Guilty Confession....

[Fung Koo]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Psychology won't stop the crappy car from wearing out no matter how much the user LOVES IT or paid for it.

Physics doesn't give a damn about Love or Money.

Love and Money could give a crap about physics, too.

What's your point?

[phil_geo]

Psychology won't stop the crappy car from wearing out no matter how much the user LOVES IT or paid for it.

I'm not sure you read the book that you linked to, if you are saying what it sounds like. You sound like you think there is a conspiracy where car manufacturers design cars to wear out or break much quicker than they could be built.

The book you linked to, despite the name, argues the opposite. It argues that the vast majority of cars are replaced not because they are worn out, but instead because marketing campaigns convince people that their car is the wrong shape, or wrong color, or wrong style. The premise of the book is that things last so long that marketing must rely on style to convince people to replace them.

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by phil_geo

I'm not sure you read the book that you linked to, if you are saying what it sounds like. You sound like you think there is a conspiracy where car manufacturers design cars to wear out or break much quicker than they could be built.

The book you linked to, despite the name, argues the opposite. It argues that the vast majority of cars are replaced not because they are worn out, but instead because marketing campaigns convince people that their car is the wrong shape, or wrong color, or wrong style. The premise of the book is that things last so long that marketing must rely on style to convince people to replace them.

They can't possibly make a safe car that would last only 3 years. That does not mean they could not make a car that could last 40. But if airplanes in WWII could do 400+ mph what does it say about any engineering reasons for changing the shape of cars since the Moon landing.

It has probably been a couple of decades since I last read that book. I first read it in 1976 but I knew planned obsolescence was going on in cars before that.

It is not like that is the only book relating to the subject.

http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Durability-F...onfiction_Book

psik

[Glelas]

Not the world war II planes again

Psikey, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

and

Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan

You'll thank me later.

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by Glelas

Not the world war II planes again

Psikey, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

and

Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan

You'll thank me later.

Don't bet on it. A 1946 book! Oh, please!

Today's economists can't tell the American people how much they have lost on the depreciation of automobiles since 1946. I downloaded the PDF but it is in picture form not text form so I can't search it for "technology" but I'll try to find it in computer searchable form.

I mention the planes because of what they say about the "level of technology" at the time, aerodynamics, metallurgy, machining processes, etc. So what is so great about the junk that rolls along the ground at less than 130 mph today? It keeps getting redesigned for what? Doesn't that relate to economics just like all of the television commercials we are supposed to watch telling us to buy the trash? How many televisions were there in the US in 1946?

The second book used the word "technology" eight times. The words "depreciation", and "obsolescence" ain't there at all. The word "obsolete" is used twice and only in referring to decision making on the production side of the equation. Our economic theory is based on the people on the supply side being STUPID. No one suggests that EVERYONE understand that 700 year old double-entry accounting that is SO HARD even though we are now all supposed to buy smartphones that have the power of 1980 mainframes. What does that 1946 book say about computers? I guess in 1980 multi-million dollar corporations didn't use their million dollar mainframes to do accounting.

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,13...-11714,00.html

Isn't science fiction about how technology is used in society and it affects society?

psik

PS - Ever seen an SF story that involved the control of the distribution of knowledge to maintain the power game?

[Chuffalump]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

I mention the planes because of what they say about the "level of technology" at the time, aerodynamics, metallurgy, machining processes, etc. So what is so great about the junk that rolls along the ground at less than 130 mph today? It keeps getting redesigned for what?

As long as you split the 'redesign for fashion' from the redesign for improved safety, improved fuel economy etc. Surely you agree that those are good reasons for producing a new model?

[Fung Koo]

What is your point, psikey?

That the depreciation of luxury goods is... what?

That it's not always necessary to buy something new to replace something old?

That the goods in the marketplace today aren't markedly different than those produced 50-odd years ago?

What is your point?

Why aren't you regarding commercials themselves as consumer goods?

Isn't science fiction about how technology is used in society and it affects society?

Only sometimes. Sometimes it's about how society affects technology. And sometimes it has nothing to do with either technology or society at all.

What is your point?

[Hereford Eye]

Physics is pure and everything else is ...
We must build a society based solely on physics with no soft sciences involved whatsoever. We will build a clockwork universe...no, no, wait, clockwork went out with Anthony Burgess. We will build a relative universe...no, no, wait, relativity went out wtih QED and that proves that!
No, wait, we can string together a society based on who identifies the most planes...
Let's start over. Let's say we build a society with physics with certain folks negative and certain folks positive. They could be called men and women but that would omit some other people who don't fit. We''ll call them neutrons.
Let's start over. Let's build a society with gravity where the greater masses acquire more leverage in the society. Then, we'll have tv shows called The Biggest Gainer and it will refer to clout within the society.
And then we must establish a new law of physics that says all technology is based on physics and therefore technology belongs only to the physicists. We will have no marketing types associated with technology of any kind. And then we can watch the rebel group of chemists begin their underground where they coopt biology as a subset of chemistry while the purists remain adamant that chemistry is nothing more than physics dressed in other skirts and the secret of life is therefore the domain of physics. Who needs chemists, anyway?
We will dispense with economics as it is mere statistics and statistics are mere math and math is merely how we speak physics. Of course, there will be a fanatic splinter group chanting nonsense about which came first - physiss or math - and designing mathematical bombshells for the suicidal to use to attack the physicists.
Having dispensed with economics, we can dispense with capitalism as it is a mere example of an economic system. As we are doing that, we can dispense with all the other isms as being mere examples of economic systems and won't the fundamentalists have a rebellion over that pogrom?
Or, because these may all be foolish notions, we'll just do something rationale like claiming science fiction must deal only with technology and physics owns technology and therefore nothing written by Heinlein, Asimov, Tenn, Robinson, LeGuin, et al, can be considered sanctified by the nom d' guerre Science Fiction as they all tend to get mushy with their science and incorporate more than a modicum of human concerns.
Is that about where the discussion stands?

[Window Bar]

Regarding your confession:

Say twenty "Hail Uhurus." She will intercede.

--WB