On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:31:44 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On 20 Jan 2006 08:24:15 -0800, amyler@eircom.net wrote: > >>can we all drop this topic please? >> >>this newsgroup is supposed to be about fpga's, not personal opinions on >>the pros and cons of working long hours versus having a work/life >>balance. >> >>Alan > >You haven't been paying attention. > >Here on S.E.D we rarely actually have a circuit problem posted by the >young'uns. > >So we old farts spend all our time debating politics. > >Ask a circuit question and I'll be happy to help. > >(But no pansy flashing LED's please ;-) > > ...Jim Thompsonhttp://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/ledpink.htm Shame about the < 10 hour life. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Re: OT:Shooting Ourselves in the Foot
Started by ●January 20, 2006
Reply by ●January 20, 20062006-01-20
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:17:45 -0500, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:>On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:38:20 +0000, the renowned Pooh Bear ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Steve Moulding wrote: >> >>> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:43D17084.F72CB119@hotmail.com... >>> > >>> > >>> > John Larkin wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:40:48 +0100, Blade <hun@hun.kom> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >Strange. I always thought that Europe is declining because we are trying >>> >> >to follow the foolish american social model. >>> >> >>> >> Europe is declining because Europeans aren't breeding. >>> > >>> > I fail to see what the population has to do with this supposed decline. >>> > >>> > Could you elaborate ? >>> > >>> > Graham >>> > >>> >>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 >> >>Hmmm... 'opinionionjournal' ! You do realise that the USA is very badly informed >>generally about the realities in Europe ? Also, I bet the writer has some >>spurious 'agenda' that influences his writing. It is simply *opinion* and badly >>informed opinion at that. >> >>Graham > >The WSJ is a neo-con controlled publication-- like the Telegraph in >the UK, only much worse. > > >Best regards, >Spehro PefhanyDid we read the same article? Or is it that leftists can't stand reading about themselves ?:-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
Reply by ●January 21, 20062006-01-21
In article <hc33t1d5gj5ng3upvu1h5vr3a750hrm2sb@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:17:45 -0500, Spehro Pefhany ><speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >>On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:38:20 +0000, the renowned Pooh Bear >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Steve Moulding wrote: >>> >>>> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:43D17084.F72CB119@hotmail.com... >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > John Larkin wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:40:48 +0100, Blade <hun@hun.kom> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >Strange. I always thought that Europe is declining because we are trying >>>> >> >to follow the foolish american social model. >>>> >> >>>> >> Europe is declining because Europeans aren't breeding. >>>> > >>>> > I fail to see what the population has to do with this supposed decline. >>>> > >>>> > Could you elaborate ? >>>> > >>>> > Graham >>>> > >>>> >>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 >>> >>>Hmmm... 'opinionionjournal' ! You do realise that the USA is very badly >informed >>>generally about the realities in Europe ? Also, I bet the writer has some >>>spurious 'agenda' that influences his writing. It is simply *opinion* and >badly >>>informed opinion at that. >>> >>>Graham >> >>The WSJ is a neo-con controlled publication-- like the Telegraph in >>the UK, only much worse. >> >> >>Best regards, >>Spehro Pefhany > >Did we read the same article? Or is it that leftists can't stand >reading about themselves ?:-) > > ...Jim ThompsonWell I agree that is a load of crap from some one with an agenda or completely blinkered. Though as an ex-military person who is a capitalist I am not left wing by any means. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●January 21, 20062006-01-21
Chris Hills wrote:> In article <hc33t1d5gj5ng3upvu1h5vr3a750hrm2sb@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> writes > >>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:17:45 -0500, Spehro Pefhany >><speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:38:20 +0000, the renowned Pooh Bear >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Steve Moulding wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:43D17084.F72CB119@hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:40:48 +0100, Blade <hun@hun.kom> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Strange. I always thought that Europe is declining because we are trying >>>>>>>>to follow the foolish american social model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Europe is declining because Europeans aren't breeding. >>>>>> >>>>>>I fail to see what the population has to do with this supposed decline. >>>>>> >>>>>>Could you elaborate ? >>>>>> >>>>>>Graham >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 >>>> >>>>Hmmm... 'opinionionjournal' ! You do realise that the USA is very badly >> >>informed >> >>>>generally about the realities in Europe ? Also, I bet the writer has some >>>>spurious 'agenda' that influences his writing. It is simply *opinion* and >> >>badly >> >>>>informed opinion at that. >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>>The WSJ is a neo-con controlled publication-- like the Telegraph in >>>the UK, only much worse. >>> >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Spehro Pefhany >> >>Did we read the same article? Or is it that leftists can't stand >>reading about themselves ?:-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > > Well I agree that is a load of crap from some one with an agenda or > completely blinkered. Though as an ex-military person who is a > capitalist I am not left wing by any means. >The doctor will tell you not to diagnose yourself. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack, you are probably a duck. As for Steyn, predictions are one thing. Can you refute any of his facts? As for military service, we have rediscovered that one-time service is not a perfect lifetime innoculation against mental rot.
Reply by ●January 21, 20062006-01-21
Bryan Hackney wrote:> As for Steyn, predictions are one thing. Can you refute any of his > facts?He has no facts. It's all in his mind. Graham
Reply by ●January 21, 20062006-01-21
On 21 Jan 2006 17:22:17 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:> >John Larkin wrote: >> On 20 Jan 2006 22:06:18 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> > >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:40:48 +0100, Blade <hun@hun.kom> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Strange. I always thought that Europe is declining because we are trying >> >> >to follow the foolish american social model. >> >> >> >> Europe is declining because Europeans aren't breeding. So far, we >> >> don't have that problem in the USA. >> > >> >Dear me. You have yet to prove that Europe is declining. >> > >> >If it were you'd have to prove that the decline was due to the failure >> >of the native Europeans to reproduce at the replacement rate - most of >> >us happen to think that the current population density would be >> >unsustainably high if we weren't importing lots of stuff, so we aren't >> >too worried about the prospect of a declining population twenty-odd >> >years from now. >> > >> >And you seen happy to neglect the malnutrition problem that you do have >> >in raising kids in the U.S. In Europe, former Yugoslavia, The Czech >> >Republic, Hungary and Romania do worse, but everybody else does >> >appreciably better. >> > >> >Persistent juvenile malnutrition isn't good for intellectual >> >development, and we do seem to see a lot of evidence of this on this >> >user group. >> >> Bill, you have evolved into a tedious ritual insult-recycling machine. >> That sounds like decline to me. > >So you can't find an answer to the juvenile malnutrition statistics -I see a lot of fat kids, but precious few skinny ones.>you seem to be declining into a sore loser ...I'm not aware of losing anything of value. John
Reply by ●January 22, 20062006-01-22
John Larkin wrote:> On 21 Jan 2006 17:22:17 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 20 Jan 2006 22:06:18 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:40:48 +0100, Blade <hun@hun.kom> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Strange. I always thought that Europe is declining because we are trying > >> >> >to follow the foolish american social model. > >> >> > >> >> Europe is declining because Europeans aren't breeding. So far, we > >> >> don't have that problem in the USA. > >> > > >> >Dear me. You have yet to prove that Europe is declining. > >> > > >> >If it were you'd have to prove that the decline was due to the failure > >> >of the native Europeans to reproduce at the replacement rate - most of > >> >us happen to think that the current population density would be > >> >unsustainably high if we weren't importing lots of stuff, so we aren't > >> >too worried about the prospect of a declining population twenty-odd > >> >years from now. > >> > > >> >And you seen happy to neglect the malnutrition problem that you do have > >> >in raising kids in the U.S. In Europe, former Yugoslavia, The Czech > >> >Republic, Hungary and Romania do worse, but everybody else does > >> >appreciably better. > >> > > >> >Persistent juvenile malnutrition isn't good for intellectual > >> >development, and we do seem to see a lot of evidence of this on this > >> >user group. > >> > >> Bill, you have evolved into a tedious ritual insult-recycling machine. > >> That sounds like decline to me. > > > >So you can't find an answer to the juvenile malnutrition statistics - > > I see a lot of fat kids, but precious few skinny ones.http://www.childinfo.org/areas/malnutrition/wasting.php 0.6 moderately wasted kids per 100,000 isn't all that many, and such kids aren't all that active, so I'm not surprised that you haven't seen them.> >you seem to be declining into a sore loser ... > > I'm not aware of losing anything of value.Until you start looking for smart engineers, and find that minority groups are under-represented. Persistent under-feeding makes kids slow long before it makes them clinically wasted. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Reply by ●January 22, 20062006-01-22
Pooh Bear wrote:> Bryan Hackney wrote: > > >>As for Steyn, predictions are one thing. Can you refute any of his >>facts? > > > He has no facts. It's all in his mind. > > Graham >With such wit and surgical analysis, what is the need for trained seals?
Reply by ●January 22, 20062006-01-22
In article <1137904787.597157.249800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> > I see a lot of fat kids, but precious few skinny ones. > > http://www.childinfo.org/areas/malnutrition/wasting.php > > 0.6 moderately wasted kids per 100,000 isn't all that many, and such > kids aren't all that active, so I'm not surprised that you haven't seen > them.You are misreading the table. It is in percent, not in per 1e5. So 6 per thousand, according to the table. But then you read the footnote, and see that 'moderately wasted' means: * Below minus two standard deviations from median weight for height of reference population If you had a 'normal distribution' (Gaussian) of weights, then you would expect 2.2% (22 per thousand) to be below the median (which would also be the mean) by more than two standard deviations. It doesn't mean that those 0.6% are or are not malnourished. Elsewhere in this thread> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message > > And you seen happy to neglect the malnutrition problem that you do have > > in raising kids in the U.S. In Europe, former Yugoslavia, The Czech > > Republic, Hungary and Romania do worse, but everybody else does > > appreciably better.But the table you cite in trying to bolster your argument has the US as having the SMALLEST reported percentage of wasting. (European countries tend to have no data listed.) Which is support for calling Americans lard-asses (which everyone does) but not for your contention that malnutrition is worse in the US than in most Euro countries. -- David M. Palmer dmpalmer@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Reply by ●January 22, 20062006-01-22
"David M. Palmer" wrote:> In article <1137904787.597157.249800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > I see a lot of fat kids, but precious few skinny ones. > > > > http://www.childinfo.org/areas/malnutrition/wasting.php > > > > 0.6 moderately wasted kids per 100,000 isn't all that many, and such > > kids aren't all that active, so I'm not surprised that you haven't seen > > them. > > You are misreading the table. It is in percent, not in per 1e5. So 6 > per thousand, according to the table. > > But then you read the footnote, and see that 'moderately wasted' means: > * Below minus two standard deviations from median weight for height of > reference population > > If you had a 'normal distribution' (Gaussian) of weights, then you > would expect 2.2% (22 per thousand) to be below the median (which would > also be the mean) by more than two standard deviations. > > It doesn't mean that those 0.6% are or are not malnourished. > > Elsewhere in this thread > > <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message > > > And you seen happy to neglect the malnutrition problem that you do have > > > in raising kids in the U.S. In Europe, former Yugoslavia, The Czech > > > Republic, Hungary and Romania do worse, but everybody else does > > > appreciably better. > > But the table you cite in trying to bolster your argument has the US as > having the SMALLEST reported percentage of wasting. (European > countries tend to have no data listed.) Which is support for calling > Americans lard-asses (which everyone does) but not for your contention > that malnutrition is worse in the US than in most Euro countries.Malnourishment can simply mean having a poor *quality* diet missing important nutrients. There isn't necessarily any correlation with 'wasting' i.e. low weight. Interestingly, the poor quality diet may result in the person feeling underfed and this can then lead to overeating and obesity. So you can end up with overweight malnourished ppl. Graham
