OT: James Arthur, the perfect market and the perfect op amp

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:48:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

josephkk wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.


He just likes to bitch. As the mills improved theior saws, they had
to mill less to somooth the lumber. So, they reduced the spacing in the
saws to reduce the waste. I wonder if he's ever seen a real sawmill?

You can't read either. Get help Michael.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

I see. It's technologically impossible to produce and sell smooth
studs that are actually 2x4.

Thanks for explaining that.

Now please explain about the driveways and parkways.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

Since all the lumber companies sell undersized 2x4s, it's a
conspiracy, a RICO felony.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:41:52 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.


Since all the lumber companies sell undersized 2x4s, it's a
conspiracy, a RICO felony.

Are all standards RICO?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

I see. It's technologically impossible to produce and sell smooth
studs that are actually 2x4.

About as impossible as it is for you to act like a human. It could
be done, but no one ever expects it.

Thanks for explaining that.

Now please explain about the driveways and parkways.

Who really gives a fuck, other that those with small minds?

Driveways are where you drive a little way off the road to park.

Around here there are no parkways. We call them roads and highways.


Hopefully, the interface I need to repair my bricked 1 TB HD will be
here in a few days, so I don't have to recreate all those kill filters.


--
Subject: Spelling Lesson

The last four letters in American.........I Can
The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats

End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2012

Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

He just likes to bitch. As the mills improved their saws, they had
to mill less to somooth the lumber. So, they reduced the spacing in the
saws to reduce the waste. I wonder if he's ever seen a real sawmill?

My Grandfather Godwin had a water-powered saw mill... all kinds of leather
belts running everywhere ;-)

A guy on another newsgroup owns a 100+ year old wire brush company in
Cleavland, Ohio. Their building still has all the ceiling hung
driveshafts that drove the original machines. He was talking about
finally removing an old lathe last year, that was still belt driven.

 

[josephkk]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:32:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:09:32 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.

You seem to have a problem with literacy. Not, by any means, the first time.

I have no problem with your illiteracy. It doesn't bother me at all.

?-)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:41:29 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:32:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:09:32 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.

You seem to have a problem with literacy. Not, by any means, the first time.

I have no problem with your illiteracy. It doesn't bother me at all.

You have admitted your illiteracy. The prosecution rests.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 19, 8:32 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:51:30 +0100, Martin Brown



|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/08/2011 05:02, josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:55:01 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>  wrote:

On 16/08/2011 12:08, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:43:12 -0700 (PDT),
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

People look out for themselves, often, more than they do
their employers.  If the calculations work out in their favor
to make a quick buck and leave, they will do that.  If it
works out better to keep the job, they will do that, too.

The problem for the company is to make sure that the bonus scheme
actually encourages employees to do the right things and do them
correctly. I have lost count of the number of times that people were
motivated to do things that seriously compromised production by myopic
stock control bonuses that were quadratic on minimal end of year stock
holding. The whole company would seize up in January as supply lines
from other divisions on the same bonus scheme also deadlocked.

I saw plenty of that kind of thing in California when they were stupid
enough to still have an inventory tax.  The retailers would put on sales
each year end, often below what they paid for the goods, just to get rid
of it before tax inventory day (Jan 1st).  It jacked up supply chains and
everything.  A classic example of stupid tax policy.

There was no inventory tax in the UK. This was a classic example of
rewarding specific employees for doing things that *damaged* the
companies productivity and profitability to maximise their own bonuses.

It was a classic example of "What you measure gets controlled".

If you don't want something tax it.  If you want more of something, subsidize
it.  That's why we have so few jobs and so many poor.  ...why governments are
growing and the private sector is shrinking.  Why the UK has riots...

Sadly, taxing the poor and subsidising the rich bankrupts you in short
order, which is why Republican administrations in the US tend to run
budget deficits. They don't actually subsidise the rich, but they do
tax them less vigorously than the middle classes - as Warren Buffet
pointed out recently - and they don't actually tax the poor, but they
do take every opportunity to short-change them, which is one of the
reasons why the US poor are less likely to be able to get jobs than
their European counterparts, which Will Hutton documented a few years
ago in his book "The World We're In".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 19, 6:50 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:48:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"



mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

josephkk wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
ri...@example.net.invalid>  wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers.. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?

