Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dear Bret Cahill:
On Jul 14, 11:45 am, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a number that
has six "profit margins" applied to it, will have a much larger effect
than the same percentage change applied to the last / sales price.
David A. Smith
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a number thatIs there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
That's probably the best way to put it.Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a number that
has six "profit margins" applied to it, will have a much larger effect
than the same percentage change applied to the last / sales price.
Dear Phil Hobbs:
On Jul 14, 1:20 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:45 am, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...dlzc wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:45 am, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a number that
has six "profit margins" applied to it, will have a much larger effect
than the same percentage change applied to the last / sales price.
That's probably the best way to put it.
Energy storage may be more than just two way conversion but, as far as
pure materials are concerned, a battery isn't going to be different
than other energy conversion devices
Therefore, focusing on energy conversion alone is good enough.
Even some kind of cell that converted solar energy directly to
something storable might fall under the same rule of pure materials.
What happens when chlorophyll becomes somehow "tainted?"
It's probably the same exponential decay curve followed by tainted
silicon Si solar cells and tainted lithium Li - ion batteries.
Bret Cahill
Not for the battery "round trip."Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...
It isn't just the accountants. It blows your argument out of the water.
Dear Phil Hobbs:
On Jul 14, 8:04 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 07/14/2011 09:57 PM,dlzcwrote:
On Jul 14, 1:20 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:45 am, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...
It isn't just the accountants. It blows your argument out
of the water.
It is the accountant's argument. The people that provide us with
paychecks. They think the argument makes sense, and they make
financial decisions based on that logic.
Of course, the cost of a final good almost never has only profit
margins laid over it (except perhaps for fuel, once refined).
If I start with a cost of $1, mark it up by 10%, add $1, mark that up
by 10%, and repeat a few more times I get to ~$8.50. Just altering
the initial dollar by ą10%, and leaving the markup and fixed cost per
"step" the same, I end up with a change of only a bit more than 2%.
Changing the fixed cost by ą10% of one step at higher "levels" has a
smaller effect of the final "price" the further up the chain you go.
But then, I've changed the problem... away from "just markups".
David A. Smith
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110523101909.htm
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a number that
has six "profit margins" applied to it, will have a much larger effect
than the same percentage change applied to the last / sales price.
That's probably the best way to put it.
Energy storage may be more than just two way conversion but, as far as
pure materials are concerned, a battery isn't going to be different
than other energy conversion devices
Therefore, focusing on energy conversion alone is good enough.
Even some kind of cell that converted solar energy directly to
something storable might fall under the same rule of pure materials.
What happens when chlorophyll becomes somehow "tainted?"
It's probably the same exponential decay curve followed by tainted
silicon Si solar cells and tainted lithium Li - ion batteries.
Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is the accountant's argument. The people that provide us withOn 07/14/2011 09:57 PM,dlzcwrote:
On Jul 14, 1:20 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:45 am, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...
It isn't just the accountants. It blows your argument out
of the water.
That doesn't seem to answer the question:Is there any really general law on this matter, something
like, "you gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's
cheaper at the materials stage of manfacture."
Look at it from a supply viewpoint. A small change in a
number that has six "profit margins" applied to it, will
have a much larger effect than the same percentage
change applied to the last / sales price.
Multiplication is commutative and associative.
Now if someone would explain that to the accountants...
It isn't just the accountants. It blows your argument out
of the water.
It is the accountant's argument. The people that provide us with
paychecks. They think the argument makes sense, and they make
financial decisions based on that logic.
Of course, the cost of a final good almost never has only profit
margins laid over it (except perhaps for fuel, once refined).
If I start with a cost of $1, mark it up by 10%, add $1, mark that up
by 10%, and repeat a few more times I get to ~$8.50. Just altering
the initial dollar by ą10%, and leaving the markup and fixed cost per
"step" the same, I end up with a change of only a bit more than 2%.
Changing the fixed cost by ą10% of one step at higher "levels" has a
smaller effect of the final "price" the further up the chain you go.
But then, I've changed the problem... away from "just markups".
David A. Smith
When you multiply (1.something) times (2) times (3), it's the same as
(2) times (3) times (1.something). I'm not arguing with some nebulous
unspecified accountant, I was just pointing out that _you_ were talking
nonsense, which you were.
If you start _adding_ stuff, you can make it come out differently, of
course, but that isn't what you said originally.
Chefs claim seasoning should be added during prep but using that as aIs there any really general law on this matter, something like, "you
gotta reduce entropy somewhere and it's cheaper at the materials stage
of manfacture."
"I have a theory. I think wit and electricity are one and the same."
I'll see that, and raise you one: