California's Fires

On 10/26/2017 9:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

c.f. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vs NASA.
I rest my case.

Mmm. I think you give Bezos too much credit. NASA was starting from
scratch. Bezos is, as Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants.
And probably still making mistakes.

I've been friends with two NASA engineers (both avid cyclists, BTW) and
I'm the friend of a friend of a certified NASA rocket scientist, whom
I've met and talked to a few times. He's now retired but he still gets
called back from time to time to consult on certain problems.

Regarding one of Blue Origin's trademark ideas, the re-use of booster
rockets, he said "Of course we looked at that right from the beginning.
It made no economic sense." I suspect it probably makes no sense still,
but perhaps something has changed over the decades. Technology does
improve over time.

He also mentioned other situations and problems where the Blue Origin
crew contacted NASA, and NASA staff said "Oh, you're trying that? We
tried that; we could have told you it wouldn't work." I've forgotten the
details on one that I heard of, but I could check on it and report back.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:23:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:18:21 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:00:26 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

I read you posting that you were making a salary in the top 5%. I also
read that you claim to make more money then a bloke who seems to be a
rather up market Lawyer, at least I see his name on some pleadings
that seem to be rather up market.

I was making that and it is likely I'll be returning to that level pretty soon. But it's been a decade and three years of that I was unconscious to all purposes and I had my bank account go from $88,000 to $10,000. I was a complete sucker for every charity or political group to come down the pike.

Luckily my 401's were in long term investments that Morgan Stanley wouldn't let me get at.

So I do have an income separate from SS but not much.

Then you tell me that me that you have paltry $500 a month 402K
account. And then you tell us that you pay $55 for beef stake....

Your stories just don't seem to match.

Well I believe that I said that I paid that for meat at a meat market. That was two weeks of meat including $28 for skirt steaks if memory serves. Which obviously isn't great.


I'm working from memory as I see you have trimmed your own original
statement but I don't remember you stating it was two weeks of meat.
In fact I seem to remember something like "a couple of steaks". But
alas, that data is long gone.

Excuse me John - was it your understanding that I was going to eat that meat all by myself or at one sitting?

I have no idea how many were going to eat your steak, and from memory,
you didn't mention it. Just $55 for steak.

But it doesn't make much difference. You say that you are getting
along on a $500 a month 401K. That is about $16.43 a day so you spent
3 days pay to buy steak...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.

The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html

The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

Nope. Johnson & Johnson with 2016 revenues of 71.89 billion dollars is
the largest Pharmaceutical company in the world while Roche, which is
a Swiss company, had 2016 revenues of only 50.11 billion.


So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/26/2017 5:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:20:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

[...]

And MANY of the drugs that are
sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were
immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I thought it was the very reason we
have patents.

Huh? I am responding to comments about the cost of drugs. We had Jay
not understanding that the cost of developing drugs is gigantic.

I understand better than you know. My father was a pharmacist who
started out as a research chemist at Eli Lilly. My uncle was
president/CEO of Pfizer. I read the 10Ks and annual reports just to
get jaw-dropped by his compensation package. R&D was a big part of the
presentation because having a new drug in the pipeline jacks up share
value, particularly when its Viagra.

The fact that a product is the result of expensive R&D does not mean
the federal government should be prohibited from negotiating over the
purchase price of that product -- whether it's a drug or a
computer. Imagine if the USAF was prohibited from negotiating with
Boeing or Lockheed over the price of bomber.

Are you sure that would be noticeably worse? Follow the F35?

I think Tom means that this stuff is all just fine:
https://www.thenation.com/article/on...a-toilet-seat/

I read that but I don't see any details. Only a few people waving
their arms in the air and shouting.

I've recounted the story of how I inadvertently ordered some "special"
reamers and my neighbor, a procurement guy at Edwards AFB, told me
about two cases of stainless pipe being ordered that didn't fit after
being trucked across the U.S. Surprising as it may be there is a
difference in the O.D. pipe and tubing.

Not that the D.D. procurement is without blemish, quite the contrary,
but in some cases there are reasons.

The story of the $640, by the way, is

"The P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft went into service in 1962.
Twenty-five years later, in 1987, it was determined that the toilet
shroud, the cover that fits over the toilet, needed replacement. Since
the airplane was out of production this would require new tooling to
produce. These on-board toilets required a uniquely shaped, molded
fiberglass shroud that had to satisfy specifications for vibration
resistance, weight, and durability. The molds had to be specially
made, as it had been decades since their original production. The
price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to
manufacture them. Lockheed Corporation charged $34,560 for 54 toilet
covers, or $640 each.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:15:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 8:21:12 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

P.S. I just came across this on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA

Isn't the epipen nothing more than a convenience? Most people that are
going into antiphalactic shock are perfectly able to load a needle and
use it. This is not an instantaneous reaction. And if you are so
severely allergic to something that you need to carry medication with
you all the time wouldn't you be sure that the people around you would
know what to do?

So it is sort of confusing to me that people that had to do these
things for decades suddenly can't do them because there is a more
convenient method available.

Convenience in an emergency translates to survival rate. Most people
subject to anaphylactic shock are not trained nor used to injecting
themselves, much less locating the drug, figuring and measuring a dose,
and then injecting, all while rapidly deteriorating physically and
mentally.

The epipen provides a pre-measured dose, a convenient and easily
recognized method of storage, and a simple mode of operation -- you just
stab it in, through clothing, no fine control needed. It's usable by a
person in a medical emergency, or by a family member without special
training. EMTs and emergency room physicians use them too, I watched
the process when my wife went into anaphylactic shock last summer.

The big problem seems to be that it's too difficult to get competing
products approved, and too easy to milk government protected
intellectual rent. The epipen or equivalent is hardly rocket surgery.
--

Radey - if you do not understand that you have allergies of a nature that would set off anaphylactic shock why would you be carrying an epipen? And if you do surely you understand that these people would be trained in instantly recognizing the symptoms and would always carry medication and hypos.

Or do you carry an epipen around with you on the off chance that someone is going to require emergency medical treatment after eating some of John's Thai food?

Unfortunately the EpiPen won't help at all. Eating Thai food may kill
you but not from anaphylactic shock.
--
Cheers,

John B.

JB ... components are prob testing destroyed as the craft is built. Prototypes are built X times n poss periodically stressed out again during production. The there's the gee whiz there's a better way ...redo

why Rump demands inferior products ? savings are meaningless. Dork

try

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...06/N2283.2.pdf

On 10/26/2017 11:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2017 9:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

c.f. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vs NASA.
I rest my case.

Mmm. I think you give Bezos too much credit. NASA was
starting from scratch. Bezos is, as Newton said, standing on
the shoulders of giants. And probably still making mistakes.

I've been friends with two NASA engineers (both avid
cyclists, BTW) and I'm the friend of a friend of a certified
NASA rocket scientist, whom I've met and talked to a few
times. He's now retired but he still gets called back from
time to time to consult on certain problems.

Regarding one of Blue Origin's trademark ideas, the re-use
of booster rockets, he said "Of course we looked at that
right from the beginning. It made no economic sense." I
suspect it probably makes no sense still, but perhaps
something has changed over the decades. Technology does
improve over time.

He also mentioned other situations and problems where the
Blue Origin crew contacted NASA, and NASA staff said "Oh,
you're trying that? We tried that; we could have told you it
wouldn't work." I've forgotten the details on one that I
heard of, but I could check on it and report back.


From scratch? That was the Wehrmacht.
Staff transitioned to NASA later.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/27/2017 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/26/2017 11:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2017 9:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

c.f. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vs NASA.
I rest my case.

Mmm. I think you give Bezos too much credit. NASA was
starting from scratch. Bezos is, as Newton said, standing on
the shoulders of giants. And probably still making mistakes.

I've been friends with two NASA engineers (both avid
cyclists, BTW) and I'm the friend of a friend of a certified
NASA rocket scientist, whom I've met and talked to a few
times. He's now retired but he still gets called back from
time to time to consult on certain problems.

Regarding one of Blue Origin's trademark ideas, the re-use
of booster rockets, he said "Of course we looked at that
right from the beginning. It made no economic sense." I
suspect it probably makes no sense still, but perhaps
something has changed over the decades. Technology does
improve over time.

He also mentioned other situations and problems where the
Blue Origin crew contacted NASA, and NASA staff said "Oh,
you're trying that? We tried that; we could have told you it
wouldn't work." I've forgotten the details on one that I
heard of, but I could check on it and report back.


From scratch? That was the Wehrmacht.
Staff transitioned to NASA later.

Yes, good point, but they weren't "from scratch" either. We'd have to go
back through Dr. Goddard to the ancient Chinese.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 9:53:36 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2017 9:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

c.f. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vs NASA.
I rest my case.

Mmm. I think you give Bezos too much credit. NASA was starting from
scratch. Bezos is, as Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants.
And probably still making mistakes.

I've been friends with two NASA engineers (both avid cyclists, BTW) and
I'm the friend of a friend of a certified NASA rocket scientist, whom
I've met and talked to a few times. He's now retired but he still gets
called back from time to time to consult on certain problems.

Regarding one of Blue Origin's trademark ideas, the re-use of booster
rockets, he said "Of course we looked at that right from the beginning.
It made no economic sense." I suspect it probably makes no sense still,
but perhaps something has changed over the decades. Technology does
improve over time.

He also mentioned other situations and problems where the Blue Origin
crew contacted NASA, and NASA staff said "Oh, you're trying that? We
tried that; we could have told you it wouldn't work." I've forgotten the
details on one that I heard of, but I could check on it and report back.

The engineers and scientists aren't much of a problem at NASA - it's the general managers who have been politicized to the hard left for 20 years.

Every day we are being assaulted by the media and NASA and NOAA about man-made climate change. Now science knows this is pure hogwash and always has. The media is doing nothing more than what they always do - attempt to breed panic and unrest in the population so that their master can have more control. Should you not believe this let me simply give you a government pamphlet from 1941: From the US Department of Agriculture, Title, "Climate and Man: Much has been written about varying amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a possible cause of glacial periods. The theory received a fatal blow when it was realized that carbon dioxide is very selective as to the wavelengths of radiant energy it will absorb, filtering out such waves as even very minute quantities of water vapor dispose of anyway. No probable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could materially affect either the amount of insulation reaching the surface or the amount of terrestrial radiation lost to space." This is what I have been claiming since the preposterous idea of CO2 somehow affecting the weather via an increase of 100 parts per million. The science at NASA and NOAA are permanently dirtied for the pleasure of the environmentalists who have always felt that nothing could be accomplished save by the gravest of threats to humanity. Do you want to be part of the group that would destroy a large part of the world's population because "there are just too many people for this earth to support"?

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 2:22:55 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:23:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:18:21 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:00:26 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

I read you posting that you were making a salary in the top 5%. I also
read that you claim to make more money then a bloke who seems to be a
rather up market Lawyer, at least I see his name on some pleadings
that seem to be rather up market.

I was making that and it is likely I'll be returning to that level pretty soon. But it's been a decade and three years of that I was unconscious to all purposes and I had my bank account go from $88,000 to $10,000. I was a complete sucker for every charity or political group to come down the pike.

Luckily my 401's were in long term investments that Morgan Stanley wouldn't let me get at.

So I do have an income separate from SS but not much.

Then you tell me that me that you have paltry $500 a month 402K
account. And then you tell us that you pay $55 for beef stake....

Your stories just don't seem to match.

Well I believe that I said that I paid that for meat at a meat market.. That was two weeks of meat including $28 for skirt steaks if memory serves. Which obviously isn't great.


I'm working from memory as I see you have trimmed your own original
statement but I don't remember you stating it was two weeks of meat.
In fact I seem to remember something like "a couple of steaks". But
alas, that data is long gone.

Excuse me John - was it your understanding that I was going to eat that meat all by myself or at one sitting?

I have no idea how many were going to eat your steak, and from memory,
you didn't mention it. Just $55 for steak.

But it doesn't make much difference. You say that you are getting
along on a $500 a month 401K. That is about $16.43 a day so you spent
3 days pay to buy steak...

I own my own home. Therefore the only expenses I have are for insurance, taxes and maintenance. That is considerably less than rent around here.

My car is old but runs well enough. The insurance costs on it are not too bad.

Dental work is staggeringly expensive. Two teeth to be replaced by implants: A sinus lift including the scanning x-rays: $5,000, the two implants: $4,000, the actual teeth: $3,600

All of that is covered by social security so I can use the proceeds from my 401's to eat well enough as long as I cook it myself.

The electronics business has changed. They do not look for competent people any longer. They look for people with the same ideals as they have. Then they go broke.