EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

good book, slightly on-topic

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - good book, slightly on-topic

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:47 pm   



One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:10 am   



On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 7:19:22 AM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:14:51 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:

On 12/27/2016 9:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.

Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, predict
tomorrow's weather or design an electronic circuit would be a fool...

"Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, [...]
design an electronic circuit would be a fool..."

Really? Then how do you propose to design a multi-thousand device
chip?


One of the many aspects of reality that Jim Thompson is out of touch with is the one that includes sarcasm.

Don Y was sending up John Larkin, not supporting his fatuous delusions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Don Y
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:14 am   



On 12/27/2016 9:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.


Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, predict
tomorrow's weather or design an electronic circuit would be a fool...

Jim Thompson
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:19 am   



On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:14:51 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:

Quote:
On 12/27/2016 9:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.

Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, predict
tomorrow's weather or design an electronic circuit would be a fool...


"Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, [...]
design an electronic circuit would be a fool..."

Really? Then how do you propose to design a multi-thousand device
chip?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Don Y
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:24 am   



On 12/27/2016 1:19 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:14:51 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:

On 12/27/2016 9:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.

Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, predict
tomorrow's weather or design an electronic circuit would be a fool...

"Yes, and anyone who would rely on models to, for example, [...]
design an electronic circuit would be a fool..."

Really? Then how do you propose to design a multi-thousand device
chip?


My point was that the failure of one alleged model (population control) doesn't
mean that ALL uses of computer models are flawed. My choice of
examples was very deliberate. :>

(how do you think the folks designing the processes work, entirely on empirical
observation? or the materials used in those processes? etc. :> )

bitrex
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:16 am   



On 12/27/2016 11:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:


One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.


My girlfriend teaches ESL at a large university in Boston, and many of
her students are the college-age children of wealthy Chinese citizens,
both members of the Party and from the business world.

She says as students they come in all types, good, bad, and indifferent,
as you might expect. On average it does seem the ones who come from more
business-oriented families have less of the "Little Emperor" mentality
and are more eager to learn and assimilate, vs. those descended from
Party ranks.

It's certainly a myth that all Asian students are somehow academic
superstars.

Having both PRC students and Taiwanese students in the same class can be
interesting; apparently the Taiwanese students mostly just lean back in
their seats, sigh, and roll their eyes heavily whenever the mainland
students give their very interesting opinions on that situation.

The biggest issue from a logistics standpoint is smartphone usage during
class - it's so problematic these days that the policy the department
has instituted is a student gets one verbal warning per semester, and
after that the professor just silently knocks off X number of points
from the student's semester participation grade every time she sees it
happen again. Savage, but the policy is no secret, and if the parents
come complaining about a grade issue, it throws the responsibility back
onto them.

Quote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.


China does have a pretty big problem in that they have something like
40% of the world's population with 7% of the world's arable land. They
need us a lot, if they want to eat.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-10/china-s-insatiable-soybean-hunger-eating-into-record-u-s-crop

bitrex
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:20 am   



On 12/27/2016 05:16 PM, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 12/27/2016 11:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:


One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

My girlfriend teaches ESL at a large university in Boston, and many of
her students are the college-age children of wealthy Chinese citizens,
both members of the Party and from the business world.


PS: if you have baller money in China you can have all the kids you like.

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:36 am   



On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:20:43 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex_at_de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 12/27/2016 05:16 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 12/27/2016 11:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:


One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

My girlfriend teaches ESL at a large university in Boston, and many of
her students are the college-age children of wealthy Chinese citizens,
both members of the Party and from the business world.

PS: if you have baller money in China you can have all the kids you like.


That's in the book: if you have an extra kid, you can pay a fine.

Get your GF the book; I think she'd like it.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

bitrex
Guest

Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:42 am   



On 12/27/2016 11:47 AM, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.


An overly simplified narrative to be sure, not least of which the fact
that Mao was long dead by the time the policy was implemented by his
successors, who had ousted the Gang of Four and worked to reverse many
of the Cultural Revolution's policies.

