#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. And relevant to the dialogue you excised. Non sequitur, that was a thought experiment. -- MfG/Best regards helmut springer panta rhei |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. Non sequitur, that was a thought experiment. Yours is the non sequitur because your initial reply ignored and excised essential context. -- Michael Press |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I miss Jobst
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. |
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 |