Cobol - Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

Author

Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

Robert Wagner

2004-12-08, 3:55 am

On 7 Dec 2004 18:58:12 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>
>
>
>Here is an actual figure for agriculture:
>
>"""Few people realize that an enormous amount of energy is required to
>produce our food. In fact, 17% of all fossil fuel used in the U.S. is
>consumed by the food production system.4
>...
>Large amounts of fossil fuel are required to power heavy farming
>machinery, to process foods, to refrigerate foods during
>transportation, to produce packaging materials, and to manufacture and
>transport chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides."""
>
>So actual statistics report that 17% is used for _ALL_ food production,
>including transport and packaging, versus your claim that _twice_ that
>amount is used to produce a part of that food.

It is questionable how much transportation is included. This is what
the review source says :

"Large amounts of fossil fuel are required to power heavy farming
machinery, to process foods, to refrigerate foods during
transportation, to produce packaging materials, and to manufacture and
transport chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides."

It doesn't say the 17% includes transportation of food nor irrigation
water nor manufacture of fertilizer. The same source says:

"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, food and
agricultural products (not including imported or exported foods) are
transported 566 billion ton-miles within U.S. borders each year,
constituting more than 20% of total U.S. commodity transport.7"

That adds .20 * .33 = 7% of total energy consumption, a higher
percentage of fossil fuel. The total might now be 25-27% of fossil
fuel.

A source for energy consumed by irrigation says:

"Only about 3 percent of the nation's energy is used in agriculture
and only 23 percent of this quantity (or less than 0.7 percent of the
nation's energy use) powers the irrigation pumping plants."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/160...pdf/gg-vol2.pdf

How did we get from 17% down to 3%? They are counting on-farm
consimption, not total consumption. Does "irrigation pumping plant"
include local wells on the farm?

" Wells are the main source of irrigation water. Half of all the
irrigation water comes from wells and is used on over 60 percent of
all irrigated land"
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb95-203a.html

The biggest users of irrigation are citrus, cotton, rice and
vegetables. Irrigated corn and soybeans, the main animal foods, are
uncommon.

I give up. Fossil fuel consumed by agriculture appears to be 20-30%. I
know from land use statistics that about half of US farmland produces
animal food. So roughly 10% of fossil energy consumption goes to meat
... down from one third.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

In article <sqtcr0h86rgg38nee8rufhn3fevql240o7@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>So roughly 10% of fossil energy consumption goes to meat
>.. down from one third.

But hey... what's an over-estimate of a couple of hundred percent and
change, anyhow?

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-12-09, 3:55 am

On 8 Dec 2004 16:00:56 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>In this country I eat the seed (grain), the cattle eats the grass
>(hay). Most of the time they just eat grass. They are equipped to eat
>grass - they are ruminants.

>
>In this country cattle don't eat grain, they eat grass, hay, and
>windfall or damaged fruit. In other countries they may eat
>mangelworzles which you wouldn't. To us it is trash, to farm animals
>it is food.

New Zealand has a few feedlots (for the Japanese market?), but the
vast majority of its beef is grass-fed, as you say.

US cattle eat grass, hay and mostly silage (fermented grain plants)
until they weigh 4-500 lbs. Then they're moved to a feedlot and
switched to a 'finishing diet' consisting of corn supplemented with
protein. They put on another 500 lbs in the feedlot before they are
slaughtered at age 15 months. If they ate grass their whole life, it
would take five years.

>that's all you ate.
>
>Exactly. To replace meat there needs to be high quality food. Cattle
>eat low quality food and turn it into high quality food.
>You would starve if all you eat was cattle fodder.

Meat may be high quality food, but it causes a low standard of
culinary quality. One of my heroes, Br. Ron Picarski, led a US team
that won gold and silver in two consecutive Culinary Olympics, cooking
vegan dishes vs. European hotel chefs cooking meat. Charlie Trotter, a
non-vegetarian Chicago chef, cooks vegetarian meals that sell for $75
per plate. He has a three-month waiting list. Those examples should
dispel any image of deprivation or low quality.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-09, 3:55 am

On 8 Dec 2004 20:43:42 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>
>Well, actually, no. While marbled meat does fetch a higher price it is
>only a very small part of the local market. There is a premium export
>market for this.

Grass-fed fetches a higher price in the US, but it's a very small part
of consumption -- health-food stores and the like. Perhaps some Kiwi
(or Argentinian) marketing genius could tap into that market. It would
have to be Organic as well.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-09, 8:55 am

In article <m6efr0d9h8rst2q86qjnjvo9one5mgtite@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2004 16:00:56 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>
>Meat may be high quality food, but it causes a low standard of
>culinary quality.

'Low standard of culinary quality'? What, pray tell, are the units of
measure of this standard, Mr Wagner?

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:m6efr0d9h8rst2q86qjnjvo9one5mgtite@
4ax.com...
> On 8 Dec 2004 16:00:56 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> New Zealand has a few feedlots (for the Japanese market?), but the
> vast majority of its beef is grass-fed, as you say.

So where did you find that, Robert?

I have refrained from posting here because Richard has been doing it more
than adequately.

He told you the circumstances of feedlots here. Yet you insist there are
feedlots. Our cattle eat some of the lushest and greenest sward in the
world. (did you see Lord of the Rings? The Shire is what we call "Dairy
country". The Waikato valley produces milk and beef. Another province
(Taranaki) is similar. I have NEVER seen cattle being fed grain here. I
believe Richard's explanation of when this might occur is accurate. So now
you tell us there are feedlots for the Japanese Market.

It's nonsense. The Japanese are currently in NZ to buy beef because they
have stopped importing it from the US and Canada, due to mad cow disease.
What they will buy will be NZ raised grass fed beef.

Check this link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm...bjectID=3542375

I lived in the U.K. during the mad cow epidemic. It was heartbreaking to see
millions of cattle being burned. It was too high a risk to really eat beef
at that time (well, it was for me...). I managed on pheasant, duck,
partridge, guinea fowl, chicken, venison, rabbit, pork, NZ lamb, turkey,
and fish... unimaginative but safe.

It was caused by feeding processed remains of diseased animals into the
feedlots. It jumped from sheep (scrapies) to cattle and then from cattle to
humans. I note that NZ has never had a case of it. I'm not saying this
smugly because it could always be imported, but as long as our cattle remain
grass fed it is unlikely to happen "by itself".

The meat, just like all the other produce here, is delicious...

Grass feeding is a tradition here. If the Japs want our beef they will lower
their tariffs and make it viable. I don't see feedlots being set up so they
can receive an inferior product.

Pete.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:52:33 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>Her name is Ann Coulter. She once commented, on FOX News' Hannity and
>Colmes, that God gave people dominion over the planet and that we
>should "rape" the earth "as opposed to living like the Indians".

She wished Timothy McVeigh had chosen the New York Times building.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

In article <0gljr09fva5hccq6tdsf4m176ui9or9lo9@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:52:33 -0500, SkippyPB
><swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>She wished Timothy McVeigh had chosen the New York Times building.

I guess that's what passes these days for 'compassionate conservatism'.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 8:55 pm

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-13, 8:55 am

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:kbvpr0lrdee2aso3fvli94nipphn4b35us@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:57:52 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> Possibly Unilever. You know what they are, don't you? They are the
> sludge from the bottom of beer tanks. Basically dead yeast containing
> lots of protein and vitamins and fairly salty. The paste is essential
> in vegetable stock. Gravy Quik is an unacceptable substitute. When I
> spread it on cracker bread, which I do infrequently, I found the
> secret is to make the coat as thin as possible.
>

In my youth in NZ I remember Vegemite being manufatured by Sanatarium Health
Food company who sold it to Kraft Australia. It is an advance on Marmite
which you accurately describe above, in that it it is yeast AND vegetable
extract. Both are excellent for soups stews and casseroules. Vegemite has a
less runny consistency and more savoury flavour (in my opinion...it's
arguable). Try using butter on your cracker bread then Vegemite... <G>. I
had to smile at your last sentence above, Robert. For many years, Vegemite
was sold under the slogan "Too much spoils the flavour" which, as you found
out, is true, but it is not good marketing so Kraft dropped it when they
acquired the product.

Vegemite has a special place in the hearts of Kiwis and Ozzies and it is
certainly part of what passes for culture in this part of the World.
Reference Men At Work - The Land down Under: "I said d'you speak my
language? He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich." <G>

>
> It works both ways. King's supermarkets in New Jersey are owned by
> Marks & Spencer. The La Brea Bakery is owned by IAWS, out of Ireland.
> Mrs. Baird's bread, a long-time Texas institution (I don't know why,
> it tastes like facial tissue), is now owned by the Mexican 'Bimbo
> Group'. Is nothing sacred?
>
>
> Kraft spent millions developing Dream Whip. It was intended to be
> synthetic milk. Customers refused to buy synthetic milk, so it became
> dessert topping and coffee creamer. They won't drop it.
>
>
> Robert Lewis Stevenson mentioned all three in a poem: The Scotsman's
> Return from Abroad "The king o' drinks, as I conceive it, Talisker,
> Islay or Glenlivit." Laphroaig is from Islay, an island in the south
> of Scotland where the whiskey tastes of smoke and seaweed.
> Glenfiddich, along with most traditional single malt Scotch, comes
> from the Highlands district of Speyside, same as Glenlivit. One of the
> best in that genre is Cragganmore. You might find it interesting to
> try your Glenfiddich alongside a Lowland malt such as Glenkinchie or
> Girvan (similar to your name). Lowland malts are a bit smoother and
> more restrained, most often the stock for blended (Girvan goes into
> Grant's; Glenkinchie, into Haig's), but stand up well as single malt
> and single grain.
>

Robert Wagner

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

On 13 Dec 2004 12:12:12 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>railroads to provide the same level of service they had in 1948.
>
>That probably shows how clueless you are about economics. Railways
>aren't in business to shift containers or people, they are in business
>to make money.

