Being an asshole in a self-policing community sure is a bitch, ain't it?
It's not a purely self-policing community: craigslist is certainly *allowing* community policing, but the head of the hierarchy does reserve the right to remove anything -- or re-instate listings that were removed.
And let's keep things in perspective. I didn't call a waitress "sugartits". I didn't camp the passing lane. I offered what I thought was the current market price of a good.
When people start modding you down because they're sick of your whining, are you going accuse them of censorship too?
I don't recall using the term "censorship", but, depending on the context, I would certainly complain about abuse of Slashdot's "policing" system, which is exactly what I was doing with regard to Craigslist. (In fact, abuse of the moderation system is exactly what you'll get if you criticize Linux, which is why I don't explain the basis for my name here.)
You said "unjustly" because you think it isn't fair that you didn't get the profit you were looking for
No, asshole, I think it's *unfortunate*, not unfair. The unjust part was people flagging my craigslist listing because they didn't like it, rather than because it didn't meet the TOS.
I respect anyone's right not to bid on my products.
Market tanked, and your outlet of last resort rejected you. At least you got your money back.
Well, it seems my last resort didn't quite reject me, now, did it?
I didn't get a refund on the ebay/local paper listing costs. Further, I could have found a buyer, who then issued a chargeback that paypal might screw me on.
But don't worry -- I have 50 times the retail price of a PS3 in a diversified array of index funds, taking advantage of the favorable tax-free and tax-deferred accounts, so I think I've got my investing in order...
What I never understood about the PS3 is why Sony wouldn't have had more reason to sell them themselves in an auction style.
Gamer backlash. Yeah, they'd be going only to people willing to pay that much, so in theory everyone's better off, but it would generate a lot of ill will among the broader gaming market. Unfounded in my opinion, but it would still cost them sales.
It makes more sense to reap the profits for themselves -- I wonder how many Sony managers and upper-management were some of the initial eBay sellers?
You mean sellers due to their position as Sony managers? Zero. eBay required a receipt picture. I doubt retailers would conspire with a Sony manager like that -- big penalties on both sides.
You say "unjustly" as if scalping is a good thing.
I said "unjustly" in the sense that the PS3 listings that were being removed clearly met all of craigslist's rules.
But scalping is a good thing in that it makes it possible for people willing to pay more (rather than spend ages line) able to get one without getting line. If there were no scalpers, people would just hire placeholders. I don't think that would make anyone feel any better.
But $100 is not the profit. It's the net over retail + sales tax. Figure in listing costs, risk (of scammers, paypal disputes), the fact that you have to front a big chunk of capital, and the time you'll have to put in (listing, taking pictures, shipping), and it's a losing proposition.
People aren't returning Wiis because a) people like them, and b) you can sell them for more than the refund.
Confession: I'm a failed PS3 scalper. I thought I struck gold when the store I was in announced they had three in stock and I got one (Dec 20). Yesterday I was able to return it (the PlayAlbatross 3 as I call it) for a full refund after price on resell sites plummeted to the point where it wouldn't be worth it. Also, amazon wouldn't take sales from new sellers, and craigslist had scalper hunters unjustly flagging scalpers.
Arbitrage isn't as risk-free as they like to make it sound.
Just one cow gives off enough harmful methane gas in a single day to fill around 400 litre bottles.
That doesn't sound very surprising, given that a gas always fills its container, just like a liquid always takes its container's shape.
Oh, and by the way, if, like me, you went straight to the bird one, you couldn't but snicker at the picture's caption: "There are an estimated 1.7million great tit pairs in the UK."
Second, I know of at least one product that it's worth getting the in-store warranty for: the Red Octane dance pad. Before breaking, it's the best pad out there, even better than the Cobalt Flux (which I bought) in my opinion. (Though every other DDR lover will disagree.) And my experience is that they typically break well within warranty. So, rather than haggle with their customer service and have to ship it back and be without it, I pay $8-$10 to be able to go in and swap it out the moment it breaks. I think it's worth it, but only because that product's failure is so predictable. They're practically paying me:-P
Plus, let's be honest - most people who aren't knowledgeable in a certain area do believe everything they're told. You think your average mom in an EB Games location would question this logic at all?
True, but did you read the story for the conversation that led up to that remark?
...I spotted a Sony PlayStation retail rep frantically cleaning off the very same kiosk I had mentioned earlier. I wasn't going to let him get away.
"Happy Holidays," I said.
"Oh, hi! I'll be done here in one second and then I'll turn on the unit so you can get a glimpse of the future."
"Oh, I know all about it," I said, trying not to laugh. "I have the future at home. In my closet. Still in the box. Trying to sell it. No takers."
After a short, awkward silence, I decided to go in for the kill.
"So dude over there," I said pointing to the busy clerk, "says he keeps the kiosk off because it keeps freezing up."
"Nope. No it doesn't."
"Well, actually, yeah. It does. I've seen it happen myself."
"No. It doesn't. We did that on purpose," he said.
"You make the entire console lock up on purpose because... why?"
"We do that so that people won't play it all day long," he explained. "Specifically during Motorstorm, we made it freeze up a lot."
It should have been obvious to the Sony rep that he wasn't dealing with some soccer mom, and he could have saved himself just by saying, "Nah, I'm just messin' with ya. I'll figure out if I can replace it." or something like that.
Good (if obvious) point. A traffic jam can be caused by too many cars, by stupid drivers, or by both. For example, if a high capacity road has to "dump its load" onto an intersection with a traffic light, the traffic will still back up, regardless of the mental abilities of the drivers. On the other hand, I've seen traffic back up, even when the freeway is well below capacity, simply because of the right combination of stupid drivers. Such as when the two people in the middle and outer lanes decide to drive the same speed, creating an impassible wall, and the driver in the inner lane decides it's his GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHT to drive whatever speed he damn well pleases in that lane, even if he's just going to camp there.
Another thing people don't seem to realize is that "more roads" or "wider roads" won't usually constitute a long-term solution to traffic problems. It just leads more people to plan around the roads having higher capacity, so more and more people plan on using the roads, until they're choked up again. See my last journal entry.
I guess I'd assume he's saying the download took about the time it takes to go to church for Christmas.
Yes, and, more importantly, that you can't do anything else with a PS3 while it's downloading, unlike the Xbox 360, which will download non-disruptively in the background while you play games or something.
Well, they changed the law a while ago (Bayh-Dole Act) so that researchers would have more stake in the success of the work. Yes, you "pay twice", but you also (in theory) get better results. That is why the law was changed, not out of a desire to shortchange anyone.
But even so, how far do you want to take this? The "people" also pay for roads, for primary/secondary education, subsidize higher education, provide police protection to researchers, etc. I guess that means we all collectively own the work of anyone. Damn them for not giving back!
That's false. Professors working on a government salary write textbooks on university time and get to keep the copyright. Obviously, it's not always released into the public domain.
(I mean, not that we'd want to derive an "ought" from an "is", but whatever.)
When I heard the store I was in announce they had three PS3's, I figured they'd be gone in a minute and this was my chance to make a profit. I was able to get one.
Then I found out, the hard way:
a) They are superabundant on ebay and only selling for about retail. b) Amazon won't let you sell one unless you have a long history. c) Craigslist has "scalper hunters" who are flagging PS3 sales to get them removed.
Because of a), it is unlikely that you can make much reselling it. I listed it in the local paper and only got a few low offers.
So it's okay to expropriate the work of anyone, as long as he learned from others and was funded by the government?
(Note: that was a reduction to absurdity, not an endorsement of either patents in general, or the patents described. Simmer down.)
I haven't read the article, but if the excepted parts are to be taken seriously -- and I think they are -- the entire argument is rather sophomoric. Pointing to an example of prohibiting Indians to use a traditional remedy because of patents would be a textbook example of an invalid patent (on grounds of prior art). That would show the problems with "a stupid application of medical patents" not that "medical patents as such, take lives".
The other "point" is about drug companies spending more on marketing than research, but what exactly is this supposed to prove (and people do bring it up a lot)? Is the point that if you don't follow some liberal's wet dream about how you're supposed to spend your money, your patent is somehow less worthy?
Yeah, let's start enforcing laws based on our sympathies with the litigants -- banana republic in no time!
Or, presumably, this fact is brought up to somehow imply that a drug company could costlessly redirect money from marketing to research? That won't work either. If the drug became instant knowledge to everyone who might want it, drug companies wouldn't market so much to begin with. In reality, you have to overcome some very steep prejudices of a very protected class of doctors to get them to do it a better way. This means marketing.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: unlike many people, I freely admit that I simply don't know whether patents are good or bad. However, I do know that we'll never know the answer if people keep muddying up the debate with these misleading claims.
But are they "cute" in that they meet some objective standard of "cuteness", or is "cuteness" merely the term we have chosen for what we (due to selection) feel when we see them?
Slashdot Mirror
Being an asshole in a self-policing community sure is a bitch, ain't it?
It's not a purely self-policing community: craigslist is certainly *allowing* community policing, but the head of the hierarchy does reserve the right to remove anything -- or re-instate listings that were removed.
And let's keep things in perspective. I didn't call a waitress "sugartits". I didn't camp the passing lane. I offered what I thought was the current market price of a good.
When people start modding you down because they're sick of your whining, are you going accuse them of censorship too?
I don't recall using the term "censorship", but, depending on the context, I would certainly complain about abuse of Slashdot's "policing" system, which is exactly what I was doing with regard to Craigslist. (In fact, abuse of the moderation system is exactly what you'll get if you criticize Linux, which is why I don't explain the basis for my name here.)
Craig's List extortion prices.
Sounds like someone else didn't get the memo either.
"please do not" is not the same as "prohibited". Note that it specifically says that they are removed *merely* because some people like to flag them.
You said "unjustly" because you think it isn't fair that you didn't get the profit you were looking for
No, asshole, I think it's *unfortunate*, not unfair. The unjust part was people flagging my craigslist listing because they didn't like it, rather than because it didn't meet the TOS.
I respect anyone's right not to bid on my products.
Market tanked, and your outlet of last resort rejected you. At least you got your money back.
Well, it seems my last resort didn't quite reject me, now, did it?
I didn't get a refund on the ebay/local paper listing costs. Further, I could have found a buyer, who then issued a chargeback that paypal might screw me on.
But don't worry -- I have 50 times the retail price of a PS3 in a diversified array of index funds, taking advantage of the favorable tax-free and tax-deferred accounts, so I think I've got my investing in order...
Craigslist doesn't prohibit scalping.
Here is the prohibited items list.
Here is the conduct section of the TOS.
Where does it prohibit scalping? Nowhere.
Rather, many craiglist *users* take it upon themselves to get marked-up items removed through flagging.
What I never understood about the PS3 is why Sony wouldn't have had more reason to sell them themselves in an auction style.
Gamer backlash. Yeah, they'd be going only to people willing to pay that much, so in theory everyone's better off, but it would generate a lot of ill will among the broader gaming market. Unfounded in my opinion, but it would still cost them sales.
It makes more sense to reap the profits for themselves -- I wonder how many Sony managers and upper-management were some of the initial eBay sellers?
You mean sellers due to their position as Sony managers? Zero. eBay required a receipt picture. I doubt retailers would conspire with a Sony manager like that -- big penalties on both sides.
You say "unjustly" as if scalping is a good thing.
I said "unjustly" in the sense that the PS3 listings that were being removed clearly met all of craigslist's rules.
But scalping is a good thing in that it makes it possible for people willing to pay more (rather than spend ages line) able to get one without getting line. If there were no scalpers, people would just hire placeholders. I don't think that would make anyone feel any better.
But $100 is not the profit. It's the net over retail + sales tax. Figure in listing costs, risk (of scammers, paypal disputes), the fact that you have to front a big chunk of capital, and the time you'll have to put in (listing, taking pictures, shipping), and it's a losing proposition.
People aren't returning Wiis because a) people like them, and b) you can sell them for more than the refund.
Confession: I'm a failed PS3 scalper. I thought I struck gold when the store I was in announced they had three in stock and I got one (Dec 20). Yesterday I was able to return it (the PlayAlbatross 3 as I call it) for a full refund after price on resell sites plummeted to the point where it wouldn't be worth it. Also, amazon wouldn't take sales from new sellers, and craigslist had scalper hunters unjustly flagging scalpers.
Arbitrage isn't as risk-free as they like to make it sound.
What about:
6. Apple will reveal it has been recording phone calls made on the iPhone and that they're available for sale on iTunes for 99 cents.
"Around the World" is by Daft Punk, not Red Hot Chili Peppers.
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
Just one cow gives off enough harmful methane gas in a single day to fill around 400 litre bottles.
That doesn't sound very surprising, given that a gas always fills its container, just like a liquid always takes its container's shape.
Oh, and by the way, if, like me, you went straight to the bird one, you couldn't but snicker at the picture's caption: "There are an estimated 1.7million great tit pairs in the UK."
First, chill out.
:-P
Second, I know of at least one product that it's worth getting the in-store warranty for: the Red Octane dance pad. Before breaking, it's the best pad out there, even better than the Cobalt Flux (which I bought) in my opinion. (Though every other DDR lover will disagree.) And my experience is that they typically break well within warranty. So, rather than haggle with their customer service and have to ship it back and be without it, I pay $8-$10 to be able to go in and swap it out the moment it breaks. I think it's worth it, but only because that product's failure is so predictable. They're practically paying me
And yes, the Red Octane pad is that damn good.
True, but did you read the story for the conversation that led up to that remark?
