Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue



Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> From the times I have been in the shop, I think Andrew likes
>>>>>>> bicycles too much [1] to be a really good capitalist. ;)

>
>>>>> still me who? wrote:
>>>>>> Your implied definition has more to do with a certain lack of
>>>>>> morals combined with greed than it does with a romantic attachment
>>>>>> to the business one is in. I know some CEO's who are passionate
>>>>>> about their business - yet they are still, as an average, a bunch
>>>>>> of greedy bastards that will do anything to anyone to boost the
>>>>>> bottom line....

>
>>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I wonder if Andrew would make more money running a more mainstream
>>>>> TrekSpecializedGiantEtc bike store with a standard inventory,
>>>>> rather than a store with odd specialty bicycles and a large
>>>>> inventory of uncommon parts? Such a store, however, would be much
>>>>> LESS interesting to run (and to shop at).

>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> Andrew's shop is exactly the type of bike shop I just love to go
>>>> into. You can spend hours wandering around in there discovering
>>>> things in the nooks and crannies.

>
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> I was at one time in the Trek Top Ten, 4 stores, fifty employees.

>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> And which is more enjoyable?

>
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> That is a completely different business than what I do now.
>>> Choices, Tom. Freedom to Choose.

>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> No, there is a limited freedom to choose, since there is a (US) policy
>> of less than full employment. Combine that with most employers having
>> the resources to survive a significant time without (at least some of
>> their) employees, but most employees NOT having the resources to
>> survive long without a job, the playing field is far from equal. The
>> freedom is mostly theoretical for those who are not independently
>> wealthy.

>
> Not sure where you are but in the country in which I live,


Land of beer, butter burgers, bratwurst and black & white dairy cows.

> unemployment is a record lows.


Head east and stop about 10 miles before getting to the lake. Visit
Metcalfe Park or Avenues West. See what the job prospects are.

> Job creation is strong in a growing economy. Heck
> we've absorbed a few million new immigrants while simultaneously keeping
> employment high, inflation low. What do you want beyond perfection????


The decent paying jobs that existed in this country during the more
economically progressive 1950's to 1970's would be a start. As a
professional I earn about what someone could make doing much less
skilled work 40 years ago.

> Friends in the convenience store business complain of labor shortages at
> $9 to start. OK, maybe not as spiritually fulfilling as some jobs but in
> my experience a paycheck is better than *****ing.


$9/hour is less than (US) minimum wage would be if it had been indexed
to inflation from its inception. Try to rent a single bedroom apartment
in Madison and also eat on that income. When I lived in Madison in the
mid-1990's, I made $8/hour at my full time job, and had to work 20+
hours at a second job just to get by. And no, I did not spend ANY money
on entertainment or luxuries, and the places I lived in were old and run
down (though not in the worst neighborhoods, i.e. Allied Drive, Simpson
Street, Badger Road).

> And yes I have worked
> many jobs of that ilk. So-called 'entry level' jobs teach valuable
> skills and more importantly build character.


I learned that many of the manager/owner employers are petty tyrants
that treat employees as fungible at best, and outlets for their temper
at worst. The only low-wage job I ever had where I was treated decently
was at Rayovac.

> Absolutely no excuse for being unemployed unless that is what one
> chooses. For some people crack has more appeal than rent. Choices.


I was talking about living wage jobs where the employees are treated
with some degree of respect.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, capitalism sucks, but up till now has managed to suck less
>>>>>> than the alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Capitalism doesn't suck IMHO. There need to be constraints placed
>>>>> upon it for certain things (worker safety, for example).
>>>>
>>>> It does suck at distributing wealth. Often (usually) the creation of
>>>> new wealth favors the already wealthy ("It takes money to make
>>>> money."). That's a fundamental flaw with capitalism. It is
>>>> responsive but not particularly fair.
>>>>
>>>> And it has no built-in ethics.
>>>>
>>>> And it favors externalization of costs.
>>>>
>>>>> What sucks is anti-competitive monopolistic practices which are not
>>>>> the "natural" processes you claim they are- they are in fact
>>>>> anti-market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, there are different monopolies that come about different ways.
>>>> As I explained, those businesses that follow the "network model" are
>>>> naturally monopoly prone. If you want to debate that, please do.
>>>>
>>>>> That is a key role for government in regulating the market because
>>>>> monopolies always result in stagnation in innovation.
>>>>
>>>> So does government regulation.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't described your non-MS utopia.
>>>
>>> Without capital formation you don't get long term mortgages for the
>>> average guy nor risk capital for advancement of science/culture. True
>>> growth is nearly impossible without it. And without growth you have
>>> stasis - unacceptable if we assume the opportunity for economic
>>> advancement should be open to all.
>>>
>>> Name your poison but 'equality' usually ends with 'cut the heads off
>>> the tall ones'. Freedom is always best. To have meaning and to have
>>> worth, freedom has to include freedom to fail.

>>
>> But the true agenda of the real political right is not maximization of
>> their wealth but domination of others. The quest to control others has
>> been true of almost all political/economic systems at all times. "Free
>> market" economies are not truly free markets, and "communist"
>> countries are/were anything but communist.
>>
>> No worries about the current dominant system, since it depends on
>> growth which the planet can NOT sustain, and is guaranteed to fail
>> unless another vacant planet comes along to plunder. The world of 2107
>> with a population of a few tens of millions (yes, millions) will be a
>> radically different place.

>
> Perhaps the tides (of perception) may change. An interesting article
> (from 12 years ago) on the flaws of using GDP vs. GPI (Genuine Progress
> Index)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator>
> <http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm>
> <http://www.redefiningprogress.org/projects/gpi/> as a measure of progress:
>
> <http://www.rprogress.org/newmedia/articles/9510_atlantic.pdf>
>
> "The GDP would tell us that life has gotten progressively better since
> the early 1950s--that young adults today are entering a better economic
> world than their parents did. GDPper American has more than doubled over
> that time. The GPI shows a very different picture: an upward curve from
> the early fifties until about 1970, but a gradual decline of roughly 45
> percent since then. This strongly suggests that the costs of increased
> economic activity--at least the kind we are locked into now --have begun
> to outweigh the benefits, resulting in growth that is actually uneconomic."
>
> "Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what we now call growth or
> GDP is really just one of three things in disguise: fixing blunders and
> social decay from the past, borrowing resources from the future, or
> shifting functions from the traditional realm of household and community
> to the realm of the monetized economy."....


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

It is interesting to note that the decline in GPI occurred in concert
with the dominance of the political right in national politics (in the
US). Heck, David Stockman later admitted that the goal of Reagan's
"Supply-Side" aka "Voodoo Economics" [1] was to transfer wealth to the
rich.

[1] As George H.W. Bush so aptly termed it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, capitalism sucks, but up till now has managed to suck less
>>>>>> than the alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Capitalism doesn't suck IMHO. There need to be constraints placed
>>>>> upon it for certain things (worker safety, for example).
>>>>
>>>> It does suck at distributing wealth. Often (usually) the creation of
>>>> new wealth favors the already wealthy ("It takes money to make
>>>> money."). That's a fundamental flaw with capitalism. It is
>>>> responsive but not particularly fair.
>>>>
>>>> And it has no built-in ethics.
>>>>
>>>> And it favors externalization of costs.
>>>>
>>>>> What sucks is anti-competitive monopolistic practices which are not
>>>>> the "natural" processes you claim they are- they are in fact
>>>>> anti-market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, there are different monopolies that come about different ways.
>>>> As I explained, those businesses that follow the "network model" are
>>>> naturally monopoly prone. If you want to debate that, please do.
>>>>
>>>>> That is a key role for government in regulating the market because
>>>>> monopolies always result in stagnation in innovation.
>>>>
>>>> So does government regulation.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't described your non-MS utopia.
>>>
>>> Without capital formation you don't get long term mortgages for the
>>> average guy nor risk capital for advancement of science/culture. True
>>> growth is nearly impossible without it. And without growth you have
>>> stasis - unacceptable if we assume the opportunity for economic
>>> advancement should be open to all.
>>>
>>> Name your poison but 'equality' usually ends with 'cut the heads off
>>> the tall ones'. Freedom is always best. To have meaning and to have
>>> worth, freedom has to include freedom to fail.

>>
>> But the true agenda of the real political right is not maximization of
>> their wealth but domination of others. The quest to control others has
>> been true of almost all political/economic systems at all times. "Free
>> market" economies are not truly free markets, and "communist"
>> countries are/were anything but communist.
>>
>> No worries about the current dominant system, since it depends on
>> growth which the planet can NOT sustain, and is guaranteed to fail
>> unless another vacant planet comes along to plunder. The world of 2107
>> with a population of a few tens of millions (yes, millions) will be a
>> radically different place.

>
> Perhaps the tides (of perception) may change. An interesting article
> (from 12 years ago) on the flaws of using GDP vs. GPI (Genuine Progress
> Index)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator>
> <http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm>
> <http://www.redefiningprogress.org/projects/gpi/> as a measure of progress:
>
> <http://www.rprogress.org/newmedia/articles/9510_atlantic.pdf>
>
> "The GDP would tell us that life has gotten progressively better since
> the early 1950s--that young adults today are entering a better economic
> world than their parents did. GDPper American has more than doubled over
> that time. The GPI shows a very different picture: an upward curve from
> the early fifties until about 1970, but a gradual decline of roughly 45
> percent since then. This strongly suggests that the costs of increased
> economic activity--at least the kind we are locked into now --have begun
> to outweigh the benefits, resulting in growth that is actually uneconomic."
>
> "Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what we now call growth or
> GDP is really just one of three things in disguise: fixing blunders and
> social decay from the past, borrowing resources from the future, or
> shifting functions from the traditional realm of household and community
> to the realm of the monetized economy."....


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

It is interesting to note that the decline in GPI occurred in concert
with the dominance of the political right in national politics (in the
US). Heck, David Stockman later admitted that the goal of Reagan's
"Supply-Side" aka "Voodoo Economics" [1] was to transfer wealth to the
rich.

[1] As George H.W. Bush so aptly termed it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
> Andrew Muzi wrote: blah blah blah
>> Peter Cole wrote: blah blah blah
>>> Tim McNamara wrote: blah blah blah
>>>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote: blah blah blah


Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> No worries about the current dominant system, since it depends on growth
> which the planet can NOT sustain, and is guaranteed to fail unless
> another vacant planet comes along to plunder. The world of 2107 with a
> population of a few tens of millions (yes, millions) will be a radically
> different place.


I don't usually quote Galbraith but "In the long run, we're all dead."

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:15:01 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Aug 3, 5:33 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14 -0700, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
>> >think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
>> >for TT bikes or anywhere else?

>>
>> I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
>> (rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my apt,
>> ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies used to
>> get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top domestic pro
>> team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor read about that.
>> Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my day (steel fork on a
>> team OCLV frame is an example).
>>
>> I haven't been at a top-level TT though .

>
>Did you ever just ask a pro mechanic what type of glue they use?


No.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:16:27 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>t any comparison of
>tubulars against clinchers requires additionally as the first step
>that testing be done to discover the optimal glue and gluing technique
>for best rr.


....that is safe.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
> Andrew Muzi wrote:blah blah blah
>>>>>> still me who? wrote: blah blah blah
>>>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote: blah blah blah
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: blah blah blah


Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> I learned that many of the manager/owner employers are petty tyrants
> that treat employees as fungible at best, and outlets for their temper
> at worst. The only low-wage job I ever had where I was treated decently
> was at Rayovac.
> I was talking about living wage jobs where the employees are treated
> with some degree of respect.


Employers don't get far being petty tyrants, it's a model that doesn't
work well (low productivity, low creativity, high employee theft, etc).
I've seen major changes in just 20 years in that regard all through the
economy.

