OT Wrong advertised specifications

on 9/5/2007 9:26 PM HeyBub said the following:

Quoted message said:

HeyBub said:

Quoted message said:

There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in
case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would
be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in
NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and
One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst,
Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others.

New York is lip-deep in Walmarts.

I found a page listing state ranking.

New York has 37 WalMart SuperCenters, slightly behind Kansas and Iowa, each
with 39. But way ahead of New Mexico (28). Texas has 259.

Those are just the SuperCenters, which also sell food and have garden
and vision centers, lube and tire service, and photo studios. Regular
WalMarts have none of the extras.

Quoted message said:

But Texas has more people who need bargains than does New York.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_wal_sto_num_of_sup-lifestyle-walmart-stores-number-supercenters

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

on 9/5/2007 11:58 PM Mark Anderson said the following:

Quoted message said:

In article [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago,

There is one in Chicago now.

Quoted message said:

I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and
fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas)

WalMart is selling out America allowing the Chinese to dump goods into
this market crippling our manufacturing base. Once we can't manufacture
anything we are dependent upon foreign nations, such as China, to build
anything. One of America's greatest strengths post WWII came from its
ability to build lots and lots of [censored].

It is a law in the US that every product have its country of
manufacturing on the label, box, or other visible place.
Go into any store in the US and pick up a piece of clothing, shoes,
hardware, computer product, or just about anything else. See where it's
made. Even better, read the label on something you already bought and is
in your house. It's not just WalMart that sells outsourced products.

<rest snipped>

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

krw <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as
unformatted, which is completely useless, of course. Then depending
on what file system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a
big chunk devoted to the file system and not available for your
stuff.

No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.

hmmm, OK. But the consumer sees 300GB and gets 286GB, less is less
whatever the reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the
like.

What "same thing"?

Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what
'numbers' to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked'
good.

Celeron. Need I say more?

Celerons aren't horrible anymore, unlike the original.

Because people stopped buying them. Those old Celeron had some very
impressive MHz ratings, but ran like molasses. Same thing. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So in this case I don't blame wally world.

Of course not. WallyWorld doesn't know any more about computers than
the average reader of these groups. ;-)

Hence the point, consumers learned just enough about the 'number' game
and advertisers took advantage of that limited knowledge to sell what
looked like impressive machines cheaply.

Old saying still applies: You get what you pay for (no matter how pretty
the package.)

YMMV

Paul M. Cook said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dedicated video RAM is slower than DDR2 RAM as it uses the
restricted PCI bus speed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PCI video cards are long gone, it's years they're all on the north
bridge thanks to the AGP port.

Quoted message said:

Guess again. AGP is what is gone. PCIe is the new standard. AGP
died years ago. PICe is factors faster than AGP.

So why do you talk about "restricted PCI bus speed" ?
BTW: many of us are still using AGP, which is not dead, FYI.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moreover:
1) the RAM mounted on video cards is way faster than the system RAM
and with a superior bandwidth

Quoted message said:

Nope. The bandwidth is identical.

Nope, and naver has:
As a GPU is extremely memory intensive, an integrated solution finds itself
competing for the already slow system RAM with the CPU as it has no
dedicated video memory. System RAM may be 2 GB/s to 12.8 GB/s, yet dedicated
GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 160 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the model.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit , search
"bandwidth" and you're right on the spot)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) it is directly connected to the GPU so the GPU-to-video-memory
path is shorter, thus quicker

Quoted message said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

Shorter means "with less hops". If data has to flow between onboard video
RAM and GPU there's way less hops than from GPU to system memory via the
PCIe or AGP bus. Moreover the GPU is synchronized with onboard video RAM,
while it is not sync'ed to the system RAM, so many clock cycles will be
wasted waiting for synchronization of *every* data trasnission in both ways.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

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

Quoted message said:

In article <LyLDi.1770$s06.155@trnddc04>, "Paul M. Cook" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email hidden]...
>> >> In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
>> ><[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>> >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
>> >> >>> everything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
>speed?
>> >> >
>> >> >Waves hand!
>> >> >
>> >> >I do! I do! Pick me!
>> >>
>> >> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
>finite?
>> >
>> >First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All
>> >computers
>> >have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can
>> >only
>be
>> >passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >clock we can employ
>>
>> You think so, do you?
>>
>> 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
>> light
>> moves in a nanosecond?

[Lack of response noted]

11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a

speech

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.

Quoted message said:

>>
>> > therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
>> >are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock
>> >cycle.
>So
>> >in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace
>> >were
>1
>> >inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it
>already
>> >is.
>>
>> I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't
>> matter
>at
>> all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
>> approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>three
>> *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing
>processors
>> in that range.

[Lack of substantive response noted]

What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied
computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff.

Oh, the old "argument from authority" fallacy. Too bad that formal logic
wasn't part of *your* computer science curriculum; it was in *mine*.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length

made

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>for a faster data transfer.

No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that
"shortness means nothing".

You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong.

It

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is
factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just

plain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong.

So say you. You've provided nothing to back that up, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>If we were talking photon switches (a
>theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is
>the
>CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon
>melts
>into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
>speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a
>heat
>sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.
>
>We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast
>they
>can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps

raised

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>to
>the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.

Again:

How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?

11.8 inches

Quoted message said:

At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a

two-inch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and
three-inch signal path make a difference?

186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough.

Lack of accurate response noted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?

Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you
know?

Lack of response noted.

Give it up, Paul. You've lost the argument.

Yeah, ok whatever.
Paul

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

Quoted message said:

Paul M. Cook said:

Quoted message said:

> Dedicated video RAM is slower than DDR2 RAM as it uses the
> restricted PCI bus speed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PCI video cards are long gone, it's years they're all on the north
bridge thanks to the AGP port.

Quoted message said:

Guess again. AGP is what is gone. PCIe is the new standard. AGP
died years ago. PICe is factors faster than AGP.

So why do you talk about "restricted PCI bus speed" ?
BTW: many of us are still using AGP, which is not dead, FYI.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moreover:
1) the RAM mounted on video cards is way faster than the system RAM
and with a superior bandwidth

Quoted message said:

Nope. The bandwidth is identical.

Nope, and naver has:
As a GPU is extremely memory intensive, an integrated solution finds

itself

Quoted message said:

competing for the already slow system RAM with the CPU as it has no
dedicated video memory. System RAM may be 2 GB/s to 12.8 GB/s, yet

dedicated

Quoted message said:

GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 160 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the

model.

Quoted message said:

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit , search
"bandwidth" and you're right on the spot)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) it is directly connected to the GPU so the GPU-to-video-memory
path is shorter, thus quicker

Quoted message said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

Shorter means "with less hops". If data has to flow between onboard video
RAM and GPU there's way less hops than from GPU to system memory via the
PCIe or AGP bus. Moreover the GPU is synchronized with onboard video RAM,
while it is not sync'ed to the system RAM, so many clock cycles will be
wasted waiting for synchronization of *every* data trasnission in both

ways.

I'll just leave this conversation to you computer engineers.

Paul

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Peter A said:

Quoted message said:

According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The
company, again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans
more money than all the welfare programs combined (Social Security,
Medicare, food stamps, WIC, etc.).

"According to WalMart." Gee, the font of truth. But I agree, WalMart
has provided lower prices to many Americans. At the same time it has
lowered wages and forced a lot of people into a situation where they
have no choice but to scrounge for the very lowest prices. Often,
because their jobs have vanished thanks to WalMart.

Possibly. 95% of Walmart employees shop at Walmart.

LOL, guess why? They can't afford to shop anywhere decent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work
because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and has
pushed manufacturing overseas.

The more manufacturing we can push overseas, the better for all of us. As
Adam Smith said (I mentioned him earlier), each country should do what it
does best and when that happens each country prospers.

Define "best." In terms of China, "best" means simply "cheapest." Along
with the low price you get poison petfood, lead-tainted toys, terrible
environmental damage, workers in near-slavery situations, etc. To me,
that's far from "best."

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate protectionism just for the sake of
keeping jobs here. When imports are available that are high quality and
produced in a morally and environmentally responsible fashion, I am all
for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100
million CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works
(fuel efficiency for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including
demonstration stores in McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and
Oklahoma and California.

WalMart has indeed done various things that are good for the
environment. You miss my point, however. They do these things for one
and only one reason - to reduce costs and increase profits. All well
and good, but it's still a corporation motivated solely by greed and
not by public good. When it helps the bottom line, the environment
can go to hell. Of course, WalMart is hardly alone in this, but they
seem particularly venal and insensitive.

As for "increasing profits," every one of their demonstration stores runs at
a loss for the enviornmental test. For example, they are attempting to heat
the stores with reclaimed grease/oil/something. There is no way, according
to them, they can recover the cost of installing the system. But it's a
learning test.

A test to see if the system can save them money in the long run.

Quoted message said:

You recall that Target evicted the Salvation Army kettle people.
Walmart not
only welcomes them but often donates an employee to ring the bell if
the Army is short-handed.

Good for Target. I dislike any group that makes pushing their religion
on people part of their charity work. In any case, this was all
explained in the press. Target had nothing against the SA per se, but
felt that in fairness they would have to allow all charitable groups to
collect at their stores if they allowed any.

WalMart's support of a blatantly Christian charity is touching. I wonder
how they would support a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or atheist group
collecting money at their stores?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just trying
to justify your shopping there.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you sound like a union goon. Perhaps you resent people
working for an honest day's pay.

If only walMart would let all of its employees do so! Instead it's
forced unpaid overtime, forced off-the-clock work, and gender
discrimination.

How does WalMart treat its employees? When meatpackers at a Texas store
voted to unionize, WalMart closed all of its meatpacking operations,
putting god knows how many employees out of work. When employees at a
store in Canada voted to unionize, WalMart closed the store putting
everyone out of work.

Thanks for the interesting discussion - I've said all I have to say.

--
Peter Aitken

In article u6UDi.14794$eD5.596@trnddc07 said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <LyLDi.1770$s06.155@trnddc04>, "Paul M. Cook" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>> In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"
>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[email hidden]...
>>> >> In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
>>> ><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>>> >> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>>> >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
>>> >> >>> everything.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
>>speed?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Waves hand!
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I do! I do! Pick me!
>>> >>
>>> >> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
>>finite?
>>> >
>>> >First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All
>>> >computers
>>> >have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can
>>> >only
>>be
>>> >passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> >clock we can employ
>>>
>>> You think so, do you?
>>>
>>> 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose
>>> light
>>> moves in a nanosecond?
>
> [Lack of response noted]

11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a
length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a

speech

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985.

>>>
>>> > therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
>>> >are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock
>>> >cycle.
>>So
>>> >in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace
>>> >were
>>1
>>> >inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it
>>already
>>> >is.
>>>
>>> I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't
>>> matter
>>at
>>> all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
>>> approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>three
>>> *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing
>>processors
>>> in that range.
>
> [Lack of substantive response noted]

What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied
computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff.

Oh, the old "argument from authority" fallacy. Too bad that formal logic
wasn't part of *your* computer science curriculum; it was in *mine*.

Quoted message said:

>>
>>Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length

made

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>for a faster data transfer.
>
> No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that
> "shortness means nothing".

You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong.

It

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is
factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just

plain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong.

So say you. You've provided nothing to back that up, though.

Quoted message said:

>>If we were talking photon switches (a
>>theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is
>>the
>>CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon
>>melts
>>into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
>>speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a
>>heat
>>sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.
>>
>>We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast
>>they
>>can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps

raised

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>to
>>the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.
>
> Again:
>
> How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?

11.8 inches

> At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a

two-inch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> and
> three-inch signal path make a difference?

186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough.

Lack of accurate response noted.

Quoted message said:

> What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?
>

Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you
know?

Lack of response noted.

Give it up, Paul. You've lost the argument.

Yeah, ok whatever.

[Continued lack of response noted -- without surprise, this time]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

kpg* said:

Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.

The units of measurement are often dependent on the object being measured.
Consider "K"(ilo) vs "M"(illi). Someone used to ordering paper (measured in
"M"s) who specifies he wants a machine with "512M" of memory will not get
what he's expecting.

It is the responsibility of the buyer to conform to the industry's standard.

HeyBub said:

HeyBub said:

Quoted message said:

There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in
case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would
be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in
NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

Quoted message said:

Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and
One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst,
Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others.

Quoted message said:

New York is lip-deep in Walmarts.

I found a page listing state ranking.

New York has 37 WalMart SuperCenters, slightly behind Kansas and Iowa, each
with 39. But way ahead of New Mexico (28). Texas has 259.

But Texas has more people who need bargains than does New York.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_wal_sto_num_of_sup-lifestyle-wal...

And still, here in University-town, we have lots of local retailers
who are doing a healthy business. Carpeting, flooring, flower shops,
candy stores, drug stores, tire shops and garages, lumber yards,
landscape nurseries, appliance stores AND one of the country's best-
known non-chain bookstores (Prairie Lights) ... all of these are
possibly (probably) more expensive than Wally World or other chain
stores, but doing nicely just the same. The locally-owned shops
compete not only with a couple Wal-Marts, but also with Iowa's second
biggest mall.

What we don't have is year-round fresh produce of all kinds, given our
climate.

N.

Bill said:

Nancy2 said:

Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

Quoted message said:

N.

What makes you think it wasn't local?

Bill

The OP said "WalMart." WalMart is not a locally-owned store. It's a
WalMart-owned store. My comment could have been worded more
accurately (locally-owned, for example), but most of the readers knew
what I meant.

N.

Paul M. Cook said:

I'll just leave this conversation to you computer engineers.

Never mind luvvie. You come and 'aveanarsecuppatea🙂

Mark Anderson said:

WalMart is selling out America allowing the Chinese to dump goods into
this market crippling our manufacturing base. Once we can't
manufacture anything we are dependent upon foreign nations, such as
China, to build anything. One of America's greatest strengths post
WWII came from its ability to build lots and lots of [censored].

Do you want to go back to 1950? Think dentistry.

If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper, we should
encourage them to do so. We both benefit.

Quoted message said:

That hillbillies from Texas are fanboys of Walmart because they save a
few dollars on whatever useless [censored] they're too stupid not to buy
does not surprise me. Ironically WalMart started out selling only US
made goods and marketed itself as the ultimate American company. Too
many people probably think this is still true when in reality,
WalMart's pursuit of profits by allowing itself to be a conduit for
cheap Chinese goods could one day destroy our economy.

That's one way - the wrong way - to look at it. Our economy is far better
off with cheaper products than without.

We can have more stuff.

Consider the "poor" in the US (according to the US Census):

43% own their own homes*
80% live in air conditioned homes*
66% of these homes average 2 rooms per person
75% of poor households own a car*
97% own a color TV, 51% own 2 or more color TVs*
62% have cable or satellite TV
89% own a microwave oven*

(The items marked "*" have a significant foreign component.)

As for WW2, today's "poor" are, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds
heavier than the GIs on the beach at Normandy.

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The buying
public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention: tariffs
or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public accept the
absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get along without nails, screws,
or even thumb-tacks?

Well, maybe thumb-tacks.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:56:53 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

kpg* said:

Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.

The units of measurement are often dependent on the object being measured.
Consider "K"(ilo) vs "M"(illi).

I used to hear "M" for mega- and "m" for milli-.

Quoted message said:

Someone used to ordering paper (measured in
"M"s) who specifies he wants a machine with "512M" of memory will not get
what he's expecting.

It is the responsibility of the buyer to conform to the industry's standard.

--
110 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Terry <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

They are just padding the numbers. It is a good thing she found this
information before she packed it up and took it back for nothing.

While I agree that the advertising is misleading it is common practice
to report installed memory as opposed to 'usable' memory.

Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as

unformatted,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which is completely useless, of course. Then depending on what file
system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a big chunk devoted
to the file system and not available for your stuff.

No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.

No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs only." You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix, VMS, IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending on the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table overhead and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track. Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was one. You
fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an edge track therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut in
wedges. Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any respectable
capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is
the cluster size itself. Smaller clusters require more management but are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for ECC and
performance.

For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file overhead. A 160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just wasted space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses the
cluster size based on the partition size. You can however, change that.
You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it introduces other
issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the more wasteful. But it
really does not matter since the cost per gig is so incredibly low.

Class dismissed.

Paul

Quoted message said:

Yet another
is the fact that state and local governments have to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars annually to provide health benefits to walmart
employees.

Blame the legislators for that one. If they want to save taxpayers money,
legislators are free to cut off this supposed public health subsidy.

Peter A said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work
because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and
has pushed manufacturing overseas.

The more manufacturing we can push overseas, the better for all of
us. As Adam Smith said (I mentioned him earlier), each country
should do what it does best and when that happens each country
prospers.

Define "best." In terms of China, "best" means simply "cheapest."
Along with the low price you get poison petfood, lead-tainted toys,
terrible environmental damage, workers in near-slavery situations,
etc. To me, that's far from "best."

"Best" means the same or equivalent product for the same or less money.

Quoted message said:

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate protectionism just for the sake
of keeping jobs here. When imports are available that are high
quality and produced in a morally and environmentally responsible
fashion, I am all for it.

But what about the people (here) who WANT lower quality (at a lower price)
or who WANT children in Sri Lanka to work for twenty-five cents a day (as
opposed to starving). Rephrase: What about the people HERE who want the
standard of living of ALL countries to improve? Would you deprive them of
the opportunity.

It's difficult to believe that my buying a tennis shoe made by six-year olds
in Bangladesh who work twelve hours a day, six days a week, is improving
their lot -- but it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for "increasing profits," every one of their demonstration stores
runs at a loss for the enviornmental test. For example, they are
attempting to heat the stores with reclaimed grease/oil/something.
There is no way, according to them, they can recover the cost of
installing the system. But it's a learning test.

A test to see if the system can save them money in the long run.

Saving money is good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You recall that Target evicted the Salvation Army kettle people.
Walmart not
only welcomes them but often donates an employee to ring the bell if
the Army is short-handed.

Good for Target. I dislike any group that makes pushing their religion
on people part of their charity work. In any case, this was all
explained in the press. Target had nothing against the SA per se, but
felt that in fairness they would have to allow all charitable groups
to collect at their stores if they allowed any.

Uh, the SA is a non-prosletysing organization. As for "fairness," phooey.
Target doesn't have to be "fair." Or even courteous.

In my view, there are thing a business should not do, simply because it
offends their potential customers: Burning flags, banishing children,
supporting terrorism, not allowing employees to say "Merry Christmas," and
evicting the Salvation Army. Mind you, I'm not a Christian, but I do respect
and support national traditions.

Quoted message said:

WalMart's support of a blatantly Christian charity is touching. I
wonder how they would support a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or atheist
group collecting money at their stores?

Good point. Bottom line: Their store, their rules.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just
trying to justify your shopping there.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you sound like a union goon. Perhaps you resent people
working for an honest day's pay.

If only walMart would let all of its employees do so! Instead it's
forced unpaid overtime, forced off-the-clock work, and gender
discrimination.

How does WalMart treat its employees? When meatpackers at a Texas
store voted to unionize, WalMart closed all of its meatpacking
operations, putting god knows how many employees out of work.

Good. Texas is a right-to-scab state. Most here don't like unions. Maybe
that's why we have 300-odd Walmarts?

My ex-boss once proposed to his boss that their company hire a driver to
distribute the paychecks to the various companies for whom they prepared
payroll instead of being at the mercy of delivery services. Boss said maybe.

Couple of days later, the boss said a representative of the corporation's
president was flying in to discuss the matter.

The representative met with my guy and told him the answer was "No," but
that he deserved an explanation and that the explanation could not be
written down.

The corporation, the representative explained, had over 250,000 employees
and not a one was in a union. A "driver" would be eligible for membership in
the Teamsters and, if there ever was a disagreement, that one employee could
effectively close the entire corporation.

The company for whom my friend worked was SBC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
IBM.

The result was that SBC continued to be at the mercy of drunken or missing
delivery service drivers (who may or may not have been in the Teamsters).

Quoted message said:

When
employees at a store in Canada voted to unionize, WalMart closed the
store putting everyone out of work.

Yeah, I remember that one. A secret ballot went against the union, so the
union went to plan B: certification cards and the union got a majority with
the card certification method. Walmart closed the store; 160 people out of
work. See, it isn't the difference between $8/hr and $9/hr; it's the
difference between $8/hr and nothing (likewise in Bangladesh: $3/wk or
nothing).

Evidently Walmart doesn't like unions either. Their store, their rules.

In article [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper, we should
encourage them to do so. We both benefit.

China refuses to float its currency so its products can remain cheaper.
This is called dumping. Dumping is the practice of underpricing your
competition less than what it costs to make a product for the sole
purpose of driving them out of business. After you become the sole
provider you can jack prices up again to recoup your earlier losses.

China used this economic tool to close down the American manufacturing
base, thus weakening us. Had China floated their currency like every
other country their products wouldn't be so cheap and the trade
imbalance between US and them wouldn't be so great. Currencies float to
even out trade imbalances. Every month China increases its stake in the
US economy. Their long term goal is to hold us hostage. So far
Congress fears what China can do now if they ever choose to dump their
US debt or US dollars onto the market. The only reason they don't
because they are still building up their empire.

One day they'll buy a high tech military and weapon systems with your
money that rival or exceed ours. Meanwhile, they'll still be able to
manufacture goods and we won't. At any time they can send earthquakes
through our economy destroying more of America than any carrier fleet
loaded with cruise missiles ever could.

Quoted message said:

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The buying
public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.

Your ignorance of economics is astounding. It's not "democracy," it's
the economics stupid. People don't "vote" with their dollars, they buy
the cheapest goods. In economics 101 they teach you the concept of a
supply/demand curve. The lower the price, the higher the volume that
goes to them.

Quoted message said:

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention: tariffs
or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public accept the
absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get along without nails, screws,
or even thumb-tacks?

If China won't float their currency we should have implemented tariffs a
long time ago. It's too late now though. A trade war with China may
cause them to use some of their legal economic weapons against us --
like dumping the US dollar. We can only hope China will be a benevolent
master in the year 2025 or so when their economy exceeds ours.

But you must thank WalMart for this. They pioneered the concept of
building their entire business model around selling out America by
providing us goods for far less than they should be possible. WalMart
made huge short term profits at the expense of the US economy and US
security. Remember one old saying that's still true, "There's no free
lunch." Through conduits like WalMart we've been enjoying a free lunch
through ultra cheap prices. The tab for that bill will come in another
decade or two.

Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap DVD and TV.

In article [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Even better, read the label on something you already bought and is
in your house. It's not just WalMart that sells outsourced products.

WalMart built their business model around this concept and drastically
increased importation from China, so much so they import more from China
than entire countries. If WalMart were a country they'd be something
like China's 6th largest export partner. WalMart invaded every area of
the country driving out its competition. They dealt with suppliers
similarly. If suppliers couldn't beat the falsely lower price of
Chinese made goods, the US supplier went out of business. WalMart being
so big has that much influence on its suppliers. One by one medium to
smaller manufacturers just shut their doors because they couldn't
compete with imported goods from China.

The imported goods from China aren't necessarily cheaper though. China
manipulates their currency to make sure their goods sell cheaper in our
markets.

Strategically China wants to weaken our manufacturing capability and
they couldn't have done so without the help of WalMart. Every other
company sells Chinese goods as well but none have the market power of
WalMart -- which built itself with the help of China.

Mark Anderson <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper,
we should encourage them to do so. We both benefit.

Quoted message said:

China refuses to float its currency so its products can remain cheaper.

Yep, and Japan did exactly the same thing at one time.

Quoted message said:

This is called dumping.

Nope, dumping is something else entirely, selling stuff at below cost.

Quoted message said:

Dumping is the practice of underpricing your competition
less than what it costs to make a product

Yep.

Quoted message said:

for the sole purpose of driving them out of business.

Nope, it can also be done to get rid of excess stock.

Quoted message said:

After you become the sole provider

Doesnt ever happen.

Quoted message said:

you can jack prices up again to recoup your earlier losses.

Or its better to get something for your excess stock than nothing.

Quoted message said:

China used this economic tool to close down the American manufacturing base,

Nope, it aint been closed down, most obviously with cars and aircraft.

Quoted message said:

thus weakening us.

Wrong again. Manufacturing what china sells is a very small
part of any modern first world economy and the economy
benefits from the low cost goods from that country.

It didnt even have a significant effect on the unemployment rate
given that its still 4.x%, one of the lowest in the entire world.

Quoted message said:

Had China floated their currency like every other country

There are others that havent floated their currency.

Quoted message said:

their products wouldn't be so cheap and the trade
imbalance between US and them wouldn't be so great.

Yes, but it would still happen. Thats what Japan did eventually
and the trade imbalance was still a problem when they did.

Quoted message said:

Currencies float to even out trade imbalances.

Its MUCH more complicated than that. There is STILL a trade imbalance with Japan.

Quoted message said:

Every month China increases its stake in the US economy.

Nope, just increases their collection of US dollars.

Quoted message said:

Their long term goal is to hold us hostage.

Fantasy. Their long term goal is to provide much of the worlds manufacturered goods.

Quoted message said:

So far Congress fears what China can do now if they ever
choose to dump their US debt or US dollars onto the market.

Congress has never had a clue about that sort of thing.

Quoted message said:

The only reason they don't because they are still building up their empire.

The real reason they dont do that is because the US is their biggest
market and they arent stupid enough to damage the US economy
because that would result in less sales of what they manufacture.

Quoted message said:

One day they'll buy a high tech military and weapon
systems with your money that rival or exceed ours.

Another fantasy and it doesnt matter if they do, nukes have changed things
forever and they wont be stupid enough to try doing anything much with them.

They wont even be stupid enough to try taking Taiwan back, you watch.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile, they'll still be able to manufacture goods and we won't.

The US can manufacture again if that makes sense.

Quoted message said:

At any time they can send earthquakes through our economy destroying
more of America than any carrier fleet loaded with cruise missiles ever could.

And since the US is their biggest customer, they aint actually that stupid.

Just like the Japs never were that stupid either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The
buying public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.

Quoted message said:

Your ignorance of economics is astounding.

Yours in spades.

Quoted message said:

It's not "democracy," it's the economics stupid. People don't "vote" with their dollars,

They do effectively.

Quoted message said:

they buy the cheapest goods.

Some do, some dont.

Quoted message said:

In economics 101 they teach you the concept of a supply/demand curve.
The lower the price, the higher the volume that goes to them.

And in economics 101 they also teach about elastic
and inelastic demand, you obviously slept thru that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention:
tariffs or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public
accept the absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get
along without nails, screws, or even thumb-tacks?

Quoted message said:

If China won't float their currency we should
have implemented tariffs a long time ago.

Nope, that would just have produced higher priced goods
and they would still have come from china anyway.

Quoted message said:

It's too late now though. A trade war with China may cause them to use some
of their legal economic weapons against us -- like dumping the US dollar.

They aint that stupid, only you are.

Quoted message said:

We can only hope China will be a benevolent master in
the year 2025 or so when their economy exceeds ours.

Those with the largest economy dont get to be masters.

And while Japan did eventually end up with quite a bit of manufacturing,
the full commercialisation of virtually all technology still continued to happen
in the US first regardless. And there is no sign of that stopping any time
soon, most obviously with the internet, google, paypal etc etc etc.

Quoted message said:

But you must thank WalMart for this.

Have fun explaining how come it happened in countrys where Walmart doesnt bother with.

Quoted message said:

They pioneered the concept of building their entire business model around selling
out America by providing us goods for far less than they should be possible.

Mindlessly silly.

Quoted message said:

WalMart made huge short term profits at the expense of the US economy

The US economy is doing fine and still manages to produce an unemployment rate of 4.x%

Quoted message said:

and US security.

Mindlessly silly. The US is still the only world military power of any significance.

Quoted message said:

Remember one old saying that's still true, "There's no free lunch."

It aint about free lunches, its actually about manufacturing being
only a very small part of any modern first world economy.

Quoted message said:

Through conduits like WalMart we've been
enjoying a free lunch through ultra cheap prices.

Cant even work out the difference between free and cheap.

Quoted message said:

The tab for that bill will come in another decade or two.

The same mindless claim was made about Japan too.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap DVD and TV.

We'll be doing that forever. And we will start to see much cheaper cars eventually too.

Fools like you get to like that or lump it.