I miss Jobst

On Apr 12, 2:41*am, AMuzi wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:17 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, Helmut Springer wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
The here used term "exactly identical" is clearly defined as "no
differences".
Impossible in physical manifestations.
Which is irelevant in a thought experiment.
Then it's purely hypothetical - useless and irrelevent. *The girl in
the example (long since snipped) clearly treated the question in the
practical sense. *Mr. smarmy pants thought himself very clever and
superior to suck the poor shallow thing in for yet another classic
"Frank 'n' Fredette" story, but...

Oh, bull****. *My brief point was that automation can produce more
consistent, higher quality products at lower prices, and that
industrial robots are now important tools for automation. *The girl
treated the question in a way that showed her gullibility towards
marketing, believing that _anything_ that costs more _has_ to be
better.

Not only are there no "exactly identical" products, but in the
practical world it stands to reason that batches of examples that
appear outwardly identical, but are known by upstream suppliers to
have a significantly higher potential for defects, will wind up in the
hands of some as-is and/or all-sales-final lowball discounter.

You're proving that if you try hard enough, you can not only miss the
point of the story, you can ignore the past 300 years of industrial
history.

Is it better to buy a modern electronic consumer product that's
assembled by hand or assembled by machine? *A cell phone produced in
the typical, highly automated way will be much more reliable _and_
much less expensive than would a cell phone produced by hand-soldering
the hundreds of connections to the circuit boards, if such a thing
existed. The same is true of coffeemakers, electric drills, light
bulbs, and thousands of other products. *Hell, do you think the head
of your favorite hammer was hand-filed out of a solid block of steel?
And if so, how do you think they made the file?

Yes, there is no such thing as a hand-assembled cell phone that's
"exactly identical" to one assembled by automation. *That's because
nobody would never market one assembled entirely by hand. *It would
cost far more and not work as well, if it could be made to work at
all.

Regarding your "outwardly identical, but known to have more defects"
scenario: *I was clearly talking about _completely_ identical.

Nonetheless, *you're welcome to search deep discount "as-is" retailers
for iPhone 4s that were produced in some muddy backwoods factory by
people hand carving the plastic. *Will you look online, using a hand-
carved, hand-wired computer? *Or will you shop by bike, on one made of
tubes hand-beaten out of steel refined by the puddling process?

- Frank Krygowski

Just because I cannot discern an 8 year old Scots whisky
from a 12 year bottle of the same still doesn't mean there
is no difference.

And price is certainly no indicator of quality there, but is usually
an accurate reflection of the marketing. Different distilleries reach
maturity at different ages, so age is no indication of maturity beween
distilleries. Compare Bruichladdich's new bottlings to a ten year old
Jura. Here is an example where the better product is more expensive,
but breaks the rules because the Bruichladdich is 6 or 7 year, not the
expected malt trade minimum" of ten years.


Yes, some things differ merely by marketing and margin.
Other things have not-obvious differences.
Price may or may not correspond to value or to quality.

Fancy a Johnnie Walker Blue or would you like some Black Bottle?
Many a time a Grouse is just spot on. Obviously taste in it's natural
sense plays its part here, but preference to the seller and methods is
a big influence in the market of home entertainmment and its products
of hardware and software.


Consider a critical part made from salvage ( whatever part
of the ship we melted that day with some copper, chrome,
whatever) steel as is common in India or from an AISI
certified material. It's all steel, right?

Just like all whisky's the same, to the uknowing.

On 4/11/2011 8:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:17 pm, Dan wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, Helmut wrote:

Michael wrote:
The here used term "exactly identical" is clearly defined as "no
differences".

Impossible in physical manifestations.

Which is irelevant in a thought experiment.

Then it's purely hypothetical - useless and irrelevent. The girl in
the example (long since snipped) clearly treated the question in the
practical sense. Mr. smarmy pants thought himself very clever and
superior to suck the poor shallow thing in for yet another classic
"Frank 'n' Fredette" story, but...

Oh, bull****. My brief point was that automation can produce more
consistent, higher quality products at lower prices, and that
industrial robots are now important tools for automation. The girl
treated the question in a way that showed her gullibility towards
marketing, believing that _anything_ that costs more _has_ to be
better.

Not only are there no "exactly identical" products, but in the
practical world it stands to reason that batches of examples that
appear outwardly identical, but are known by upstream suppliers to
have a significantly higher potential for defects, will wind up in the
hands of some as-is and/or all-sales-final lowball discounter.

You're proving that if you try hard enough, you can not only miss the
point of the story, you can ignore the past 300 years of industrial
history.

Is it better to buy a modern electronic consumer product that's
assembled by hand or assembled by machine? A cell phone produced in
the typical, highly automated way will be much more reliable _and_
much less expensive than would a cell phone produced by hand-soldering
the hundreds of connections to the circuit boards, if such a thing
existed. The same is true of coffeemakers, electric drills, light
bulbs, and thousands of other products. Hell, do you think the head
of your favorite hammer was hand-filed out of a solid block of steel?
And if so, how do you think they made the file?

Yes, there is no such thing as a hand-assembled cell phone that's
"exactly identical" to one assembled by automation. That's because
nobody would never market one assembled entirely by hand. It would
cost far more and not work as well, if it could be made to work at
all.[...]

I have used a lot of 4 and 5 dollar figure test equipment that is
basically hand assembled, and often wish it would be as reliable and
non-temperamental as a $40 mobile phone.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/04/2011 2:33 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

I have used a lot of 4 and 5 dollar figure test equipment that is
basically hand assembled, and often wish it would be as reliable and
non-temperamental as a $40 mobile phone.


We regularly hand assemble prototypes. The success rate and
reliablility is variable, depending on the type of components being used
in the design.

Surface mount components are not designed for easy hand assembly.
Indeed some are virtually impossible to hand assemble, and require
machine application of solder paste and an oven to reflow the solder.
Even this may not deliver good yield from production, until the oven
profile is refined to suit the product, and the only inspection
technique is x-ray.

JS.

Michael Press wrote:
The here used term "exactly identical" is clearly defined as "no
differences".

Impossible in physical manifestations.

Which is irelevant in a thought experiment.

And relevant to the dialogue you excised.

Non sequitur, that was a thought experiment.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei

Dan O wrote:
Which is irelevant in a thought experiment.

Then it's purely hypothetical - useless and irrelevent.

Of course not. A lot of exercises in logic are thought experiments,
as well as exercises to test and train understanding of principles.


The girl in the example (long since snipped) clearly treated the
question in the practical sense.

That is not a contradiction to a thought experiment.


Not only are there no "exactly identical" products,

That is to no matter to the question asked. The question works
absolutely fine with the postulate that there are, and doesn't work
nicely when you open that degree of freedom.


When your main obsession is to avoid any clear answer and just push
your point you obviously need that degree of freedom. Common
rethorical vehicle, not constructive.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei

In article ,
Helmut Springer wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
The here used term "exactly identical" is clearly defined as "no
differences".

Impossible in physical manifestations.

Which is irelevant in a thought experiment.

And relevant to the dialogue you excised.

Non sequitur, that was a thought experiment.

Yours is the non sequitur
because your initial reply
ignored and excised essential context.

--
Michael Press

thirty-six wrote:

Chalo wrote:

I believe paying unnecessarily high prices for anything is antisocial,
because it directly supports exploitative businesses that are harmful
to society, and gives them an advantage over more ethical
businesses.

In 40 years your country will not exist, it will be the Pacifico-
Atlantean States of China through your penny-pinching.

At this time, expensive things and cheap things for the US market are
both being made in China. Only the markups and profits are higher for
the expensive stuff. The additional price paid benefits scoundrels
rather than American workers.

I used to pay a surcharge for American made goods, like shoes and
housewares. Now they are scarcely to be found at any price.

Our best bet in the age of declining American wages and escalating
petroleum prices is to buy as cheaply as possible. By and by, it will
not prove feasible to ship cheap things across the Pacific and still
compete with local industry.

If you want to see how perverted a social inclination to buy domestic
products can become, look up Dov Charney.

If you agree with the statement, "I believe charging unnecessarily
high prices for anything is antisocial", then consider that paying
such prices is the same. Same transactions, same consequences.

Chalo

Dan O wrote:

Would you pay more to a seller who stocks only first-quality and will
do the right thing? *(I do.) *How about just to support a merchant
that you like. *Buy local worth anything?

Service is inherently local. Goods never are (for the purposes of
this discussion).

Even Portlanders who smugly buy Chris King products because they are
"local" ignore the fact that Chris King relocated from Northern
California to dodge taxes and labor protection laws. How righteous is
that? L.H. Thomson is an Ayn-Randroid bloviating butthole. Should
Tennesseeans be proud to "buy local" from a social Darwinist
dicktard?

Business is business. Until the people get a handle on their
overseers, the best route is to buy super cheaply when you're not
verifiably putting money directly into a worker's hand.

Chalo

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Will you look online, using a hand-carved, hand-wired computer? *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I

Couldn't help but think of it.

Chalo

thirty-six wrote:

AMuzi wrote:

It's all steel, right?

Just like all whisky's the same, to the uknowing.

Some things are best when you make your own.