But, hey, as jimbeam notes elsewhere nearby, opportunity knocks! Since
you perceive supply, demand and desire, become an employer!!! Arrange a
startup and change the world! You'll be able to pay high wages with your
gratefully overproductive help. You, Tom Sherman, can show up a few
million benighted business owners with your wisdom. And profit by it!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Aug 4, 3:56 pm, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> It does suck at distributing wealth. Often (usually) the creation of new
> wealth favors the already wealthy ("It takes money to make money.").
> That's a fundamental flaw with capitalism. It is responsive but not
> particularly fair.


I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
continued flow of dirt cheap energy.

Robert
 
> On Aug 4, 3:56 pm, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It does suck at distributing wealth. Often (usually) the creation of new
>> wealth favors the already wealthy ("It takes money to make money.").
>> That's a fundamental flaw with capitalism. It is responsive but not
>> particularly fair.


[email protected] wrote:
> I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
> continued flow of dirt cheap energy.


As opposed to what? Communism?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:07:09 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

> I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
> continued flow of dirt cheap energy.


No, what depends on that is endless economic growth. Without which the
sky would fall in, we're repeatedly told.
 
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:07:09 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
>continued flow of dirt cheap energy.
>


Actually, cheap labor, another form of energy. Factory jobs moved from
the "industrial states" to the South to find cheap labor, then they
started moving to Mexico, then to Taiwan, Malaysia and beyond. Next
they discovered they could move middle wage jobs to places like India,
then the Caribbean, then to the Philippines and beyond. At the same
time, they are pushing bills hard in the Congress that would like all
limits on the actual importation of labor by Visa. In the West,
corporate farms continue to bring in millions of illegals to give them
cheap labor.

From a global perspective, they will run out of ways to keep reducing
their costs by further "outsourcing". From an individual perspective,
they are selling us out. Imported labor needs to be tariffed just like
any other imported raw material.
 
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:19:27 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
>
>It is interesting to note that the decline in GPI occurred in concert
>with the dominance of the political right in national politics (in the
>US). Heck, David Stockman later admitted that the goal of Reagan's
>"Supply-Side" aka "Voodoo Economics" [1] was to transfer wealth to the
>rich.
>
>[1] As George H.W. Bush so aptly termed it.


You know, the "neo's who refuse to let go of Reagan's teflon image"
get really aggravated when you mention stuff like that... the other
great stimulator being when you point out that Reagan raised deficits
to the highest level in history to finance his "expansion" - and then
poor George had to pay the piper when the bill came dues (although I'm
always amazed at the creative ways they come up with to try to explain
how the Democrats caused this fiasco).
 
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:13:18 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yes, but in 20+ years they haven't "taken over" one industry. I think
>you're an alarmist.


a. They're still young
b. The very fact that they have a plan is frightening enough. Do you
realize how many industry and technology take-overs MS has its plans
now?

The latest frightening foray is in Vista's "copyright protection"
scenario. Are you aware that Vista requires compatible hardware, down
to the chip level, in order to enable quality DVD copying? They even
spec PCB design so that signals can't be "stolen" from a video card
without going through their copy checking scheme first. Anything that
does not meet their spec gets automatically degraded in the copy
process. All this to become Hollywood's butt buddy so that they can
make another industry Microsoft dedicated.
 
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:10:44 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"PageRank" is a trademark for a technique based on weighted link counts.
>The algorithm is patented. It changed the search engine world. Overnight.


Whatever. Page ranking is a technology every search tool employs.
Google's is not exactly perfect - as evidenced by they poor bias
towards hi-exposure, but low-applicability results that typically show
up in any search - and by their continued tuning of the algorithm to
try to make it return results that count. It's early results were
marginal at best.
 
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:18:22 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
wrote:

> as evidenced by they poor bias
>towards hi-exposure, but low-applicability results that typically show
>up in any search -


WTF are you talking about.

The fact that you write "typically" and "any" in the same sentence
that way shows you're spreading FUD.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
A Muzi wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi wrote: blah blah blah
>>> Peter Cole wrote: blah blah blah
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: blah blah blah
>>>>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote: blah blah blah

>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> No worries about the current dominant system, since it depends on
>> growth which the planet can NOT sustain, and is guaranteed to fail
>> unless another vacant planet comes along to plunder. The world of 2107
>> with a population of a few tens of millions (yes, millions) will be a
>> radically different place.

>
> I don't usually quote Galbraith but "In the long run, we're all dead."
>


I think it was John Maynard Keynes.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 4, 3:56 pm, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It does suck at distributing wealth. Often (usually) the creation of new
>> wealth favors the already wealthy ("It takes money to make money.").
>> That's a fundamental flaw with capitalism. It is responsive but not
>> particularly fair.

>
> I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
> continued flow of dirt cheap energy.
>
> Robert


I think this is more of a flaw with standard economics (see article on
flaws of GNP). By externalizing costs, important factors get left out,
or worse, negatives become positives.
 
still me wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:07:09 -0000, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
>> continued flow of dirt cheap energy.
>>

>
> Actually, cheap labor, another form of energy. Factory jobs moved from
> the "industrial states" to the South to find cheap labor, then they
> started moving to Mexico, then to Taiwan, Malaysia and beyond. Next
> they discovered they could move middle wage jobs to places like India,
> then the Caribbean, then to the Philippines and beyond. At the same
> time, they are pushing bills hard in the Congress that would like all
> limits on the actual importation of labor by Visa. In the West,
> corporate farms continue to bring in millions of illegals to give them
> cheap labor.
>
> From a global perspective, they will run out of ways to keep reducing
> their costs by further "outsourcing". From an individual perspective,
> they are selling us out. Imported labor needs to be tariffed just like
> any other imported raw material.


The lack of uniform global labor and environmental laws and enforcement
insures that the playing field is far from level. Outsourcing would lose
much of its appeal if those factors were included. Globalizing the
economy before globalizing the law is just asking for misery.
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:07:09 -0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I would say its fundamental flaw is its complete dependence on
>>> continued flow of dirt cheap energy.
>>>

>>
>> Actually, cheap labor, another form of energy. Factory jobs moved from
>> the "industrial states" to the South to find cheap labor, then they
>> started moving to Mexico, then to Taiwan, Malaysia and beyond. Next
>> they discovered they could move middle wage jobs to places like India,
>> then the Caribbean, then to the Philippines and beyond. At the same
>> time, they are pushing bills hard in the Congress that would like all
>> limits on the actual importation of labor by Visa. In the West,
>> corporate farms continue to bring in millions of illegals to give them
>> cheap labor.
>> From a global perspective, they will run out of ways to keep reducing
>> their costs by further "outsourcing". From an individual perspective,
>> they are selling us out. Imported labor needs to be tariffed just like
>> any other imported raw material.

>
> The lack of uniform global labor and environmental laws and enforcement
> insures that the playing field is far from level. Outsourcing would lose
> much of its appeal if those factors were included. Globalizing the
> economy before globalizing the law is just asking for misery.


Tell that to Billionaire Tom Friedman and the other mainstream media
pundits.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
still me wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:13:18 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but in 20+ years they haven't "taken over" one industry. I think
>> you're an alarmist.

>
> a. They're still young


Not for the computer industry.

> b. The very fact that they have a plan is frightening enough. Do you
> realize how many industry and technology take-overs MS has its plans
> now?


No. I wasn't aware of any. They seem to have their hands full just
dealing with the commoditization of their historical products -- which
is why I dumped my MS stock. Their future is far from certain and their
glory days are probably over.


> The latest frightening foray is in Vista's "copyright protection"
> scenario. Are you aware that Vista requires compatible hardware, down
> to the chip level, in order to enable quality DVD copying? They even
> spec PCB design so that signals can't be "stolen" from a video card
> without going through their copy checking scheme first. Anything that
> does not meet their spec gets automatically degraded in the copy
> process. All this to become Hollywood's butt buddy so that they can
> make another industry Microsoft dedicated.


DRM is a touchy subject. Lots of companies doing unpopular things.
Piracy is a big problem. The cure may be worse than the disease, we'll
see, but it's hardly a MS only issue.