"brittle" vs. non-ductile

[Chalo]

A Muzi wrote:
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
> >
> > A Muzi wrote:
> >>
> >> All regulation shares that aspect. If not at the outset, regulated and
> >> regulators wise up later.
> >
> > The supposedly regulated usually end up the winners, because they're
> > able to buy off the regulator and/or hire better lawyers to find lucrative
> > loopholes in the regulations. Until there's a disaster on the order of what
> > Enron did to California's power supply, anyway.
>
> Taxi drivers, surgeons, land developers, endlessly by its nature.

What you're talking about is intrinsic to corruption, not regulation.
Traffic is regulated, and it generally works better that way.
Regulation often comes first, and then corruption slips in later, as
you suggest. The fact that they are independent of each other is
illustrated by the fact that corruption tends to be rampant even where
there is no regulation.

Note that our current executive administration is anti-regulation but
pro-corruption. That's pretty much what "no-bid contract" means--
let's cut out the middleman/regulator, corrupt or not.

Chalo

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > >
> > > Chalo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have spent most of my adult life using my bike as regular
> > > > transportation. I see vanishingly few CFRP bikes in the course
> > > > of my riding around town, though I see lots and lots of other
> > > > bikes.
> > >
> > > A decade ago, you could have said all of this about aluminum*.
> > > The rarity of CFRP bikes is at least as much a function of their
> > > cost as it is their suitability for utilitarian use (about which
> > > I make no submission), and since their benefits are primarily in
> > > the realm of weight and the creation of complex (for
> > > aerodynamics) shapes, of course the performance market was the
> > > early adopter.
> >
> > I bought my first Aluminum bike, a Cannondale MTB, in 1988. It was
> > my main transportation for as long as I had it, and I began to see
> > other aluminum bikes parked in racks around town very shortly after
> > I bought mine. Around the same time, I noticed (only in shops,
> > mind you) some CFRP bikes like the Vitus and Specialized Allez
> > Epic, followed closely by Trek and Kestrel and many more behind
> > them. Aluminum bike frames may have beaten CFRP bike frames to the
> > mainstream market, but not by much. And aluminum bikes beat CFRP
> > bikes to the grocery store bike rack by 18 years and counting.
>
> The Vitus 979 was introduced in 1979. And it was by no means the
> first aluminum frame.

Indeed, there were successful aluminum bikes made in the 1930s in France
by Barra and others.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Hill wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Well, when Jay merely said this: "My brother is an avid masters MTB
>> racer and state champ who lives in
>
> Uh, to quote John Fogerty, "it ain't me" that you're quoting there.

Jay Beattie. HTH

(Judging from what followed, I can see that you think everything's about
YOU. LOL )

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 13, 2:02 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> In Oregon and Washington you get a lot of races out of the
> >> metropolitan areas and can drive a long way to ride a short race. My
> >> brother is an avid masters MTB racer and state champ who lives in
> >> Washington. He may drive hours to do a five minute down-hill race.
> >> Usually there is a cross-country race, too, but he has driven a long
> >> way to do only a brief down-hill event -- usually as a required event
> >> in some points series.
>
> > That's ridiculous. When your recreation turns into that sort of expensive
> > grind, it's time to take a good look at yourself IMHO.
>
> In my prior life, about 5.5 years of being an extremely competitive jr and
> decent cat-2 (which meant riding cat-1/pro races), I often wondered who
> those other 80 guys were. There were maybe 20 of us who consistently figured
> in the finish; the rest of the guys were some sort of filler (pack fodder).
> You saw them at the start, but rarely did any beyond the 20 or so "regulars"
> figure in the finish stats.
>
> Obviously, there's some motivation for those guys to be there. It's not
> something I could relate to, and possibly not you either. I never could
> quite figure out why they were there back in the day, but I feel a bit
> differently about it now. I can see the point to being in a race that you
> have no chance of finishing in the top-10, because maybe it's a way of
> testing yourself to see where you are. Maybe you came in 10 minutes behind
> the winners this race, but you were 15 last time. That's progress, and
> progress can keep a dream fueled.

You do it because you like it! I raced on and off for almost 20 years
and never amounted to much, but I had a good time and got to ride with
friends and do the team thing. Gas was cheap; I could get a placing if
the stars aligned. But when the kid and house came along, I just did
not have the time to train -- and I did not have the natural talent to
race without lots of training. Races turned in to death marches, so I
called it quits. I had no physical gifts -- just tenacity and desire,
and when those things went way -- fuhgeta bout it. Even if I had
talent, why ignore my family for the weekend to drive some place to
win a water bottle or crate of potato chips. Really, I once won a
dozen bags of Kettle Chips (or however many come in a shipping box).
That was the only time cycling put food on the table.-- Jay Beattie.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Jay Hill wrote:
>>>
>>> PS. You should learn-up about trans fats, there, Homer.
>>
>> Lard Police. What's next?!?
>
> There are no trans fats of any kind in lard. Almost all trans fat is
> artificial and harmful, and the coverup for it by the American food
> oil industry is why wholesome fats like coconut oil and palm oil have
> been unfairly maligned as unhealthy. The move to ban trans fats here
> and there isn't about forcing people to adopt a healthy diet (which
> would be impossible to do); it's about stopping businesses from
> feeding people things that injure them.

Coming from a morbidly obese person, I find this...ironic.

> Like Jay says, you should read up on it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat
> http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food/8F142e/8F142E0d.htm

So after you ban/outlaw that, what's next?

 

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > The move to ban trans fats here
> > and there isn't about forcing people to adopt a healthy diet (which
> > would be impossible to do); it's about stopping businesses from
> > feeding people things that injure them.
>
> Coming from a morbidly obese person, I find this...ironic.

I don't know what my body weight has to do with it. I don't eat trans
fats when I know they're there; I have good cardiovascular health and
good blood lipids, just like you'd expect from a vegetarian, skillful
cook, and regular cyclist.

The issue isn't good or bad dietary habits, it's harmful adulterants,
like the diacetyl in popcorn that recently came to light. Why would
you want to eat an ingredient that causes "popcorn worker's lung? And
why would you want to eat a dangerous hydrogenated fat when a
wholesome natural fat will do the job just as well if not better?

> So after you ban/outlaw that, what's next?

The next poisonous additive that corporate business is feeding us to
save a nickel, that's what. I wonder what sort of problem you could
possibly have with that? Before the Pure Food and Drug Act, people
got floor sweepings in their pepper, lead pigment in their cheese, and
iodine in their whiskey. We don't have to worry as much about such
stuff these days, but that's largely because of efforts like those now
being used against trans fats and diacetyl.

Chalo

 

[Bill Sornson]

Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> The move to ban trans fats here
>>> and there isn't about forcing people to adopt a healthy diet (which
>>> would be impossible to do); it's about stopping businesses from
>>> feeding people things that injure them.
>>
>> Coming from a morbidly obese person, I find this...ironic.
>
> I don't know what my body weight has to do with it. I don't eat trans
> fats when I know they're there; I have good cardiovascular health and
> good blood lipids, just like you'd expect from a vegetarian, skillful
> cook, and regular cyclist.

Not everyone /chooses/ to eat healthy foods. (Or what do-gooders pronounce
are healthy foods.)

> The issue isn't good or bad dietary habits, it's harmful adulterants,
> like the diacetyl in popcorn that recently came to light. Why would
> you want to eat an ingredient that causes "popcorn worker's lung? And
> why would you want to eat a dangerous hydrogenated fat when a
> wholesome natural fat will do the job just as well if not better?
>
>> So after you ban/outlaw that, what's next?
>
> The next poisonous additive that corporate business is feeding us to
> save a nickel, that's what. I wonder what sort of problem you could
> possibly have with that? Before the Pure Food and Drug Act, people
> got floor sweepings in their pepper, lead pigment in their cheese, and
> iodine in their whiskey. We don't have to worry as much about such
> stuff these days, but that's largely because of efforts like those now
> being used against trans fats and diacetyl.

Wait six months; some study will say they're /good for you/.

ALARMISTS AND DO-GOODERS! Aaaaccccckkkkkkk.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Chalo wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Chalo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The move to ban trans fats here and there isn't about forcing
> >>> people to adopt a healthy diet (which would be impossible to do);
> >>> it's about stopping businesses from feeding people things that
> >>> injure them.
> >>
> >> Coming from a morbidly obese person, I find this...ironic.
> >
> > I don't know what my body weight has to do with it. I don't eat
> > trans fats when I know they're there; I have good cardiovascular
> > health and good blood lipids, just like you'd expect from a
> > vegetarian, skillful cook, and regular cyclist.
>
> Not everyone /chooses/ to eat healthy foods. (Or what do-gooders
> pronounce are healthy foods.)
>
> > The issue isn't good or bad dietary habits, it's harmful
> > adulterants, like the diacetyl in popcorn that recently came to
> > light. Why would you want to eat an ingredient that causes
> > "popcorn worker's lung? And why would you want to eat a dangerous
> > hydrogenated fat when a wholesome natural fat will do the job just
> > as well if not better?
> >
> >> So after you ban/outlaw that, what's next?
> >
> > The next poisonous additive that corporate business is feeding us
> > to save a nickel, that's what. I wonder what sort of problem you
> > could possibly have with that? Before the Pure Food and Drug Act,
> > people got floor sweepings in their pepper, lead pigment in their
> > cheese, and iodine in their whiskey. We don't have to worry as
> > much about such stuff these days, but that's largely because of
> > efforts like those now being used against trans fats and diacetyl.
>
> Wait six months; some study will say they're /good for you/.
>
> ALARMISTS AND DO-GOODERS! Aaaaccccckkkkkkk.

Feel free to eat the Big Macs and the French fries and the cheese food.
Make your fried chicken and pie crusts with Crisco. Dig in. Don't let
those do-gooders get you down.

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:02:19 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Obviously, there's some motivation for those guys to be there. It's not
> something I could relate to, and possibly not you either. I never could
> quite figure out why they were there back in the day, but I feel a bit
> differently about it now. I can see the point to being in a race that you
> have no chance of finishing in the top-10, because maybe it's a way of
> testing yourself to see where you are. Maybe you came in 10 minutes behind
> the winners this race, but you were 15 last time. That's progress, and
> progress can keep a dream fueled.

The racers I ride with all regularly win or place in their grades - I know
this because detailed post-mortems of last weekend's races are always
a favourite topic! - so I don't have any insight into the amateur "pack
fodder" lifestyle.

For me there's both co-operative and competitive fun to be had in road
riding, particularly when you often ride the same courses with the same
people. There's an unspoken agreement that some of us will race each other
up certain hills or sprint for certain markers, but then we reassemble,
don't race downhill or dodge and weave on the flat. So we keep track of
our strengths and have something to stir each other over, but without the
danger or group breakups of real racing.

That's the balance of social and competitive benefits I like. If I was
racing for money, I think I'd feel pressure to buy flimsy wheels and other
light components, go out training when I didn't want to, waste money on
petrol and showy clothing, and intimidate others in order to get an
advantage. None of that appeals to me, not least because I'm not
particularly wealthy

 

[still me]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:36:44 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Feel free to eat the Big Macs and the French fries and the cheese food.
>Make your fried chicken and pie crusts with Crisco. Dig in. Don't let
>those do-gooders get you down.

Yeah, go for it Sorni, and help your like-minded friends to do the
same! (I love it when belligerence and self-imposed ignorance is used
to counter science).

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:11:29 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:

> win a water bottle or crate of potato chips. Really, I once won a
> dozen bags of Kettle Chips (or however many come in a shipping box).
> That was the only time cycling put food on the table.-- Jay Beattie.

LOL. That reminds me of the strange fact that school sports fundraising
is usually accomplished by trying to sell cheap edible garbage, such as
chips and chocolate. Even food mfrs get in on the act, offering to give
schools money if their children collect the labels from enough bottles or
tins of their fattening junk.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Wait six months; some study will say they're /good for you/.
>>
>> ALARMISTS AND DO-GOODERS! Aaaaccccckkkkkkk.
>
> Feel free to eat the Big Macs and the French fries and the cheese
> food. Make your fried chicken and pie crusts with Crisco. Dig in.
> Don't let those do-gooders get you down.

As usual, Timmy /completely/ misses the point. (Hint: just because I don't
own a gas-guzzling SUV doesn't mean I'm in favor of /banning/ them. HTH.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

still a clueless anonymous simpleton wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:36:44 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Feel free to eat the Big Macs and the French fries and the cheese
>> food. Make your fried chicken and pie crusts with Crisco. Dig in.
>> Don't let those do-gooders get you down.
>
> Yeah, go for it Sorni, and help your like-minded friends to do the
> same! (I love it when belligerence and self-imposed ignorance is used
> to counter science).

WHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

HTH

 

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> The great thing here in the USA is
>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
>> them from the time I could read at all.

> Exactly.

Not exactly.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat>

"Before 2006, consumers in the United States could not directly
determine the presence (or quantity) of trans fats in food products.
This information could only be inferred from the ingredient list,
notably from the partially hydrogenated ingredients."

"Do-gooders" at work.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> The great thing here in the USA is
>>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
>>> them from the time I could read at all.
>
>> Exactly.
>
> Not exactly.

Exactly NOT what I was replying to, but nicely misleading!

Bill "can see why poor ol' jim beam gets so exasperated" S.

 

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> The great thing here in the USA is
>>>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
>>>> them from the time I could read at all.
>>> Exactly.
>> Not exactly.
>
> Exactly NOT what I was replying to, but nicely misleading!
>
> Bill "can see why poor ol' jim beam gets so exasperated" S.
>
>

Kind of hard to know what your "exactly" was referring to since you
tacked it to a long paragraph.

My context (which you snipped) was regarding the presence of information
at all.

I understand that you are in opposition to the "nanny state" (forgive me
if I abbreviate the complexity & depth). I was merely pointing out that
information should be neutral and available, but it has taken quite a
fight to get there.

To clarify, I don't take a stand (not one that I feel like defending
here anyway) on the whole government protecting people from themselves
thing, but I do think that at least the information should be available
(which it hasn't always been). Perhaps that's too nuanced, but I am a
liberal.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> The great thing here in the USA is
>>>>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
>>>>> them from the time I could read at all.
>>>> Exactly.
>>> Not exactly.
>>
>> Exactly NOT what I was replying to, but nicely misleading!
>>
>> Bill "can see why poor ol' jim beam gets so exasperated" S.
>>
>>
>
> Kind of hard to know what your "exactly" was referring to since you
> tacked it to a long paragraph.

I see these endless back & forth arguments between you and beam, and neither
of you trim ANYTHING. (Makes them all but unreadable, BTW, but then no one
else is interested anyway.)

Yet here you decided to trim the "meat" (intended) of what Press wrote and
with which I agreed and left instead some off-hand remark about labels,
implying that that was what prompted my comment.

I repeat: nicely misleading.

Bill "almost Floggeresque" S.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 6:30 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> The great thing here in the USA is
> >>>>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
> >>>>> them from the time I could read at all.
> >>>> Exactly.
> >>> Not exactly.
>
> >> Exactly NOT what I was replying to, but nicely misleading!
>
> >> Bill "can see why poor ol' jim beam gets so exasperated" S.
>
> > Kind of hard to know what your "exactly" was referring to since you
> > tacked it to a long paragraph.
>
> I see these endless back & forth arguments between you and beam, and neither
> of you trim ANYTHING. (Makes them all but unreadable, BTW, but then no one
> else is interested anyway.)
>
> Yet here you decided to trim the "meat" (intended) of what Press wrote and
> with which I agreed and left instead some off-hand remark about labels,
> implying that that was what prompted my comment.
>
> I repeat: nicely misleading.
>
> Bill "almost Floggeresque" S.

Yet again, Bill Sornson complains about people trimming Usenet posts!

I'm continually astounded that such a standard practice confuses him!
Does he not realize that context is always available on Usenet? Does
he think nobody can remember a previous post when they read the
subsequent post? Is it because _he_ can't remember context for that
long?

Bill, if you think the context has been irreparably destroyed, don't
whine; just copy the missing phrase and restore it. But the chances
are even that is unnecessary.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>> The great thing here in the USA is
>>>>>> that food labels must list ingredients, and I have read
>>>>>> them from the time I could read at all.
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>> Not exactly.
>>> Exactly NOT what I was replying to, but nicely misleading!
>>>
>>> Bill "can see why poor ol' jim beam gets so exasperated" S.
>>>
>>>
>> Kind of hard to know what your "exactly" was referring to since you
>> tacked it to a long paragraph.
>
> I see these endless back & forth arguments between you and beam, and neither
> of you trim ANYTHING.

I frequently trim. Of course trimming exposes you to the criticism that
you're trimming context to mislead.

> (Makes them all but unreadable, BTW, but then no one
> else is interested anyway.)

If you say so.


> Yet here you decided to trim the "meat" (intended) of what Press wrote and
> with which I agreed and left instead some off-hand remark about labels,
> implying that that was what prompted my comment.
>
> I repeat: nicely misleading.

MP made several points in the paragraph you said "Exactly" to:

1) Bad food tastes bad (to him).
2) The USA is great because it labels food.
3) He doesn't eat hydrogenated fats.
3) He eats other fats.
4) He was gratified by a study that said margarine wasn't better than
butter.

The prior context was Chalo's remark that big business was/is covering
up the unhealthy effects of trans fats. Which was a response to your
"Lard Police" one-liner.

I apologize if your "Exactly" only applied to the last thing MP said
(the study), but, to me, the context indicated that you felt his remarks
were a rebuttal of the need for government regulation of food content.
My remark was in support of Chalo's previous argument that the industry
does indeed resist food labeling, which MP likes/needs to support his
strategy.

"Misleading"? I don't know. Not intentionally. Given the prior context,
singling out MP's #2 above doesn't seem so. You have to admit your
"Exactly" was a bit ambiguous.

Anyway, do you support government food labeling standards, or not? Is
labeling trans fat content part of the "Lard Police" charge?




>
> Bill "almost Floggeresque" S.
>
>

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 6:49 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ALARMISTS

Like the folks who insist we're in the fight of our lives against a
bunch of retarded jihadis?