Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Chess (Score 2) 274

by RedWizzard (#47675715) Attached to: Of the following, I'd rather play ...

Chess is the only game (possibly the only game ever invented) that has no element of chance whatsoever. You win or lose purely by the decisions you make and the power of your own intellect. Even though I'm not very good, I do find it a stimulating and very satisfying game.

Possibly the only game event invented that has no element of chance? You need to try more games, it's not even the only one in that list. Anyway, a lack of chance doesn't by itself make chess better or worse than anything else.

Comment: Re:Wait for it... (Score 1) 752

by RedWizzard (#47480395) Attached to: Malaysian Passenger Plane Reportedly Shot Down Over Ukraine

Too much of a coincidence for a plane to crash in a war zone where a fighter was shot down just the other day and a transport aircraft An-26 was shot down by a missile at 25,000ft couple of days ago. And by the way, why would a commercial airliner fly through such an airspace anyway?

No U.S. carrier has been allowed to fly over certain parts of Ukraine since the end of April, due to an FAA order.

Certain parts, apparently not including the area this plane was flying over.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47463331) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

Yet TradeMe still exists and people use direct bank transfers than any other payment method on the site. If your claim (that business this way is not practical) was true then people would not use direct bank transfers. But they do. Ipso facto your claim can't be true.

My claim was and still is that using cash eliminates many of the scams - your claim was that scamming was too infrequent to matter. I provided evidence that it was frequent enough that the marketplace warned you against handing over money via bank transfers (other than their own special bank transfer that still had no guarantees). Please read those links I posted - they actually specifically warn against bank transfers.

I did read those links and they did not warn against bank transfers except overseas (and overseas transfers are quite different anyway - I can't simply entering an overseas bank account number in online banking to initiate a transfer as I can with domestic accounts). In fact both links are primarily concerned with phishing, not the sort of fraud we've been talking about. Obviously that is because the scamming you've been claiming is such an issue is not actually significant - it is phishing that catches people. My bank also warns me against phishing, yet they don't warn me against using direct transfers. What does that tell you?

If your claim is as minor as you're now saying, my response is "so what?" You might as well say that you can't be scammed in a transaction if you don't enter into private transactions at all. It's true, but it's irrelevant. Of course I concede that cash is less vulnerable to certain types of fraud than other payment methods. But the theoretically higher incidence of scamming with direct bank transfers is still so low that it doesn't matter. The fact remains that if scamming was as widespread as you make out then people would not use TradeMe or similar markets. Those markets exist, and are massive, ergo scamming is not the problem you think it is.

But the system still works. You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. You haven't even provided evidence that the incidence of fraud is higher with direct bank transfers.

I don't need to provide evidence that it doesn't work because I never made the claim that it does not work. I claimed that untrusted transactions are best with payment and possession taking place at the same time, hence cash works best for this. The sites you pointed me to warn specifically about doing bank transfers.

Cash doesn't work best for this because it is only practical for transactions in a limited geographic area. How far are you prepared to travel to gain this protection you rate so highly for a $20 transaction? $100? $1000?

Again, those links you provided do not warn against direct bank transfers. Did you actually read them?

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47454829) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.

You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!

No, you're misrepresenting my position. I never claimed there were no scams. I said it was not a significant problem in practice. Perhaps that is due to a difference in the cultures of our countries. But the fact remains that the system works here. When you claim that a system that is in widespread use doesn't work, that's not skepticism. It's simply denial.

From the trademe site, they warn about this specifically: http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust... So, they themselves think that if you hand over money you could lose it. Let me emphasise that for you: Trademe themselves think that you should use any protection you can when paying money and you should not rely on trust!

So the trust issue is not an insignificant problem, but it is one that is painlessly solved by using cash.

Yet TradeMe still exists and people use direct bank transfers than any other payment method on the site. If your claim (that business this way is not practical) was true then people would not use direct bank transfers. But they do. Ipso facto your claim can't be true.

Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.

I refer you to the trademe trust and safety blog (yes, it really is called that): http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust...

But the system still works. You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. You haven't even provided evidence that the incidence of fraud is higher with direct bank transfers.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47454705) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here.

You're claiming "It works, because there are no scams", and I'm telling you, right now and right here, there are scams in all the classifieds. You're relying on the fact that people are honest; I'm comfortable being skeptical. You're asking me to trust "because it doesn't happen", and I'm saying that over here it's a daily occurrence. I actually don't know how to make it any clearer - if you're buying something off of craigslist, or whichever classifieds, the damn site itself warns you to be skeptical! Even the marketplace itself is telling you that there are scammers out there!

No, you're misrepresenting my position. I never claimed there were no scams. I said it was not a significant problem in practice. Perhaps that is due to a difference in the cultures of our countries. But the fact remains that the system works here. When you claim that a system that is in widespread use doesn't work, that's not skepticism. It's simply denial. Again, I am not talking theoretically - if you believe I'm wrong you can track down the crime statistics for New Zealand and prove that there is significant fraud on TradeMe. But you'd be wasting your time because there isn't. There are isolated cases, but not to the point where it's seen as riskier than any other private transaction, and certainly not to the point where the system doesn't work.