  Typical Larkinism BS.  2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs.  You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way.  They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work.  You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true.  They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now.  Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it.  ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions.  Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.

  He just likes to bitch. As the mills improved theior saws, they had
to mill less to somooth the lumber.  So, they reduced the spacing in the
saws to reduce the waste.  I wonder if he's ever seen a real sawmill?

My Grandfather Godwin had a water-powered saw mill... all kinds of leather
belts running everywhere ;-)

My great-grandfather Sloman (who was also William) had a one-horse-
power joinery shop, with the one horse walking in a circle, rotating
the shaft that drove all the leather belts.

I never saw it, and it was obsolete when my father was shown it - as a
small boy in the early 1920's in Adelaide in South Australia.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 19, 8:40 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"



mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
ri...@example.net.invalid>  wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?

  Typical Larkinism BS.  2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs.  You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way.  They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work.  You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

I see. It's technologically impossible to produce and sell smooth
studs that are actually 2x4.

No, but they wouldn't be much use for replacing planks in existing
structures that happen to need to be repaired. That's what standards
are all about - that, and interchangeability between suppliers.

<snipped further evidence of blindness to the obvious>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Charlie E.]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:13:59 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:08:24 -0400, "tm" <No_one_home@white-house.gov
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newsnti471cu87iljesabpt3cselnts49e6lt@4ax.com...

On top of these Keynes adds his multiplier - each worker with a new job
will spend his money at the shopkeepers' stores, who will spend their
new income yet somewhere else. The cycle repeats several times before
taxes at each transfer reduce the original sum into nothingness, for
net multiplier claimed of 1.89 or such.

Precisely 1.89? You appear to be summing geometric series run on to
infinity, having chosen to assume that 53% of the cash handed over in
each transaction become available for the next one.

The multiplier effect is silly. It says that we can prosper if only we
will spend all of our income, which precludes savings and investment.

Keynes was silly, but he especially didn't expect that we'd be buying
most of our consumables from Japan and China and OPEC.

John



Very good point.


tm

The multiplier stops at the seashore. Idiots like Obama praise
"innovation" as the way to revive the economy, but all those iPads are
made in China.

John

Speaking of why we can't do production...

I have been trying to renew my business insurance. In the past, all I
have had is just professional liability from IEEE, but it has been
pointed out to me that we should have general corporate liability as
well. After contacting several different insurance agents, we keep
getting turned dow, especially for E&O (Errors and Omissions.) Why?
Because we are now starting to produce the Rainbow Color Reader. As
soon as you actually manufacture something, most carriers wont' touch
you with a fifty foot pole!

So John, who does your insurance?

Charlie

 

On Aug 17, 9:00 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:33 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 17, 12:29 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll walk you through it.

snipped the elementary but irrelevant arithmetic

Oh dear, was that partisan? Maybe you're right. I suppose I
should've let some poly sci major predigest it for me on the Daily
Kos.

As usual, you choose to miss the point. The risk to the SS checks
should have been minmal, but the Tea Party niwits were grandstanding
in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, and Barack Obama had legitimate
anxieties about precisely how far they might go - anxieties that you
aren't likely to share, since you think that the sun shines out of the
seats of their trousers, and that's why your pontiifcations on the
subject are more than a little partisan.

Nice ramble. You've got no point. He had the money. He said
otherwise.

The money was there, at that time. That doesn't guarantee that he'd be
able to authorise the distribution of the SS cheques after the Tea
Party had gone into full-scale wrecking mode, which didn't seem
impossible at the time.

Don't you understand how stupid that is? I'm not trying to be
insulting, but please. Whip out your notebook and take some notes--
school's back in session.

The money comes in every month from payroll deductions and other
sources. Millions of payers. 2-3x times the amount needed to pay SS
and the debt service. Every month.

End of lesson.

What could a few citizens concerned about Barack's spending--and who
support SS generally--possibly have done to affect August's checks in
any way? What?

Don't ask me - ask Barack Obama, who happens to be a Harvard-educated
constitutional lawyer.

No, I'm asking you. You're the one who said it was possible (that the
Aug. 3rd SS checks be delayed for want of funds, as the President
said).

How so? How could the coffers be empty when more than double that
pours in every month?

Was every taxpayer and employer in the United States going to
simultaneously stop paying? Or was the Tea Party going to barge into
every office in America wearing ski-masks on Aug. 2nd and make off
with the loot?

Or perhaps the Tea Party might've ridden up on their horses wearing
their signature black hats and robbed the government's payroll train,
bandannas hiding their racist faces?

Or had they possibly grabbed control of the space command's secret
asteroid project and were directing it to impact the doomed Earth?
Possibly from Area 51? You've got a point there--that would be
nasty. Say it isn't so.

Do tell.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

Chemistry and English were annoying wastes of time. I took advanced
math courses, ditto.

So many scientifically inclined people hate chemistry, as I did. Then there
are a few who managed to learn it, but it seems like they had a diffeent
kind of professor. The kind who did demonstrations. I only had the kind
who wrote on the blackboard.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[josephkk]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:21:02 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:41:29 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:32:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:09:32 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.

You seem to have a problem with literacy. Not, by any means, the first time.

I have no problem with your illiteracy. It doesn't bother me at all.

You have admitted your illiteracy. The prosecution rests.

You saw the article about people that never admit error. Your attempt at
persecution is a dismal failure. The planed size has been the same for
well over 50 years. And custom cut wood has always been available.

?-)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:31:51 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:21:02 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:41:29 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:32:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:09:32 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:14:33 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:15:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?



Typical Larkinism BS. 2" X 4" are the rough cut dimensions, right
after being saw from logs. You can still buy them that way from a local
sawmill, but very few people want to use them that way. They want
milled lumber that's easier to handle, and less likely to cause injury
during construction work. You might enjoy having hundreds of splinters
in your body to become infected, but most people don't.

Except that's not true. They do *NOT* plane 1/4" off every side to make a
dimensional 2x4 (1-1/2x3-1/2), or 3/8" off the top and bottom and 1/4" off the
sides (why would lumber >2x6 be different than <=2x6?) to make a dimensional
2x8 (1-1/2x7-1/4).

At ONE TIME, a 2x4 was smaller than 2x4 because of planeing, but they start
out smaller than 2x4 now. Of course you can have lumber custom milled anyway
you want it. ...if you can afford it.

You seem to be immune to the concept of standard dimensions. Or maybe you
are not really understanding the concept of standards.

You seem to have a problem with literacy. Not, by any means, the first time.

I have no problem with your illiteracy. It doesn't bother me at all.

You have admitted your illiteracy. The prosecution rests.

You saw the article about people that never admit error. Your attempt at
persecution is a dismal failure. The planed size has been the same for
well over 50 years. And custom cut wood has always been available.

Why do you insist on showing that you can't read ("illiteracy" is too big of a
word, evidently)?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 20, 8:29 am, "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Chemistry and English were annoying wastes of time. I took advanced
math courses, ditto.

So many scientifically inclined people hate chemistry, as I did.  Then there
are a few who managed to learn it, but it seems like they had a diffeent
kind of professor.  The kind who did demonstrations.  I only had the kind
who wrote on the blackboard.

I never had any trouble with chemistry. That fact that both my parents
had bachelors degrees in chemistry - from the University of Adelaide
in the late 1930's - may have something to do with this.

Chemistry requires you to remember a lot more stuff than physics, but
if you've got a good memory that's not a problem. It's also messier
than physics, and some can find this off-putting.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 20, 3:35 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 17, 9:00 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Aug 18, 5:33 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 17, 12:29 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll walk you through it.

snipped the elementary but irrelevant arithmetic

Oh dear, was that partisan?  Maybe you're right.  I suppose I
should've let some poly sci major predigest it for me on the Daily
Kos.

As usual, you choose to miss the point. The risk to the SS checks
should have been minmal, but the Tea Party niwits were grandstanding
in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, and Barack Obama had legitimate
anxieties about precisely how far they might go - anxieties that you
aren't likely to share, since you think that the sun shines out of the
seats of their trousers, and that's why your pontiifcations on the
subject are more than a little partisan.

Nice ramble.  You've got no point.  He had the money.  He said
otherwise.

The money was there, at that time. That doesn't guarantee that he'd be
able to authorise the distribution of the SS cheques after the Tea
Party had gone into full-scale wrecking mode, which didn't seem
impossible at the time.

Don't you understand how stupid that is?  I'm not trying to be
insulting, but please.  Whip out your notebook and take some notes--
school's back in session.

The money comes in every month from payroll deductions and other
sources. Millions of payers.  2-3x times the amount needed to pay SS
and the debt service.  Every month.

End of lesson.

What could a few citizens concerned about Barack's spending--and who
support SS generally--possibly have done to affect August's checks in
any way?  What?

Don't ask me - ask Barack Obama, who happens to be a Harvard-educated
constitutional lawyer.

No, I'm asking you.  You're the one who said it was possible (that the
Aug. 3rd SS checks be delayed for want of funds, as the President
said).

Lets get real here. The President said it, and he's no fool - so
somewhere there is a document written by one of his staff explaining
how some demented Tea Party manouvre could block the distribution of
SS cheques. You won't agree with the content of the document if it
ever surfaces - because you will believe anything a Republican tells
you, and nothing that a Democrat could tell you.

Not having the services of a staff who are expert in US constitutional
law, I can't guess how the cheques might have gotten blocked. You may
know more about the subject, but your imagination won't stretch to
envisaging psychopathic behaviour by the right-wing politicans you
choose to admire.

How so?  How could the coffers be empty when more than double that
pours in every month?

Let the Tea Party loose, and they could probably find a way to block
tax collection ...

Was every taxpayer and employer in the United States going to
simultaneously stop paying?  Or was the Tea Party going to barge into
every office in America wearing ski-masks on Aug. 2nd and make off
with the loot?

It's a possibility - they do seem to be silly enough to contemplate
that kind of stunt - but I doubt that this would be the mechanism that
Barack Obama had in mind when he made the claim.

Or perhaps the Tea Party might've ridden up on their horses wearing
their signature black hats and robbed the government's payroll train,
bandannas hiding their racist faces?

I don't think that even the Tea Party is so far out of touch with
reality that they'd stage an armed raid on horse-back, but you should
keep in mind that the Boston "Tea Party" - for which the faction is
named - was just such a gesture of armed insurrection, where some of
the people involved disguised themselves as axe-wielding Mohawk
Indians, and threw 342 bales of tea into Boston Harbour.

Or had they possibly grabbed control of the space command's secret
asteroid project and were directing it to impact the doomed Earth?
Possibly from Area 51?  You've got a point there--that would be
nasty.  Say it isn't so.

Neatly making the point that you aren't equipped to envisage any
realistic way that the Tea Party politicians could have blocked the SS
cheques. Barack Obama and his staff won't be afflicted with that
particular cognitive defect.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 20, 8:29 am, "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Chemistry and English were annoying wastes of time. I took
advanced math courses, ditto.

So many scientifically inclined people hate chemistry, as I did.
Then there are a few who managed to learn it, but it seems like
they had a diffeent kind of professor. The kind who did
demonstrations. I only had the kind who wrote on the blackboard.

I never had any trouble with chemistry. That fact that both my parents
had bachelors degrees in chemistry - from the University of Adelaide
in the late 1930's - may have something to do with this.

Chemistry requires you to remember a lot more stuff than physics, but
if you've got a good memory that's not a problem. It's also messier
than physics, and some can find this off-putting.

I'm not so good at memorizing things without understanding their logical
framework.

Making a mess would have helped my memory.

I just saw your reply because google groups are filtered from my usual news
server.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22/08/2011 4:00 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:29 am, "Tom Del Rosso"<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Chemistry and English were annoying wastes of time. I took
advanced math courses, ditto.

So many scientifically inclined people hate chemistry, as I did.
Then there are a few who managed to learn it, but it seems like
they had a different kind of professor. The kind who did
demonstrations. I only had the kind who wrote on the blackboard.

I never had any trouble with chemistry. That fact that both my parents
had bachelors degrees in chemistry - from the University of Adelaide
in the late 1930's - may have something to do with this.

Chemistry requires you to remember a lot more stuff than physics, but
if you've got a good memory that's not a problem. It's also messier
than physics, and some can find this off-putting.

I'm not so good at memorizing things without understanding their logical
framework.

Me too. Chemistry includes any number of logical frameworks. The
periodic table is one of them.

Making a mess would have helped my memory.

I just saw your reply because google groups are filtered from my usual news
server.

I'm now a subscriber to Forte, which I use whenever google groups gets
too slow or too prescriptive, but Google search tools are very handy.
This response was drafted as a google groups response, but I cut and
pasted it to Forte so that you would be able to see it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen