A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I miss Jobst



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 11th 11, 08:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Helmut Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 328
Default I miss Jobst

Michael Press wrote:
`Identical' is a slippery term.


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

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
Ads
  #22  
Old April 11th 11, 08:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
kolldata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,836
Default I miss Jobst

unnngh castrol and goodyear.....

  #23  
Old April 11th 11, 09:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,202
Default I miss Jobst

In article ,
Helmut Springer wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
`Identical' is a slippery term.


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


Impossible in physical manifestations.
Requires long, careful discussion in mathematics.

--
Michael Press
  #24  
Old April 11th 11, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Helmut Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 328
Default I miss Jobst

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.


--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
  #25  
Old April 11th 11, 11:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default I miss Jobst

On 4/11/2011 6:52 AM, wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

Back when he was racing, Fabrizio Mazzoleni dominated the Tour de Farce.


http://www.bikereader.com/contributo.../fabrizio.html

Fabrizio Mazzoleni exists as long as we believe in him.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #26  
Old April 11th 11, 11:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default I miss Jobst

On Apr 10, 10:49*pm, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hoping to make a point about
the cost benefits of factory automation, I asked "If you could buy two
cell phones that were exactly identical but one was less expensive,
you'd buy that one, right?"


One girl adamantly said "No, I'd buy the more expensive one. *It would
be better."


I said "No, I'm talking about identical phones. *The only difference
would be the price."


"I'd buy the more expensive one. *More expensive things are always
better."


She's probably still a marketer's dream. *(I wonder if she rides a
bike?)


If so, I hope she believes a better-paying job always results in a
better life. *She'll need that belief to carry her through.

My wife grew up the daughter of a physician, and still recounts
another doc's daughter and her mother who believed is was beneath them
to buy anything that was marked down from its original price. *They
just wouldn't buy things on sale, no matter the specifics.

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.

Chalo


In 40 years your country will not exist, it will be the Pacifico-
Atlantean States of China through your penny-pinching.
  #27  
Old April 12th 11, 01:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default I miss Jobst

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...

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.

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?
  #28  
Old April 12th 11, 01:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,202
Default I miss Jobst

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.

--
Michael Press
  #29  
Old April 12th 11, 02:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default I miss Jobst

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
  #30  
Old April 12th 11, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default I miss Jobst

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.

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.

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?

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jobst Phil H Techniques 83 July 13th 11 12:53 AM
Jobst- we mightl never know Cicero Venatio Racing 8 February 12th 11 09:23 AM
When Jobst ... Steve Freides[_2_] Techniques 1 January 20th 11 10:28 PM
Jobst Brad Anders Racing 20 January 19th 11 06:31 PM
Jobst TriGuru55x11 Rides 1 January 19th 11 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.