Electric cars

[Bob Eld]

oscillator.

Yes, which is why it's disappointing that nobody seems to be
discussing damping mechanisms, or anything else that will improve the
markets or the economy in the long term.

John

Damping mechanism are applied such as interest rates and taxing polices.
But they can only go so far. Right now we are fresh out of interest rates,
but there is still some give in taxes. But, taxes should not be lowered
during times of up swing as was done essentially taking the damping off.

Since the system is unstable, application of stimulus, damping and other
corrections must be judiciously applied as required to smooth the system.
response. Which is to say what is needed today is not what will be needed
tomorrow. Unfortunately most politicians of all stripes get in ruts and
think their philosophy always applies. That thinking exacerbates the
instabilities often making things worse than they might otherwise be.

Right now we need stimulus that crates jobs. But it is inevitable that the
resultant spending will create inflation. The trick will be to modulate it
in such a way that it works but is not over done.

 

[Bob Eld]

WHo in hell ever told you that? Your union boss?

Can you detail exactly which mechanism you're talking about?

Or do you simply not know what "laissez-faire" means?

Or are you the unionist type who can't function without the Nanny State?

The Free Market has built-in NEGATIVE feedback - if the price of your crap
is too high, then people won't buy it. Unions are terrified of competition.

Thanks,
Rich

Yes, that is one loop in the system. However, there are 100 other loops,
many with positive feedback and all with time delays. That creates an
unstable oscillatory system the closest analog being a chaotic oscillator,
look it up. All you have to do is look at the results of boom and bust
cycles, panics, recessions, the great depression, boom times and bubbles to
see that it is wildly oscillatory. What are you blind?

 

[James Arthur]

Does anybody remember when we had "checks and balances"?

Thanks,
Rich

That was the problem. Writing too many checks wrecked
our balances. Now we're just hoping for some change.

James Arthur

 

[krw]

That was the problem. Writing too many checks wrecked
our balances.

Now we're doing ten times more of the same...

Now we're just hoping for some change.

....hoping the outcome will be different.

Change we'll have. From bad to worse is change.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

competition.

Yes, that is one loop in the system. However, there are 100 other loops,
many with positive feedback and all with time delays. That creates an
unstable oscillatory system the closest analog being a chaotic oscillator,
look it up. All you have to do is look at the results of boom and bust
cycles, panics, recessions, the great depression, boom times and bubbles to
see that it is wildly oscillatory. What are you blind?

None of these is true laissez-faire capitalism. Government interference is
what screws it up.

That, and unionism: "Since we're not good enough to compete, let's just
gang up on our employer and _extort_ the money we want."

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Yes, which is why it's disappointing that nobody seems to be
discussing damping mechanisms, or anything else that will improve the
markets or the economy in the long term.

Everybody avoids the real answer - stop ripping off the wage-earners
and giving handouts to the unproductive and crooked.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Tax policy could help here. Or control theory, even. Find me a
politician who understands control theory.

I seriously doubt if you'd find one that even knows what it IS.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Right now we need stimulus that crates jobs. But it is inevitable that the
resultant spending will create inflation. The trick will be to modulate it
in such a way that it works but is not over done.

If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, they'd get rid of the
withholding tax.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

The stimulus is just more borrowing with funny money, said act being
the cure for too much borrowing with funny money.

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing(s) and
expecting different results.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Nobody]

No, just make 'em pointy on the front and smooth underneath,
that's good enough. Squared-off boxes are a serious drag.

Just make 'em SMALL. A large cross-sectional area is a serious drag.

 

[Jim Yanik]

You're showing your age ;-)

...Jim Thompson

in more ways than this one! ;-)

 

[JeffM]

said act being the cure for too much borrowing with funny money.

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing(s)
and expecting different results.

This is the best description of the problem I have seen in so few
words.

It does, however, fail to mention the lack of mandated oversight:
http://www.google.com/news?q=Citigroup+corporate-jet
http://www.google.com/news?q=bail-out+bonuses 8-|

 

[Bob Eld]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:46:06 -0800, "Bob Eld" <[email protected]>
Snip
The stimulus is just more borrowing with funny money, said act being
the cure for too much borrowing with funny money.

John

You have an extremely complex transfer function with hundreds of variables
and neither of us has any clue where the polls and zeros lie yet you make a
simplistic statement of the cause and solution which, of course is total
nonsense. Oh that it would be so simple.

We will never get a true handle on it until we start analyzing it
mathematically and applying control system theory to its stabilization. Take
politics out of it.

 

[James Arthur]

Now we're doing ten times more of the same...
Yep.


...hoping the outcome will be different.

Change we'll have. From bad to worse is change.

Change: nickels, dimes, and quarters; variation.

Checks: safeguards; financial documents.
Balances: counteracting forces; weighing instruments; account totals;
residuals or remainders.


Puns suck when you explain 'em.

Grins,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Just make 'em SMALL. A large cross-sectional area is a serious drag.

That works too, it's just unpopular. Somehow BIG has come to
be important. Not to me, but to many.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

Not in the UK. I can't remember any rioting in the last 30 years or so
which has been caused by disadvantaged ethnic majority kids. The riots
in the 1980s were afro carribean, Toxteth and Brixton, and more
recently asian, Bradford.

That is a somewhat racist perception. When white kids riot, it gets
written off as football hooligans on the loose, and nobody write
pretentious editorials about it. The Afro-Carribean riots certainly
weren't muslim in any event.

And the muslim community seems to glorify in it:

http://tv.muxlim.com/video/rv5jXPK7SNA/bradford-riots/

The London bombings weren't due to economic disadvantage.

You may not think so. It certainly wasn't a direct response to
economic disadvantage, any more than the Irish bombings used to be,
but economic disadvantage played a significant part in generating
community suppoirt for the terorists in both cases.

I haven't stated my views on the rule of law just that a law
protecting the human rights of scum is wrong.

And you don't seem to be equipped to explore the consequences of that
particular proposition, including the due process that classifies
certain individuals as scum.

The UK won't even deport
convicted criminals in case their rights are infringed.  As far as I
am concerned if you murder, rob, rape or commit violence you put
yourself outside the protection of the law.

A rather unsavour approach. Offenders do expose themselves to legally
imposed penalties, but they haven't been made outlaws for quite few
centuries now. Working out why the legal profession made this choice
might give your brain some much needed exercise.

If people cause trouble in their own country we shouldn't protect
them. That is totally different to giving asylum to innocent people.

Unfortunately, they are innocent until proved guilty, and the
editorial opinion of the Telegraph doesn't carry any legal weight.

Google for yourself if you don't like my sources.

You haven't produced any.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369

reports a slight increase in UK fertility, but if the NHS is
"struggling to cope" with this, it merely represents the long
established NHS strategy of providing the minimum service that it can
get away with - any spare capacity is seen as a waste iof money.

Forced marriage:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/nationals/forced-marriage-unit/

Government wouldn't have a unit for something that didn't happen.

It doesn't have to happen often to generate column inches and a well-
publicised government reaction.
Your Observer quote gives 200 women repatriated, and 5,000 telephone
enquiries, which reflects a minor social problem, rather than any
fertility flood-wave.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialcare/safeguarding/forcedmar...

http://www.forcedmarriage.nhs.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783351.stm

http://www.lbp.police.uk/publications/dealing_with/introduction_to.htm

http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/11/british-asian-forced-marr...

And one from the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3089375/Nine-year-old-Midlands...

Birth rate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7216988.stm

/quote

Ten years on, spending has risen to £1.6bn, with almost one baby in
four delivered to a mother born overseas.

While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by
44,000 in total since the mid-1990s, the figure for babies born to
foreign mothers has risen by 64,000 - a 77% increase which has pushed
the overall birth-rate to its highest level for 26 years.

/end quote

Since the UK population produced 690,013 babies in 2007, the figures
quoted aren't quite as dramatic as your quote makes out. It's
representative of the quality of the journalism that the reporter
doesn't bother to say that his figures represent changes in the
numbers of babies born to each group per year

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/FM1_36/FM1-No36.pdf

In any event, what I said was

and you don't seem to have noticed that none of your claims invalidate
the point that I was making.

Is the Guardian more acceptable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/08/uk.religion

/quote

The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political
spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in
Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed
"unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of
England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would
help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to
the British legal system.

/end quote

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

/quote

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts
given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to
rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those
involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with
the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or
High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be
enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

/end quote

Your problem is you are blinded by your liberalism. Or some might say
you are a quadruped moron.

Your problem is that you think you can get away with selective
quotation.

Somehow, you managed to miss this pont from the article in the Times

"The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided
that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on
their case."

which is exactly the point I made.

If I'm blinded by liberalism, I'm still not so blind that I can't
catch your puerile evasions.

 

[Charlie E.]

you neglect that the remaining original modular packs will have a reduced
capacity and short lifetime,despite your replacing individual failed packs.
Worse,they could fail and leave you stranded,potentially in the worse
possible place.

Ok, maybe I didn't make my point clearly, or everyone is saying forget
that point, I think it works like this...

Lets say that you have a modular pack composed of 80 differernt
modules. Each module has builtin control and SMPS style outputs so
that even a single module could run the system, if only for a short
time. the on-board electronics, both in each module and in the pack,
monitors each pack for its health and status. If a module's
performance drops to a certain point, it is flagged for replacement.

Now, maybe John is correct, and the individual cells all have close to
identical lifetimes, so that they will all fail within a short period.
If that is the case, then perhaps the single, monolithic pack makes
sense. However, if there is much variablility in the lifetime of
cells, then the individual modules make sense. You only need to
replace the few non-performing units (which should then be easy to
recycle/refurbish) and keep the entire pack up to standard.

So, the remaining packs may have a relatively short time to failure
once units begin to fail, but there may still be months/years on them.
There shouldn't be a single, massive failure of all the packs, which
is a possibility in a mononlifhic pack...

Charlie

 

[krw]

Change: nickels, dimes, and quarters; variation.

Checks: safeguards; financial documents.
Balances: counteracting forces; weighing instruments; account totals;
residuals or remainders.


Puns suck when you explain 'em.

Then why do so? Because they're too obvious to acknowledge doesn't
mean they have to be 'splained.

 

[Jim Yanik]

That works too, it's just unpopular. Somehow BIG has come to
be important. Not to me, but to many.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Part of it is "safety"(they want a tank),but part of it is sitting up
high,too.
They get to see over normal autos,but block the sightline of normal
cars,and also overlook(miss) cars alongside of them.I've nearly been
sideswiped many times by big SUVs because they don't see low sporty cars in
the lane next to them,despite their side mirrors.
Only MY attention has saved me.

But they trade that for less maneuverability,harder to park,easier to
rollover;IMO,they end up being MORE dangerous than a regular car.


WRT aerodynamics,cars are all getting to be more and more alike in
shape,and harder to recognize separate brands.
They're all getting uglier,too.

I wish Honda would begin making Preludes and Integras again.
Those were two great cars.

 

[Clifford Heath]

You have an extremely complex transfer function
... applying control system theory to its stabilization.

The transfer function approximations that folk are currently
applying form many of the major variables.

Analyze that!