(Close Window)
Topic: How Stuff Works
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 12, 2020 05:46PM)
Marlana and I just got back from a short camping trip. In our kit we had a propane lantern, and Marlana and I were wondering exactly how the mantle in such a lantern works. What we knew was that the mantles start as silk mesh bags. We'd been told that when you light them they turn to ash and that that ash is what glows and produces the light. But we weren't convinced.

I just learned how they really work. The silk is impregnated with various metal oxides; the most common is a mixture of thorium oxide, cerium oxide, and magnesium oxide. When you light the mantle initially, the silk burns away, leaving the oxides as a fine ceramic mesh. When heated by the burning propane, the ceramic glows; because it's such a fine mesh it has lots of surface area, so it glows extremely bright.

I thought that that was kind of, you'll forgive the expression, cool!

So . . . have any of y'all learned how something works that you found really interesting? If so, please enlighten us! (Sorry.)
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Jul 12, 2020 06:52PM)
I love learning stuff like that. I also love the TV show "How Things are Made."

Thanks for the info....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 12, 2020 07:19PM)
It amazes me how people ever come up with this kind of invention in the first place.

All I know is how a couple of card tricks work but if I told you I would have to kill you.

I just fitting some new lights in the kitchen and they are not working yet.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 13, 2020 11:26AM)
[quote]On Jul 12, 2020, tommy wrote:
I just fitting some new lights in the kitchen and they are not working yet.[/quote]
Have you considered propane lanterns?

They work.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jul 13, 2020 11:59AM)
I'm fascinated by the human body from conception to death. There are statistics almost impossible to fathom. An example is the heart beats 100,000 times per day and pumps 2,000 gallons of blood daily.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 13, 2020 12:12PM)
Speaking of the heart, I was fascinated to discover recently that a hummingbird’s heart rate varies from about 250 beats per minute (when at rest), to over 1200 beats per minute when feeding. That’s compared to the human heart rate of about 60 - 100 bpm when resting.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 13, 2020 05:02PM)
[quote]On Jul 13, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
Speaking of the heart, I was fascinated to discover recently that a hummingbird’s heart rate varies from about 250 beats per minute (when at rest), to over 1200 beats per minute when feeding. That’s compared to the human heart rate of about 60 - 100 bpm when resting.[/quote]
Last night my wife watched a program on Amazon about hummingbirds, narrated by David Attenborough. He said that their resting heartbeat was 400 bpm (though I suspect that it varies amongst species), that it went up to 1,200 bpm when in flight, and down to 40 bpm at night when they're in torpor (essentially, short-term hibernation). He also said that in flight their hearts increase in size, and that a heart-to-lungs-to-heart-to-muscles-to-heart round-trip takes only one second.

Wow!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 13, 2020 06:00PM)
Once upon a time fellows knew their car engines.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jul 13, 2020 06:14PM)
I've never once looked under the hood of my last two cars and for both of them I would also have to check the manual to find and use the spare tire.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2020 06:35PM)
No matter what goes wrong with my car, when I get it back from the mechanic the cost is always $467.92.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 13, 2020 07:52PM)
Last time I traded in my car at my dealer for a newer model, I actually completely forgot to look under the hood! Only realized it a few days after making the purchase.
Message: Posted by: karnak (Jul 14, 2020 09:51AM)
After you drove it home from the dealership, and finally looked under the hood, did it have an engine?
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 14, 2020 12:45PM)
Believe it or not, yes!

Since I know nothing about engines, and I have a service plan with my car dealer, I’ve never had occasion to lift the hoods of my cars. Although when buying or trading (upgrading to a newer model) in the past, I have always looked under the hood before driving my new purchase off the premises. That is, until the last time!
Message: Posted by: karnak (Jul 14, 2020 12:50PM)
These days, peeking under the hood, I wouldn't even know what I was looking at.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 14, 2020 09:48PM)
Although I’ve never understood motor car engines, combustion, etc., it seemed simple enough in the Hippie Days to be able to improvise some minor repairs on my Volkswagen Combi (with the VW sign on the front reshaped into a Peace sign). Nowadays I don’t have a clue.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 16, 2020 04:58PM)
It is a mystery to me how hippies worked because they never did.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 17, 2020 11:07PM)
In an attempt to steer this thread back to what I hope S2000magician’s original concept was:

I remember how amazed I was when MIDI technology was released in the early 1980’s. MIDI (which is an acronym for Musical Instrument Digital Interface) is a technical standard that describes a communications protocol which connects electronic musical instruments, computers & audio devices for playing, editing and recording music.

A single MIDI link through a MIDI cable could carry up to sixteen channels of information, each of which could be routed to a separate device or instrument. This could be sixteen different digital instruments, for example. MIDI also carries event messages; data that specify the instructions for music, including a note's pitch, velocity, duration, vibrato, panning, and so on.

Although I confess I still don’t quite understand how it works, MIDI forever changed the way music was created, especially for composer/arrangers like myself.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jul 18, 2020 10:13AM)
"The iPhone in your pocket has over 100,000 times the processing power of the computer that landed man on the moon 50 years ago".
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 18, 2020 11:25AM)
Virtually every single atom in your body came from a star that exploded.

Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 18, 2020 12:49PM)
That’s one way of looking at it. Some people believe we, and the material universe, were created by an all-powerful Omniscient Being. Others believe that our souls descended from far subtler planes of consciousness, where atoms do not exist.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 18, 2020 04:04PM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
That’s one way of looking at it. Some people believe we, and the material universe, were created by an all-powerful Omniscient Being. Others believe that our souls descended from far subtler planes of consciousness, where atoms do not exist. [/quote]


Respectfully, no, it's not just "one way of looking at it." It is a demonstrable [I]fact[/I] that "virtually every single atom in your body came from a star that exploded."

You are correct in that some people harbor those other beliefs, but those beliefs are not supported experimentally.

Arthur, if you want to pursue this interesting discussion further you can go ahead and PM me so as not to derail the thread.

Thanks.
Ron :-)

PS - The fact that virtually every atom in our bodies came from a star that exploded [b]does not exclude an omnipotent being[/b] who created those stars which then forged the atoms in our bodies. But again, that's a whole other discussion. The fact remains that the atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 19, 2020 12:33PM)
I see no conflict between Arthur's statements and Ron's.

How does speculating about the existence of a soul or the origin of matter, conflict with the idea that our material selves are composed of atoms that at one time composed ancient stars?

BTW, I don't have to believe in either statement to observe that they don't conflict.

For example:

a) Tigers are composed of tigeron particles; and
b) Tigers were exported to Earth by the inhabitants of an alien planet

are non-contradictory statements. But neither statement implies the truth value of the other.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 19, 2020 01:37PM)
What exploded star?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 19, 2020 04:05PM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, landmark wrote:
I see no conflict between Arthur's statements and Ron's.

How does speculating about the existence of a soul or the origin of matter, conflict with the idea that our material selves are composed of atoms that at one time composed ancient stars?

BTW, I don't have to believe in either statement to observe that they don't conflict.

For example:

a) Tigers are composed of tigeron particles; and
b) Tigers were exported to Earth by the inhabitants of an alien planet

are non-contradictory statements. But neither statement implies the truth value of the other. [/quote]

Sure, but Arthur seemed to imply that it may not be true that the atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars when he said “that’s one way of looking at it.” It would be nice if he could clarify.

Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 19, 2020 04:05PM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, tommy wrote:
What exploded star? [/quote]

Alpha Biggabooma.

Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 19, 2020 05:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, R.S. wrote:

Sure, but Arthur seemed to imply that it may not be true that the atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars when he said “that’s one way of looking at it.” It would be nice if he could clarify.

Ron [/quote]

Ron, I don’t want to get into a whole scientific/metaphysical discussion with anyone. That would be pointless and a waste of time.

I’m just pointing out that not everybody believes in the theory that “atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars.” At one time, the earth was believed to be flat … until someone discovered it was round. There was no theory of relativity … until Einstein explained it. Some people, who believe in existences beyond our material world (where there are no atoms but just pure spirit), even believe that every time one of the Hindu Gods blinks (I think it’s Vishnu), another entire universe is created.

Simply said, what one person believes to be an indisputable fact, may not be acceptable for another person.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 19, 2020 05:40PM)
I have never heard of him. Was he Greek?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 19, 2020 07:27PM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, R.S. wrote:

Sure, but Arthur seemed to imply that it may not be true that the atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars when he said “that’s one way of looking at it.” It would be nice if he could clarify.

Ron [/quote]

Ron, I don’t want to get into a whole scientific/metaphysical discussion with anyone. That would be pointless and a waste of time.

I’m just pointing out that not everybody believes in the theory that “atoms in our bodies can be traced to exploded stars.” At one time, the earth was believed to be flat … until someone discovered it was round. There was no theory of relativity … until Einstein explained it. Some people, who believe in existences beyond our material world (where there are no atoms but just pure spirit), even believe that every time one of the Hindu Gods blinks (I think it’s Vishnu), another entire universe is created.

Simply said, what one person believes to be an indisputable fact, may not be acceptable for another person. [/quote]

Arthur,

Understood. But unlike “pure spirit” or “Gods blinking” the source of the elements in our bodies can be empirically traced to the cores of stars. To not accept that is to be in denial of the facts. Furthermore, it would be wrongheaded for someone to equate their personal speculation of pure spirits, Gods blinking, etc. with actual empirical evidence for the sources of the elements, a round Earth, etc.

That being said, I agree that what one person believes to be an indisputable fact, may not be acceptable for another person. The good thing is that we can put our hypotheses to the test and see which ones stand up to scrutiny.

And just so I'm clear, do you yourself accept that our atoms can be traced to exploded stars? (you can PM on that if you prefer).

Thanks.
Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 19, 2020 08:01PM)
Ron, many years ago when I was drafted into the army, I met a fellow soldier who had extraordinary vision. When he looked at people or objects, he saw them as the millions of atoms they were made of.

Also, I can vouch for the fact that if you take enough LSD, you may at some point experience seeing the millions of shimmering molecules (or atoms, or aura, or astral body, call it what you will) which make up a human being. Just for the record: that was in my reckless youth, during the Hippie days.

Whether or not we derived from exploded stars is immaterial. If you’re thinking in purely materialistic terms, you may accept that as a fact. But some people think that our material universe is just a speck of dust within the realms of other, much more spiritual planes. They believe that a soul is a particle of God, which descended from the purely spiritual regions, through the mental and astral regions, before finally taking on the physical body.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2020 04:32AM)
According to forensic science trace evidence goes both ways. So how do we know that human beings are made of exploded stars are not stars made of exploded human beings?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 20, 2020 08:05AM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
Ron, many years ago when I was drafted into the army, I met a fellow soldier who had extraordinary vision. When he looked at people or objects, he saw them as the millions of atoms they were made of. [/quote]

I’m not sure what it means to see people or objects “as the millions of atoms they were made of.” Besides, this is an anecdotal claim that we have no way of verifying. As such, I see no reason to take this extraordinary claim seriously. Do you take the claim seriously? If so, why?


[quote]

Also, I can vouch for the fact that if you take enough LSD, you may at some point experience seeing the millions of shimmering molecules (or atoms, or aura, or astral body, call it what you will) which make up a human being. Just for the record: that was in my reckless youth, during the Hippie days. [/quote]

Again, and for obvious reasons, drug induced hallucinations should be viewed with extreme skepticism.


[quote]

Whether or not we derived from exploded stars is immaterial. [/quote]

It’s not immaterial. It’s the exact (and only) point of my original post in this thread. But as I said, if this prompts a wider discussion for you then I’m open to it – just PM me please! Otherwise this can get sidetracked very quickly.


[quote]

If you’re thinking in purely materialistic terms, you may accept that as a fact. But some people think that our material universe is just a speck of dust within the realms of other, much more spiritual planes. They believe that a soul is a particle of God, which descended from the purely spiritual regions, through the mental and astral regions, before finally taking on the physical body. [/quote]

Again, I’m aware that people believe all kinds of things. But that’s irrelevant here (again, PM me for a wider discussion which I'll be happy to have). The question put to you, which you haven’t answered, was:

[I]And just so I'm clear, do you yourself accept that our atoms can be traced to exploded stars?[/I]

Thanks.
Ron
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 20, 2020 08:12AM)
Can we not hijack this thread, guys?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 20, 2020 08:12AM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2020, tommy wrote:
According to forensic science trace evidence goes both ways. So how do we know that human beings are made of exploded stars are not stars made of exploded human beings? [/quote]

I think you're on to something Tommy. If I were you I'd write up your theory and submit it to a scientific journal. Let us know when you're awarded a Nobel prize for your groundbreaking insight.

Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 20, 2020 11:15AM)
Ron, I think we owe it to S2000magician not to hijack this thread. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in scientific/metaphysical discussions. They lead nowhere.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 20, 2020 01:02PM)
In keeping with the OP’s request, one thing I find very interesting is the basic instinct of animals. For example, why do kittens who have never been outside automatically stalk and chase mouse or bird toys? How do they recognize that shape as a prey? What instils that knowledge in them? I’d love to know how that works.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 20, 2020 04:14PM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
Ron, I think we owe it to S2000magician not to hijack this thread. [/quote]

Which is exactly why I’ve been urging you all along to PM me.

[quote]

Besides, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in scientific/metaphysical discussions. They lead nowhere. [/quote]

Then why did you even bother responding to my original post with scientific/metaphysical musings (and later, with extraordinary anecdotes)??

And I disagree that those sorts of discussions lead nowhere. Sometimes they can be productive, or at the very least, thought-provoking. Which is why I’ll keep an open invitation to you to PM me for further discussion. I’m genuinely interested in your responses to the questions I’ve asked.

Thanks.
Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 20, 2020 04:52PM)
Have some respect for the OP, Ron. Let's honor his request.

Arthur
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 20, 2020 05:56PM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
In keeping with the OP’s request, one thing I find very interesting is the basic instinct of animals. For example, why do kittens who have never been outside automatically stalk and chase mouse or bird toys? How do they recognize that shape as a prey? What instils that knowledge in them? I’d love to know how that works.[/quote]
For many years my mom worked as the editor of the journal for the Brain Research Institute at UCLA.

One of the experiments they conducted was intended to see how long kittens would substitute abnormal learned behavior for instinctive behavior. They had a mother cat and her kittens, and the pleasure center of the mother cat's brain was stimulated whenever she was fed a banana. (Note for context: cats hate bananas.) The kittens, noting that mom would eat bananas, began to eat bananas themselves (with no artificial stimulus). After some period of time, however, the kittens would realize that bananas taste like, well, bananas (i.e., gross), and would stop eating them. Alas, I do not recall the statistics on the period of time.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 20, 2020 07:15PM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
Have some respect for the OP, Ron. Let's honor his request.

Arthur [/quote]

Seriously? You’re going to pretend that I haven’t been imploring you all along to PM me for the very purpose of not sidetracking the thread?? Really??

Anyway, it’s become apparent that you cannot/will not answer my simple questions. And that you likely only wanted to delegitimize my original post by positing (unsubstantiated) alternatives. And that is the true disrespect here.

Sorry, Bill. And hey, that’s a great write up on the cats and bananas – thanks!

Ron :-)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2020 07:32PM)
A question is not a theory. Questions are that which we use to test theories; that is the way science works.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 20, 2020 07:49PM)
OK, Ron … with no disrespect (which was never intended to begin with) … All I did was to put forth other possibilities. You are obviously convinced that what you stated about stars, atoms, etc. is a FACT. (I don’t know how to italicize on the Café, which is why I used caps to add emphasis … no disrespect).

But no matter how blindly you believe that (no disrespect, just an expression) … you cannot know for sure. You weren’t there at the Big Bang. So you have no direct personal experience of such an event. All you have is someone else’s theory about it. And therein lies the rub. It is just as valid for someone else to claim that there are other parts which make up the human body. And, for that matter, other realities beyond the physical universe.

The problem might simply be that you’re only looking in in one direction. To do astrological research, you have to explore outwards. Whereas to discover spiritual truths, you have to search within.

Now can we please enjoy Bill’s thread without any more challenges? (No disrespect).

Arthur
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2020 11:09PM)
We don't know many things directly but we can infer. All things are created by a crossing of opposite. Creation impplies synthesis. The magic moment we create is a synthesis of fiction and fact.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 21, 2020 11:49AM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
OK, Ron … with no disrespect (which was never intended to begin with) … All I did was to put forth other possibilities. You are obviously convinced that what you stated about stars, atoms, etc. is a FACT. (I don’t know how to italicize on the Café, which is why I used caps to add emphasis … no disrespect).

But no matter how blindly you believe that (no disrespect, just an expression) … you cannot know for sure. You weren’t there at the Big Bang. So you have no direct personal experience of such an event. All you have is someone else’s theory about it. And therein lies the rub. It is just as valid for someone else to claim that there are other parts which make up the human body. And, for that matter, other realities beyond the physical universe.

The problem might simply be that you’re only looking in in one direction. To do astrological research, you have to explore outwards. Whereas to discover spiritual truths, you have to search within.

Now can we please enjoy Bill’s thread without any more challenges? (No disrespect).

Arthur [/quote]

Arthur, you did it again! You could have PM’d this to me as I repeatedly urged you to, but instead you chose to post it here and then not give me the chance to respond by requesting that we “respect Bill’s thread.” Don’t you see how disingenuous you’re being?

Anyway, I will now PM YOU! Because not only is there so much here to unpack, but I do find the subject matter fascinating and I really do want to get your perspective.

Thanks.
Ron
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 21, 2020 01:01PM)
Ron,

What part of "I'm not interested" don't you understand? Do not PM me again, or I will report you for harassment.

Arthur

Let's get back to the subject f Bill's thread, you guys.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 21, 2020 04:35PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
Ron,

What part of "I'm not interested" don't you understand? Do not PM me again, or I will report you for harassment.

Arthur

Let's get back to the subject f Bill's thread, you guys. [/quote]

Arthur,

If you truly weren’t interested you wouldn’t have responded to me 4 times - complete with musings and personal anecdotes. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now it’s abundantly clear that you WERE interested, but only to delegitimize/marginalize my original post without having to substantiate any of your claims. Then when you got pressed on your claims and could no longer defend yourself you resorted to playing the “don’t interrupt the thread” game. I also noticed that, of all the posts in this thread, mine was the only one you singled out to say “that’s one way of looking at it.” At any rate, I should be the one reporting YOU for harassment – especially when I implored you over and over and OVER to move the conversation to PM but you stubbornly and childishly refused to do so. We could have resolved things quickly there, but now you’re making a show of playing victim. Give me a break. And grow up. Anybody who's threatened by mere questions shows a great deal of immaturity and insecurity.

Anyway, reiterating my “cool fact” to the thread:

[I]“Virtually every single atom in your body came from a star that exploded.”[/I]

Ron
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 21, 2020 06:44PM)
Economists are well aware that people's willingness to pay for essentially identical products varies quite a bit. If they only had one of a particular sort of item, that would pose a problem; if person A is willing to pay $100 for an item that person B is willing to pay $150 for, you could charge $150, but then A won't buy it. Or you could charge $100, and they'd both buy it, but you'd be leaving $50 on the table from person B. So they come out with multiple products that are similar but not identical; if there's a plausible incentive to get B to pay the $150, you get the best of both worlds (A buys a $3.00 cup of coffee, but B buys the $4.00 cup that is produced in some environmentally-friendly-to-the-rain-forest way, for instance).

All of which is background to the story I read once in an economics-for-non-economists book: Company X put out two printers. I don't remember the numbers, so I'm making them up, but you'll get the point. One model costs $75 and prints 20 pages per minute; the other costs $100 and prints 30 pages per minute. Here comes the "How things work" part. If you saw the models, you might think that first they developed the low-output model, then they worked on it some more and figured out a way to make it more productive. And you'd be wrong. They developed a printer that could always print 30 pages per minute; then they deliberately jacked up an alternate model to [i]reduce[/i] its productivity; by having a lesser model, they justified the Bs' of the world's willingness to pay more, while at the same time offering a lesser model withing the As' budgets.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 21, 2020 08:07PM)
Yes, similar deliberate crippling of power in computer chips. IIRC, Intel and Apple have both pulled that stunt.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (Jul 21, 2020 08:49PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2020, R.S. wrote:

Arthur,

If you truly weren’t interested you wouldn’t have responded to me 4 times - complete with musings and personal anecdotes. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now it’s abundantly clear that you WERE interested, but only to delegitimize/marginalize my original post without having to substantiate any of your claims. Then when you got pressed on your claims and could no longer defend yourself you resorted to playing the “don’t interrupt the thread” game. I also noticed that, of all the posts in this thread, mine was the only one you singled out to say “that’s one way of looking at it.” At any rate, I should be the one reporting YOU for harassment – especially when I implored you over and over and OVER to move the conversation to PM but you stubbornly and childishly refused to do so. We could have resolved things quickly there, but now you’re making a show of playing victim. Give me a break. And grow up. Anybody who's threatened by mere questions shows a great deal of immaturity and insecurity.

Anyway, reiterating my “cool fact” to the thread:

[I]“Virtually every single atom in your body came from a star that exploded.”[/I]

Ron [/quote]

Dear Ron,

I can’t thank you enough for helping me come to my senses. By looking back at all your posts in this thread, and especially re-reading the last one, my lack of understanding has been fully exposed.

You are, of course, 100% correct. It was immature of me to suggest that there could be any other way of thinking besides yours. It was foolish for me to even presume that different theories existed, and for that I must apologize. I am truly sorry.

How can I ever forgive myself for being so stubborn and insecure? I acted like a child, and I’m so grateful for your persistence in showing me the error of my ways. If only I had known you were such an expert on all the topics we covered, I would never have offered any opinions at all.

But rest assured, now that I’ve been made aware of your incomparable intellect and complete grasp of everything pertaining to this universe and beyond, I promise never to engage you in any future posts. I’ve learned my lesson, and that is to keep my mouth shut when encountering true greatness.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

Arthur
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 22, 2020 06:59AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2020, arthur stead wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2020, R.S. wrote:

Arthur,

If you truly weren’t interested you wouldn’t have responded to me 4 times - complete with musings and personal anecdotes. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now it’s abundantly clear that you WERE interested, but only to delegitimize/marginalize my original post without having to substantiate any of your claims. Then when you got pressed on your claims and could no longer defend yourself you resorted to playing the “don’t interrupt the thread” game. I also noticed that, of all the posts in this thread, mine was the only one you singled out to say “that’s one way of looking at it.” At any rate, I should be the one reporting YOU for harassment – especially when I implored you over and over and OVER to move the conversation to PM but you stubbornly and childishly refused to do so. We could have resolved things quickly there, but now you’re making a show of playing victim. Give me a break. And grow up. Anybody who's threatened by mere questions shows a great deal of immaturity and insecurity.

Anyway, reiterating my “cool fact” to the thread:

[I]“Virtually every single atom in your body came from a star that exploded.”[/I]

Ron [/quote]

Dear Ron,

I can’t thank you enough for helping me come to my senses. By looking back at all your posts in this thread, and especially re-reading the last one, my lack of understanding has been fully exposed.

You are, of course, 100% correct. It was immature of me to suggest that there could be any other way of thinking besides yours. It was foolish for me to even presume that different theories existed, and for that I must apologize. I am truly sorry.

How can I ever forgive myself for being so stubborn and insecure? I acted like a child, and I’m so grateful for your persistence in showing me the error of my ways. If only I had known you were such an expert on all the topics we covered, I would never have offered any opinions at all.

But rest assured, now that I’ve been made aware of your incomparable intellect and complete grasp of everything pertaining to this universe and beyond, I promise never to engage you in any future posts. I’ve learned my lesson, and that is to keep my mouth shut when encountering true greatness.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

Arthur [/quote]

Arthur,

Now would be a good time to stop with your nonsense. You've been exposed and it's over. Leave it alone.

Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 22, 2020 07:10AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2020, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Economists are well aware that people's willingness to pay for essentially identical products varies quite a bit. If they only had one of a particular sort of item, that would pose a problem; if person A is willing to pay $100 for an item that person B is willing to pay $150 for, you could charge $150, but then A won't buy it. Or you could charge $100, and they'd both buy it, but you'd be leaving $50 on the table from person B. So they come out with multiple products that are similar but not identical; if there's a plausible incentive to get B to pay the $150, you get the best of both worlds (A buys a $3.00 cup of coffee, but B buys the $4.00 cup that is produced in some environmentally-friendly-to-the-rain-forest way, for instance).

All of which is background to the story I read once in an economics-for-non-economists book: Company X put out two printers. I don't remember the numbers, so I'm making them up, but you'll get the point. One model costs $75 and prints 20 pages per minute; the other costs $100 and prints 30 pages per minute. Here comes the "How things work" part. If you saw the models, you might think that first they developed the low-output model, then they worked on it some more and figured out a way to make it more productive. And you'd be wrong. They developed a printer that could always print 30 pages per minute; then they deliberately jacked up an alternate model to [i]reduce[/i] its productivity; by having a lesser model, they justified the Bs' of the world's willingness to pay more, while at the same time offering a lesser model withing the As' budgets. [/quote]

This is great - thanks Lobo! Reminds of the "Decoy Effect" from the show Brain Games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip5jG3djdyk

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2020 10:06AM)
Https://www.amazon.com/Are-Made-Stardust-Funny-Mugs/dp/B07K6NRBCK

And even mugs know that printing machine makers make more from the ink sales.
Message: Posted by: slowkneenuh (Jul 26, 2020 12:48PM)
Not quite how stuff works but still intriguing. Have you seen the new mini-PC sticks? About the same size as a Roku or Amazon streaming video stick but it's a regular computer. Windows 10, wi-fi, wireless mouse and keyboard hookup, memory, etc. Just plug it into a HDMI port on TV or monitor. Less than $200. on Amazon.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 28, 2020 11:12AM)
Thank you kindly. I had not heard of them. If I understand them correctly they look great and among other things I like the sound of them needing no fan and so they are thus quiet, I guess. When I see my computer expert I will ask him what he thinks of them.