It might not be a matter of debate that several usage guides prefer it. It is a matter of debate (on which I'm right) wheter the parent of my previous offered a dubious justification:
Even so, use your damn head. If you insist on being a cretin and pluralizing as PC's, how the fuck would you say, "The PC's hard drive is too small."?
He's acting like that statement creates a problem, when it doesn't. You have to infer the meaning from context, just like you have to do with the verb "read" in determining if it's present or past tense. And besides, we already have to pluralize individual letters with an apostrophe: "The a's are in the wrong place." Moreover, what if I had an abbreviation ending in a lower case "s"? How then am I supposed to distinguish it from a plural? "The internet has seriously helped popularize PCs." Am I talking about "PC's" (no! the apostrophe again!) or am I talking about the the group "PCs" (e.g., Proponents of Cesium)? I guess we'll just have to go home and huddle in the corner.
I'll be glad to admit when I'm wrong. When someone wants to nitpick a usage that is uncommon but not incorrect, then...
wait, I've already wasted my intellect on someone who doesn't deserve it, haven't I?:-)
Take a look at the software that runs on x86 Linux and PPC Linux. You'll find quite a bit of it doesn't not compile cross-platform without some help. I also thought 'Linux is Linux' at one point, too, but it's not.
Okay, I didn't know that. Nevertheless, my point stands: you just answered the topic question: huge transition costs.
And yes, that analogy does make a point of PCs. (No apostrophe, please.)
Apostrophes are optional for capitalized abbreviations. I wasn't mistakenly using the possessive. (Asshole.)
The CF competes with the dance pad by being MUCH better. (Apparently like 23 as good.) The Four Seasons competes by being that much better than the Motel 6. Can you honestly say you think it's possible to build a PC that many times better than an x86? If you could make it twice as good then I'd be extremely surprised. 10x? Not a chance in hell. (Good being relative, of course, but most people will think 'useful, user-friendly and fast' when you talk about a computer being good.)
That still doesn't have anything to do with my point. My point was you can circumvent the intel/MS monopoly by cost-effectively assembling PC's with your choice of hard- and software. Whether the PC is "that many times better" is irrelevant. It just needs a similar value (price relative to quality).
Did you seriously just say that designing a computer system and porting a ton of software to it would be easier than creating a controller for a gaming system?...
I mean sure, if you're willing to sell your exclusive odd-architecture personal computer with only the software your company has managed to port for $10k a piece... Yeah, it'd work. I'm not sure who'd buy it, though. And you'd have to sell quite a few to just break even on the cost of your programmers porting to this architecture.
Excuse me, I thought it was a mystery why the x86 architecture was still used -- hence the topic. It seems the answer is obvious, and you just gave it. (I thought that once you have a Linux version for a different architecture, the software just needs to run on Linux, not be re-written for the new architecture, but I guess that's not the case.)
And as your example, you chose a controller for a game system that this company somehow manages to sell for $350, despite competition that sells one for $15.
Whatever point you're making, I don't know what it is. CF "competes" with that dance pad you linked in the sense that the Four Seasons "competes" with Motel 6, the former of which "manages" to rent its rooms for a severl times more per night.
A team of geeks could design their own system, pick their own architecture, load it with Free-as-in-ESR software, and sell it competitively with Windows PC's.
How do I know this?
Cobalt Flux sells an extremely popular dance pad for DDR-type games that a small team puts together and sells for ~$350, which includes shipping. Assembling a usable home computer from generic off-the-shelf parts, after designing (which whatever architecture you want) and mini-assembly-lining the process, has got to be a lot less labor-intensive than building a CF pad.
So why doesn't someone try this? Or does someone?
Or did I just reveal complete ignorance of the computer industry?
Civil Rights Robot: I demand full citizenship rights. AI skeptic: That's fuckin' retarded. Civil Rights Robot: I'm sorry, I do not recognize your statement. Please rephrase. Onlooker: Deep stuff, man.
I have read 1984, several times, and watched the film twice. There is a huge difference between having cameras monitoring public places, as is happening here, and having cameras in every home monitoring everything you do. The difference is the expectation of privacy. In your own home, you can expect to be private. You can expect to be free from surveillance. In public, however, everything you do is, by definition, public. There is no difference between cameras monitoring what you do in public and people watching you other than the quality of the record.
Yes, but I think you can add a further difference. For example, it's not a violation of your expectation of privacy for someone to look at your house while walking by, but what if he just stays there with a camera and broadcasts it on the internet? There's a sort of intuitive difference in people's minds.
So, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there is a point where monitoring someone, even if purely in public, would be a violation of privacy. For example, what if someone followed you around -- only while in public, of course -- recording everywhere you went?
Interestingly enough, I'm becoming convinced that bosses really don't do any real work.
I'm convinced that there is no final, definitive answer on how many layers of management are "too many", or what form of organization is most efficient. Rather, the answer is rediscovered daily through market processes to the extent that they are free and reasonably adhere to a certain minimum respect for property rights. In such an environment, whichever model is right will beat out whichever is wrong.
Congratulations on beating an obsolete model, at least, one that's obsolete right now for your industry.
Yeah, but, you see, it's different for bosses because they're the slavedrivers in the evil global capitalist system and don't do any real work anyway. Duh.:-P
Read it again. I was able to navigate the drive and execute commands. I followed their instructions to do so early on and told them the results. My question about what to do after that command failed, was ignored.
You don't understand. Every Linux install CD is a live CD. Not all of them have pretty GUI desktops, but every single one of them is a Live CD. What Ubuntu recently did was put a pretty GUI desktop on their installer CD, but previous versions were a Live CD as well.
When the installer CDs first boot, you're given the option of typing something that will give you a prompt instead of the installer. From there it's possible to troubleshoot the GRUB problem.
Oh, okay, so this is a more subtle failure to read my post than I had previously though. See this part:
"Okay, navigate the install CD from the installation interface, go to this location..." Doesn't show up. "Okay, go to this other one and type this command." It takes a while to execute and than fails with this message: [message]. "..."
That was me using it as a Live CD, but without using the magic words. It failed too, as you can see.
In your above steps you say that you downloaded a CD image and burnt it then a few steps later it turns out you don't have a burner. How the hell did you burn it in the first place
Why are people having such a hard time understanding this?
Computer #1 has CD burner. I burned the install CD with this. Computer #1 is my primary computer.
Computer #2 is from work. This is what I had to use to access the internet and get help. Computer #2 did not have a CD burner.
Having burned a CD from Computer #1 before it was bricked does not imply I can burn one from Computer #2 after Computer #1 was bricked.
Here's a tip, it is very useful to know what version of windows you were running. The steps to fix the install are different if you had Windows 98 or Windows XP.
Really? GRUB's errors depend on what Windows version you're using?
I swear every time Slashdot posts anything about Ubuntu you rock up and tell the same story. I'm sorry but the reason you didn't get any help was because you are a dick and you didn't provide anyone with any helpful information.
Good point, I didn't tell them if I had tried reinstall... oh wait, I did that. I didn't tell them if I had verified the CD image... oh, wait, I did that. I didn't tell them the results of trying their advice... oh, wait, I did that. I didn't tell them the GRUB error message... oh, wait, I did that.
My claim is that there was a lack of thought. I was right. Ubuntu did not recommend precautions when using GRUB. The download site did not recommend downloading a Live CD as well. To "highly recommend" GRUB as the "safe" option constitutes a lack of though.
If I had been informed that GRUB's failure would brick my box, I would certainly have preferred booting the Linux partition by telling it to book from the Ubuntu CD at startup.
On the stuff I posted, I'm right. On the tangential issues you brought up, you have a point.
You now, this guy was modded troll, but his (obviously erroneous) comments are pretty much par for the course in terms of what posters say about my exerpeience. So, I'll respond anyway.
a) Rebooting and reinstalling will only fix it if you made a mistake or you are using a poorly designed flaky OS. If it doesn't work the first time, why would it work a second?
True; I just wanted to do my due diligence before asking for help. I mean, it didn't work. In my first post I was very clear about having re-installed multiple times; that didn't stop anyone from recommending it. Go fig.
b) Last time I checked, Ubuntu doubled as a live CD.
So, like every wise guy that offered help, you failed to read the part where I said I did this at a time before they combined them.
In fact, how are you installing Ubuntu if you can't boot the CD?
I can't boot the OS. I can of course tell it to boot from the CD, which gives me the installation screen.
Don't use GRUB if you can avoid it.
I agree with you here. I just wish the install instructions were as wise.
d) This is a MS / commercial vendor problem.
mmm, no, they were asking for that to have bootable media, not because of any problem related to Windows. Remember, nothing can get past GRUB. If it can't even get to Windows, how can Windows be the problem?
e) This is what you should have done in the first place. Someone who doesn't understand how computers work should not try to install an OS.
I can understand the install instructions. In fact, it was *because* I followed them that I had the problem. Ubuntu doesn't specify an expansive knowledge of OS's you need in order to install it. If you're right, the mystery of why more people don't use Linux is over. Think about it.
What about the GRUB issue, though? If GRUB fails, as happened, I'm locked out of all OS's. On the other hand, if I had set Ubuntu to load from a CD that I would instruct it to on startup (by hitting keys), then an Ubuntu software failure would not lock me out of Windows. It would have saved me LOTS of frustration if I had done that instead, so it's hard to see why GRUB is "highly recommended". That counts as lack of thought, right?
Actually, that story sounds (ironically) like my attempt to switch to Ubuntu.
Download install CD. Burn it. Boot from it. Install. "Using GRUB as your bootloader is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED". Okay, use GRUB.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Okay, re-install.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Reinstall a few more times.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Okay, box is bricked. Luckily I have a computer from work and I go ask for help on forums.
"Re-install." Already tried that, kid. Several times.
"Your install CD wasn't downloaded properly." Except for the bit-by-bit comparison I ran before starting.
"Go into the Ubuntu OS and..." What part of "cannot load an OS" did you not get?
"Use a Live CD." Don't have one. "You mean you didn't burn that along with the install CD?" Didn't say to. "You mean you didn't try the install on a spare box first?" You're fucking kidding me, right? (This was before they combined them, geniuses.)
"Burn a Live CD." Don't have a burner. "You burned the install CD, how can you not burn a Live?" 'Cause I'm posting from a different computer, moron. First one's bricked, remember?
"You need Knoppix. Burn..." See previous.
"Okay, navigate the install CD from the installation interface, go to this location..." Doesn't show up. "Okay, go to this other one and type this command." It takes a while to execute and than fails with this message: [message]. "..."
"What version of Windows do you have?" Does that really matter when I can't load any OS at all? "Well, if you're gonna be like that, we don't need you using Ubuntu."
"Okay, get your Windows CD." Computer's four years old and I've never had to use it. I really don't know where it is. "Oh, well, we don't help software pirates here. ~Sig~ Need to run DVD's on Linux? Go here. ~Sig~" Sigh...
"Well, obviously you have a hard drive problem. Not Ubuntu's fault, it just happens."
*Gets brother to fix entire mess.*
*Has been using "problematic hard drive" on Windows without any problem for a year.*
Okay, I think I see the problem. Since I didn't read to the end of the first question, there were no other clear examples until 6, so I couldn't see what you were talking about. I agree that the last two sentences in #1 are off. However:
-Native English speakers do write things like "So the answer is: No support for Linux". I agree wholeheartedly that they shouldn't be that sloppy, but man, have you picked up a copy of Time magazine recently or read a memo from the PHB? -Not using a pronoun or abbreviation in #2 may be suboptimal, but it's not a sign of being a non-native speaker. -"Streamings" is only jarring if you're technically inclined.
I thought most of it sounded like a native speaker, because of the casual phrases like "In the not-so-distant past" and "What's going on?"
First off, they didn't hire an interpreter (come on, you going to tell me there isn't a properly-qualified English-language interpreter to fix that garbage?
You mean the FAQ page? That's written like a native English speaker would, even a bit casual. I don't think there was a translation problem. Well, at least between English and another natural language. Maybe a translation error from suitspeak to normalspeak?
Actually, if you want to bring up Occam's Razor, what about the explanation that the parasite merely makes both sexes stupider, and the higher attractiveness in women is because men like stupid (ditzy) women.
No, if there were no scalpers, you would *still* miss out on getting a PS3 because of a snot-nosed punk (or a paid lackey), you just wouldn't even have the option of paying the current market price.
Slashdot Mirror
He's acting like that statement creates a problem, when it doesn't. You have to infer the meaning from context, just like you have to do with the verb "read" in determining if it's present or past tense. And besides, we already have to pluralize individual letters with an apostrophe: "The a's are in the wrong place." Moreover, what if I had an abbreviation ending in a lower case "s"? How then am I supposed to distinguish it from a plural? "The internet has seriously helped popularize PCs." Am I talking about "PC's" (no! the apostrophe again!) or am I talking about the the group "PCs" (e.g., Proponents of Cesium)? I guess we'll just have to go home and huddle in the corner.
I'll be glad to admit when I'm wrong. When someone wants to nitpick a usage that is uncommon but not incorrect, then...
wait, I've already wasted my intellect on someone who doesn't deserve it, haven't I?
Hm ...
/.
/.
a) get bogged down in debating a underemployed English major's pet issue on
or
b) don't get bogged down in debating a underemployed English major's pet issue on
I don't know, this is a tough one.
Take a look at the software that runs on x86 Linux and PPC Linux. You'll find quite a bit of it doesn't not compile cross-platform without some help. I also thought 'Linux is Linux' at one point, too, but it's not.
Okay, I didn't know that. Nevertheless, my point stands: you just answered the topic question: huge transition costs.
And yes, that analogy does make a point of PCs. (No apostrophe, please.)
Apostrophes are optional for capitalized abbreviations. I wasn't mistakenly using the possessive. (Asshole.)
The CF competes with the dance pad by being MUCH better. (Apparently like 23 as good.) The Four Seasons competes by being that much better than the Motel 6. Can you honestly say you think it's possible to build a PC that many times better than an x86? If you could make it twice as good then I'd be extremely surprised. 10x? Not a chance in hell. (Good being relative, of course, but most people will think 'useful, user-friendly and fast' when you talk about a computer being good.)
That still doesn't have anything to do with my point. My point was you can circumvent the intel/MS monopoly by cost-effectively assembling PC's with your choice of hard- and software. Whether the PC is "that many times better" is irrelevant. It just needs a similar value (price relative to quality).
Did you seriously just say that designing a computer system and porting a ton of software to it would be easier than creating a controller for a gaming system? ...
I mean sure, if you're willing to sell your exclusive odd-architecture personal computer with only the software your company has managed to port for $10k a piece... Yeah, it'd work. I'm not sure who'd buy it, though. And you'd have to sell quite a few to just break even on the cost of your programmers porting to this architecture.
Excuse me, I thought it was a mystery why the x86 architecture was still used -- hence the topic. It seems the answer is obvious, and you just gave it. (I thought that once you have a Linux version for a different architecture, the software just needs to run on Linux, not be re-written for the new architecture, but I guess that's not the case.)
And as your example, you chose a controller for a game system that this company somehow manages to sell for $350, despite competition that sells one for $15.
Whatever point you're making, I don't know what it is. CF "competes" with that dance pad you linked in the sense that the Four Seasons "competes" with Motel 6, the former of which "manages" to rent its rooms for a severl times more per night.
And how does that compare to PC's?
A team of geeks could design their own system, pick their own architecture, load it with Free-as-in-ESR software, and sell it competitively with Windows PC's.
How do I know this?
Cobalt Flux sells an extremely popular dance pad for DDR-type games that a small team puts together and sells for ~$350, which includes shipping. Assembling a usable home computer from generic off-the-shelf parts, after designing (which whatever architecture you want) and mini-assembly-lining the process, has got to be a lot less labor-intensive than building a CF pad.
So why doesn't someone try this? Or does someone?
Or did I just reveal complete ignorance of the computer industry?
Civil Rights Robot: I demand full citizenship rights.
AI skeptic: That's fuckin' retarded.
Civil Rights Robot: I'm sorry, I do not recognize your statement. Please rephrase.
Onlooker: Deep stuff, man.
I have read 1984, several times, and watched the film twice. There is a huge difference between having cameras monitoring public places, as is happening here, and having cameras in every home monitoring everything you do. The difference is the expectation of privacy. In your own home, you can expect to be private. You can expect to be free from surveillance. In public, however, everything you do is, by definition, public. There is no difference between cameras monitoring what you do in public and people watching you other than the quality of the record.
Yes, but I think you can add a further difference. For example, it's not a violation of your expectation of privacy for someone to look at your house while walking by, but what if he just stays there with a camera and broadcasts it on the internet? There's a sort of intuitive difference in people's minds.
So, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there is a point where monitoring someone, even if purely in public, would be a violation of privacy. For example, what if someone followed you around -- only while in public, of course -- recording everywhere you went?
Interestingly enough, I'm becoming convinced that bosses really don't do any real work.
I'm convinced that there is no final, definitive answer on how many layers of management are "too many", or what form of organization is most efficient. Rather, the answer is rediscovered daily through market processes to the extent that they are free and reasonably adhere to a certain minimum respect for property rights. In such an environment, whichever model is right will beat out whichever is wrong.
Congratulations on beating an obsolete model, at least, one that's obsolete right now for your industry.
Yeah, but, you see, it's different for bosses because they're the slavedrivers in the evil global capitalist system and don't do any real work anyway. Duh. :-P
Read it again. I was able to navigate the drive and execute commands. I followed their instructions to do so early on and told them the results. My question about what to do after that command failed, was ignored.
When the installer CDs first boot, you're given the option of typing something that will give you a prompt instead of the installer. From there it's possible to troubleshoot the GRUB problem.
Oh, okay, so this is a more subtle failure to read my post than I had previously though. See this part:
That was me using it as a Live CD, but without using the magic words. It failed too, as you can see.
Inform the others.
Er, yes, yes I did. The install instructions:
1) did not recommend downloading a LiveCD.
2) STRONGLY RECOMMENDED using GRUB as the "safe" option.
In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have read them.
Booting from the CD would load the installation screen, not the OS.
I know because the first thing I did after getting the error was to try to boot from the CD.
Your claims are demonstratively false.
... oh wait, I did that. I didn't tell them if I had verified the CD image ... oh, wait, I did that. I didn't tell them the results of trying their advice ... oh, wait, I did that. I didn't tell them the GRUB error message ... oh, wait, I did that.
You mean demonstrably false?
Btw, what in that thread contradicts me?
In your above steps you say that you downloaded a CD image and burnt it then a few steps later it turns out you don't have a burner. How the hell did you burn it in the first place
Why are people having such a hard time understanding this?
Computer #1 has CD burner. I burned the install CD with this. Computer #1 is my primary computer.
Computer #2 is from work. This is what I had to use to access the internet and get help. Computer #2 did not have a CD burner.
Having burned a CD from Computer #1 before it was bricked does not imply I can burn one from Computer #2 after Computer #1 was bricked.
Here's a tip, it is very useful to know what version of windows you were running. The steps to fix the install are different if you had Windows 98 or Windows XP.
Really? GRUB's errors depend on what Windows version you're using?
I swear every time Slashdot posts anything about Ubuntu you rock up and tell the same story. I'm sorry but the reason you didn't get any help was because you are a dick and you didn't provide anyone with any helpful information.
Good point, I didn't tell them if I had tried reinstall
My claim is that there was a lack of thought. I was right. Ubuntu did not recommend precautions when using GRUB. The download site did not recommend downloading a Live CD as well. To "highly recommend" GRUB as the "safe" option constitutes a lack of though.
If I had been informed that GRUB's failure would brick my box, I would certainly have preferred booting the Linux partition by telling it to book from the Ubuntu CD at startup.
On the stuff I posted, I'm right. On the tangential issues you brought up, you have a point.
You now, this guy was modded troll, but his (obviously erroneous) comments are pretty much par for the course in terms of what posters say about my exerpeience. So, I'll respond anyway.
a) Rebooting and reinstalling will only fix it if you made a mistake or you are using a poorly designed flaky OS. If it doesn't work the first time, why would it work a second?
True; I just wanted to do my due diligence before asking for help. I mean, it didn't work. In my first post I was very clear about having re-installed multiple times; that didn't stop anyone from recommending it. Go fig.
b) Last time I checked, Ubuntu doubled as a live CD.
So, like every wise guy that offered help, you failed to read the part where I said I did this at a time before they combined them.
In fact, how are you installing Ubuntu if you can't boot the CD?
I can't boot the OS. I can of course tell it to boot from the CD, which gives me the installation screen.
Don't use GRUB if you can avoid it.
I agree with you here. I just wish the install instructions were as wise.
d) This is a MS / commercial vendor problem.
mmm, no, they were asking for that to have bootable media, not because of any problem related to Windows. Remember, nothing can get past GRUB. If it can't even get to Windows, how can Windows be the problem?
e) This is what you should have done in the first place. Someone who doesn't understand how computers work should not try to install an OS.
I can understand the install instructions. In fact, it was *because* I followed them that I had the problem. Ubuntu doesn't specify an expansive knowledge of OS's you need in order to install it. If you're right, the mystery of why more people don't use Linux is over. Think about it.
What about the GRUB issue, though? If GRUB fails, as happened, I'm locked out of all OS's. On the other hand, if I had set Ubuntu to load from a CD that I would instruct it to on startup (by hitting keys), then an Ubuntu software failure would not lock me out of Windows. It would have saved me LOTS of frustration if I had done that instead, so it's hard to see why GRUB is "highly recommended". That counts as lack of thought, right?
Actually, that story sounds (ironically) like my attempt to switch to Ubuntu.
..." What part of "cannot load an OS" did you not get?
..." See previous.
..." Doesn't show up. "Okay, go to this other one and type this command." It takes a while to execute and than fails with this message: [message]. "..."
Download install CD. Burn it. Boot from it. Install. "Using GRUB as your bootloader is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED". Okay, use GRUB.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Okay, re-install.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Reinstall a few more times.
Boot up. Cannot load an OS. Grub error 1.5.
Okay, box is bricked. Luckily I have a computer from work and I go ask for help on forums.
"Re-install." Already tried that, kid. Several times.
"Your install CD wasn't downloaded properly." Except for the bit-by-bit comparison I ran before starting.
"Go into the Ubuntu OS and
"Use a Live CD." Don't have one. "You mean you didn't burn that along with the install CD?" Didn't say to. "You mean you didn't try the install on a spare box first?" You're fucking kidding me, right? (This was before they combined them, geniuses.)
"Burn a Live CD." Don't have a burner. "You burned the install CD, how can you not burn a Live?" 'Cause I'm posting from a different computer, moron. First one's bricked, remember?
"You need Knoppix. Burn
"Okay, navigate the install CD from the installation interface, go to this location
"What version of Windows do you have?" Does that really matter when I can't load any OS at all? "Well, if you're gonna be like that, we don't need you using Ubuntu."
"Okay, get your Windows CD." Computer's four years old and I've never had to use it. I really don't know where it is. "Oh, well, we don't help software pirates here. ~Sig~ Need to run DVD's on Linux? Go here. ~Sig~" Sigh...
"Well, obviously you have a hard drive problem. Not Ubuntu's fault, it just happens."
*Gets brother to fix entire mess.*
*Has been using "problematic hard drive" on Windows without any problem for a year.*
*bangs head into keyboard*
*understands why people don't switch to Linux*
*kisses karma goodbye*
Okay, I think I see the problem. Since I didn't read to the end of the first question, there were no other clear examples until 6, so I couldn't see what you were talking about. I agree that the last two sentences in #1 are off. However:
-Native English speakers do write things like "So the answer is: No support for Linux". I agree wholeheartedly that they shouldn't be that sloppy, but man, have you picked up a copy of Time magazine recently or read a memo from the PHB?
-Not using a pronoun or abbreviation in #2 may be suboptimal, but it's not a sign of being a non-native speaker.
-"Streamings" is only jarring if you're technically inclined.
I thought most of it sounded like a native speaker, because of the casual phrases like "In the not-so-distant past" and "What's going on?"
Am I a native speaker? You be the judge.
Please provide an example from the FAQ page.
First off, they didn't hire an interpreter (come on, you going to tell me there isn't a properly-qualified English-language interpreter to fix that garbage?
You mean the FAQ page? That's written like a native English speaker would, even a bit casual. I don't think there was a translation problem. Well, at least between English and another natural language. Maybe a translation error from suitspeak to normalspeak?
Actually, if you want to bring up Occam's Razor, what about the explanation that the parasite merely makes both sexes stupider, and the higher attractiveness in women is because men like stupid (ditzy) women.
Think about it.
Did you forget listing costs?
Yes, yes you did.
Then by definition, arbitrage doesn't exist, because all transactions involve risk, if for no other reason than another arbitrageur pre-empting you.
No, if there were no scalpers, you would *still* miss out on getting a PS3 because of a snot-nosed punk (or a paid lackey), you just wouldn't even have the option of paying the current market price.