I think it is also impressive how much of an influence these books have had kids. There is a generation of kids that are just waiting for these books so they can read them. I can't think of any book that has had that kind of an impact.
In many ways, anyone who attacks these books because they preach witchcraft etc COUGH*COUGH*CHURCH*TYPES*COUGH*COUGH are completely missing what these books have done.
I actually forgot to make my point after my corny joke.
Yes, I think it is safe to say that drug ads are not a good thing. There are a number of people who take a lot of heed in what is advertised to them. And then they feel that the drugs are something they need. Another thing it does is take away from generics, which, IMHO, are a fantastic alternative to name brand drugs - due to their price. I would say that there are a number of people who don't have a lot of means that are swayed to take Claratin over the generic that is cheaper.
As far as convincing your doctor you need a certain drug. I think a lot of people really need to remember - he is a medical professional, they are just his patient.
I have to admit, I agree, Legos might be the way to go for a start.
However, I agree, he does have the makings of a fun class here. I would say the way to go would be to probably do all of the code himself, and then just give them the plans to build their devices. I was going to recommend the boards from Tech Arts. They may be a bit advanced for this type of class, but if done right (like I said, give them code, and hardware design) they could work out really well.
Um, no, not even close. In my original post, I pointed out that rather than complain about paying $100 for something they only wanted to pay $50 for, then they shouldn't have _BID $100_ on it.
This seems to be the crux of the argument that you have been making the whole time. I get exactly what you are saying, why bid $100, if I only want to spend $50?
Here is the deal - on eBay, you WANT to spend as little as possible. However, you also have to be WILLING to spend a certain amount.
In this example we have been going round and round about, I am WILLING to pay $100. So given that legitimate interested parties are only willing to pay $45, making my bid effectively $50, but shill bid up to $95, making my bid my maximum $100.
And hey, if I was completely unaware that shills bid in the auction, I got my item, within my alloted price. I mean, I am none the wiser, so I would not really complain. But that doesn't change the fact that I was just defrauded.
So I just have one question for you, because I want to really understand your argument:
Since my final price is what I was willing to pay, I really have no room to argue this?
But you are still making the assumption that $100 is above and beyond the price of the item in question. In my example it is not. $100 is a the buyer A's max pay price and it is not an unreasonable price. If buyers B and C are bidding, but their max price is $40 and $50 respectively, then the fair market cost is going to be $55 (following a stardard $5 bump in that range of prices). If shill Z comes in for the seller (be it the same person with a different account, or a friend of the seller) and artificially increases the price of the auction up to the $100, that is flat our fraud and wrong.
I will say this, IMHO, this argument is pointless because neither you nor I are going to convince the other that their argument is wrong. The way I see your argument in this case, you are defending that any price that is under A's max bid is ok, regardless of how it is come to. And to me, this is the inheirent flaw with the proxy/shill bidding system, because with it a seller can use shill bidding to take advantage of the whole proxy system.
This doesn't even take into account the whole detecting shills etc. I have never been arguing that. The OP I responded to flat out asked "Where is the problem w/ shill bidding? Who really cares?" I was trying to demonstrate exactly that problem.
No DJH, YOU missed the point of my OP. What Pentagram said was dead on. In that example, I am more than willing to pay $100 for the item. But that is against legit competition. If that competition falls out at $50, then $50 is "fair auction value." If shills come in and jack that up to $75 or $100 with no intention of doing anything but driving up my final paying cost, then that is fraud.
My example is extreme, but it demonstrates the problem with shill bidding.
Again, you are missing the point. In my example, the $100 is a willing to pay price. Read honkycat's response a few posts above this. If that doesn't make sense, then I have to ask who the moron is.
While maybe common in real auctions, there is a big difference here, this doesn't artificially inflate a bidders bid. In a real auction, if I bid $50 for something and a shill bids $60, I am now off the hook. And the shill could be stuck w/ the item. And ultimately if that shill does work for the current owner, then he is stuck with his product until the next auction.
Again, the example I gave - you now just had your price artificially inflated. Unfair and illegal.