They're not good at making money, either. They keep going bankrupt and
have to be taken over by govrnment. See for example Conrail, created
by merging six freight lines.

>
>That may be true on average ton/mile depot to depot costs but trucks do
>door to door while railroads must tripple handle having local
>collection and local delivery. For most foods time is a critical
>factor and the higher price obtained for fresher food outweighs any
>cost difference from trucking.

Our warehouses had room for a dozen freight cars. There was no need to
load the food onto trucks.

Piggy-backing was invented to solve the handling problem. It doesn't
do much good if the railroad takes six days to move a trailer
cross-country. One railroad, Southern Pacific, is trying to solve the
problem by using airline management and systems rather than railroad
systems.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-14, 3:55 pm

On 13-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> They're not good at making money, either. They keep going bankrupt and
> have to be taken over by govrnment. See for example Conrail, created
> by merging six freight lines.

Elitists have decided that we need railroads to move people. So they pass laws
that take money away from us at gunpoint (we go to jail if we refuse to pay
taxes), and give it to the railroads to keep them running.

Apparently Conrail can't compete with trucks.

Richard

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

> When you were a child, the average supermarket covered 15K square

When I was a child we went to Sainsburys and were served at a counter.
They patted up butter from a barrel.

> Today, the average supermarket covers 40K square feet, carries 25K
items and is
> three miles from your house.

The Supermarket that _I_ go to is 7K sqft and I cycle to it.

> When you were a child, you may have lived near a downtown full of
mom-and-pop stores

I still do.

Richard

2004-12-15, 3:55 pm

> That's what they tell people. In fact, they have no way of measuring
> 'turns' on a foot of shelf space. If you think they do, explain in
> detail how it's done.

Geez, Robert, you claimed to work in a Supermarket.

Each item is bar coded, as it goes out the counter it is recorded.
Thus they know how many were sold each month. By recording how many
fit on the allocated shelf space a simple calculation shows the average
time the item is on the shelf.

How hard is that ?

> There are very few one-unit-per-month items on the shelf.

None if they are managing the store correctly.

> That somewhat contradicts what you said above. Items that don't move
> wouldn't be on the shelf.

No, they wouldn't be on the shelf because the supermarket removes them
and puts something there that will generate profit. Dead space is no
use.

> It works like this: shelf time is
> proportional to profit margin. A diamond in a jewelery store has a
> shelf life of six months and fetches 50% profit. A bag of sugar has a
> shelf life of one w

and fetches 10% profit. The reason WHY
diamonds
> command higher profit than sugar is because they move slower. If one
> knew the 'velocity' of each item, as you claim above,

Reinforcing my view that you are clueless about supermarkets. Jewelery
stores have nothing to do with supermarkets.

> he would know the profit in baskets without looking at checkout data

He knows the stock turn by capturing the checkout data.

> No, they might buy it more because of perceived value. Your mistake
is
> assuming the market is rational.

That may be true of some markets, but in supermarkets the vast majority
of buyers have a limited resource (money) and a requirement to feed the
family for a w

. Some may be stupid enough to buy one overpriced
item, but they go there for the loss leaders.

If one supermarket is full of your high priced product then shoppers
will simply go elsewhere to get what _they_ want.

Richard

2004-12-15, 3:55 pm

> As I showed above (agreeing with you), product on the shelf
> has a higher average margin than that going out the door.

The relationship there is if it is overpriced then no one buys it and
it stays on the shelf. The supermarket will notice this and 1) slash
the price to get the stuff moving, 2) drop the product line and put
something in that space that generates a profit.

The problem with many mom&pop businesses is that they open a store full
of new products, say furniture. Some sell, some do not. The ones that
do not sell are because the shoppers don't want them, or at least not
at that price. The stuff that sells is replaced, but eventually
everyone that will buy that has one. After a time the shop is full of
stuff that no one wants to buy.

Supermakets work because they don't do that.
[color=darkred]
> The premise is the supplier made it. Even Wal-Mart doesn't squeeze
> suppliers that tight. If they did, their stores would be empty.

Yes they do squeeze that hard. If the suppliers doesn't want to supply
then they drop him entirely and move to another supplier. In many
cases the supplier will sell at very small margins, or even a loss,
because it keeps the factory running and not having that business may
be a bigger loss due to fixed overheads.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-15, 3:55 pm

On 15-Dec-2004, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> The relationship there is if it is overpriced then no one buys it and
> it stays on the shelf. The supermarket will notice this and 1) slash
> the price to get the stuff moving, 2) drop the product line and put
> something in that space that generates a profit.

Or the customer notices it and his concept of this supermarket is that they
overprice things - and shops elsewhere.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-15, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-12-16, 8:55 am

Richard

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Richard

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Sponsored Links