Replacement rice cooker bowl?
Peter L
bowl is beginning to look scrungy. Is there any place that sells
replacement bowls? I don't want to have to buy a whole new cooker. TIA.
--
(I delete every e-mail sent to my address, without reading.)
notbob
> My rice cooker has been functioning daily for about 10 years. The container
> bowl is beginning to look scrungy. Is there any place that sells
> replacement bowls? I don't want to have to buy a whole new cooker. TIA.
Probably not an option. Besides, not usually cost effective. I
recall when the glass turntable on my microwave broke. A replacement
was about $40. A whole new microwave was only $50.
nb
Peter L
"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:Nroka.103113$OV.205518@rwcrnsc54...
More landfills. We need more landfills.
> nb
Peter Dy
"Peter L" <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6t4bl$8krgg$1...@ID-110472.news.dfncis.de...
It's an option, lots of places sell them. Not expensive. I got mine in
Seattle, and since I haven't been on the lookout for them here, I don't know
where to get them. I'm sure one of the Kamei stores on Clement has them.
Peter
notbob
> More landfills. We need more landfills.
I did, in fact, buy the turntable. Then six months later the
microwave died.
nb
Michael Dix
>
> My rice cooker has been functioning daily for about 10 years. The container
> bowl is beginning to look scrungy. Is there any place that sells
> replacement bowls? I don't want to have to buy a whole new cooker. TIA.
Is it a Tatung rice cooker? We bought a new inner pot for ours at
99 Ranch several years ago. They were in the aisle with the individual
gas burners and so on.
Peter L
"Michael Dix" <lo...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:3E926180...@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid...
No it's a Panasonic. But I'll try the 99.
> --
> mj...@sonic.net
Geoff Miller
Peter L <pete...@hotmail.com> writes:
[ for an extra ten bucks, get a whole new microwave ]
> More landfills. We need more landfills.
Being an insensitive, warmongering, planet-raping Republican,
I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about replacing something
rather than repairing it if it's cheaper just to buy a new one.
After all, it's not *my* fault that costs are structured that
way, so why should I shoulder a financial burden by taking the
more expensive option? Fuggit.
Geoff
--
"The diversity stole my bicycle." -- Fred Reed
Todd Michel McComb
Wait, I thought you were the guy who made that call. Can you
let us know who it is, so we can complain directly? Thanks!
Peter L
"Geoff Miller" <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:b6v42j$f...@u1.netgate.net...
>
>
> Peter L <pete...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [ for an extra ten bucks, get a whole new microwave ]
>
> > More landfills. We need more landfills.
>
>
> Being an insensitive, warmongering, planet-raping Republican,
> I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about replacing something
> rather than repairing it if it's cheaper just to buy a new one.
> After all, it's not *my* fault that costs are structured that
> way, so why should I shoulder a financial burden by taking the
> more expensive option? Fuggit.
Question is not repairing it, but buying a replacement part. How come
buying a replacement part is more expensive than buying a whole new thingy?
Would you want to buy a new car everytime you need to replace the air
filter?
Ignasi Palou-Rivera
Quite simple. Just think about inventory (tracking, etc) costs. How
many parts of each are you going to make? You probably need some
relative failure analysis, etc. Much simpler, and cheaper for cheap
objects, to make just complete ietms.
It's the same for cars, but in a different scale. You can get parts,
but only some things are independent parts. In some cases you can't
get a simple part, but you need to get the whole assembly.
--
Ignasi.
Geoff Miller
Peter L <pete...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Question is not repairing it, but buying a replacement part.
Assumption is that a replacement part would need to be bought
*in order* to repair it.
> How come buying a replacement part is more expensive than
> buying a whole new thingy?
We haven't seen that it is. What we've seen is that the
cost of buying a replacement part is close enough to the
cost of buying a whole new thingy that consumers are
encouraged to forego repairing the old thingy and buy a
new one with less wear and tear on it, and probably with
a more recent design and more features. Why? Because
due to the stocking costs that somebody else mentioned,
the profit margin on a whole new thingy is greater than
the profit margin on replacement parts for old thingies.
I first ran into this with a full-featured AT&T answering
machine that I purchased about a decade ago. It had some
glitch the details of which I ddon't remember, so I packed
the thing up in its original box and UPS'd it off to the
AT&T repair center in L.A.
A few days later, I got a letter back informing me that they
wanted $75 up front to even begin looking at the machine --
in addition to the actual cost of repairs, you understand,
whatever that might turn out to be. And which, considering
the cost of low-end consumer electronic components and mech-
anical bits , was undoubtedly trivial. I was sore pissed.
But the rationale for this attempted financial sodomy wasn't
hard to figure out, nevertheless. Clearly AT&T made more
money from selling new answering machines than from repairing
"old" ones, and if a customer really wanted to have his
answering machine fixed, AT&T was by-Ghod going to see to it
that it got a decent profit for its trouble. I'd rather have
kept the old one, which was perfectly satisfactory, but the
financial realities of the situation made that option a
nonstarter. And I submit that only some eccentric, loony-
lefty, anticonsumerist weirdo who lived in Berkeley and
drove a battered, 30-year-old Volvo would've concluded
otherwise.
> Would you want to buy a new car everytime you need to
> replace the air filter?
Of course not. One reason is that the cost of a new air
filter is trivial. Another reason is that air filters are
consumables like oil filters (or oil, for that matter).
That's a bad example. You might just as well ask whether
I'd buy a whole new car because the current one ran low
on gas.
A more relevant question is, would I buy a new car just
because a *repair* cost (as distinct from a routine-
maintenance cost like replacing the air filter) was
above some arbitrary threshold? And the answer to
that question could very well be yes.
Sometimes it simply doesn't make economic sense to repair
something, even when it's technically feasible. And it
has nothing to do with the supposed wastefulness of the
American consumer society or any other such lefty claptrap.
It has to do with the realities of profit margins on parts
versus those on new goods, and on the costs of repairing
things versus their actual value.
ObFood: I went to a Wendy's today for the first time in
several years, the one on Bascomb and Union Avenues in
Campbell next to Cosentino's. I ordered a "single" with
cheese, and without giving it much thought, a chocolate
shake.
The dining room was crowded, and so I got my food to go
and went outside to eat in my car while I read a magazine.
As soon as I got situated with the windows down for ven-
tilation and my magazine in my lap, I popped the lid off
the shake and raised it to my mouth to take a sip. My
arm froze when the shake was halfway to my lips, and I
saw that this "milkshake" was solid rather than liquid.
It wasn't a shake at all, but a cup filled with soft-serve
chocolate ice cream.
"Goddammit," I muttered to myself. I raised the windows,
got out of the car, locked the door, and trudged back
into the restaurant for a plastic spoon. Then I turned
around and retraced my steps back to the car, unlocked
it, got it, re-lowered the windows for ventilation, and
got situated once again. Only then was I able to begin
eating my lunch. By then my stomach was growling.
A frigging milkshake is a beverage, not a food. And
beverages, by definition, are supposed to be drinkable,
not something one eats with a spoon. We've all heard
the phrase "food and drink," right? Well, things you
eat with the aid of utensils are "food," not "drink."
People order beverages to wash their food down with,
after all, which is rather difficult to do when you
end up eating your beverage instead of drinking it.
Geoff
--
"Baghdad is safe. The battle is still going on. Their infidels
are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad.
Don't believe those liars." -- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi
Information Minister
Todd Michel McComb
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>Consumers are encouraged to forego repairing the old thingy and
>buy a new one with less wear and tear on it, and probably with a
>more recent design and more features.
Unfortunately, these days, "more features" usually means a more
annoying product.
>It has nothing to do with the supposed wastefulness of the American
>consumer society or any other such lefty claptrap. It has to do
>with the realities of profit margins on parts versus those on new
>goods
I'm sorry, but this is a very silly thing to say.... You act as
though these two things are completely unrelated!
>A frigging milkshake is a beverage, not a food.
I seem to recall that Wendy's calls this concoction a "frosty." Is
that no longer true?
Karen O'Mara
I bet that by the time you got back to your car again, re-lowered your
windows, etc., enough time had passed for the milkshake to melt enough
so that you were then able to drink it?...
Karen
David desJardins
> A frigging milkshake is a beverage, not a food. And
> beverages, by definition, are supposed to be drinkable,
> not something one eats with a spoon.
Wendy's management seems to be well aware of this. Wendy's doesn't sell
milkshakes. They do have a dessert called a "Frosty", which is much
like what you describe (too thick to be drinkable).
This page lists the beverages Wendy's serves (sodas, iced tea, milk,
etc.) and also the desserts (Frostys):
http://www.wendys.com/w-3-4.shtml
David desJardins
Guy Bannis
kso...@yahoo.com (Karen O'Mara) wrote:
> geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote in message
news:<b734le$8...@u1.netgate.net>...
> > A frigging milkshake is a beverage, not a food. And
> > beverages, by definition, are supposed to be drinkable,
> > not something one eats with a spoon. We've all heard
> > the phrase "food and drink," right? Well, things you
> > eat with the aid of utensils are "food," not "drink."
So you don't like your milk shakes thick ...
> I bet that by the time you got back to your car again, re-lowered your
> windows, etc., enough time had passed for the milkshake to melt enough
> so that you were then able to drink it?...
Certainly, it had softened enough by the time he finished writing that
long rant ... ;-)
Geoff Miller
Karen O'Mara <kso...@yahoo.com> writes:
[ WAY too much quoted text ]
> I bet that by the time you got back to your car again, re-lowered
> your windows, etc., enough time had passed for the milkshake to
> melt enough so that you were then able to drink it?...
That would've been about two minutes, and no, the shake was still
a veritable brick when I got back. It was a nice day, but it
wasn't *that* warm out.
Geoff
--
"No reason to get snotty..." -- bizbee
Geoff Miller
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> writes:
> Wendy's doesn't sell milkshakes. They do have a dessert
> called a "Frosty", which is much like what you describe
> (too thick to be drinkable).
In typical fast-food fashion, I was rushed by the counterdroids
in a chorus of "Can I help you?"'s before I'd had a chance to
peruse the menu board comprehensively. When I cut to the chase
and ordered a "shake," the 'droid didn't say "We don't have
shakes; we only have Frosties"; she only asked, "What size?"
> This page lists the beverages Wendy's serves (sodas, iced tea,
> milk, etc.) and also the desserts (Frostys):
Well, now I know. And the Frosties are good in their own way,
just not what I expected. On the positive side of the ledger,
I'd forgotten how good their burders are -- or that a Single
is a (lowercase) quarter pounder. I can't imagine ordering
a Double, let alone a Triple.
Karen O'Mara
> That would've been about two minutes, and no, the shake was still
> a veritable brick when I got back. It was a nice day, but it
> wasn't *that* warm out.
Some of those fast food restaurant milkshakes are pretty funky when
they melt, anyway. Not too appetizing.
Karen
Guy Bannis
kso...@yahoo.com (Karen O'Mara) wrote:
> Some of those fast food restaurant milkshakes are pretty funky when
> they melt, anyway. Not too appetizing.
I actually like McDonald's cellulose shakes. I wonder if they're
completely nondairy. Anyone know?
David desJardins
> I actually like McDonald's cellulose shakes. I wonder if they're
> completely nondairy. Anyone know?
The main ingredient in McDonalds shakes is whole milk.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/nutrition/menuitems/display/index.jsp/itemID=1800