#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
unnngh castrol and goodyear.....
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:23 AM |
When Jobst ... | Steve Freides[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | January 20th 11 09:28 PM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |
Jobst | TriGuru55x11 | Rides | 1 | January 19th 11 01:13 PM |