Don't get me wrong. My example is a very extreme case, but it is designed to demonstrate a point. That you can have a max price, have that price never match by legitimate interested parties, and then have shill bidders drive my price up to my max bid. Be it $5 or $50, if I am paying higher prices because shill bidders drive up my price, then that is flat our fraud.
BTW - to those of you who pointed out that whole "Why pay $100 for something worth $50?" Again you missed the point, that was an example, an extreme one, but an example.
Shill bidding is most certainly NOT in the spirit of the Auction. I am supposed to be competing against people who want the item I want. A shill bidder is there to drive up the price, with zero interest in the product.
In a real auction, I only bid when I am not winning. Once interest beyond mine drops, I get that price, even if it is $100 less than my max price.
But with eBay's proxy bidding, I put in my max price. Again for the above $100. Legitimate interest dropped off at $50. So my rightful price is $50. But if someone came in and artificially jacked up the price - that is illegal, and most certainly NOT in the spirit of the auction, though it is within the rules of the auction.
The damage is that this is fraud. And it does inflate prices on things you are trying to purchase. For example, if I want a something on eBay, and I put a bid of $100 on that. But the going rate is only $50, so my bid sits at $50. Then right before the auction ends, a shill bidder comes in, and jacks the price up to $95. I am now paying $95 for a product I should have rightly only paid $50 for!
The biggest thing against reserve prices is that it is an option you have to pay for (as a seller). The whole point of shill bidding is to make a buck or two more... the cost of reserve fees. Why put a reserve price when you can freely have someone else bid up your merchandise?
In the end, I care. I occasionally buy stuff on eBay, and I want to know I paid the lowest price for what I want to buy. At the very least I want to know that I am not being cheated.
Which is what I would say if this question was asked 2 years ago. Then I got my new TI-89 and let me tell you, it does everything that the 89 does and more. At this point, the HP48x series of calculators are almost 20 years old. The new TI line are very solid in what they do. I think their solvers are much better and I also think the interface is better as well. And unlike HP, who got out of the calc business for a while, TI has been refining it and making their products better.
As far as
once you grok RPN, there truly is no going back
with that I fully disagree. The newer TI's have a full entry as you see it mode. You want to put in 3 * x^2 + 2 * x + 3. Just type is right in. It understands. Not to knock RPN, which is good, but I think TIs new entry mode is better.
I think it was cute what Google was trying to do, but let's be honest here, this is not what Google Maps is about, so why advertise it? It was a nice social experiment, the Australians have clearly failed, and the rest of us pay the price by them never announcing it again.
I don't know if I would agree w/ this. The average consumer is quite naive. With the/. community, I would say they are knowledgeable. But most users don't really know what is going on in the black box. How does a DVD play? They don't know.
Regardless of what is going on, HD-DVD Cracked, flawed, etc. They are still going to use the technology.
Realize this, if you take the job, you are going to probably sign a ton of paperwork. I would bet that one of those papers will be a term of service contract.
And if they are quoting you chapter and verse Relocation policy, you better believe they will go after you if you do break that clause.
Fact is, this was not in writing, he is, more than likely, SOL on that front. But if you break any sort of contract, then you have problems.
Overall, as a PC user, I really like to see the benefits of OS-X. To the chagrin of some of my friends, I actually plan on adding a Mac to my computer inventory very soon. I really like the system and think it has a good look/feel to it. Though a lot of my friends have knocked Apple quality and their lack of pre-announcement of products, instead letting a user blow $2k on a new laptop that they don't know in a week will be lower in price or that the same $2k would get twice the system the next week.
That being said, I really like XP, and due to the underwhelming interest in Vista, I think I am going to be sticking with XP for a while. I just don't see the need to upgrade to Vista right now.
I have to agree fully with what you say here. I mean, this was a very up close event here in the United States. We saw the events of Columbine over and over and realize, this could have been any school USA. Plus there were a number of other events that took place too, Columbine being the most high profile.
The very event you talk of doesn't resonate nearly the same for someone on this side of the Atlantic. I am very aware of it, and watched the news very closely that day, but it just doesn't hit the same way as an event that happened in my own country, on my own soil. I am sure that the same could be said relating Columbine to 9/11 (though that did have a Worldly feel to it in it's impact).
Still, IMHO, the point is that they approached a subject in the completely wrong way.
This exact thing came up during the discussion of their removal (why that was tagged flamebait, I have no idea).
The point is that these guys went for pure shock value with their title and everything. I get their point, but at the same time, what do they really expect? Do you think a game w/ the game "Paparassi: Get Princess Dianna" would be treated any differently?
Again, the real problem is the approach. Think about how "Bully" was received when announced (and the original premise was thought to be you are the bully). The fact is that the reason this is attacked was the way their direct refference to, and blatant disrepect for their subject matter. Even just not even directly referencing the actual event (School Massare RPG) probably wouldn't have had the impact or results they are currently getting.
I think maybe that aspiration is a little high. I mean, don't you think a ratio of 1:100 is a better place to start? I mean, the increase for that alone would be pertty big. I think 1:4 is kind of like shooting for the moon with a paper airplane.
These are basic interpersonal skills, not business skills.
I think Woz was just being nice, or diplomatic. I read the blurb and then the article, the whole time thinking the same thing - this is something that a lot of people should learn from. I think you hit the nail right on the head M-GW.
After finishing up a CS program just last year, one of the biggest things I noticed was the major lack of social skills that many students had. There were many briliant students, but some of them just terrible at interpersonal interaction. I think the grandparent post is very right. Many brilliant computer types have this attitude about being so high and mighty they are irreplaceable. Hell, it was an article just last week.
Personally, I think that interpersonal skills are something that really should be worked on by the people themselves and also perhapse helped by educational facilities. Why not have CS programs teach a class(es) in interpersonal skills? Perhapse it will help guys like Crunch who are brilliant and have tons to contribute to find a place and realy make their mark. I think it is a shame that much of his brilliance has mostly gone on wasted.
What I don't understand is why this isn't going to court. I read the posts in SA by okkie and his
"He talked with a lawyer, he told me it would become time consuming and horrible. Record companies like Geffen have teams of lawyers and he would basically stand alone. Sad but true."
But a number of cases have happened like this, if it can be demonstrated at some reasonable level, I am sure that they could win. After all, there is a history of things like this in entertainment. I agree, it would be a long hard battle, but why not do it and get what you can?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was the genre for those novels at the supermarket with Fabio on the cover? No that is called Trash.
RonB
I think it is also impressive how much of an influence these books have had kids. There is a generation of kids that are just waiting for these books so they can read them. I can't think of any book that has had that kind of an impact.
In many ways, anyone who attacks these books because they preach witchcraft etc COUGH*COUGH*CHURCH*TYPES*COUGH*COUGH are completely missing what these books have done.
RonB
I actually forgot to make my point after my corny joke.
Yes, I think it is safe to say that drug ads are not a good thing. There are a number of people who take a lot of heed in what is advertised to them. And then they feel that the drugs are something they need. Another thing it does is take away from generics, which, IMHO, are a fantastic alternative to name brand drugs - due to their price. I would say that there are a number of people who don't have a lot of means that are swayed to take Claratin over the generic that is cheaper.
As far as convincing your doctor you need a certain drug. I think a lot of people really need to remember - he is a medical professional, they are just his patient.
RonB
Subtraction by ads-dition?
RonB
I have to admit, I agree, Legos might be the way to go for a start.
However, I agree, he does have the makings of a fun class here. I would say the way to go would be to probably do all of the code himself, and then just give them the plans to build their devices. I was going to recommend the boards from Tech Arts. They may be a bit advanced for this type of class, but if done right (like I said, give them code, and hardware design) they could work out really well.
If you do the class, good luck.
RonB
Here is the deal - on eBay, you WANT to spend as little as possible. However, you also have to be WILLING to spend a certain amount.
In this example we have been going round and round about, I am WILLING to pay $100. So given that legitimate interested parties are only willing to pay $45, making my bid effectively $50, but shill bid up to $95, making my bid my maximum $100.
And hey, if I was completely unaware that shills bid in the auction, I got my item, within my alloted price. I mean, I am none the wiser, so I would not really complain. But that doesn't change the fact that I was just defrauded.
So I just have one question for you, because I want to really understand your argument:
Since my final price is what I was willing to pay, I really have no room to argue this?
RonB
But you are still making the assumption that $100 is above and beyond the price of the item in question. In my example it is not. $100 is a the buyer A's max pay price and it is not an unreasonable price. If buyers B and C are bidding, but their max price is $40 and $50 respectively, then the fair market cost is going to be $55 (following a stardard $5 bump in that range of prices). If shill Z comes in for the seller (be it the same person with a different account, or a friend of the seller) and artificially increases the price of the auction up to the $100, that is flat our fraud and wrong.
I will say this, IMHO, this argument is pointless because neither you nor I are going to convince the other that their argument is wrong. The way I see your argument in this case, you are defending that any price that is under A's max bid is ok, regardless of how it is come to. And to me, this is the inheirent flaw with the proxy/shill bidding system, because with it a seller can use shill bidding to take advantage of the whole proxy system.
This doesn't even take into account the whole detecting shills etc. I have never been arguing that. The OP I responded to flat out asked "Where is the problem w/ shill bidding? Who really cares?" I was trying to demonstrate exactly that problem.
RonB
RonB
No DJH, YOU missed the point of my OP. What Pentagram said was dead on. In that example, I am more than willing to pay $100 for the item. But that is against legit competition. If that competition falls out at $50, then $50 is "fair auction value." If shills come in and jack that up to $75 or $100 with no intention of doing anything but driving up my final paying cost, then that is fraud.
My example is extreme, but it demonstrates the problem with shill bidding.
RonB
Again, you are missing the point. In my example, the $100 is a willing to pay price. Read honkycat's response a few posts above this. If that doesn't make sense, then I have to ask who the moron is.
RonB
While maybe common in real auctions, there is a big difference here, this doesn't artificially inflate a bidders bid. In a real auction, if I bid $50 for something and a shill bids $60, I am now off the hook. And the shill could be stuck w/ the item. And ultimately if that shill does work for the current owner, then he is stuck with his product until the next auction.
Again, the example I gave - you now just had your price artificially inflated. Unfair and illegal.
RonB
Don't get me wrong. My example is a very extreme case, but it is designed to demonstrate a point. That you can have a max price, have that price never match by legitimate interested parties, and then have shill bidders drive my price up to my max bid. Be it $5 or $50, if I am paying higher prices because shill bidders drive up my price, then that is flat our fraud.
BTW - to those of you who pointed out that whole "Why pay $100 for something worth $50?" Again you missed the point, that was an example, an extreme one, but an example.
RonB
Shill bidding is most certainly NOT in the spirit of the Auction. I am supposed to be competing against people who want the item I want. A shill bidder is there to drive up the price, with zero interest in the product.
In a real auction, I only bid when I am not winning. Once interest beyond mine drops, I get that price, even if it is $100 less than my max price.
But with eBay's proxy bidding, I put in my max price. Again for the above $100. Legitimate interest dropped off at $50. So my rightful price is $50. But if someone came in and artificially jacked up the price - that is illegal, and most certainly NOT in the spirit of the auction, though it is within the rules of the auction.
RonB
The damage is that this is fraud. And it does inflate prices on things you are trying to purchase. For example, if I want a something on eBay, and I put a bid of $100 on that. But the going rate is only $50, so my bid sits at $50. Then right before the auction ends, a shill bidder comes in, and jacks the price up to $95. I am now paying $95 for a product I should have rightly only paid $50 for!
The biggest thing against reserve prices is that it is an option you have to pay for (as a seller). The whole point of shill bidding is to make a buck or two more... the cost of reserve fees. Why put a reserve price when you can freely have someone else bid up your merchandise?
In the end, I care. I occasionally buy stuff on eBay, and I want to know I paid the lowest price for what I want to buy. At the very least I want to know that I am not being cheated.
RonB
Which is what I would say if this question was asked 2 years ago. Then I got my new TI-89 and let me tell you, it does everything that the 89 does and more. At this point, the HP48x series of calculators are almost 20 years old. The new TI line are very solid in what they do. I think their solvers are much better and I also think the interface is better as well. And unlike HP, who got out of the calc business for a while, TI has been refining it and making their products better.
As far as with that I fully disagree. The newer TI's have a full entry as you see it mode. You want to put in 3 * x^2 + 2 * x + 3. Just type is right in. It understands. Not to knock RPN, which is good, but I think TIs new entry mode is better.
RonB
Then clearly the news of what a ton of people did, will very much trouble you. The site listed in the story, (which is taking some, because they made Slashdot) is not isolated, they are many in a long list of sites, and people, that have tried this.
I think it was cute what Google was trying to do, but let's be honest here, this is not what Google Maps is about, so why advertise it? It was a nice social experiment, the Australians have clearly failed, and the rest of us pay the price by them never announcing it again.
RonB
I don't know if I would agree w/ this. The average consumer is quite naive. With the /. community, I would say they are knowledgeable. But most users don't really know what is going on in the black box. How does a DVD play? They don't know.
Regardless of what is going on, HD-DVD Cracked, flawed, etc. They are still going to use the technology.
RonB
Agreed.
-BUT-
Realize this, if you take the job, you are going to probably sign a ton of paperwork. I would bet that one of those papers will be a term of service contract.
And if they are quoting you chapter and verse Relocation policy, you better believe they will go after you if you do break that clause.
Fact is, this was not in writing, he is, more than likely, SOL on that front. But if you break any sort of contract, then you have problems.
RonB
Too late.
Overall, as a PC user, I really like to see the benefits of OS-X. To the chagrin of some of my friends, I actually plan on adding a Mac to my computer inventory very soon. I really like the system and think it has a good look/feel to it. Though a lot of my friends have knocked Apple quality and their lack of pre-announcement of products, instead letting a user blow $2k on a new laptop that they don't know in a week will be lower in price or that the same $2k would get twice the system the next week.
That being said, I really like XP, and due to the underwhelming interest in Vista, I think I am going to be sticking with XP for a while. I just don't see the need to upgrade to Vista right now.
RonB
I have to agree fully with what you say here. I mean, this was a very up close event here in the United States. We saw the events of Columbine over and over and realize, this could have been any school USA. Plus there were a number of other events that took place too, Columbine being the most high profile.
The very event you talk of doesn't resonate nearly the same for someone on this side of the Atlantic. I am very aware of it, and watched the news very closely that day, but it just doesn't hit the same way as an event that happened in my own country, on my own soil. I am sure that the same could be said relating Columbine to 9/11 (though that did have a Worldly feel to it in it's impact).
Still, IMHO, the point is that they approached a subject in the completely wrong way.
RonB
This exact thing came up during the discussion of their removal (why that was tagged flamebait, I have no idea).
The point is that these guys went for pure shock value with their title and everything. I get their point, but at the same time, what do they really expect? Do you think a game w/ the game "Paparassi: Get Princess Dianna" would be treated any differently?
Again, the real problem is the approach. Think about how "Bully" was received when announced (and the original premise was thought to be you are the bully). The fact is that the reason this is attacked was the way their direct refference to, and blatant disrepect for their subject matter. Even just not even directly referencing the actual event (School Massare RPG) probably wouldn't have had the impact or results they are currently getting.
RonB
I think maybe that aspiration is a little high. I mean, don't you think a ratio of 1:100 is a better place to start? I mean, the increase for that alone would be pertty big. I think 1:4 is kind of like shooting for the moon with a paper airplane.
RonB
Of course he is loaded, think of all the money he saves living in his Mom's basement!
RonB
After finishing up a CS program just last year, one of the biggest things I noticed was the major lack of social skills that many students had. There were many briliant students, but some of them just terrible at interpersonal interaction. I think the grandparent post is very right. Many brilliant computer types have this attitude about being so high and mighty they are irreplaceable. Hell, it was an article just last week.
Personally, I think that interpersonal skills are something that really should be worked on by the people themselves and also perhapse helped by educational facilities. Why not have CS programs teach a class(es) in interpersonal skills? Perhapse it will help guys like Crunch who are brilliant and have tons to contribute to find a place and realy make their mark. I think it is a shame that much of his brilliance has mostly gone on wasted.
RonB
RonB