Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 16:28 In article <1-2dnaZL363_0ivWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > > "John Tserkezis" <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message > news:4bb5adbd$0$5591$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > > >> Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it > >> qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling > >> the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. > > > > I was under the impression it was more like a ~$200 difference. I > > briefly checked ebay for prices, and found ~$650-~$850 between the models. > > That sounded fair to me, which made it a challenge to support my own > > argument that it was the same hardware. > > > > Double price is another ball game altogether. They deserve what they get. > > I looked it up today and the MSRP for the 50Mhz model was $595 and the > 100Mhz model was $795, I don't know if this price was up to date but you can > buy either model on eBay with a "Buy it now" and have either model for less > than the MSRP including shipping. > > RogerN Has it been mentioned yet in Dave's thread that ..yes Rigol looses money on the hack but there's a positive effect too cause Dave is fueling word of mouth advertising. iows...the hack becomes viral marketing. Does the hack boost Rigol sales? There's about 90 bids for the DS1052D on Ebay.. Maybe it's Rigol's plan that if a hack is discovered, it's still beneficial. After the wash, perhaps Rigol still does good profit. Rigol does have the option to boost prices at any time to compensate. I suspect allowing a product to be hackable may stem from clever marketing. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 16:48 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:43:42 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <64vbr5hut4e92q09eho894cm15conhsdat(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >> wrote: >> >> >If you really want to make me look stupid then agree with krw that >> >Larkin wrote what religion he is in. >> >> --- >> Since _you've_ already made yourself look plenty stupid, why bother? >> --- >> >> >And then quote the part where >> >Larkin specifies what religion. >> >That'll make me look more stupid than just picking on semantics or my >> >bad wrighting. >> >> --- >> Again, why bother when it's so easy watching you do it all by yourself? >> >> JF > >Can you call me stupid for being ineffective at getting Larkin to >specify his religion? --- Yes, of course, since that ineffectiveness is based on the fact that you're too full of your stupid self to realize that no matter how much you squeal, you'll _never_ get that information out of Larkin if he doesn't want to grace you with it. Plus, you're so abysmally stupid that you don't know how stupid you are and had to have defined for you how your ineffectiveness is related to your stupidity. Not that I expect you to understand that... JF
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 16:53 In article <5kjcr5tkfmkub77fbbi5f8aon0q9d9jm9p(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:39:21 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >In article <aetbr5505tvnsjh7vij2h0ghdkjo1bjoot(a)4ax.com>, > >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > > >> > >> Larkin, I think, is being wise by letting you stew in your own juice > > > >I'm mostly interested in those that hide their religion and why they do > >so. > > --- > No, you're not; you're only interested in getting attention by fostering > discord. > --- > > > >I'm also curious as to what degree one will go to hide their religion. > >I can't test that unless I try various strategies. > > --- > And if they choose not to reveal their spiritual beliefs, even unto > death, what will you do then? > > Mount your own personal inquisition? > > There must be a great sea of inadequacy within you which makes you so > unsure of your own beliefs that you feel the need to taunt others into > little traps so you can feel better about yourself. > > > JF Speaking of inquisition... I'll admit I've given Larkin waayyyy too much attention. This is unfair. afaik.. You haven't posted that you have religion or lack of (agnostic or atheist). Am I correct that you wouldn't post your religion (or lack of) orientation? -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 16:55 In article <c3lcr51osku735b9bhsb821l7obks61r3l(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:43:42 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >In article <64vbr5hut4e92q09eho894cm15conhsdat(a)4ax.com>, > >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >> > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >If you really want to make me look stupid then agree with krw that > >> >Larkin wrote what religion he is in. > >> > >> --- > >> Since _you've_ already made yourself look plenty stupid, why bother? > >> --- > >> > >> >And then quote the part where > >> >Larkin specifies what religion. > >> >That'll make me look more stupid than just picking on semantics or my > >> >bad wrighting. > >> > >> --- > >> Again, why bother when it's so easy watching you do it all by yourself? > >> > >> JF > > > >Can you call me stupid for being ineffective at getting Larkin to > >specify his religion? > > --- > Yes, of course, since that ineffectiveness is based on the fact that > you're too full of your stupid self to realize that no matter how much > you squeal, you'll _never_ get that information out of Larkin if he > doesn't want to grace you with it. > > Plus, you're so abysmally stupid that you don't know how stupid you are > and had to have defined for you how your ineffectiveness is related to > your stupidity. > > Not that I expect you to understand that... > > > JF No I don't understand that.
From: RogerN on 2 Apr 2010 17:14
"D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.261ff336b36b4cb898975f(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <1-2dnaZL363_0ivWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > regor(a)midwest.net says... >> >> "John Tserkezis" <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message >> news:4bb5adbd$0$5591$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> > Jon Kirwan wrote: >> > >> >> Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it >> >> qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling >> >> the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. >> > >> > I was under the impression it was more like a ~$200 difference. I >> > briefly checked ebay for prices, and found ~$650-~$850 between the >> > models. >> > That sounded fair to me, which made it a challenge to support my own >> > argument that it was the same hardware. >> > >> > Double price is another ball game altogether. They deserve what they >> > get. >> >> I looked it up today and the MSRP for the 50Mhz model was $595 and the >> 100Mhz model was $795, I don't know if this price was up to date but you >> can >> buy either model on eBay with a "Buy it now" and have either model for >> less >> than the MSRP including shipping. >> >> RogerN > > Has it been mentioned yet in Dave's thread that ..yes Rigol looses money > on the hack but there's a positive effect too cause Dave is fueling word > of mouth advertising. > iows...the hack becomes viral marketing. > Does the hack boost Rigol sales? There's about 90 bids for the DS1052D > on Ebay.. > Maybe it's Rigol's plan that if a hack is discovered, it's still > beneficial. > After the wash, perhaps Rigol still does good profit. > Rigol does have the option to boost prices at any time to compensate. > I suspect allowing a product to be hackable may stem from clever > marketing. > > > -- > D from BC > British Columbia Just my guess but many companies would spend the $795 and not even know about the hack, or would not want to take a chance in case a few components were different. Private individuals such as hobbyists might be more likely to buy the Rigol O'scope because they can hack it. I figure if they are making money selling it for $595 then they aren't actually losing money by selling it for $595 just because someone is using it for 100Mhz. It would be bad, however, if someone was hacking them and making money for it, buying as one model and selling as the more expensive model. I don't know, would Rigol prefer an individual hobbies buy their $595 scope and hack it or would they prefer them buy a nice used scope from eBay for less $$ and good enough functionality. It isn't always a question of selling a $595 scope or a $795 scope, sometimes it's sell a $595 scope or nothing. RogerN |