Again, the system is widely used here. So the onus is on you to back up your claim that it can't possibly work with evidence.

Someone dealing in cash can just as easily be robbed by the seller.

True, but if you're going to mug someone, why post on the classifieds first? You're just as likely to be mugged leaving a bank after all.

Your position is that direct bank transfers aren't safe essentially because the seller is not so easy catch if they decide to commit a crime. This is exactly the same as the difference between mugging someone in a public place ("leaving a bank") and luring them to some place private before mugging them.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47454577) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.

You're arguing hypotheticals against reality.

What are you talking about? What's not a reality?

You're saying "it can't possibly work, because scams". I'm telling you it does actually work here. The concerns you have raised are simply not a significant problem in actual fact. The system I've described is not some theoretical idea, it is how actual business is actually conducted in the country I live in. Not sure how I can say this any more plainly.

It's simply not a problem here. If it were it could be solved simply by requiring sufficient proof of identity to post the classified in the first place. A marketplace which gets a reputation for allowing sellers to get away with fraud is not going to last long.

Once again it comes down to trust - you trust that the marketplace has identified the scammer. What if you're the first person to respond to the ad? Regardless, you're still asking two parties who are unknown to each other to trust each other with no real evidence that the trust is warranted. My point still stands in this reality - transactions need to be completed when there is a lack of trust. Cash works for this. Waiting doesn't (hence the reason bitcoin is still less traded than actual toy money).

Someone dealing in cash can just as easily be robbed by the seller.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47454341) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.

You're arguing hypotheticals against reality. It's simply not a problem here. If it were it could be solved simply by requiring sufficient proof of identity to post the classified in the first place. A marketplace which gets a reputation for allowing sellers to get away with fraud is not going to last long.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47454299) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

give them your bank account number

What could possibly go wrong?

Actually very little. If your bank lets someone else fraudulently withdrawal from your account they are on the hook for the money. The main problem is if they get the account number wrong and the typo corresponds to a real account (which would require two digits wrong). In that case it can be difficult to get your money back from the unintended recipient (if they've already taken it out of the account). So not much risk for the seller.

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 753

by RedWizzard (#47446933) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

And then there's the personal sale angle. I'm not going to take paypal or have the ability to process credit cards for a yard sale or some crap that I'm selling through the classifieds or craigslist. Given how I'm mainly just trying to recoup something in the process of a sale, adding more hoops or steps will just result in my not bothering to sell junk anymore.

In this country direct bank transactions are used for a lot of this. It's not quite as easy as taking cash when you hand over the item but it's not much harder: give them your bank account number when they agree to the sale and then check that the money is there before handing over the item. If you're going to bank the money anyway it's actually easier. Obviously it's not practical for yard sales but it works pretty well for classifieds and online sales.

Comment: Re:GIGO (Score 1) 197

by RedWizzard (#47391115) Attached to: IEEE Spectrum Ranks the Top Programming Languages

Whether with programming languages or with studies it's the same: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Select mobile, and you'll find Objective-C listed 16th, 6 places after MATLAB, and two places after Visual Basic. Which is clearly nonsense.

We already have tried and tested (back to 1989!) rankings for this. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php... And Objective-C is currently number three across the board, never mind just mobile.

The filters are meaningless because they just hide the languages that are not classed as being used in that space, they don't actually measure usage in that space. When you hide all but mobile they're still ranking the languages by overall use, not use in the mobile space. So C# is at 4th despite it having almost no use in the mobile space.

Earth

UK Man Sentenced To 16 Months For Exporting 'E-Waste' Despite 91% Reuse 212

Posted by Soulskill
from the be-careful-not-to-solve-problems-without-the-express-consent-of-government dept.
retroworks writes: The Guardian uses a stock photo of obvious electronic junk in its coverage of the sentencing of Joseph Benson of BJ Electronics. But film of the actual containers showed fairly uniform, sorted televisions which typically work for 20 years. In 2013, the Basel Convention Secretariat released findings on a two-year study of the seized sea containers containing the alleged "e-waste," including Benson's in Nigeria, and found 91% of the devices were working or repairable. The study, covered by Slashdot in Feb. 2013, declared the shipments legal, and further reported that they were more likely to work than new product sent to Africa (which may be shelf returns from bad lots, part of the reason Africans prefer used TVs from nations with strong warranty laws).

Director of regulated industry Harvey Bradshaw of the U.K. tells the Guardian: "This sentence is a landmark ruling because it's the first time anyone has been sent to prison for illegal waste exports." But five separate university research projects question what the crime was, and whether prohibition in trade is really the best way to reduce the percentage of bad product (less than 100% waste). Admittedly, I have been following this case from the beginning and interviewed both Benson and the Basel Secretariat Executive Director, and am shocked that the U.K. judge went ahead with the sentencing following the publication of the E-Waste Assessment Study last year. But what do Slashdotters think about the campaign to arrest African geeks who pay 10 times the value of scrap for used products replaced in rich nations?

My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn

Working...