Reasons for hacking DSOs

[G0HZU]

If you think your explanation would actually convince people, google "Monty Hall Paradox" and read a few pages.

It probably isn't wise for me to try and explain it (I'd rather just work out the answer) but I'm aware of the Monty Hall thing because a load of us discussed it at work about a year ago. i.e. the 'should you change your choice' once the first door is opened by the host. Someone used it in a presentation and it kicked off a LOT of arguing/confusion

[kcbrown]

The total of those weights across all the combinations is 0 * 75 + 5 * 15 + 10 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -40.  But that value is across 216 combinations, so it represents a return fraction of -.185, or an average loss of 18.5% (since each combination is equally probable).

What in the above is incorrect?

When you get two sixes you only win $4 - one of the $ on the table was already yours.

Yeah, that's my error.      Instead of 5x, I should be using 4x.  Instead of 10x, I should be using 9x.  The rest of the multipliers are correct.

When I calculate it out that way, I get 0 * 75 + 4 * 15 + 9 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -56, which gets me a loss fraction of -.259, or 25.9%.

[Fungus]

Someone used it in a presentation and it kicked off a LOT of arguing/confusion

I assume all the Powerpoint slides after that one were left blank...

[kcbrown]

Been thinking about the building codes thing some, and a series of questions come out of all of it:

Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?   When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that?  Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has.  Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) when that something does not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).

This segways pretty nicely into things like multimeters and other test equipment.  Do you believe the free market has failed in that market, and thus there must be laws that mandate that test equipment be built to certain standards?  Why is it acceptable for test equipment manufacturers to simply advertise what safety rating their equipment has, rather than insist through force of law that they meet whatever the highest safety rating happens to be?


Why are we somehow magically "safe enough" now, and we weren't "safe enough" before?

[tggzzz]

Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?   

No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.

Theory: understand what economists call "externalities", i.e. where the consequences are suffered by third parties and don't cost the perpetrator anything. Therefore why should they bother to care? If consequences do catch up with a company, the standard practice in the building trade is the company simply folds - and the perps restart a new company.

Practice: there are many countries where the building codes are weak or ignored. Building collapses are common, and of course there are many less extreme examples.

I'm not surprised if you haven't noticed those. The standard wry observation made by Europeans that have spent time in the USA is that over there "foreign news" means out-of-state news, not news from a foreign country.

When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that?  Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has.  Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).

None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.

Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.

[kcbrown]

Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?   

No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.

...

When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that?  Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has.  Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).

None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.

Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.

Right?

Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.

So nothing less than the threat of jail or business shutdown is sufficient to prevent harm?

Is this because people don't sufficiently value their own safety?   If that isn't it, then what is the reason that a free market in which the sellers are forced by law to be honest about their wares is insufficient?

[kcbrown]

What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?

[tggzzz]

Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?   

No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.

...

When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that?  Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has.  Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).

None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.

Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.

Right?

You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.

Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.

Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.

So nothing less than the threat of jail or business shutdown is sufficient to prevent harm?

That is the practical experience from everywhere around the world.

Is this because people don't sufficiently value their own safety?   If that isn't it, then what is the reason that a free market in which the sellers are forced by law to be honest about their wares is insufficient?

The perpetrators don't suffer the financial consequences of their actions: they simply close their company and walk away. The only way the market is involved is via insurance premiums - but the closed company isn't going to be paying any premiums anyway. Thus everybody pays for the actions of the delinquents, and that is inefficient: the delinquents should pay.

[tggzzz]

What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?

None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.

Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.

[kcbrown]

What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?

None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.

Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.

I did think.  You obviously missed it in the part above that you quoted (I bolded the relevant part), as well as in the part in the message that kicked this part of the discussion off (bolded in the below):

When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that?  Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has.  Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).

There is a law involved here.  This law imposes a condition the government can test at will.

What is the difference between enforcing safety standards (which are, at their core, conveniently packaged and published safety characteristics) and enforcing truth in claims of safety characteristics?

As for your objection to companies folding and the perpetrators going somewhere else, I agree that is a flaw with the U.S. model that has to be addressed.  The owners of the company (the board members when it's a public company, the direct owners when it's not) need to be directly accountable to the law.


When the company can, as you say, just fold and open up shop as a different company, how does the law matter at all?  A company can just as easily claim to adhere to a law-imposed safety standard as it can claim to adhere to a safety standard that isn't imposed by the law (but where the law insists that if such a claim is made, then it must be true for the company to not be in violation of the law).  Whether the standard is imposed by law or not makes no difference as to whether or not the company can fold and reopen as a different company.   How, then, is your reply relevant to my question?

[tggzzz]

You are deliberately and continually mixing up many different thoughts (laws, enforcement, morality, ethics, economics) without bothering to distinguish which you are discussing. (And also by deliberately deleting any context that is inconvenient to you).

Your thoughts continually flip/metamorphise when the "limitations" of your thoughts are pointed out to you, in a way that is indistinguishable from trolls.

At the very least you need to learn to present a single coherant argument at one time.

Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.

[Brumby]

Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.

Logic and anarchy do not play well together.

[Fungus]

Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.

Right?

The "customers" of test equipment are supposed to know what electrons are.

But yes, if the people who buy hairdryers start buying multimeters en masse then new laws will probably appear.

And ... you'll be able to come on here and complain about that - "always more laws, never less!"

