"D.Duck" wrote in message ...

"D-unit" cof42_AT_embarqmail.com wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"D-unit" cof42_AT_embarqmail.com wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
news D-unit wrote:
Small offset printing Gene.

We make IR dryers/Powder Spray attachments
for the 11x17 market (and a few larger ones)

AB Dick, ATF Davidson, Multigraphics, Heidelberg, etc...

We have a machine shop and make all our own parts (I think
Im going to miss having access to that the most. It came in
quite handy back during the Maco refurb days. I could walk
in with a mini-project back in those days and 3 guys would
fight over who was going to get to work on it.)



Don




"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:28:13 -0500, D-unit penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|I've worked for the same
|company for 23 years (printing/machining ) and
|watched our industry dwindle slowly since the early
|90's.

Doing what? Rotogravure? Blanking? Steel Rule Dies/Embossing?

Been there done that.... it sucks....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------




I've love to have a nice 11x17 offset press. It's the workhorse of all
manner of campaigns!

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Hell,

AB Dick 360's are practically free these days.
Supplies aren't however.

db

My brother was president of AB Dick in the early 90's.



Those were the days my friend. AB Dick was manufacturing 28
9800 series presses a day, and our equipment installed
on about 1/2 of those. I visited the factory on Touhy Ave. many
times back in those days. That building was massive.
(never met the prez. though, just the marketing/tech guys)
Fun times indeed.

They have since been bought out by "Presstech".


db

Yep, my brother said when British GE, I think that was the name, bought ABD,
the hand writing was on the wall.

As a point of interest, my brother and I grew up about 5 miles west of ABD
and two blocks south of Touhy. I, not he, hunted rabbits in the '50s on the
land where ABD now stands.


How cool is that?


I started my career with AT&T across the street from ABD at what in the 60s
was Teletype Corp. We moved out of that building in '89 and moved to
Naperville. Then in '92 I transferred down here to Florida and retired in
'94. Haven't been back in the winter since!


I hope to one day follow in your retirement footsteps in FL. (or at least
do the snowbird thing). We love RV-ing.


Don

On Jan 3, 5:05�am, John H. wrote:


Chuck, to keep a group of people, primarily undereducated, beholding to the
D's will require a *lot* of money for handouts, whatever form they take.

Let's not be coy.


That's a pretty frightening concept, especially if you are speculating
that
the D's will be handing out more money than the R's recently have
done. Of course it will go to different folks. The D's steal for one
group of special interests and the R's steal for another.....but both
steal as much as they can as fast as they can.

Huge culprit:

Enrollment in federal social programs grew 17% between 2000 and 2005-
the biggest 5-year increase since the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great
Society. I guess it's a good thing the R's were in charge for most of
that time, who knows where we'd be if the D's were at the helm.

Biggest culprits, by the way, are guys like you and in another 9 years
guys like me. We are the largest recipients of federal handouts, and
regardless of which party is in power the wheels are definitely coming
off shortly after 2011, sad to say. Far too many Boomers will be
standing at the pension window, no matter which party prevails in
2008.
Both parties have squandered the SS Trust Fund over the decades, and
*still* we are running these huge deficits and piling on the debt.

Fed Entitlements:

(some of these are worthy programs, IMO)

Medicaid: Handout to 53.4mm people in 2005 cost $198 billion.
Social Security: Handout to 48mm people in 2005 cost $519 billion.
Medica Handout to 42.3mm people in 2005 cost $294 billion.
Child Nutrition: Handout to 32.3mm people in 2005 cost $12 billion
Veterans Benefits: Handout to 3.5mm people in 2005 cost $40 billlion

You also need to add over $50 billion per year to the Medicare number
above to pay for the Prescription Drug program that began in 2006. How
did the R's let the D's slip this one through? A $50-billion transfer
of public funds to prescription drug companies and a condition that
the government is *prohibited* from negotiating for volume pricing?
You gotta watch those devious D's, they can raid the treasury even
when in the minority, can't they?

With the exception of welfare ("temporary assistance for needy
families"), the number of people qualifying for benefits intended for
low income people soared between 2000 and 2005.

The number of people receiving earned income tax credits for
impoverished, low wage workers was 21.2 million, up 13.3% between 2000
and 2005. Cost of the program, $35 billion in direct payouts plus
another $5 billion in effective tax reduction. This huge increase in
the number of people in this category during a time of general
prosperity can be somewhat explained by welfare reform enacted in the
1990s. Enrollment in welfare programs was down to only 5mm people,
down 18.2% between 2000 and 2005. Many of the former welfare
recipients "moved up" to minimum wage service jobs and thereby swelled
the ranks of people qualifying for the earned income tax credit.

Unemployment compensation cost $33 billion in 2005. 8.1mm Americans
received unemployment compensation during that year- a 16.8% increase
from the year 2000. (See the effects of welfare reform, paragraph
above).

Pell grants to low income undergraduate students cost $13 billion in
2005, and 5.1mm Americans benefitted from the program.

********

And that's the problem with trying to balance the budget through
spending decreases. We could have saved $21 bb a year by cutting off
welfare entirely after 2005, but isn't $21 bb just enough to pay for a
few weeks' expenditures in Iraq? Based on the above list, I'm not
convinced that "Democrat handouts to undereducated people" represents
a significant portion of our social expense.

Looks like we need to take away Grannie's arthritis prescription,
slash payments to Social Security retirees, turn our backs on our
veterans,
stop feeding poor kids free lunch at school, kick the poor people out
of college, and allow those who can't afford to pay privately for
medical care or insurance (due either to age or financial
circumstance) to sufffer and die untreated. Seems about the right
approach- that would preserve the very same tax cuts that have allowed
more Americans to step up to the V8 and leather seats instead of the
V6 and cloth upholstery in their new SUV's. Gotta have priorities,
right?

General point: There are some remedies available that would be far
more painful than adjusting income (taxes) to a level sufficient to
cover expenses.

If you know of a way to restore fiscal sanity to the federal budget
without increasing taxes or cutting expenses, (or a combo thereof),
I'm all ears. I try to learn something new every day. :-)


Statistical cite: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...itle-chart.htm,
based on reports form the Office of Management and Budget, the
Internal Revenue Service, and Medicare and Social Security annual
reports.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:44:04 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Jan 2, 8:36 pm, "JimH" wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message

Sorry, JimH. I have same recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Ov...nnati-Multicha...
three formats, SACD, DVD-A and conventional CD.There's no comparison.
SACD rules!Eisboch

More power to you. My research shows otherwise.


Please show this research, I'll bet there are others besides me that
would love to see it. Include the data you've compiled, please.


JimH provided some links to tests performed on the various formats that
suggest SACD as being inferior.
If so inclined, one could Google up tests indicating otherwise, but it
doesn't matter. Sterile laboratory tests of frequency response, modulation
percentages, sampling rates, etc. of small, little snippets of a recording
on a computer are interesting, but don't reflect a whole bunch of other
immeasurable aspects of the content.

Since the early days of "Hi-Fi", recordings have been modified and biased to
correct for deficiencies in the media, vinyl, tape and optical disks and
standards developed. Then you have to take into account the quality of
the home equipment used to play the recordings and the acoustics of the
room. Heck, even symphony halls, like Boston's have acoustic panels
installed to correct for standing waves that alter the original, live sounds
of the orchestra instruments.

I am not an audiophile by any means and the equipment I have is not top
shelf, "high end" stuff. I'd say it's better than the average home music
systems though. Despite the computer snippet analysis of the waveforms in
the laboratory tests, SACD sounds best on my systems, followed by DVD-A,
and then CD. That opinion is not just mine. I've done my own version of
"blind tests" on cooperative subjects that enjoy music and they all, without
exception, share my conclusion, picking the SACD recordings over DVD-A and
certainly CD. There's no way even the best of the CDs I have (probably a
couple of the non-SACD Telarc Samplers) comes close to a well recorded and
mixed SACD.

It also takes some time to properly setup and adjust a total music system,
but it's well worth the effort. For example, with some peaking, tweaking
and experimentation, the subwoofer ends up producing nice, clear, tight bass
rather than the thumps you often hear in the stores. If using a surround
sound system playing Dolby, DTS or THX encoded data, things like the audio
delay settings are critical, depending on room size. When I get a new amp
I don't even bother unpacking the microphone that usually comes with them
for "Automatic" setup adjustments to compensate for room acoustics.
Instead, I spend hours playing with the system, making adjustments until it
sounds "right".

I just wish more variety and selections were available on SACD media.
Unfortunately it probably won't happen because of the influence and
convenience of mp3's played on iPod docking stations and ear "pods". It's
too bad.

Eisboch




I only care whether the sound I hear for the music I like sounds close
at home to the way it sounds in a concert hall.

I'm trying to think of an appropriate metaphor....

There's one about a Christmas goose, but it's escaping me at the moment.
--
John H

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:56:14 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Quebecor? What has that got to do with anything? Their "global
presence" doesn't even include a location in the US. They don't even
make a pretext of being "ONshore!"

Um...No?

Quebecor has a plant in Michigan and Kentucky I believe.

I may have the two states wrong, but I know they have two large plants
here in the US.

However, related to this, I'm looking at one of my newest novels fresh
from Amazon - printed in Brazil.

On Jan 3, 9:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:56:14 -0500, Gene Kearns

wrote:
Quebecor? What has that got to do with anything? Their "global
presence" doesn't even include a location in the US. They don't even
make a pretext of being "ONshore!"

Um...No?

Quebecor has a plant in Michigan and Kentucky I believe.

I may have the two states wrong, but I know they have two large plants
here in the US.

However, related to this, I'm looking at one of my newest novels fresh
from Amazon - printed in Brazil.

Printing of almost everything except some periodicals and daily
newspapers is moving offshore.

You send a computer file to East Impoverished Overshirt, where a
computerized press reads the data and cranks out a book, brochure, or
what-not. All the labor for stacking, packing, shipping, etc costs $1
an hour instead of $12-15. Another significant consideration is that
in some of the ecnomically developing countries a variety of cheaply
available but dangerous inks can be used that are no longer legal in
the US or Canada. In many of these countries, there is a lot less risk
of class-action lawsuits 10-20 years down the road as workers become
sickened by exposure to a variety of chemicals or a lack of many
"expensive" safety precautions that would be mandated in the US.

Shipping costs of the finished product are higher, of course, but for
items like a novel (with perhaps a $20 cover price on a paperback)
there is enough revenue generated per unit sold to offset the
increased shipping. Newspapers need to be turned around too rapidly to
be printed offshore, although we may see more special weekly sections
turned out off the main press. Most magazines don't generate enough
per unit revenue at the point of sale to justify the higher shipping
costs associated with overseas printing, and once again there is
normally a very short window between the final assembly of the
editorial and advertising elements and the day the publication needs
to be distributed. If it takes an extra two weeks to get some crime
novel to market, no real harm done.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 3, 9:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:56:14 -0500, Gene Kearns

wrote:
Quebecor? What has that got to do with anything? Their "global
presence" doesn't even include a location in the US. They don't even
make a pretext of being "ONshore!"
Um...No?

Quebecor has a plant in Michigan and Kentucky I believe.

I may have the two states wrong, but I know they have two large plants
here in the US.

However, related to this, I'm looking at one of my newest novels fresh
from Amazon - printed in Brazil.

Printing of almost everything except some periodicals and daily
newspapers is moving offshore.

You send a computer file to East Impoverished Overshirt, where a
computerized press reads the data and cranks out a book, brochure, or
what-not. All the labor for stacking, packing, shipping, etc costs $1
an hour instead of $12-15. Another significant consideration is that
in some of the ecnomically developing countries a variety of cheaply
available but dangerous inks can be used that are no longer legal in
the US or Canada. In many of these countries, there is a lot less risk
of class-action lawsuits 10-20 years down the road as workers become
sickened by exposure to a variety of chemicals or a lack of many
"expensive" safety precautions that would be mandated in the US.

Shipping costs of the finished product are higher, of course, but for
items like a novel (with perhaps a $20 cover price on a paperback)
there is enough revenue generated per unit sold to offset the
increased shipping.

I followed everything but the cover price concept. Why would anyone
care what the cover price is? If they can manufacture and ship the
product to the US cheaper than manufacturing and shipping the product
from the USA, it shouldn't matter if it has a $1 cover price or a $100
cover price.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:06:51 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:56:14 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|Quebecor? What has that got to do with anything? Their "global
|presence" doesn't even include a location in the US. They don't even
|make a pretext of being "ONshore!"
|
|Um...No?
|
|Quebecor has a plant in Michigan and Kentucky I believe.

It appears that they consider themselves a Canadian company...
foreign, anyway, not US. That makes them a ridiculous choice to
support the troll's statements.

I suspect that they have money collection centers in nearly (if not)
every state.... that ca$h then gets wired (along with other printing
orders, via optical network) to Canada, France, Spain, or
Argentina....

It sorta looks like they are crashing and burning, anyway. In '03
their stock was worth Can$37.75 and is now trading at around Can$1.49.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Jan 3, 11:46*am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:44:04 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Jan 2, 8:36 pm, "JimH" wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message

Sorry, JimH. I have same recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Ov...nnati-Multicha....
three formats, SACD, DVD-A and conventional CD.There's no comparison..
SACD rules!Eisboch

More power to you. My research shows otherwise.

Please show this research, I'll bet there are others besides me that
would love to see it. Include the data you've compiled, please.

