,
moved down to rump roast, then hamburger, and are now on baloney
sandwiches then, congratulations, there has been no inflation of food
prices. And whether you did or not the government 'decided' you did,
so there.

Along the same bizarre logic, if prices go up on a category of things,
like healthcare, the government has divined that people will use less
of it so they 'discount' how much of that 'increase' goes into the
inflation calculation. For example, healthcare is around 17% of the
economy but when used for calculating inflation it is weighted at only
6%, so the 'impact' of rising healthcare costs is cut to 1/3 of
actual. You do that too, right? Like, decide to not get sick this flu
season because health costs have increased. You'll just use less, so
says Uncle Sam.

These 'rosy' (arguably falsified) calculation methods were 'invented'
by the Clinton Administration because, like those before, he wanted to
'look good' too.

Getting pissed yet?

Well, they do the same thing with GDP. Basically, they fabricate a
number better than reality using bizarre logic like the inflation
numbers. For example, do you have a 'free' checking account? Well,
they decided that a checking account should actually 'cost' something
so that you get one for 'free' is counted in GDP despite there being
no transaction of any kind involved. And they do the 'reverse' of
inflation for equipment. Where they 'discounted', in inflation
calculations, what they deem to be 'better features' they inflate
their economic impact since those 'better features' are divined to
have 'more value' than what was paid for them. That's cool, eh? A
$1000 computer might be only $600 for inflation but $1400 for GDP.
Remember, it's all about 'looking good' and that keeps inflation low,
good stuff, and GDP high. What could be 'better'?

And people wonder why none of the numbers ever seem to make sense.
Well, they're not 'confused', they're right.

Btw, these 'fuzzy numbers' might make you wonder about one of the
'proposed solutions' to Social Security, which is to 'adjust' the CPI
(inflation) calculation to an allegedly 'more accurate' number
reflecting 'actual' inflation. No, what they mean is one that is in
line with the rosy 'fuzzy number' fabrication they now use.

Even the, so called, 'national debt' you hear tossed around ad
infinitum these days is a fabrication gratis the Johnson
Administration, which created the "unified budget": a 'nice sounding'
name for pretending that money borrowed from the Social Security trust
fund wasn't borrowed. That was to hide the cost of the Vietnam war and
works thusly. Social Security was running a surplus but since that is
a separate trust fund it showed up there and when the general fund
borrowed money from the trust fund it showed as general fund debt, as
it should. What he did with the 'unified' budget was include SS along
with the general fund so a SS surplus went into the debt calculation
as a surplus and, then, when we borrowed money from SS that surplus
simply went back to 0. I.E. we took X million into SS, the general
fund borrowed X million and the debt increase is 0 because we just
tossed it all into the same bucket, despite it being a separate
bucket. All the surplus is spent, but shows as 'nothing happened', and
there are a bunch of IOUs, in the form of government bonds (debt),
that shows up no where in the budget calculations (just in the trust
fund). See? That LOOKS GOOD. We get to spend X million more dollars
without showing one red cent of borrowing or of increasing the 'debt'.
So the money that has been 'saved' in the trust fund to pay for future
obligations, meaning NOW that the baby boomers are retiring, are to be
paid by government bonds they never reported as debt, but are there
anyway. This, btw, is how you get the seeming contradictory statements
about SS 'solvency' yet there is this mysterious 20 trillion of
unfunded liabilities. That's the money SS 'saved', so their books show
they have it (currently solvent), but it was 'never reported' by the
government as money borrowed (unfunded liability). Of course, ever
increasing payments 'to' Social Security, which can be nothing but
general fund deficit spending, will not 'look good' at all now that
the general fund has to pay off those bonds they never reported as
debt so it will be interesting to see what they fabricate for that
one.

In short, just about everything our government reports is fabricated
nonsense and then the Fed makes 'wise decisions' (sic) on how to
manage the money supply based on these economic fabrications, plus the
fabrications they come up with because, after all, they want to 'look
good' too.

So the people complaining that the federal budget is 'not like' a
family budget are correct, but just not in the way they meant. It's
'different' because they can lie their ass off, and get away with it,
with the only consequence being whoever comes up with the next 'good
sounding' lie gets elected because no one wants to hear 'bad news'.
"Yes we can." Yes we can, what? Don't ask.

Think I'm kidding? Okay, let's imagine we elected, today, someone who
'tells the truth'. The debt is 16 trillion and the next day he
truthfully 'corrects' it for SS debt to 36 trillion. Do you think he's
going to survive to the third day in office to correct for the
Medicare Trust Fund's unfunded liabilities? If he does the debt will
then be 76 trillion so give me odds on the 4'th day. If so and he
truthfully corrects for federal government employee pensions the debt
will be 100 trillion. Give me odds on the 5'th day.

Don't take those as 'actuals' because I may be off 10 trillion here
and there but, hey, we're not counting any of it anyway so no big
deal.

This post is a clasic! I better save it because I've never seen the
current situation explained as well as this.

My main beef is with the Fed that to my understanding was established
with the primary goal of maintaining the value of the Dollar. But look
what happened since they removed the gold backing of the $. The value of
today's $ is nowhere near what it was in years past except in the mind
of IRS when they compute capital gains and taxes owed on that.
Stimulating the economy with money supply is not and should not be the
job of the Fed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think.

flipper · Jan 14, 2013

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:10:33 -0600, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:13:22 -0600, Les Cargill
lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:53:04 -0600, Les Cargill
lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Lots of O-voters are stunned and surprised their checks have gone down
over the reinstatement of their Social Security tax rate. They're
going ape over that measly 2% increase. They simply have /no/ idea
what's ahead.

I wonder how surprised they're going to be when their rent goes up because
of higher tax on rental income.

That's unlikely. If anything, rents will probably go down. You can tax
rents until the cows come home; you can't really pass costs from them
on to renters.

Of course you can. When the lease comes up for renewal what happens?

...Jim Thompson

http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realtor.org/2012/07/20/the-impact-of-the-3-8-tax-on-rents/

Of the 4 'cases' two allegedly put the tax 'on the landlord' and both
are seriously flawed.

"lf tenants have many options like living in their parent's basement
or taking on a third roommate then the tax burden will reside with
landlords and not renters."

No, that simply drives landlords out of, or into other, business.

he covers that.

I know he supposedly 'covers' it but the point is his stated premise
of "If tenants have many options" ignores the landlord's options,
which he claims is 'a different category'. It isn't and points to one
of the flawed assumptions in his 'opinion' of the '4 possibilities'.

The landlord always has 'options' and he tries to obfuscate that with
weasel words like 'many' and 'not many'. It doesn't take 'many
options' to pass the tax on.

It only takes one hard fact: if there is a tax to be paid then the
money has to come from 'somewhere' and, in a free market, that
'somewhere' is the renter.

Not
to mention I'd love to see how they're going to pay a 'rental tax' on
unrented property, because the now non existent renter is "living in
their parent's basement."

They don't. No rents change hand, so no tax.

That was exactly the point, as exemplified by the next paragraph
stating "so the 'purpose' of it [the tax] is defeated."

So the actual result is the renter faces a downgrade, because he's
stuck "living in their parent's basement," and the landlord isn't
paying the tax on unrented property, a damn good incentive to get out
of the business, so the 'purpose' of it is defeated.

I doubt the taxers thought it that far through.

The taxers never 'think it through' and it's simply a fantasy that the
consumer is going to somehow 'avoid' the tax.

I suspect one meaning
is that they expect it to drive people back to buying again.

"One meaning" of what? The alleged "meaning" that the author is
supposed to be explicitly explaining?

Or, alternately, the landlord raises rents and simply caters to a
'high rent' clientele leaving the poorer renter permanently stuck
"living in their parent's basement."

Yep.

"If landlords do not have many options because of an unwillingness
to dump properties on to the market in order to avoid the capital
gains tax or because of an historic attachment to the property then
the landlord will bear the tax."

Right.

No, the 'alternatives' (such as sell the property) existed before the
tax and are already factored into profitability (including the
'capital gains tax' hit). Increasing rental taxes breaks the
profitability analysis, and the 'unwillingness' because they aren't
landlording for 'the fun of it'.

Now, if you want to 'bet' your rental rates on the landlord having
some nostalgic "historic attachment to the property" then you're
living in la-la land.

but property rents are generally priced at close to what the market
will bear.

Which is precisely why screwing around with taxes only forces it to
adjust, at the expense of the renter.

Whether or not the tax will increase vacancy and not
affect rates

One can 'speculate' it as a 'theoretical possibility' but in the real
world its not going to happen. You don't make money with vacant
apartments and if they were occupied before the tax, with the vacancy
now because the renter is "living in their parent's basement," then
you have the situation I described above.

- or - increase rates depends on the place.

The landlord HAS to because he has to make a profit and renting
apartments is never his 'only choice'.

Some place*
with high occupancy will see increases in rates; less occupied regions
will not.

They both will because the 'less occupied' region is already under
immense pressure to increase rents to 'subsidize' the fallow space.

*sanfran or NYC.

NYC is a poor example for your case because it's rent controlled, so
they 'pretend' there's no rent increase. But if you look at rental
rates they're artificially skewed to the 'high rent' end, producing a
horrendous shortage on the low end of the scale. So the consumer is
again 'paying' by lack of mobility (try moving and you'll never find
another apartment) and "living in their parent's basement," due to the
shortage, with the 'high rent' end paying both the increase and to
'subsidize' the 'low rent' shortage.

Jan 18, 2013

On Wednesday, January 8, 1997 1:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, star...@dove.net.au wrote:

I'm looking for a circuit diagram of a

SHARP TV. TUNER TYPE VTS-1SDH

e-mail startrek@dove.mtx.net.au

Phil Hobbs · Jan 26, 2013

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,

but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

"Non-interacting" means what it says--in a perfectly linear system, the
response to any combination of stimuli, applied wherever you like,
equals the sum of the responses to each stimulus alone.

I do build a whole lot of bootstraps, though.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jim Thompson · Jan 26, 2013

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,
but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

"Non-interacting" means what it says--in a perfectly linear system, the
response to any combination of stimuli, applied wherever you like,
equals the sum of the responses to each stimulus alone.

PhD-ish for the superposition theorem ?

I do build a whole lot of bootstraps, though.

Whoopee Doo! I build thousands of cascoded mirrors.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Phil Hobbs · Jan 26, 2013

On 1/26/2013 3:31 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,
but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

"Non-interacting" means what it says--in a perfectly linear system, the
response to any combination of stimuli, applied wherever you like,
equals the sum of the responses to each stimulus alone.

PhD-ish for the superposition theorem ?

I do build a whole lot of bootstraps, though.

Whoopee Doo! I build thousands of cascoded mirrors.

You really are pretty torqued about this, aren't you?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jim Thompson · Jan 26, 2013

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,

Almost missed that jewel. Are you saying opinion outweighs
simulation?

but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

Just your nose ?

Jim Thompson · Jan 26, 2013

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:34:11 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 3:31 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,
but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

"Non-interacting" means what it says--in a perfectly linear system, the
response to any combination of stimuli, applied wherever you like,
equals the sum of the responses to each stimulus alone.

PhD-ish for the superposition theorem ?

I do build a whole lot of bootstraps, though.

Whoopee Doo! I build thousands of cascoded mirrors.

You really are pretty torqued about this, aren't you?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Perhaps! I'm thinking of writing a book, "America's Worst
Engineering" and quoting from this public forum... citing names along
with the examples

Phil Hobbs · Jan 26, 2013

On 1/26/2013 3:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 1:05 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:53:37 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/26/2013 12:18 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
What are these nodes?

http://tinyurl.com/bjxndpg

...Jim Thompson

AC analysis relies on linearity, so all signals are noninteracting.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

AC analysis is indeed "small signal". That doesn't negate the fact
that the analysis finds a frequency misbehavior.

And I don't have a clue what your "non-interacting" means. Sounds
like BS to me >:-}

I'll run a transient analysis and prove it to you.

Sorry "prove" is the wrong word. Some on this group think their
opinion outweighs science.

...Jim Thompson

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,

Almost missed that jewel. Are you saying opinion outweighs
simulation?

No, just that simulation isn't reality. You know perfectly well the
level of effort required to make a decent set of models for nontrivial
devices--it sure doesn't happen by accident. All those models have to
be validated by experiment (physical and numerical), and they only work
over a limited set of input parameters. For instance, zenering a BE
junction will reduce beta, but good luck getting that into a SPICE model.

but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

Just your nose ?

You know, Jim, the last time I checked, Usenet was a public forum. If
you want your tiffs to be private, you might consider conducting them
over the phone.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jim Thompson · Jan 26, 2013

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:44:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 1/26/2013 3:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:29:38 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
[snip]

I agree that running a simulation doesn't prove a whole lot by itself,

Almost missed that jewel. Are you saying opinion outweighs
simulation?

No, just that simulation isn't reality. You know perfectly well the
level of effort required to make a decent set of models for nontrivial
devices--it sure doesn't happen by accident. All those models have to
be validated by experiment (physical and numerical), and they only work
over a limited set of input parameters. For instance, zenering a BE
junction will reduce beta, but good luck getting that into a SPICE model.

Getting a bit off-track there aren't we?

Are you claiming that my simulation isn't reality? That there's
something in this simple circuit that is black magic, such that jerks
can claim a performance not demonstrated by a simulation?

I've just been vindicated by a Marshall Leach paper.

but then I don't have a dog in this fight.

Just your nose ?

You know, Jim, the last time I checked, Usenet was a public forum. If
you want your tiffs to be private, you might consider conducting them
over the phone.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

EAGLE Netlist conversion

flipper

Guest

Ralph Barone

Guest

Tim Wescott

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Martin Riddle

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Martin Riddle

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

flipper

Guest

cameo

Guest

flipper

Guest

Guest

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor