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

Author

Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

Richard

2004-12-08, 3:55 am

> It doesn't say the 17% includes transportation of food nor irrigation
> water nor manufacture of fertilizer.

""" ... and to manufacture and transport chemical inputs such as
fertilizers and pesticides."""

> 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.

The actual transport percentage is less that 1/3 given at
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modu.../energy_end.gif

Probably 25% so maybe you could scape it to 22% for _ALL_ food.

> 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.

Thank you.

Given that much of that is transport, freezing, processing, fertiliser
and pesticide production, then reducing meat and replacing this with
more other foods is unlikely to make much difference to the energy
consumption.

I suspect, however, that many Americans could be better off by eating
much less (and driving much less and ..) and this would be better for
the rest of us too.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:24:13 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:m6efr0d9h8rst2q86qjnjvo9one5mgtite@
4ax.com...
>
>So where did you find that, Robert?

"In recent years there has been a shift in beef industry emphasis
toward customer-focussed beef cattle production and breeding systems.
Meeting customer requirements through improved meat quality
characteristics can be achieved by selecting genetically superior
animals, through management changes such as from pasture to
grain-based diets,"
http://www.beef.org.nz/research/bre...breed_ace96.asp

# Kerr RA 1974. Feedlot facilities 34: 177-181 Abstract
# Bell RG 1974. Pollution problems associated with feedlot production
of livestock 34: 182-187 Abstract
# Morris GR 1974. Animal health in a feedlot 34: 188-193 Abstract
# Jagusch KT, et al. 1974. Nutrition of feedlot beef cattle in New
Zealand 34: 194-205 Abstract
# Thompson KR, et al. 1974. Feed intake and growth in New Zealand
feedlots 34: 206-214 Abstract
# McIvor AR, et al. 1974. Financial aspects of feedlot management in
New Zealand 34: 215-232 Abstract
http://nzsap.org.nz/proc/sapt74.html

>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.

Scrapies/BSE/CJD can only be transmitted by eating the brain or spine
of an infected animal. Humans have been eating scrapies-infected sheep
for centuries without catching it. Who eats brains? Anyone who eats
hot dogs, sausage and other ground meat. There is very little risk
from steaks, roasts, etc.

>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.

Japanese and Europeans have been 'educated' to prefer US-style
corn-fed beef. It remains to be seen whether market forces will
prevail over good sense.

James J. Gavan

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

Robert Wagner wrote:

>Japanese and Europeans have been 'educated' to prefer US-style
>corn-fed beef. It remains to be seen whether market forces will
>prevail over good sense.
>
>
Disagree Robert. I first came over here on holiday in '74. Of Irish
descent, my younger brother was convinced we should visit *ALL* the
local watering-holes. Many of course served Alberta beef - great chunks,
no wonder obesity. Yes I was 'educated' from experience to prefer the
grain-fed beef. Beats anything I tasted in my days in UK.

Now when it comes to dairy cows - Canada just isn't in the league. Try
as they might to produce local versions of Harvarti, Camembert, Brie
etc., they are very poor knock-offs. The Kiwis described the lushness of
dairyland, which also applies to my part of UK, Somerset and Devon.
Superb by-products from milk. Both lamb and butter have always been
produced in quantity throughout UK- but a few decades ago when we were
off to the grocers, subsequently supermarkets, we zeroed in on "NZ
Lamb" and "NZ Butter".

Back when I was with Unigate the dairy company, the PRIME cheddar in UK
was Canadian Black Diamond. With modern production methods, make it,
slice it into chunks and plastic wrap, (it can't 'breathe'), I very much
doubt it holds that position now. If I buy Mild, Medium or Strong all
with an incremental price, I might just as well always buy Mild. There's
no perceptible difference in taste. Certainly the public as been
'educated' in the sense that to suit modern production methods we have
been 'conned' into accepting quickly produced and products lacking
ageing to enhance taste. I shudder each time I pick up one of those
monstrous, tasteless strawberries from California - neither smells nor
tastes like a home-grown one..

Jimmy

Donald Tees

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

James J. Gavan wrote:
> Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Back when I was with Unigate the dairy company, the PRIME cheddar in UK
> was Canadian Black Diamond. With modern production methods, make it,
> slice it into chunks and plastic wrap, (it can't 'breathe'), I very much
> doubt it holds that position now. If I buy Mild, Medium or Strong all
> with an incremental price, I might just as well always buy Mild. There's
> no perceptible difference in taste. Certainly the public as been
> 'educated' in the sense that to suit modern production methods we have
> been 'conned' into accepting quickly produced and products lacking
> ageing to enhance taste. I shudder each time I pick up one of those
> monstrous, tasteless strawberries from California - neither smells nor
> tastes like a home-grown one..
>
> Jimmy

Now *that* annoys me as a cheddar lover. However, just this w

, I
found a menonite cheese factory (in Bright, Ont.) that still makes
premium white cheddar. Their seven year old is superb, but they only
sell it in the Kitchener market, and it is normally gone by 8:00 or so
in the morning on market day ... they ration it. The stuff in the
supermarkets is close to inedible in comparison. Even the "old nippy"
tastes like mild mozzerilla.

I read the other day that *most* vegetables sold in Canadian markets
today have only 60% of the food value they had 25 years ago, due to
early harvesting and gene manipulation for size/appearance. The number
of sub-species available has also gone down to 1/10 of what use to be
available.

We have fished the oceans dry, cut down all the forests, and poluted the
water table of the entire continent. I'd say the human race is in deep
shit. I sold my car four months back, and have decided to live without
one, but it is nothing but a token ack, I'm afraid. Forgoing meat is
trivial. Forgoing transportation *might* help. I suspect that nature
will start correcting it within the next 50 years, but probably at a
cost of 95% of the human race.

Donald

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:f1ugr0p7a8pajavk0b15sof2bmca7rt74r@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:24:13 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
eat[color=darkred]
>
> "In recent years there has been a shift in beef industry emphasis
> toward customer-focussed beef cattle production and breeding systems.
> Meeting customer requirements through improved meat quality
> characteristics can be achieved by selecting genetically superior
> animals, through management changes such as from pasture to
> grain-based diets,"
> http://www.beef.org.nz/research/bre...breed_ace96.asp

That is a description of an experiment (carried out in 1993 and 1996) by a
world class animal research centre. All of the Feedlots are part of the
research establishment, NOT general feedlots established for normal retail
cattle.

The experiment was primarily about following the offspring of certain sires
and they tried them on different diets. At no point does it suggest that
feedlots are in general use in NZ. It doesn't even suggest that they ought
to be... The last sentence of your quote (taken out of context anyway) does
suggest that genetically superior animals could be managed differently. It
is speculation. Even if it is true, it has not been implemented.

>
> # Kerr RA 1974. Feedlot facilities 34: 177-181 Abstract
> # Bell RG 1974. Pollution problems associated with feedlot production
> of livestock 34: 182-187 Abstract
> # Morris GR 1974. Animal health in a feedlot 34: 188-193 Abstract
> # Jagusch KT, et al. 1974. Nutrition of feedlot beef cattle in New
> Zealand 34: 194-205 Abstract
> # Thompson KR, et al. 1974. Feed intake and growth in New Zealand
> feedlots 34: 206-214 Abstract
> # McIvor AR, et al. 1974. Financial aspects of feedlot management in
> New Zealand 34: 215-232 Abstract
> http://nzsap.org.nz/proc/sapt74.html
>
Again these are research results from 1974. At that time there was interest
in the possibility of feedlotting. Despite what the academics may have
thought, the idea was never taken up by farmers. Quote from the paper you
referenced above:

"It is concluded that capital intensive units are required to ensure
efficient utilization of nutritional resources and that these should be
controlled by cooperatives. Farmers should feedlot only as an adjunct to
land-intensive agriculture, namely strategic off-paddock supplementation. "

The farming community just never implemented it. Maybe the words "capital
intensive" proved a bit much for the average Kiwi Cow-cocky.

So you have quoted at great length two very old experiments, carried out by
highly reputable academia, and then decided that the rest of New Zealand
must be doing it. Things don't work like that here... The research goes in
and then the battle for the hearts and minds of the New Zealand farmer
begins... These people are not easily hornswoggled or impressed by
academics. They implement things that make sense and look profitable. Grass
is free (once you have covered the capital outlay and minimum maintenance
for fencing, irrigation (which is mainly natural) and fertilizing
(thoughtfully provided by the stock you raise on it), and land is so
plentiful here that we pile it up in heaps...

Your references are disappointingly suspect. I expected more from you.

see[color=darkred]
beef[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> Scrapies/BSE/CJD can only be transmitted by eating the brain or spine
> of an infected animal. Humans have been eating scrapies-infected sheep
> for centuries without catching it. Who eats brains? Anyone who eats
> hot dogs, sausage and other ground meat. There is very little risk
> from steaks, roasts, etc.
>
You either ignored what I wrote or didn't understand it. The human form of
"mad cow disease" is a variant of CJD and is properly termed vCJD. This is
the one that jumped from catttle to humans. CJD has always been present in
Humans (a tiny percentage of us)

lower[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
>
> Japanese and Europeans have been 'educated' to prefer US-style
> corn-fed beef. It remains to be seen whether market forces will
> prevail over good sense.
>
Well, this has been interesting but I have a grass fed T-bone that is just
asking to be BarBQued, so I'll leave it at that. <G>

Pete.

Donald Tees

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Well, this has been interesting but I have a grass fed T-bone that is just
> asking to be BarBQued, so I'll leave it at that. <G>
>
> Pete.
>

Contented cows, most likely ...

Donald <--grass fed

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

In article <Wu3ud.468414$nl.383868@pd7tw3no>,
James J. Gavan <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>Back when I was with Unigate the dairy company, the PRIME cheddar in UK
>was Canadian Black Diamond. With modern production methods, make it,
>slice it into chunks and plastic wrap, (it can't 'breathe'), I very much
>doubt it holds that position now.

Hmmmmm... I've had Black Diamond recently and my palate held it in lower
esteem than a commercially-available Cabot (American, from Vermont)
Private Stock (16 months) or Vintage (18 months) cheddars.

>If I buy Mild, Medium or Strong all
>with an incremental price, I might just as well always buy Mild. There's
>no perceptible difference in taste.

Mr Gavan, did you know that the population of taste-buds per square inch
of tongue decreases markedly with age? It has been a common plaint of the
hyperannuated that 'thing's ain't got no taste no more... why, when *I*
was a lad the cheese was sharp enough to cut the knife!'

>Certainly the public as been
>'educated' in the sense that to suit modern production methods we have
>been 'conned' into accepting quickly produced and products lacking
>ageing to enhance taste.

Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when a man could bemoan the passing of the
Oldene Dayse such as *ten* men cannot, today!

'The simple solution became the adaption of the products themselves so
they could be reproduced by modern machinery. If it means that wholesome
cake-like bread has to become soggy cellulose mush, with all food value
lost, then it is a small price to pay because look how much faster and
cheaper the machines can reproduce the new inferior product! Naturally it
was difficult for them to even consider that it might be better to produce
something of worth in an inefficient way than to produce worthless things
efficiently. Efficiency was everything.

'Beauty became Utility; Joy became Laughter; Creation became Labor; Art
became Productive; and Man became Machine. It is this disaster that some
would define as Progress.'

- James Drought, 'Drugoth', 1965

1965? A mere four decades back... that's no time at all, any teenager
could have told you *that*!

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <Wu3ud.468414$nl.383868@pd7tw3no>,
>James J. Gavan <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>
>Hmmmmm... I've had Black Diamond recently and my palate held it in lower
>esteem than a commercially-available Cabot (American, from Vermont)
>Private Stock (16 months) or Vintage (18 months) cheddars.
>
>
But that merely re-iterates my point, the ageing process. Which applied
with Black Diamond some forty years ago. You are not exactly a spry
young thing, but nevertheless this has to be beyond your ken -
certainly my wife couldn't remember when I mentioned it to her tonight
over supper. Back when I was in my teens, trot off to the grocers at my
mother's behest, or accompany her. Order up some cheddar. The wheels,
(a token weight of 56lbs., with an outer wrapping of wax and bandage),
stood on the counter already partially cut. Mr. Grocer used a wire,
tautened by two wooden pegs to slice off the cheese. Depending upon its
age, it came off as a 'rubbery' piece, or perhaps even with this fine
cutting mechanism, some would crumble as it was being cut, the latter
indicating its maturity.

Then again, just over forty years ago, RAF in Germany and excited to
visit Holland for first time with Dutch (R.Neth.A.F.) friends. The
border town Enschede (EN-SHAY-DER in German, EN-SKER-DAY in Dutch).
Visit the town market with a gent in clogs flogging Gouda and Edam.
Having with some temerity sampled raw herring with onion, then latched
on to the phrase, "Oude kaas", - older cheese. Go through a sampling of
Gouda until you hit the one with the right taste.

As that young Welsh lass, Mary Hopkins, sang many moons ago :-

"Those were the days my friend,
da, da, da, da,
da, da......."

Jimmy

>
>
>
>Mr Gavan, did you know that the population of taste-buds per square inch
>of tongue decreases markedly with age? It has been a common plaint of the
>hyperannuated that 'thing's ain't got no taste no more... why, when *I*
>was a lad the cheese was sharp enough to cut the knife!'
>
>
>
>
>Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when a man could bemoan the passing of the
>Oldene Dayse such as *ten* men cannot, today!
>
>'The simple solution became the adaption of the products themselves so
>they could be reproduced by modern machinery. If it means that wholesome
>cake-like bread has to become soggy cellulose mush, with all food value
>lost, then it is a small price to pay because look how much faster and
>cheaper the machines can reproduce the new inferior product! Naturally it
>was difficult for them to even consider that it might be better to produce
>something of worth in an inefficient way than to produce worthless things
>efficiently. Efficiency was everything.
>
>'Beauty became Utility; Joy became Laughter; Creation became Labor; Art
>became Productive; and Man became Machine. It is this disaster that some
>would define as Progress.'
>
> - James Drought, 'Drugoth', 1965
>
>1965? A mere four decades back... that's no time at all, any teenager
>could have told you *that*!
>
>DD
>
>
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 8:55 am

In article <_t8ud.450794$Pl.429413@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>But that merely re-iterates my point, the ageing process. Which applied
>with Black Diamond some forty years ago.

It applies to it nowadays; the Black Diamond I had was a black wax-wrapped
cheese which had a label claiming it was two-years aged.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:57:52 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>Rather looks like the Marmite may well have been on the shelf for
>sometime. Sadly here, Calgary, using the Pareto 80-20 rule, they keep
>discreetly deleting items, until the retailer, if he follows Pareto's
>logic, finds himself with no product looking up his ass ! Same as
>Marmite there's Vegemite from Kraft and Bovril (the paste version) from
>God knows who.

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.

>Reading recent copies of the 'W

ly Express' (for ex-pats), It becomes
>really difficult to know who owns what in the UK of the favourite brands
>one grew up with.

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?

> That's that commercial obsession to grow, otherwise
>you will die - so many US companies have grabbed whole chunks of UK
>brand names. Probably got it wrong but Bird's Custard Powder is now
>owned by Kraft - quite a possibility they may kill it off, along with
>two ancillary products Dream Whip, Something....Topping.

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.

>Talisker Scotch - never hoid of it. But I do have a rather neat drop of
>Laphroaig (pronounced "La-froyg", according to the label), plus a wee
>dram of Glenfiddich. Both are nectar to be sipped upon, with absolutely
>no addition of water, soda or whatever.

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, 3:55 am

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:58:17 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Where do you recommend going for better produce - some place like a
>farmer's market?

Only if you can tell the stuff is authentic. Many so-called farmers'
markets buy from the same wholesalers that sell to supermarkets. My
first choice is a produce-only store. Second is a high-volume
supermarket like Harris-Teeter or WalMart.

Donald Tees

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

Donald Tees

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

On 13 Dec 2004 14:42:15 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>spend their
>
>
>No, Robert, it was referring to you. You expressed the views that you
>want railways to run on 1948 timetables regardless of the economics,
>you want people to stop eating meat, it seems you want to decide how
>people spend their time and money.

I was trying to save money on tasteless iceberg lettuce coming from
California. That's not telling them what to buy.

>Wal-Mart and every other business puts stuff on shelves and people buy
>it or they don't. The stores are not deciding on what people _should_
>do, they decide based entirely on how they make the most money.

People can only buy what's on the shelf. Every time they add a new
item, they must delete another item to make room for it. A w

earlier, the deleted item was considered 'what people want to buy.'
Every w

they're denying people access to things they want. The
decision is often based on 'push' rather than 'pull'. They're pushing
items they _hope_ people will want .. not because it's better but
because it has a higher profit margin.

How many consumers say 'I'd rather buy y than x because the store
makes more money?' I do. If artisan pain au levain were priced for 60%
gross profit, supermarkets would overflow with it. They'd push out
balsamic vinegar to make room for it. They'd have end-aisle displays
and ladies offering a free taste.

>It seems that you want to change the system so that _you_ decide what
>people should buy and what farmers should grow.

I don't have the power to do that.

>popularity contest.
>
>Yes they are, but the price might be too high. If you want hampers
>flown in from Harrods for your Sunday lunch in central Arizona then
>that can be made available, but you wouldn't want to pay the price.

I better solution is make your own. Think less like a consumer, more
like a craftsman. Some foods that people buy ready-made are
ridiculously easy to make from scratch.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-14, 3:55 pm

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

> People can only buy what's on the shelf. Every time they add a new
> item, they must delete another item to make room for it. A w

> earlier, the deleted item was considered 'what people want to buy.'

Lots more choices are on the Supermarket shelves than were when I was a child.
Not having more choices isn't a good business strategy.

> How many consumers say 'I'd rather buy y than x because the store
> makes more money?' I do.

I suspect 1. The rest of us buy for other reasons.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:36:51 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 13-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>No, I'm saying the buildings, roads, and farms are. How do you determine
>whether something is pollution? I suppose by the impact upon nature. Do
>things grow naturally on buildings, roads, and farms?

People grow in buildings, their food grows on farms and roads are the
'trails' that connect the two. Do you think people are unnatural?
(Present company excluded, of course.)

>
>But that pollution was much more temporary than the paving over of a city.

Pollution means environmental contamination with harmful waste.
Converting 35% of surface land to human use does not ipso facto
contaminate that part nor the remaining part of the environment.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:42:59 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 13-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>You can always say no.

If a product is unavailable, you can't say yes; it's pointless to say
no.

>You're someone else's neighbor, when you provide profit
>for suppliers of what you want, they will provide your choices (which your
>neighbors will now have available).

This is called a chichen-and-egg problem.

>
>What has Wal*Mart decided is a worthy way of me to spend my money?

They want you to spend it on the 65K fine products they offer.

> Has it decided that we need to be taxed to support rail over trucks?

Wal-Mart is not a branch of government ... yet. It did build a big
airport with a 9K foot runway in Bentonville. I've heard there are
cargo flights to it directly from China.

> Has it demanded that we be taxed to build its sports and arts complexes?

No, but it owns the St. Louis Blues hockey team.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:48:59 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

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

>
>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.

It competed so poorly that it was profitable after ten years. The
government privitized it in the '80s and made an overall profit on the
deal. Today it's known as CSX, out of Jacksonville Fl, which last year
made 6% ROI and paid $500M income tax.

The other freight line that can't compete with trucks is Union
Pacific. It's about the same size as CSX, made 7% ROI and also paid
$500M income tax.

I suppose Keyneseans would call that a $1B negative subsidy.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:55:48 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 13-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>OK. The Feds say they can earn a set profit, and you want them to tell the
>railroads to charge less as well.

I didn't suggest railroads should charge less. I said they should
clean up their act and start running a business instead of an old
boys' club. Specifically, we asked them to guarantee four day delivery
from California to Texas, for perishable produce that pays a premium
over general freight. The distance is 1,500 miles. They run freight
trains thrugh the desert all day and night at 60-70 mph. That's 25
hours. Yet the old boys thought four days was unreasonable. Union
Pacific doesn't think so. They do it in two days with no sweat, make
more than the guaranteed minimum and cost half as much as a truck.