JimH provided some links to tests performed on the various formats that
suggest SACD as being inferior.
If so inclined, one could Google up tests indicating otherwise, but it
doesn't matter. * Sterile laboratory tests of frequency response, modulation
percentages, sampling rates, etc. *of small, little snippets of a recording
on a computer are interesting, but don't reflect a whole bunch of other
immeasurable aspects of the content.

Since the early days of "Hi-Fi", recordings have been modified and biased to
correct for deficiencies in the media, vinyl, tape and optical disks and
standards developed. * *Then you have to take into account the quality of
the home equipment used to play the recordings and the acoustics of the
room. * *Heck, even symphony halls, like Boston's have acoustic panels
installed to correct for standing waves that alter the original, live sounds
of the orchestra instruments.

I am not an audiophile by any means and the equipment I have is not top
shelf, "high end" stuff. *I'd say it's better than the average home music
systems though. *Despite the computer snippet analysis of the waveforms in
the laboratory tests, *SACD sounds best on my systems, followed by DVD-A,
and then CD. *That opinion is not just mine. *I've done my own version of
"blind tests" on cooperative subjects that enjoy music and they all, without
exception, share my conclusion, picking the SACD recordings over DVD-A and
certainly CD. * There's no way even the best of the CDs I have (probably a
couple of the non-SACD Telarc Samplers) *comes close to a well recorded and
mixed SACD.

It also takes some time to properly setup and adjust a total music system,
but it's well worth the effort. *For example, with some peaking, tweaking
and experimentation, the subwoofer ends up producing nice, clear, tight bass
rather than the thumps you often hear in the stores. *If using a surround
sound system playing Dolby, DTS or THX encoded data, things like the audio
delay settings are critical, depending on room size. * When I get a new amp
I don't even bother unpacking the microphone that usually comes with them
for "Automatic" setup adjustments to compensate for room acoustics.
Instead, I spend hours playing with the system, making adjustments until it
sounds "right".

I just wish more variety and selections were available on SACD media.
Unfortunately it probably won't happen because of the influence and
convenience of mp3's played on iPod docking stations and ear "pods". *It's
too bad.

Eisboch

I only care whether the sound I hear for the music I like sounds close
at home to the way it sounds in a concert hall.

I'm trying to think of an appropriate metaphor....

There's one about a Christmas goose, but it's escaping me at the moment.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm, I think it's full of something or other.........

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:52:29 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


| Another significant consideration is that
| in some of the ecnomically developing countries a variety of cheaply
| available but dangerous inks can be used that are no longer legal in
| the US or Canada. In many of these countries, there is a lot less risk
| of class-action lawsuits 10-20 years down the road as workers become
| sickened by exposure to a variety of chemicals or a lack of many
| "expensive" safety precautions that would be mandated in the US.

Along with unfriendly inks is the problem of solvents. One of the
MAJOR expenses in printing is reclamation of solvent vapors.

| Shipping costs of the finished product are higher, of course, but for
| items like a novel (with perhaps a $20 cover price on a paperback)
| there is enough revenue generated per unit sold to offset the
| increased shipping.
|
|I followed everything but the cover price concept. Why would anyone
|care what the cover price is? If they can manufacture and ship the
|product to the US cheaper than manufacturing and shipping the product
|from the USA, it shouldn't matter if it has a $1 cover price or a $100
|cover price.

Bean counters? If you print a million copies, a $100 cover vs. a $1
cover is $99,000,000! That sort of number gets attention. The
difference in price of $.50 over 100,000 copies would mean the gain or
loss of $50,000! It adds up fast.

Shipping.... now, that.... *I* don't get. How can I buy a Chinese made
anvil weighing 50# from a retail/importer company for less than I
could just ship the anvil across town? Do we need a level playing
field?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:06:51 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:56:14 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|Quebecor? What has that got to do with anything? Their "global
|presence" doesn't even include a location in the US. They don't even
|make a pretext of being "ONshore!"
|
|Um...No?
|
|Quebecor has a plant in Michigan and Kentucky I believe.

It appears that they consider themselves a Canadian company...
foreign, anyway, not US. That makes them a ridiculous choice to
support the troll's statements.

I suspect that they have money collection centers in nearly (if not)
every state.... that ca$h then gets wired (along with other printing
orders, via optical network) to Canada, France, Spain, or
Argentina....

It sorta looks like they are crashing and burning, anyway. In '03
their stock was worth Can$37.75 and is now trading at around Can$1.49.


Gene,
I really don't know what percent of their business is printed locally
and what percent is overseas, but why was his comment a troll?

Is it possible he was just uniformed?