No, I defined pricing, not profit,
Not really (pricing is what the market will bear). You still didn't answer his
question, in any case.
No, I defined pricing, not profit,
fritz said:At best ? You don't seem to have been following this thread...
It is bleedingly obvious that it was IDENTICAL from the
simplicity of the hack that has been explained in detail, and the
fact that Rigol THEMSELVES have conceded it is only firmware.
And if there are any warranty problems, you can always revert to the
original setup data anyway. Nobody at Rigol will ever know!
Again, what they get when modifying it is *not* a guaranteed 100MHz scope.
What they may have bought instead of the 50MHz version is not the same, they
would need to pay for a guaranteed scope. They are quite entitled to buy a
50MHz scope and run it out of scec.
But at no point does anyone say that this mod equals the real thing, only
that it 'appears' to be the same thing.
If you're saying that it is OK for someone to discover how to modify their
own equipment and then run out of spec but not OK to tell others how to do
it, then surely all those websites that provide financial information as to
how to move their money around with credit cards and hence pay less interest
are also wrong, after all you could discover how to do that yourself. In
either case the results are legal.
markp said:<snip - rest is snipped due to profanity>
Fred Abse said:I wonder if that includes altering "Subject:" headers.
Fred Abse said:I wouldn't dispute that. It's not what is at issue.
You've already said that, twice. I have no disagreement with that.
I was making a moral, not a legal point. Maybe you don't distinguish.
Tough shit, it got you in didn't it !
OK, I understand. However I assume you also think these websites that
publish these less well known financial tricks are also ammoral. I conceed
that your point was a moral one though not a legal one.
What people are willing to pay, of course.
If you had a rusty VW beetle up on blocks in your back yard, and
somebody offered you $200 for it, and somebody else offered you
$24,000, would you sell it to the $200 guy because that's a fair
price?
fritz said:At best ? You don't seem to have been following this thread...
It is bleedingly obvious that it was IDENTICAL from the
simplicity of the hack that has been explained in detail, and the
fact that Rigol THEMSELVES have conceded it is only firmware.
And if there are any warranty problems, you can always revert to the
original setup data anyway. Nobody at Rigol will ever know!
I hope you are also protesting that against that fuckwit religious
nutter Conroy
who is trying to impose his own idea of Sharia law i.e. cripple the
Internet
for Aussie users.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2138157.htm
Conroy is a buffoon propped up by the religious right (wrong!),
you don't have to look too far to see that his stupid method
of 100% religious censorship is a fucking joke. A complete failure.
Vladimir Vassilevsky said:They would have to send bandits or use whatever other non-economic means
of competition. Problem is not in the patents, problem is with the people.
Write a complaint to the World League for sexual reforms?
That's their *purpose*. For a legal monopoly the inventor trades
education in
the art. Without something to gain there would be no reason to publish
details, rather keep them as trade secrets. This approach didn't work out
so
well in the early industrial revolution. It's a good idea to research the
alternatives before condemning the existing.
John said:That's the crux of the issue.
Read John's post again. The economic harm is done when someone buys the
50MHz version, intending to modify it, when in the absence of the
disseminated information, they would have bought the more expensive
instrument.
The moral thing would be to have announced that "We have discovered that
the two instruments are electrically identical, and it is possible to
modify the 50MHz version, in firmware, to behave identically to the 100MHz
version. We are not disclosing how to do this. We invite comments from the
manufacturer."
Maybe if you could figure out how your Usenet thingy works...I am humbled by the depth of your arguments.
Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple
of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and
the compromises it forces.
John said:Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple
of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and
the compromises it forces.