Subject:
|
Re: Larry Tells All... (was Re: Lego To Close Molding, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:40:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1521 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
>
> See, there is a god and we have invoked his holy desciple... :-) :-) :-)
> :-)
Lol!
> > In lugnet.lego, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > > Someone put their finger on it, K8s are going to all of a sudden be a lot
> > > > harder for US clubs to cadge. <snip>
[snip]
> > Suz:That said, if folks here think there will be fewer K8s just because
> > there's less local molding, I'd have to disagree. To me, that's like saying,
> > "Retail LEGO sets are going to be hard to find next year." I see the two
> > programs (K8's and factory floors) as separate calculations.
>
> I think I was saying about the same as you are. I definitely agree, the
> factory floor and K-8s are two different things. The only "spoilage" I
> assume might go into K-8s would be situations where a bag of parts has
> torn, or perhaps weighs out as wrong, or is otherwise not suitable to go
> into a set box, but contains perfectly good clean parts. I see no reason
> why those might not be dumped into a box, and at some point have the bag
> discarded and the parts just become loose parts. Of course the labor
> might be more than the cost of the raw parts.
exactly. it's kinda like the chads thing (duck). all politics aside, it's
probably quicker and cheaper to just eliminate everything "out of the ordinary"
ASAP. Companies' waste volume in production no longer surprises me. It is
disturbing. Ever see a magazine come off the press? yikes. In production of Sky&
Telescope magazine, we could have grabbed the thousands of copies used to "warm
up the press" and put them aside for libraries and schools to buy for a nickel
each... but in reality the sweaty press guys would have knocked me in the head
before i could get my hands on anything.
I'm afraid there's such a streamline system in place that no milisecond of
thinking about, "oops, now throw those in the k8 bin..no, wait, are they really
that bad?..I mean good? *#@& "
I know, it's painful to imagine the value of a brick being reduced to a piece of
lint or newspaper scraps. (In fact, I'd probably fall off the edge of a building
in my reflex to grab airbourne LEGO pieces.) but the more you're exposed to the
volume .. you get desensitized to it. When I was at LEGO Futura and the Media
Lab, I had to lug so much of the stuff, I was practically cursing it.
> I would guess that most
> parts in K-8s come from boxes of parts which have gone through no more
> steps in the process from plastic pellets to set than come out of the
> molding machine and go into boxes of a single part - there are always
> imperfections in how the various parts for the various sets in use are
> balanced out, so this is an obvious source for K-8 parts.
yes, perhaps.
I wonder what those numbers are really like. (?)
> Of course
> there may even be enough volume of K-8s that they actually intentionally
> produce and extra gazooble of blue doohickies just to stock K-8s.
hmm-I dunno. Seems unlikely. well, until I think about supplies for LEGOLAND,
CA. But knowing how compartmentalized the place is (TLC), I wouldn't be
surprised if the factory folks didn't even know about K8s.
> I also agree, "trash bin" does not at all imply that someone can go to
> the dump and rescue the parts. They will be incinerated or some such.
> All companies do this (when IBM discards computers, they take all the
> recycleable bits off and recycle them, the rest gets crushed before
> leaving the premises).
ouch.
> I just feel that in a properly free society,
> there would be the possibility that some of these trashed parts could be
> rescued by people unwilling to pay the full price for the parts, but
> willing to work for their parts (sort through a trash bin to find the 3
> useable rare parts).
I'd bet money that this never happens.
> I think this could even be managed in a way that
> would not harm TLCs reputation. I hate to see stuff which has some value
> being destroyed and not made available to someone who could benefit from
> that value just because people don't want to look bad.
sounds good on paper. I agree it would be nicer.
(thinking again of the wasted magazines) !! In fact, about 5 years ago I wanted
to buy this Mission-style cherry platform bed. It was in one of those upscale
furniture stores. Being about $300 short, I asked the sales person where the
product was "handmade". They gave me the state and name. That was enough for me
to do a phone call and backdoor purchase at the original woodshop. They sold me
"second quality" parts (imperceptable to my eye) for $400 off the store price.
then swore me to secracy. I literally had to haul the parts off the woodshop
floor. But hey, I love my bed! and good deal for them.
I think the bigger the operation, the less likely you are to see anything like
that. And the higher up the company's ladder you went, they more they'd be
frowning.
Unless of course the company uses their "charitable ways" as PR Brownie points.
Like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. in their slick factory tour we see rubber trash
barrels on the factory floor filling with "less than perfect" choc-o-crunchy-
swirl or whatever. We, on the tour, are informed that the stuff is fed to pigs
at local small farms. then we recieve mini-Dixie cups of free ice cream.
So maybe we'll have to wait till Enfield has a guided tour. But the tour guide
will have to say something like, "those dud bricks down there are saved up to be
given to grown-ups who like to build with LEGO but don't like to pay for it."
[sorry, don't take me too seriously. I'm just being my usual critical-self. If
you could see me you'd see that I'm chuckling]
> Is anyone really
> bothered that some poor folks take clothing which most of us wouldn't
> wear and at least get something to keep them warm in the winter even if
> it isn't pretty? Does the street bum wandering around in a pair of
> Levi's jeans which look like they came out of a garbage pit reflect
> poorly in any way on Levi Strauss? Heck, in that case, I'd be more
> woried about the high school kid who purposefully tears their jeans to
> look "cool".
indeed. I know what you're saying.
Makes me think of that shoe-guy, designer in New York.. (name?) he makes a lot
of money by looking so "kind to the less fortunate." but notice he doesn't give
away any of his own brand of shoe! (only the used stuff that customers bring in)
:-)
whew! I really should stay out of this newsgroup.
I have to stop now and get some coffee.
cheers to the conversation.
:-)
-Suz
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