[tggzzz]

Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.

Logic and anarchy do not play well together.

Well, they can play together, but that requires that the consequences are understood and accepted. I object to people arguing for X without being prepared to defend and accept the consequences of X.

Most people that argue in favour of anarchy are young and immature, and for that they can be forgiven.

[Simon]

You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.

Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.

Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll. If you can't have a debat then stop posting!

[tggzzz]

You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.

Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.

Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.

I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.

If you can't have a debat then stop posting!

If you wish to spend your time disinterring history, then you will see that it has been less of a debate than it appears at first glance. (But then neither do I regard most of the current cringe-worthy "newsworthy" Brexit in/out statements as a debate).

I draw your attention to the last line of my 10:54:54 post, by which I implied (but did not explicitly state) that I do not intend to continue conversing with kcbrown.

[Simon]

Well quite if you have decided that people are exibiting troll like behaviour then don'y feed them. You say that people ignoring the point and diverting elsewhere are trolls, but you do the same in bringing up a non related political item.

[tggzzz]

Well quite if you have decided that people are exibiting troll like behaviour then don'y feed them. You say that people ignoring the point and diverting elsewhere are trolls, but you do the same in bringing up a non related political item.

As I said, I don't intend to.

I directly addressed your point, and then the Brexit-debate statement amplified and provided context to my point. The parenthesis clearly denoted that I regarded it as a side issue.

[Zero999]

You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.

Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.

Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.

I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.

You're guilty of the same behaviours, as those who you accuse of trolling.

You also accuse more people of trolling than anyone else here and were the first person to used the T-word in this thread.

Perhaps you should avoid using that word in future? If you think someone is trolling, don't respond and if it's that bad, report the post.

Go on calling people trolls and you'll be labelled as one yourself.

[tggzzz]

You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.

Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.

Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.

I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.

You're guilty of the same behaviours, as those who you accuse of trolling.

We have continuously disagreed in this thread, and we continue to disagree. I'll note that quite a few other people have also repeatedly disagreed with you.

You also accuse more people of trolling than anyone else here

Evidence for that statement, please.

and were the first person to used the T-word in this thread.

I believe so, although I haven't checked.

Perhaps you should avoid using that word in future? If you think someone is trolling, don't respond and if it's that bad, report the post.

Perhaps, and there was nothing in this thread that warrants reporting.

What do I regard as worth reporting? Someone that encourages people to do dangerous things by denying that they are dangerous, e.g. use 1W lasers without ensuring everybody that might be in the vicinity is protected from being blinded. Alternatively "mojo-chan"; enough said.

Go on calling people trolls and you'll be labelled as one yourself.

Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.

I guess you are using some other definition.

[Simon]

Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.

I guess you are using some other definition.

By the definition of trolling that you are using such behaviour if you deem it to be taking place should be reported. If a topic has gone on for this long then it's obvious that nobody is going to wholly agree with everybody else. Calling people trolls every time they don't respond the way you want them to is in effect going to generate the behaviour that by your definition is classed as trolling.

I can't deal with things that are not reported to me and the longer they are left the more difficult they are to unravel.

You say that this thread has not exhibited the flame bait troll behaviour yet you have called 3 people trolls 5 times that I'm aware of (to be clear that's one person once and 2 people twice). So which one is it, are you yourself just trying to stir up a flame war? Oh hang on that's called trolling isn't it? By your own definition of course.

[tggzzz]

Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.

I guess you are using some other definition.

By the definition of trolling that you are using such behaviour if you deem it to be taking place should be reported. If a topic has gone on for this long then it's obvious that nobody is going to wholly agree with everybody else. Calling people trolls every time they don't respond the way you want them to is in effect going to generate the behaviour that by your definition is classed as trolling.

I can't deal with things that are not reported to me and the longer they are left the more difficult they are to unravel.

You say that this thread has not exhibited the flame bait troll behaviour yet you have called 3 people trolls 5 times that I'm aware of (to be clear that's one person once and 2 people twice). So which one is it, are you yourself just trying to stir up a flame war? Oh hang on that's called trolling isn't it? By your own definition of course.

Well, I have never and would never regard disagreeing with me as trolling - for the simple reason that I learn a lot from well-argued disagreements.

I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.

I will agree that in retrospect my statements were ill judged; for that I apologise.

[Simon]

Well lets leave it there then. Thank you.

[nctnico]

I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.

Seconded! IMHO this thread could end up very high on the 'most useless thread on EEVblog' list. I tried to follow it but there seems to be no consensus at all. Perhaps someone could forward it to a forum frequented by lawyers.

[kcbrown]

What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?

None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.

What?   In the first case, a law exists to force sellers to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares.  In the second, how else are manufacturers going to be forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard unless it's through the law?

Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?

Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.

Might I suggest you look in the mirror on this one?


How is it that we're talking past each other like this?  Makes for a frustrating experience for both of us, I'm sure.

For my part, I'm doing my best (however much that may be) to read and consider everything you're saying.  You're probably doing the same.  Neither of us is perfect, so I guess this kind of thing will happen from time to time.


By the way, if something is a strawman argument, I would appreciate it if you would point out how and why that is the case.  I don't intentionally put forth invalid arguments like that.  If/when I do so, it's the result of a misunderstanding or mistake on my part.