It should have been obvious to the Sony rep that he wasn't dealing with some soccer mom, and he could have saved himself just by saying, "Nah, I'm just messin' with ya. I'll figure out if I can replace it." or something like that.
A year after it's release, yes the 360 has its act together.
Yes, right when people are considering buying one.
And if you're not buying either, why do you care how the downloader behaves?
Because I care about the truth, maybe?
Look at how the post got modded -- certainly some people found that information useful since they hadn't known that before.
If you want, I'll only comment on the Wii when talking about consoles, even if I have truthful information about the others.
Yeah, good point, we should handicap systems when deciding which to buy.
"well, the xbox is superior, but the PS3 hasn't had a fair chance. Guess I'll wait."
(I actually won't be buying either a 360 or PS3, but I've got to admit at least the 360 has its act together.)
Good (if obvious) point. A traffic jam can be caused by too many cars, by stupid drivers, or by both. For example, if a high capacity road has to "dump its load" onto an intersection with a traffic light, the traffic will still back up, regardless of the mental abilities of the drivers. On the other hand, I've seen traffic back up, even when the freeway is well below capacity, simply because of the right combination of stupid drivers. Such as when the two people in the middle and outer lanes decide to drive the same speed, creating an impassible wall, and the driver in the inner lane decides it's his GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHT to drive whatever speed he damn well pleases in that lane, even if he's just going to camp there.
Another thing people don't seem to realize is that "more roads" or "wider roads" won't usually constitute a long-term solution to traffic problems. It just leads more people to plan around the roads having higher capacity, so more and more people plan on using the roads, until they're choked up again. See my last journal entry.
"But isn't that actually a bull?"
"Hey, no sense making it any more complicated for the city slickers than necessary."
I guess I'd assume he's saying the download took about the time it takes to go to church for Christmas.
Yes, and, more importantly, that you can't do anything else with a PS3 while it's downloading, unlike the Xbox 360, which will download non-disruptively in the background while you play games or something.
Well, they changed the law a while ago (Bayh-Dole Act) so that researchers would have more stake in the success of the work. Yes, you "pay twice", but you also (in theory) get better results. That is why the law was changed, not out of a desire to shortchange anyone.
But even so, how far do you want to take this? The "people" also pay for roads, for primary/secondary education, subsidize higher education, provide police protection to researchers, etc. I guess that means we all collectively own the work of anyone. Damn them for not giving back!
That's false. Professors working on a government salary write textbooks on university time and get to keep the copyright. Obviously, it's not always released into the public domain.
(I mean, not that we'd want to derive an "ought" from an "is", but whatever.)
Confession (and this will drop karma):
:-(
When I heard the store I was in announce they had three PS3's, I figured they'd be gone in a minute and this was my chance to make a profit. I was able to get one.
Then I found out, the hard way:
a) They are superabundant on ebay and only selling for about retail.
b) Amazon won't let you sell one unless you have a long history.
c) Craigslist has "scalper hunters" who are flagging PS3 sales to get them removed.
Because of a), it is unlikely that you can make much reselling it. I listed it in the local paper and only got a few low offers.
I'll be returning it shortly.
So it's okay to expropriate the work of anyone, as long as he learned from others and was funded by the government?
(Note: that was a reduction to absurdity, not an endorsement of either patents in general, or the patents described. Simmer down.)
I haven't read the article, but if the excepted parts are to be taken seriously -- and I think they are -- the entire argument is rather sophomoric. Pointing to an example of prohibiting Indians to use a traditional remedy because of patents would be a textbook example of an invalid patent (on grounds of prior art). That would show the problems with "a stupid application of medical patents" not that "medical patents as such, take lives".
The other "point" is about drug companies spending more on marketing than research, but what exactly is this supposed to prove (and people do bring it up a lot)? Is the point that if you don't follow some liberal's wet dream about how you're supposed to spend your money, your patent is somehow less worthy?
Yeah, let's start enforcing laws based on our sympathies with the litigants -- banana republic in no time!
Or, presumably, this fact is brought up to somehow imply that a drug company could costlessly redirect money from marketing to research? That won't work either. If the drug became instant knowledge to everyone who might want it, drug companies wouldn't market so much to begin with. In reality, you have to overcome some very steep prejudices of a very protected class of doctors to get them to do it a better way. This means marketing.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: unlike many people, I freely admit that I simply don't know whether patents are good or bad. However, I do know that we'll never know the answer if people keep muddying up the debate with these misleading claims.
But are they "cute" in that they meet some objective standard of "cuteness", or is "cuteness" merely the term we have chosen for what we (due to selection) feel when we see them?