We can agree on the last notion, that the dealer has the right to refuse a sale (bar discrimination and such).
Whatever the implied or not implied "intent" of selling something, you cannot blame someone for doing whatever they want with the product that they've brought with their money (as long as it is legal). However the dealer is free to enforce whatever intent they might have, through denial of sale to specific limitations to what devices might be used on the stores premises (again, bar discrimination).
Your previous post focused on the nature of the trade and ended with inferring that the trader was "wrong" and rightfully should be shameful. I inferred from that that you're basically bashing a legal and valid form of trade as "evil". Indeed, you continue to do so and continues to call him an "evil prick".
No, normalization (even on a small scale) is exactly what he is doing. When a merchant is in a foreign market buying cheap spices that are rare at home he doesn't go around buying rare stuff that is commonplace at home just be "fair". That's completely ridiculous and not how trading works.
What you're basically bashing him for is being intelligent about his purchases. I guess intelligence is evil.
What interval of time are you talking about? We've seen quite a few examples of how consumer-grade products can be adapted easily to substitute "specialist" hardware that is sold at high expense despite low production costs. The problem with todays specialist equipment is the bureaucracy surrounding it, that halts this kind of stuff from being utilized.
Another strike against the so-called "specialist sector" marketing cheap specialized devices at high prices. As the general accessibility of multipurpose devices increases, the less we have to rely on niche markets with artificially high prices.
I think it is a really good thing that people are able to utilize new consumer products in this way. Personally I don't like the tablet much, but it is nice to see it used like this.
It's technically true, seeing with your proposed glasses, that he raises the ASP. However I think it is a moot point, because the price of a product in a market with a dubious demand of the specific product, versus his identified and verified demand for it in another market (remember, he makes sure he can sell the book!), is not really a price that should figure in when calculating the ASP for the end-customer.
It gets difficult to gauge his effect on the ASP when you try to compare prices of products in a market where it might sell, versus the price in a market where it will sell. How do you weight it?
In the grand total scheme, he aids the normalization of the markets by moving the product from one market to a market with a larger demand. That makes the average price for the average customer more... well, average and in tune with the worth of the product.
In conclusion, he does nothing more than the normal merchant. If what he does is evil, the whole idea of money and trading is evil. That's a whole different beast to discuss (and which I would prefer to avoid discussing here:))
A very, very major difference between your analogue and this is that the houses were available on the same market and priced according to how well kept they were. There it was a problem because the flippers made a profit of selling a fixed up home while depleting the market of less well kept homes, thus raising the average cost of getting a house in general.
The same problem doesn't exist here, he is moving a product from a low-volume market with a dubious demand for it to a high-volume market with a demand. He doesn't do any fancy market fixing either, nor do he change the quality of the product, he simply sells around global market price, increasing availability (and thus lowering the ASP in the long run - although his impact is pretty dubious on that scale).
So basically instead of acknowledging that what he is doing is overall good, you complain because he isn't doing it despite himself?
You know, on some fundamental level I totally agree. Unfortunately our world doesn't work that well and he wouldn't be able to make a living providing his service if he didn't make sure to get something out of it. You're basically saying that he should be doing this out of charity instead of doing it like a business. Cute idea but not very practical.
He lowers the ASP for the end-consumers, unless he is selling it above average of the market he sells it in, which I think would be quite a neat trick.
Actually to correct myself, he most likely doesn't even raise the price at the local market given how they usually work in this specific case. He should hardly be doing any effect at all.
No, he doesn't. He raises the average cost on the LOCAL market, where it is hard to find the product and the demand for the specific product is dubious at best (case in point: the low price). If he sells at just under average or at average price, he either lowers or stabilizes the cost on the GLOBAL market. Either way he increases availability.
Unless you're working in a backwards market or abusing some kind of monopoly, raising availability normally works to lower the price of the object in question.
Simply incorrect: You assume he is selling the books for above average price. He isn't (that would require more nefarious market meddling than I think he has the connections for), he's in fact buying books at below average price and selling them at or presumably just under average price, thus averaging the price of the book.
Oh sure, in the purely mathematical view where you take all the data points of sell prices (versus what is actually being SOLD), he IS raising the average price by moving a single data point upwards. But he is in fact simply moving the book price closer to actual average price set by demand (what people are willing to buy it for, not what people want to sell it for).
By your argument, I could go down and buy a new book for 5$ and set it up on eBay or whatever market for 50 million dollars. I most likely wouldn't sell it, but in your view I would be a complete monster for raising the average price by a horrendous amount!
What actually happens is that he buys the book at below average price (adding a data point to the average price of actual SOLD books) and then sells it again at around the average (thus adding another data point also under or about average price). That means he has actually lowered the average price, not raised it.
If they're actively and consciously trying to prevent people from accessing the aisle, then they're being willfully disruptive and should be removed from the premises regardless of their primary agenda. If they're in your way because they're genuinely trying to buy something (for whatever reason), then you're simply being an asshole for thinking you deserve the space more than they do. Please go feel important somewhere else.
Subjectivity is such a wonderful thing. Another way to view it is that he is merely offering a service of identifying a market and moving the object to where the demand is.
I can kind of see the justification. They're basically providing a service and charging a fee for it after the fact, a fee that you can even choose to ignore. "Hi, I made this suit specially tailored for you. If you don't want it, that's fine. If you want it, well here you go!"
However it does lay a pressure on the buyer to buy it, since otherwise others can choose to buy it and exploit it without the programmers knowing exactly what the exploit entails. That's somewhat alike to extortion.
I can see both sides of the coin, both as a genuine service and as extortion. Regardless of how you view it it's a business and the goal is money.
Oh, I see. So their claim is unattackable because their initial assumption is that no attempt to spoof is being made, thus they are unspoofable. I see the logic. Pass along.
If the authentication is going over a signal being emitted from your mobile, a piece of software to alter the signal to send a "correct" signal is all you need.
Correction: He didn't facilitate stealing confidential military documents. He facilitated their distribution. Huge difference. Also, they weren't stolen, they were copied. Even greater difference.
Correction, he didn't facilitate the theft of a large number of confidential military documents, he facilitated the distribution of them. Huge difference. Also, they weren't stolen, they were copied, even greater difference.
Easy way around that. First ask him for the first letter of the password. If he refuses, jail him. Then ask him for the next letter.... OMIGOSH NEW EVIDENCE!
Slashdot Mirror
We can agree on the last notion, that the dealer has the right to refuse a sale (bar discrimination and such).
Whatever the implied or not implied "intent" of selling something, you cannot blame someone for doing whatever they want with the product that they've brought with their money (as long as it is legal). However the dealer is free to enforce whatever intent they might have, through denial of sale to specific limitations to what devices might be used on the stores premises (again, bar discrimination).
Your previous post focused on the nature of the trade and ended with inferring that the trader was "wrong" and rightfully should be shameful. I inferred from that that you're basically bashing a legal and valid form of trade as "evil". Indeed, you continue to do so and continues to call him an "evil prick".
No, normalization (even on a small scale) is exactly what he is doing. When a merchant is in a foreign market buying cheap spices that are rare at home he doesn't go around buying rare stuff that is commonplace at home just be "fair". That's completely ridiculous and not how trading works.
What you're basically bashing him for is being intelligent about his purchases. I guess intelligence is evil.
So he is normalizing the market difference between the local and the global market. Oh what horror. All merchants are obviously evil for doing this.
I thought there was already consensus on this
What interval of time are you talking about? We've seen quite a few examples of how consumer-grade products can be adapted easily to substitute "specialist" hardware that is sold at high expense despite low production costs. The problem with todays specialist equipment is the bureaucracy surrounding it, that halts this kind of stuff from being utilized.
And god forbid if you should get more out of the treatment than the treatment itself! Not unless they can charge you for it, of course.
Another strike against the so-called "specialist sector" marketing cheap specialized devices at high prices.
As the general accessibility of multipurpose devices increases, the less we have to rely on niche markets with artificially high prices.
I think it is a really good thing that people are able to utilize new consumer products in this way. Personally I don't like the tablet much, but it is nice to see it used like this.
No problem, slashdot can get wonky at times.
It's technically true, seeing with your proposed glasses, that he raises the ASP. However I think it is a moot point, because the price of a product in a market with a dubious demand of the specific product, versus his identified and verified demand for it in another market (remember, he makes sure he can sell the book!), is not really a price that should figure in when calculating the ASP for the end-customer.
It gets difficult to gauge his effect on the ASP when you try to compare prices of products in a market where it might sell, versus the price in a market where it will sell. How do you weight it?
In the grand total scheme, he aids the normalization of the markets by moving the product from one market to a market with a larger demand. That makes the average price for the average customer more... well, average and in tune with the worth of the product.
In conclusion, he does nothing more than the normal merchant. If what he does is evil, the whole idea of money and trading is evil. That's a whole different beast to discuss (and which I would prefer to avoid discussing here :))
A very, very major difference between your analogue and this is that the houses were available on the same market and priced according to how well kept they were. There it was a problem because the flippers made a profit of selling a fixed up home while depleting the market of less well kept homes, thus raising the average cost of getting a house in general.
The same problem doesn't exist here, he is moving a product from a low-volume market with a dubious demand for it to a high-volume market with a demand. He doesn't do any fancy market fixing either, nor do he change the quality of the product, he simply sells around global market price, increasing availability (and thus lowering the ASP in the long run - although his impact is pretty dubious on that scale).
So basically instead of acknowledging that what he is doing is overall good, you complain because he isn't doing it despite himself?
You know, on some fundamental level I totally agree. Unfortunately our world doesn't work that well and he wouldn't be able to make a living providing his service if he didn't make sure to get something out of it. You're basically saying that he should be doing this out of charity instead of doing it like a business. Cute idea but not very practical.
He lowers the ASP for the end-consumers, unless he is selling it above average of the market he sells it in, which I think would be quite a neat trick.
Actually to correct myself, he most likely doesn't even raise the price at the local market given how they usually work in this specific case. He should hardly be doing any effect at all.
No, he doesn't. He raises the average cost on the LOCAL market, where it is hard to find the product and the demand for the specific product is dubious at best (case in point: the low price). If he sells at just under average or at average price, he either lowers or stabilizes the cost on the GLOBAL market. Either way he increases availability.
Unless you're working in a backwards market or abusing some kind of monopoly, raising availability normally works to lower the price of the object in question.
Simply incorrect: You assume he is selling the books for above average price. He isn't (that would require more nefarious market meddling than I think he has the connections for), he's in fact buying books at below average price and selling them at or presumably just under average price, thus averaging the price of the book.
Oh sure, in the purely mathematical view where you take all the data points of sell prices (versus what is actually being SOLD), he IS raising the average price by moving a single data point upwards. But he is in fact simply moving the book price closer to actual average price set by demand (what people are willing to buy it for, not what people want to sell it for).
By your argument, I could go down and buy a new book for 5$ and set it up on eBay or whatever market for 50 million dollars. I most likely wouldn't sell it, but in your view I would be a complete monster for raising the average price by a horrendous amount!
What actually happens is that he buys the book at below average price (adding a data point to the average price of actual SOLD books) and then sells it again at around the average (thus adding another data point also under or about average price). That means he has actually lowered the average price, not raised it.
If they're actively and consciously trying to prevent people from accessing the aisle, then they're being willfully disruptive and should be removed from the premises regardless of their primary agenda. If they're in your way because they're genuinely trying to buy something (for whatever reason), then you're simply being an asshole for thinking you deserve the space more than they do. Please go feel important somewhere else.
Subjectivity is such a wonderful thing. Another way to view it is that he is merely offering a service of identifying a market and moving the object to where the demand is.
I can kind of see the justification. They're basically providing a service and charging a fee for it after the fact, a fee that you can even choose to ignore. "Hi, I made this suit specially tailored for you. If you don't want it, that's fine. If you want it, well here you go!"
However it does lay a pressure on the buyer to buy it, since otherwise others can choose to buy it and exploit it without the programmers knowing exactly what the exploit entails. That's somewhat alike to extortion.
I can see both sides of the coin, both as a genuine service and as extortion. Regardless of how you view it it's a business and the goal is money.
Oh, I see. So their claim is unattackable because their initial assumption is that no attempt to spoof is being made, thus they are unspoofable. I see the logic. Pass along.
Spoofable. Look at sensational media in general.
If the authentication is going over a signal being emitted from your mobile, a piece of software to alter the signal to send a "correct" signal is all you need.
Correction: He didn't facilitate stealing confidential military documents. He facilitated their distribution. Huge difference. Also, they weren't stolen, they were copied. Even greater difference.
Correction, he didn't facilitate the theft of a large number of confidential military documents, he facilitated the distribution of them. Huge difference. Also, they weren't stolen, they were copied, even greater difference.
Depends. How familiar are you with ADnD?
Mod +1 impractical. TFA is talking about laptops.
Easy way around that. First ask him for the first letter of the password. If he refuses, jail him. Then ask him for the next letter.... OMIGOSH NEW EVIDENCE!