Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Allison on 1 Apr 2010 06:44 "Dyna Soar" " Farkin Larkin " >> I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law. > > Dave is an Australian, living in Australia. Why would (or should) he care > about US law? ** His video presentation breaks no law in either place. >> Personally, >> I class it with vandalism. > > That's bullshit. How can you vandalise something you legally own? ** Precisely. But FJ is alluding to the possible effect on Rigol's sales of their phoney 100MHz version. >> Obviously. But I'm curious as to why he did it, and especially why he >> went to the touble to make a video and post it on youtube. >> Why, Dave? > > Why not? He seems to not be breaking any Australian law. Why does he > have to justify himself to you particularly regarding the laws of another > country? ** His video presentation breaks no law in either place. FJ claim to the contrary is entirely RIDICULOUS !! > Your questioning him demonstrates your arrogance towards a law abiding > citizen of another country. ** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of his designs that is close enough to the Rigol case for ** HIM ** to feel very confronted by Dave's video presentation. IOW - a clear case of guilty conscience induced paranoia. IOW - the fool protesteth far too bloody much. ..... Phil
From: F Murtz on 1 Apr 2010 07:44 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski > <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 31, 1:03 pm, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue >> >> [...] >> >>> The act is >>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. >> >> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >> padlock in the least. Would you? >> > > No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones > has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is > probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at > least. > > So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the > whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real > revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. > > Jones? Why? > > John > I would not mind betting that they make more revenue, not less as a result of this discussion.
From: F Murtz on 1 Apr 2010 07:54 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:08:45 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:03 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>> <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>> What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >>>> dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >>> >from a Chinese maker. >>>> >>>> Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. >>>> >>>> He might have hurt or helped them. >>> >>> I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will >>> buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. >> >> --- >> So now it's _not_ "serious money" like you originally claimed? > > If it's, say, 100 scopes hacked at a loss of $400 each, until Rigol > makes the firmware more secure (which will also cost money to do) > that's $40K. I don't know if $40K is "serious" money that matters to > Rigol, or to you. $40K is fairly serious to me. It would probably be 100 scopes that they would not have sold normally to people who would not buy the 100MHz one anyway. > > How would you feel if Jones hacked one of your products and cost you > $40K? But I think you don't do firmware, so the question is probably > moot. > > John >
From: Jan Panteltje on 1 Apr 2010 09:02 On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:16:11 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <cp77r5ljkbktb5lnhq0sb54r7qc81nsacn(a)4ax.com>: >I paid them for a 50 MHz scope. I will not hack their firmware to make >it into a 100 MHz scope (with rotten step response) > >John You need a brain scan, or check EMI and stay clear of those high Tesla fields :-) In a resent paper researchers at MIT magnetically stimulated the area behind the right ear, while asking people questions about subjects where morally right and wrong needed to be evaluated. They found that by interfering with just that one spot people would give very different evaluations of right and wrong: Researchers were able to alter people's perceptions of right and wrong by applying magnetic stimulation to the brain. http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/03/12/0914826107.DCSupplemental/pnas.200914826SI.pdf As to the scope: I sort of liked the step response. I also liked that bleak ugly looking BW tek display next to it. Compare prices. Would do fine for me. Here that scope is 500 Euro, exactly 600 $, cannot make one for that that looks so nice.
From: Greegor on 1 Apr 2010 09:07
The usual presumption for different prices is that different COSTS are involved. Is it worth it for Rigol to include the supposedly higher end parts in the lower end models? Would using the higher end parts in the "crippleware" versions pay dividends when it comes to service and repair, repair parts inventory and one test jig for both models? How many of the low end scopes do they sell for each low end one they sell? |