more EE Times nonsense

Hay! That's _good_ for the warm bodies! VAT and CAP 'n' TRADE, good for the warm bodies :-)

And I don't give a f#$% ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Since your politicians are regulary bought and paid for by moneyed interests prepared to buy enough TV advertising to get them re- elected, it was also predictable.

You keep forgetting that that the US health care busniess is horribly inefficient - costing half again as much per head as the French and German equivalents, which cover everybody and deliver rather better public health statistics.

Obama can expect to force them into saving loads of money as he manoeuvres the US system into looking more like its French and German equivalents.

It's not all that difficult to make an extravagantly wasteful system more cost effective when you've got a couple of superior systems to copy.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Where? Their web-site doesn't show any such release.

A responsible review which you can't actually point to?

Where did you get your misinformation?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That's our John Fields. He can't counter the argument, so he lists the typos that his spell-checker has found for him. It's a pity he can't afford a logic checker.

All irrelevant. John wants to translate his credibility in areas that he does know something about into credibiity in areas that he clearly knows very little about. You are silly enough to fall for the implicit argument, and dim enough to think that repeating it anything but a waste of bandwidth.

Granting that you can't process most of the content, you are reduced to comforting yourself with the idea that the stuff you can't understand is stuff that isn't worth understanding.

d by real-world feedback.

=A0 =A0 I've got no problem saying that John is good at circuit design - not brilliant perhaps, but certainly competent. It's when he gets away from circuit design that he starts posting ill-informed nonsense. The areas in which he is demonstably incompetent include that "tiny slice of reality" not involving fast electronics - biology, and politcal history for starters.

Somebody else might need it, and could have employed me as a buying agent? The "win" for me is then rather less certain.

nce.

From what little you understand of what I post here, you may have formed that opinion. You've probably got an equally interesting and useful opinion about string theory, but at least you don't waste bandwidth of posting it.

Dream on.

to

You've got a funny idea of what constitutes a tiny slice of reality.

You do like to think that I'm intellectually dishonest, but when I have provoked you into producing a specific example, the problem turned out to be your restricted understanding of what was actually being said.

Enjoy your delusions.

As I've mentioned above, you do get excited about typos. Your spelling checker can recognise them. More complicated counter-arguments are a little beyond you.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

bar...

It's called "queue-jumping" in the U.K. and widely frowned upon. Since the medical insurance model that Obama seems to favour is more closely based on Bismark's system - as used in Germany, France and the Netherlands, the U.K. National Health system has no relevance to the US situation.

You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking about.

I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely to bother.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That's certainly Obama's position.

Yep, then whine about the results so you can put more "rules" in place to fleece the taxpayer. That's the Obama way.

How many VIP boxes does that buy?

I heard a tight-lipped Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on some PBS show comment that it was too bad Obama didn't do anything about cost. They called it "a lost opportunity."

I was surprised to see Kaiser Permanente's website seemed in favor of the thing. The bill has some pretty stiff prohibitions on physician- owned hospitals, which I thought they were.

OTOH, existing POH are grandfathered, and there's a curiously complicated formula about who's exempt. You know, like when you get a customer to write you into their spec?

IIRC it was the CBO that estimated insurance rates will go up 15-17%, and total national spending on health care to increase 3% from 17% to

I think they're dreaming, but then, by law, they have to go by the assumptions they're given.

James

I'm mixed on whether Goldman was dirty on this one. They, after all, invested in the thing themselves, and lost $90M on it. That doesn't sound like they thought it was doomed. If anything, it sounds like they didn't get their money's worth from Paulson, whom they paid $15M to choose the holdings.

Wrong. The banker, Goldman Sachs, lost.

Interestingly, Goldman's CEO has been having lots of chats with Obama-- multiple visits to the White House.

It all looks like a play to pass Obama's latest takeover, with its brain-dead built-in bailout fund. That's guaranteed stupid--it saves companies it shouldn't, gives the Executive dictatorial powers over private companies, and invites corruption, as private companies will exist only at the whim of the Executive.

It's embarrassing.

James Arthur

My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be the best source for such manure, don't you?

Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not so inclined.

James Arthur

Street.

banker.

Maybe we can compare notes, a friend mailed this to me:

=A0=A0=A0=A0Goldman vs. SEC Porter=20 Stansberry, 4-19-2010

=A0On 02-24-2010, We wrote that: Goldman =A0eventually admitted it had insured roughly $20 billion worth of=20 subprime CDOs with AIG and had major exposure to the firm. But the New=20 York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs never revealed this critical=20 fact: Goldman didn't merely buy insurance on a bunch of random subprime=20 CDOs. It actually bought insurance on special CDOs it had put together=20 and sold to its own clients. In other words, Goldman knew more about=20 these CDOs than anyone else. Goldman bought insurance on these CDOs=20 because it knew they'd collapse. This is tantamount to building a=20 house, planting a bomb in it, selling it to an unsuspecting buyer, and=20 buying $20 billion worth of life insurance on the homeowner ? who you=20 know is going to die!=20

These facts all came to light because of research done by the office of=20 Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight =A0and Government Reform. These new documents will certainly lead to a=20 full investigation of the Goldman-AIG dealings and the subsequent $180=20 billion bailout led by the New York Federal Reserve. My bet? Heads will=20 roll. If you own Goldman Sachs, you'd better sell. ? Porter=20 Stansberry

=A0Last week, the SEC targeted Goldman Sachs in a=20 civil fraud case. The lawsuit alleges Goldman sold investors a=20 collateralized debt obligation (CDO) linked to the performance of=20 certain mortgages without disclosing John Paulson's hedge fund, Paulson=20 & Co, helped design the product and was betting against those=20 mortgages.=20

=A0Paolo Pellegrini, Paulson's lead mortgage=20 analyst, worked with Goldman to pick a group of mortgages most likely to =A0be downgraded. Paulson & Co then paid Goldman $15 million for the=20 service. ACA Financial, a bond insurance company, made a few changes to=20 the structure of the product. Then Goldman sold these to its clients,=20 who readily bought because of their triple-A rating. John Paulson made=20 $1 billion from his bets against this particular mortgage product, named =A0Abacus. The buyers, which included ACA Financial and the German bank=20 IKB, lost $1 billion.=20

requires

could

money.

Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy of the result from the link.

res

A bill which, as you have been at pains to explain to us, involves some 1000 pages of intricate horse-trading. It would seem to be complicated enough that you will be able to read it any way you like - and we already know the way you will want to interpret every apparent internal conflict.

Your reading is a litle too obviously partisan to be remotely useful. Find a source that might be condisdered objective, or shut up.

You've been explaining your reading of the bill for quite some time now. There an obvious anti-Obama bias in your point of view, which makes your observations utterly predictable. They tell us more than we need to know about your intellectual integrity - non-existent - and absolutey nothing about the bill beyond the obvious fact that you loathe it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

h -

to

ich

the

There's nothing derogatory about that point - we all have to mind our P's and Q's with respect to the truth of claims that we make to our customers.

Since John Larkin regularly posts nonsense when he isn't posting about stuff that he sells, his somewhat gnomic claim that "truth is his business" (which doesn't imply that he "searches for truth", as you claim) did need to be qualified.

You have got it into your head that my formulation is derogatory, but you do have a tendency to read non-existent meanings into the text that you read, and a history of posting huge volumes of irrelevant verbiage about what you've imagined has been said.

What "truth"?

Since you know remarkably little about post-555 electronic design, and absolutely nothing about about designing fast (as in needing to treat the tracks as transmission lines) or precise electronics, your opinion about my competence in electronic design is just bluster, and merely reflects your capacity for self-delusion.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John, its not nice to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man !

Jamie

te:

ote:

ruth -

rs

try to

which

"if"

th the

's

Perhaps. but I don't lie, and still have to put up with your unsupported and irrational claims that I do.

I saw it is nonsense because it is wrong. I disagree with incorect statements as a matter of course. The evidence that John is wrong is fairly straightforward - his scheme requires that the genome knows which of its genes have muatated recently, and there's no mechanism by which the genetic machinery could know this, let alone act on it. John doesn't know enough to appreciate this, and I don't imagine that you are any better equipped than he is.

You will - of course - describe this "as muddying the water with irrelevant tripe" which is your way of saying that you don't understand the argument.

John Larkin's claim that "truth is his business" does depend on him recognising truth when he sees it. Outside of electronics, he doesn't know enough to recogise "truth" with any kind of reliability, and it becomes a particularly empty claim.

Honest egomaniacs who worry about their self-image are less easy to persuade.

A claim that founders on the fact that I do post mistakes from time to time - nowhere near as often as you'd like to think - and when someone points this out I post an apology and thank them for the correction.

The most recent example was the fifth post in the thread "Very low frequency 100 microvolt/sec triangle ramp with adjustable limits and slope" on the 29th January 2010. The next post in the thread was a comment from you expressing surprise, which you do seem to have forgotten.

This makes your comment a mistake, for which you need to apologise.

Which happens to be a lie - see above.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

te:

th -

y to

hich

if"

h the

's

to

ry

John Fields might be cleverer than me - though I doubt it - but his memory is clearly less reliable than mine. It does put him at a disadvantage, and one that he doesn't seem to be conscious of, the more so because his lapses of memory do seem to be somewhat selective.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen