Groupo Differences

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

C.J.Patten said:

It doesn't take 3 years to determine something is just poorly designed.
Durable is another matter altogether. If something is garbage from the
get-go, it may last forever but it won't ever stop sucking.

I get your point now. I thought the entire discussion was about
durability. I think you can see where I got that idea if you read the
original comment that triggered this discussion:

Jasper Janssen said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

Jasper talks about "making things that last less long." I think he was
talking about durability. You were talking about poor product design, not
durability.

Cool.

I don't see durability as directly determining quality though they *can* be
related. Build something poorly and it may not last. When I was a kid, I had
a remote control car that had a weak spot in the front chassis - if you
bumped it the right way, it failed. They ended up beefing up that spot in
later revisions. Not a performance issue, just poor design to start. 🙂

In many circles, performance is traded for longevity - race car engines,
even aircraft engines - and bike components.
A twitchy, TdF TT bike may only last a few races before it's discarded (I
just read about Lance's carbon-fiber Trek that actually cracked last year
while he was riding - he finished the race with it?) and a race car engine
may be lucky to last a single race. GREAT for them because they can shed
weight and cut times but that kind of engineering is for folks with
sponsorship. 🙂

I don't know of a present-day example in the biking world but one that comes
to mind from years ago is GT's ridiculous "700D" wheel. They literally
thought they could reinvent the wheel. It's things like that consumers need
to "just say no" to.

Purchase $'s drive capitalism. People get to vote against the "700D" wheels
of the world by withholding their cash. If we collectively do that,
manufacturers have no choice but to come up with better ideas and products -
or go out of business.

🙂

Chris

"dvt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

C.J.Patten said:

"Jasper Janssen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<edited good stuff...>

Quoted message said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

The evil is *people keep buying the stuff.*

Don't feed the beast and it dies.

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it? How
do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

Read usenet religiously.

And believe everything you read.

Lee

"Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you discern durability for your application before you try it? How
do you determine durability if your sample size is one?

Read usenet religiously.

And believe everything you read.

Now now... let's keep this civil. ;>

I'm grateful for r.b.c, r.b.t and u.r.c. For the same reason I keep a
minimum of three reference manuals on any topic, I like to hear different
views on techniques and technology. You can usually seperate personal bias
from fact when you have multiple sources to compare.

SNIP!

Quoted message said:

There is the pride in ownership too. For me, this is 100% hobby and
hobbies are to be enjoyed or why are we doing them?

I agree 100%. Some people collect bikes and don't even ride them at
all! Some folks buy carbon fiber screws to hold their bottle cages on!
Some folks scour eBay looking for vintage Maresi shoes! What ever
floats your boat.

I ride because it is fun and I like being in shape. I could accomplish
that with an old 3-speed if I wanted to, but I don't. Sometimes as I am
drifting off to sleep, I think fondly of the Pinarello hanging in my
garage. How much is that worth? Who knows, but it's worth it for me.

No reason to feel the need to justify any purchase one makes. If you
have the money and want it, buy it.

Cycling even with expensive stuff still compares favorably with other
equipment based sports in terms of actual hourly usage per dollar. It
could be much worse, think about downhill skiing or sailing!

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Cycling even with expensive stuff still compares favorably with other
equipment based sports in terms of actual hourly usage per dollar. It
could be much worse, think about downhill skiing or sailing!

Downhill skiing doesn't seem to be particularly expensive in equipment
usage -- it's mostly just a few good & expensive pieces of gear that AFAIK
don't wear out all that much, although the usage fees for the venue may be
excessive.

Sailing, though.. buying a boat is more expensive than taking $20 bills
and making a papiermache boat out of them.

Jasper

dvt said:

C.J.Patten said:

It doesn't take 3 years to determine something is just poorly designed.
Durable is another matter altogether. If something is garbage from the
get-go, it may last forever but it won't ever stop sucking.

I get your point now. I thought the entire discussion was about
durability. I think you can see where I got that idea if you read the
original comment that triggered this discussion:

Jasper Janssen said:

Gratuitously making things that last less long than an alternative part
for the same price is not so much a bad thing for bikes -- it's an
incredibly bad, if not downright *evil*, thing in any human endeavour.

Jasper talks about "making things that last less long." I think he was
talking about durability. You were talking about poor product design,
not durability.

Well, poor product design is sort of a separate sympton of the same thing,
but yes, durability was my main thrust there.

Jasper

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:34:32 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Ah yes, 'those people' have a sense of entitlement and just want to suck
off the government teat.

I call [censored]. Racist and/or classist [censored], at that.

So quick to call racist. Why not throw in hate monger too? I am citing
what ACTUALLY occured. Try reading my post next time before pulling some
knee jerk liberal epithet.

No, you are telling people your interpretation of events that you say
occurred. I'll give you long odds that you can't produce evidence backing
the whole of that claim up. It's either an inherently redneck racist
interpretation of the events, or you're lying about the whole thing in the
first place, which I wouldn't put beyond the realm of possibility.

Jasper

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jasper Janssen said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling even with expensive stuff still compares favorably with other
equipment based sports in terms of actual hourly usage per dollar. It
could be much worse, think about downhill skiing or sailing!

Downhill skiing doesn't seem to be particularly expensive in equipment
usage -- it's mostly just a few good & expensive pieces of gear that AFAIK
don't wear out all that much, although the usage fees for the venue may be
excessive.

Sailing, though.. buying a boat is more expensive than taking $20 bills
and making a papiermache boat out of them.

A yacht is a hole in the water lined with teak into which
you throw money.

--
Michael Press

Jasper Janssen said:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:34:32 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Ah yes, 'those people' have a sense of entitlement and just want to suck
off the government teat.

I call [censored]. Racist and/or classist [censored], at that.

So quick to call racist. Why not throw in hate monger too? I am citing
what ACTUALLY occured. Try reading my post next time before pulling some
knee jerk liberal epithet.

No, you are telling people your interpretation of events that you say
occurred. I'll give you long odds that you can't produce evidence backing
the whole of that claim up. It's either an inherently redneck racist
interpretation of the events, or you're lying about the whole thing in the
first place, which I wouldn't put beyond the realm of possibility.

I'm telling you what the governor of Chiuhaua (sp) told us. He said he
wanted to buy the ice maker from us, but his intended recipients said
they didn't want it.

Paul Cassel said:

Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
we live in or is it one we can implement.

what makes you think our economy will die if things don't wear out?

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Paul Cassel said:

We need the hyperactive extractive economy (unsustainable) to employ the
world's current population. We allocate according to production. With 6
billion wanting allocation, we need to have 6 billion doing *something*
which means they produce consumables.

Quoted message said:

Ah... so that is it. Why not just have everyone work a lot less since
we are so much more productive than we used to be? Plato could not
think of a way to get by without the slaves, but this is not the case
in the modern world. We have automated and efficient production... we
do not need "slaves" either foreign or domestic to sustain a very good
living standard.

I seem to have little trouble with doing basically nothing all day...
except whatever I feel like doing. I work two nights a week and that is
enough to (barely) cover my needs. If I wasn't paying rent now (and I
managed to avoid that for 12 years) I could work even less... and I'm
paying $400 a month to share a tiny efficiency!

The promise of modern civilization was that we would eventually live in
a sort of utopia with little laboring required. This has not happened.
In fact the median person in the US works more than ever for a
decreasing standard of living. This is not accidental. Though workers
are more productive, someone keeps skimming a larger amount off the
top, as in highly profitable (or paid) tasks... legal and illegal...
that are even detrimental to society. And then the price of real estate
increases to suck up any excess cash that people have earned. A few
decades ago you could not qualify for a home loan that was more than
25% of your gross yearly income. Now what is it... 60% in some areas?

Quoted message said:

The main part of the 'problem' is aesthetic. While you can I probably
can see living small, riding our bicycles around and a general quietude
as a desirable way to spend our existence, the vast majority of the
world see a Hummer running full throttle as their existence goals. Then
there is the attendant lifestyle which is concurrent with that Hummer.

They are duped into believing it will make them happy and/or
satisfied... they are brainwashed constantly. It is human nature to be
susceptible to this, but it is not human nature for everyone to become
addicted to this "life". It is being relentlessly pounded into our
skulls by those who actually profit from it.

Quoted message said:

I also think that, given the current human psyche, at any level of
consumption, the world will reproduce itself into an unsustainable
level.
Here in the US, our native population wasn't growing so we are
being over populated by immigration.

The people in the US naturally chose to have fewer offspring... but
somebody wasn't having it. Why do we have high immigration? A smaller
population does not serve someone's wishes for more, more, more.

Capitalism does not regulate itself very well... and if the government
is merely a pawn for those with the most money and influence... well,
then you have what we have now.

Paul Cassel said:

Quoted message said:

I'm telling you what the governor of Chiuhaua (sp) told us. He said he
wanted to buy the ice maker from us, but his intended recipients said
they didn't want it.

Maybe those fishermen saw no need to alter their lives? Probably wise...

Ron Ruff said:

Paul Cassel said:

I'm telling you what the governor of Chiuhaua (sp) told us. He said he
wanted to buy the ice maker from us, but his intended recipients said
they didn't want it.

Maybe those fishermen saw no need to alter their lives? Probably wise...

Could be. I don't know having heard this from the gov and not from the
fishermen themselves. I resented being said that I was lying about what
I was told, however.

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

Ah... so that is it. Why not just have everyone work a lot less since
we are so much more productive than we used to be? Plato could not
think of a way to get by without the slaves, but this is not the case
in the modern world. We have automated and efficient production... we
do not need "slaves" either foreign or domestic to sustain a very good
living standard.

I seem to have little trouble with doing basically nothing all day...
except whatever I feel like doing. I work two nights a week and that is
enough to (barely) cover my needs. If I wasn't paying rent now (and I
managed to avoid that for 12 years) I could work even less... and I'm
paying $400 a month to share a tiny efficiency!

The promise of modern civilization was that we would eventually live in
a sort of utopia with little laboring required. This has not happened.
In fact the median person in the US works more than ever for a
decreasing standard of living. This is not accidental. Though workers
are more productive, someone keeps skimming a larger amount off the
top, as in highly profitable (or paid) tasks... legal and illegal...
that are even detrimental to society. And then the price of real estate
increases to suck up any excess cash that people have earned. A few
decades ago you could not qualify for a home loan that was more than
25% of your gross yearly income. Now what is it... 60% in some areas?

Couple of things here, Ron. First, the reason folks will NOT work less
than they can is that they desire the fruits of a highly consumptive
economy even if it's not sustaining. I can envision a laid back life
with little consumption because I've already been through the high
consumption stage of my life.

I've owned gosh knows how many motorcycles, a few houses, two yachts -
heck even my own airplane. So it's easy for me to say that now at 40+,
I'm ok with settling down to a simple life which I've done. I recognize
that folks who have been hungry for the things that I've already had
don't see simple as good.

The someone who keeps skimming is the taxman. He is there not only in
direct taxation, but in two guises of indirect. The first is in
taxes,like excise, which folks don't usually see. The second is in
regulations, even hidden regs, which are tougher to quantify, but which
are there.

In addition, there are civilian skimmers such as lawyers / courts which
force certain things upon us adding to costs. Every medical procedure
has a 'lawyer tax' in procedures which we follow as 'defense' against
the contingency of a suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The main part of the 'problem' is aesthetic. While you can I probably
can see living small, riding our bicycles around and a general quietude
as a desirable way to spend our existence, the vast majority of the
world see a Hummer running full throttle as their existence goals. Then
there is the attendant lifestyle which is concurrent with that Hummer.

They are duped into believing it will make them happy and/or
satisfied... they are brainwashed constantly. It is human nature to be
susceptible to this, but it is not human nature for everyone to become
addicted to this "life". It is being relentlessly pounded into our
skulls by those who actually profit from it.

Duped or whatever, that's what they want. Jasper called me a liar for
saying that in Mexico, the citizens want to watch TV, but that's what
they want (we were told). I don't know which is the chicken or egg here.
Do folks want what we in the US want because they are duped or have
producers in the US tapped into demand? How did the Chinese get duped? I
say that because China is doing all it can to transform itself into what
looks like the US.

Iran's old line revolted in 1980 because the youth wanted to be like the
US and the Shah was going along with the trend (other reasons too).
Europe is getting to be more like the US everyday in many ways. Why is
the entire human race such a bunch of dupes?

Yeah, I agree, some of us find that theme to be unsatisfactory and self
limiting so we get off the bus. However many folks just seek faster buses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also think that, given the current human psyche, at any level of
consumption, the world will reproduce itself into an unsustainable
level.
Here in the US, our native population wasn't growing so we are
being over populated by immigration.

The people in the US naturally chose to have fewer offspring... but
somebody wasn't having it. Why do we have high immigration? A smaller
population does not serve someone's wishes for more, more, more.

Capitalism does not regulate itself very well... and if the government
is merely a pawn for those with the most money and influence... well,
then you have what we have now.

Government regulates itself even worse than capitalism. If you have
enough power in government to fully regulate, then you have the
equivalent of a huge business monopoly where the business is power. The
old Sov Union was the world's great experiment in 'public' ownership of
all production means. It didn't work too well either.

What we need is the next generation like Jefferson's. These old timers
had ORIGNIAL thoughts about government. Add what we know today to the
brains of these guys and maybe we can come up with the next gen of
government.

However, I think the prime issue is world pop.

Donald Gillies said:

Paul Cassel said:

Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
we live in or is it one we can implement.

what makes you think our economy will die if things don't wear out?

Because our economy is based on producing things which will wear out to
replace things which have worn out.

Paul Cassel said:

Donald Gillies said:

Paul Cassel said:

Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
we live in or is it one we can implement.

what makes you think our economy will die if things don't wear out?

Because our economy is based on producing things which will wear out to
replace things which have worn out.

You're talking in circles. Moreover, you claim to be *describing*
reality when in fact you are using the kind of talk proponents of the
current market economy use to *promote* that economy. There is no
inherent reason for things to be the way they are. It's a reality that
can change. In fact, it will change. The only question is will it
change in a controlled, orderly manner, or will it change through a
variety of crises and (ecologoical, political and economic) shocks. As
long as people like you keep holding out and parroting nonsense, it
looks like it'll take shocks to change. Which is unfortunate.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoting John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Donald Gillies said:

Paul Cassel <[email hidden]> writes:
>Our economy will die if things don't wear out. Yes, you and I can
>construct a synthetic economy not so based, but that's not the economy
>we live in or is it one we can implement.
What makes you think our economy will die if things don't wear out?

Because our economy is based on producing things which will wear out to
replace things which have worn out.

You're talking in circles. Moreover, you claim to be *describing*
reality when in fact you are using the kind of talk proponents of the
current market economy use to *promote* that economy.

Well, I think he *is* describing reality when he says this is the one we
live in; currently things *are* based on persistent consumption.

As for the "not one we can implement" - well, I'd like to get somewhere
sensible, but I have to admit I don't see how we get there from here
either.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Thursday, September.

Paul Cassel said:

Couple of things here, Ron. First, the reason folks will NOT work less
than they can is that they desire the fruits of a highly consumptive
economy even if it's not sustaining.

Make it disadvantagous for them to work more... this is commonly done
in many countries... and inform them that this "life" is shallow,
pointless, and destroying the world. Maybe, encourage people to pursue
some route to happiness that may have a greater chance of success.

Quoted message said:

I can envision a laid back life
with little consumption because I've already been through the high
consumption stage of my life.

Why couldn't you have simply skipped it? I think the desire to pursue
this fantasy is due to the success of marketing... in the US we are
constantly told that we need to do this.

I went through a consumptive phase right after college when I bought a
bunch of things I wanted but couldn't afford before. It lasted about
two years before I got tired of it and saw that the game wouldn't work.

Quoted message said:

The someone who keeps skimming is the taxman.

Quoted message said:

That is part of it, and I'll agree that the governments are very
inefficient at providing services compared to what they collect. But I
think the problem we've been seeing for the last few decades are things
similar to the predatory litigation you mentioned... where huge amounts
are extracted and nothing of worth is put in. That is the biggest
problem... that people who provide no actual benefit to society (often
harm) are the ones who make the most money (millions, billions). This
has been escalating, and that is the "skimming" that I'm talking
about... that results in riches for a few at the expense of the many.

Quoted message said:

I don't know which is the chicken or egg here.
Do folks want what we in the US want because they are duped or have
producers in the US tapped into demand?

What is on television... but endless commercials? Marketing is highly
successful... it is all about *creating* desire. Our society functions
on addiction, with everyone wanting us to get hooked on what they are
selling. It is advantageous to all of them (who lust for wealth and
power) to make us susceptible to getting hooked in the first place. In
fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if advanced forms of subliminal
influence are used. a fairly crude form was even proven during Bush's
first campaign, but like all the rest of his revealed methods and
motives, the matter was quickly forgotten (by the media) and never
mentioned again.

Addicts do not behave rationally... rather they are are fearful and
desperate. Why, if we are so wealthy and advanced, are these attitudes
so common?

Quoted message said:

How did the Chinese get duped? I
say that because China is doing all it can to transform itself into what
looks like the US.

The Chinese leaders saw that they were missing out on a chance to be as
wealthy as their western counterparts.

Quoted message said:

Government regulates itself even worse than capitalism.

It certianly does if it is pourly designed and implimented... without
wisdom or ethics.

Quoted message said:

If you have
enough power in government to fully regulate, then you have the
equivalent of a huge business monopoly where the business is power.

You have the *potential* for this to happen, not the neccessity.

Quoted message said:

What we need is the next generation like Jefferson's. These old timers
had ORIGNIAL thoughts about government. Add what we know today to the
brains of these guys and maybe we can come up with the next gen of
government.

Yes... but unfortunately we don't have the option of just designing a
governing system and it putting into practice... basically from
scratch. The PTB will defend the territory that they presently hold. A
revolution would be necessary, led by very wise and caring persons...
but in this day and age I imagine it would be easier than ever to nip
any movement in the bud... in the name of national security of course.

The US revolution and subsequent society were successful because there
were enough of the powerful elite with high ideals and ethics, and a
populous that could appreciate them. They tried to design a government
that would not eventually become obscenely corrupt, but it was a very
difficult task... and they failed.

Quoted message said:

However, I think the prime issue is world pop.

Sounds good... Coke or Pepsi?

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

However, I think the prime issue is world pop.

Sounds good... Coke or Pepsi?

I think we've run out of disagreement, Ron. I am ok with either...<g>

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

However, I think the prime issue is world pop.

Sounds good... Coke or Pepsi?

Royal Crown cola!
FIGHT THE POWER!

🙂

Chris "...really does taste better than the leading brands" Patten