Mao said at one time that an unrestricted birth rate "empowered the
country" and worked against earlier attempts by the Party to institute
organized family-planning. Other times he seemed to be in favor of
population control. Like most leaders with a "cult of personality"
around them, he was consistently inconsistent about just about everything.


Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:41 am   



On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:47:58 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Quote:


One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.


How is this even remotely On Topic in an Electronics newsgroup?

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:18 am   



On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:41:33 -0800, doh_at_yipee.com wrote:

Quote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:47:58 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.

How is this even remotely On Topic in an Electronics newsgroup?


Risk-takers invent things and design circuits. I don't have any
Chinese competition, and don't expect any. The Little Emperors seem to
be risk-adverse.

And the believability of computer simulation of dynamic systems is a
serious issue in our world.

Both should be obvious.

What have you designed lately?

Why is it always the lurkers, and the people who don't design
electronics, who complain about the group content?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Steve Wilson
Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:35 am   



John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Quote:
Risk-takers invent things and design circuits. I don't have any
Chinese competition, and don't expect any.


Why have the Chinese not copied your products and put them on the market at
half price?

Why do you feel they will not do so in the future?


Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:45 am   



On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:35:47 GMT, Steve Wilson <no_at_spam.com> wrote:

Quote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Risk-takers invent things and design circuits. I don't have any
Chinese competition, and don't expect any.

Why have the Chinese not copied your products and put them on the market at
half price?


It's hard to cut the cost of service in half.

>Why do you feel they will not do so in the future?

His business isn't copying others.

bitrex
Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:58 am   



On 12/28/2016 01:35 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Risk-takers invent things and design circuits. I don't have any
Chinese competition, and don't expect any.

Why have the Chinese not copied your products and put them on the market at
half price?

Why do you feel they will not do so in the future?


It's my impression that JL's stock and trade is high-mix, low volume
boutique widgets with obscure (at least to me) purpose, with big baller
cost and big baller margins - it doesn't seem like exactly the area that
the Chinese would be interested in getting into the knockoff biz on, as
the cost of reverse engineering and setting up production of knockoffs
would likely be a substantial fraction of what the market could generate
in profits.


Guest

Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:04 am   



On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 5:19:01 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:41:33 -0800, doh_at_yipee.com wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:47:58 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



One Child, by Mei Fong. This is about the history and consequences of
the insane Chinese one-child policy. It's in the first person; the
author spends time with real victims of the program.

Two things are sort of on-topic.

One is the nature of the spoiled brats that the policy created, a
generation of "Little Emperor" non-risk-takers.

The other is how the policy was born. This was in the heyday of cruel
Malthusian stupidity like Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" book and
Mao's Cultural Revolution. Mao emptied the universities and industries
of all the smart people and sent them out to farm millet or something.
But he wanted ICBMs, so the only scientific institution untouched was
the rocket scientists. Some of them decided to do social engineering
and wrote some population simulation models to run on their primitive
computers. They decided that the only way to prevent population
catastrophe and widespread starvation was one-child; Mao was doing a
pretty good job on the starvation thing already. They ignored the few
social science people who objected, because computer models are
obviously perfect.

How is this even remotely On Topic in an Electronics newsgroup?

Risk-takers invent things and design circuits. I don't have any
Chinese competition, and don't expect any. The Little Emperors seem to
be risk-adverse.

And the believability of computer simulation of dynamic systems is a
serious issue in our world.


The climate simulations that John Larkin doesn't believe in are suspect because they don't suit the fossil carbon extraction industry. James Arthur believes their propaganda because his politics are right wing, and John Larkin foolishly believes that James Arthur knows what he is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Both of them are gullible suckers, albeit for different reasons.

Quote:
Both should be obvious.

What have you designed lately?


John Larkin actually tinkers, but calls it design.

Quote:
Why is it always the lurkers, and the people who don't design
electronics, who complain about the group content?


They aren't aware that this is primarily a social forum, and that John Larkin - as the guy who posts most content - feels free to set the tone.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - good book, slightly on-topic

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map