> The railroads claim that if they charge
>less, they won't cover expenses. So how do they do this? They've already cut
>their staff tremendously (no cabooses anymore).

One brakeman is not tremendously.

>Just pass a law mandating lots of well-paying jobs, low prices, profits for the
>owners, and repeal the law of supply and demand!

On the contrary, deregulate everything, starting with those burdensome
FDA regulations. Let the lowest bidder prevail. If he screws up, it's
self-correcting, his demand will die off.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On 14-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> People grow in buildings, their food grows on farms and roads are the
> 'trails' that connect the two. Do you think people are unnatural?
> (Present company excluded, of course.)

By that standard *everything* is natural.

> Pollution means environmental contamination with harmful waste.
> Converting 35% of surface land to human use does not ipso facto
> contaminate that part nor the remaining part of the environment.

The definition "harmful" is the big arguing point here. You are using a net
definition saying, our benefit in having houses is bigger than our loss in not
having nature where those houses are.

I'm saying that even so, they *are* harmful to the environment. Farms, cities,
and roads do effect temperatures (ask any sailplane pilot). You are
recommending making farms more efficient (smaller) by not growing feed. Stuff
we like *do* pollute.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

On 14-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> No, but it owns the St. Louis Blues hockey team.

No. A member of the family does. Another member owns the Colorado Avalanche,
St. Louis Rams, and Denver Nuggets.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-15, 3:55 am

In article <2jiur0lc5bnn9oin8kd9b0i7mq3hluddtr@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:42:59 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>This is called a chichen-and-egg problem.

No, Mr Wagner, this seems to be a recognition that who 'one' is and who
'one's neighbors' are depends on which side of a completely arbitrary line
the standing is done... after all, to 'the people next door' *you* are
'the people next door', no?

('An economist will tell you that you will never find a dollar bill in the
street because someone else will have found it first.' - The Economist)

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-15, 3:55 pm

"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

2004-12-16, 8:55 am

Robert Wagner

2004-12-17, 8:55 am

earlier, the deleted item was considered 'what people want to buy.'
Every w

Robert Wagner

2004-12-17, 8:55 am

Howard Brazee

2004-12-17, 8:55 am

Howard Brazee

2004-12-17, 3:55 pm

On 16-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> It's not difficult but it's too expensive. To achieve 100% scan rate,
> the store must scan every item BEFORE it is put on the shelf.

Nobody will ever have 100$ knowledge of where products are if there is some
theft.

Before scanning each item is expensive - RFID will probably suffice.

If someone enters the code manually, it isn't scanned - but the computer still
keeps track of it just the same.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-17, 3:55 pm

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:39:34 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>Before scanning each item is expensive - RFID will probably suffice.
>
>If someone enters the code manually, it isn't scanned - but the computer still
>keeps track of it just the same.

They can't put RFID on a coupon. They can't put it on loose produce.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-17, 3:55 pm

On 17-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> They can't put RFID on a coupon.

Why would they want to use coupons in before scanning? RFID is primarily used
on pallets, not individual items - exceptions are expensive items that aren't
groceries. I'm not aware that RFID is intended for use on the customer side
of retail stores.

> They can't put it on loose produce.

Do supermarkets buy loose produce that is not packaged up?

Does loose produce have scan codes? I've seen clerks type in the code for
these.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-17, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-18, 12:46 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-20, 8:55 am

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:27:10 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>Probably true with regard to food - all customers going through
>checkouts. If my memory serves me correctly, chains/department stores -
>loss due to theft, somewhere around 3% of gross. Staff can be the major
>contributors, but customers aren't far behind.

Theft is less than half of one percent of sales .. unless the store is
in a ghetto.

>Even supermarkets - Caters in SE London which we bought out; again a
>family concern like Sainsbury's, but the family members who were
>directors were living off the hog. Having lunch with their Operations
>Director, an old-time retailer. He related how he would visit stores in
>Essex, doing spot check-ups. Walks up to an entrance where he sees a
>customer walking out a manual lawn-mower, no tags or bags attached. When
>he gets in the store he gives 'em hell for not putting some identifier
>on the purchase. Response, "BUT, we haven't sold any lawn-mowers to-day !

Your story evokes fond memories of a British manual lawn mower I used
in West Texas. It was expensive, about $150. I could have bought a
power mower for less. It was a marvel of precision and so easy to
push.

>You have to have the balls to do it - but thieves will walk into the Bay
>here (department store), looking 'officious' as though they were a
>supplier's reps and brazenly walk out of the exit pushing a whole rack
>of fashions on a metal display stand mounted on wheels !

They'd be easy to spot. Just look for the ones wearing garish clothes.
Didn't Monty Python do a skit about this?

Robert Wagner

2004-12-20, 3:55 pm

On 16 Dec 2004 00:17:35 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>
>Every supermarket I use here has 100% scan rate and has done so for
>years. When I worked on modifying Supermarket systems 20 years ago it
>was 100% scanning. This includes fruit and veg. How hard is it for
>you ?

'100% scanning' means every item has a bar code or Price LookUp (PLU).
We've had that for well over 20 years. '100% scan rate' means every
item scans correctly. It means there are no Department Keys on the
keyboard. The clerk cannot enter a price.

It's especially hard for Direct Store Delivery (DSD) merchandise.
Manufacturers introduce new items without following procedures, or
they give the case code instead of the item code.

If you hear calls for 'Price Check on aisle 3', the store does not
have 100% scan rate.

>And how could your self-checkout work if it is not 100% scan ?

An attendent with a keyboard oversees the checkout stations. She can
key a price for 'no scan' items.

Fruits & vegs are not pre-packaged. The customer must navigate menus
to identify the item. If it's a new item not pictured .. that's a
problem.

>
>How difficult is it ? In the UK the Supermarkets are 100% scan.

It's not difficult but it's too expensive. To achieve 100% scan rate,
the store must scan every item BEFORE it is put on the shelf. That
means after the truck arrives and before the stuff is put up, line
them up in the back room and scan one of each with a handheld scanner.
When the DSD vendor arrives, scan one of each BEFORE he goes to the
shelf. For produce, someone must key a valid PLU and verify the price.

If the store manager thinks he can get by with catching 'not on file'
at the checkout, the store will NOT have 100% scan rate.

>
>Yes. Not only that, but in this part of the world (mainly Aus)
>supermarkets _sell_ some of the shelf space to suppliers. They don't
>get product on shelves without paying for it.

That's common in the US as well. Small local suppliers sometimes
refuse to pay. As a result, customers can't buy their products.

>
>What a surprise, there are things you haven't seen.

Store layout people usually use CAD systems that don't interface with
other databases.

Howard Brazee

2004-12-20, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-21, 8:55 am

On 15 Dec 2004 17:05:43 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>manipulated,
>
>No. The reason why it gets much less shelf space is because number of
>items sold is low, this brings the stock turn up (being ratio of items
>sold to space allocated).

Isn't that what I just said?

>Setting shelf space does _not_ manipulate supply, as you claim, If
>there is one on the shelf then supply is available.

By your theory, they should allocate shelf space for a one day supply
of everything.

>You are proposing a theory that supermarkets will raise the price of an
>item as the number of sales falls. This is bunkum. If they raise the
>price then fewer will sell.

Did I say that? It's more likely they'll replace it with an item they
hope will sell better.

>Or perhaps you imagine they can raise the profit margin _without_
>increasing the price.

That's not possible. Everyone pays the same cost .. except Wal-Mart.

>
>You just made that up.

No, I substantiated it with details that can be verified.

>than others; if it's lower, its prices are lower.
>
>That is crap. There is more to profit than just the price. There are
>overheads and volume. The most profitable supermarket around here is
>the 'Pak'N'Save' which has the lowest prices for most items.

I said that's how to measure prices from the consumer's point of view,
not how to measure profit for the stockholder's point of view.

Sponsored Links