Searching \ for '[pic] Re: [OT] How to Get Rich selling a dummy PCB' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=pcb
Search entire site for: 'Re: [OT] How to Get Rich selling a dummy PCB'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[pic] Re: [OT] How to Get Rich selling a dummy PCB'
2007\10\10@095406 by Clint Sharp

picon face
In message <spam_OUT4705961F.6050805TakeThisOuTspammcglothin.info>, D. Daniel McGlothin
<.....ddmKILLspamspam@spam@mcglothin.info> writes
>...the latter two devices probably act as filters of various types.  The
>"chip" thingy (is it a magnet?) probably works at clearing the "smudge"
>of the vaporized patter when the disk was "burnt".
Umm, AFAIR commercial CDs aren't 'burnt' they're pressed so there's no
'vaporized patter'.
> I've long wondered
>what happens to the substrate that was in the "pits" when a CD is burned.

>
>Anyway, it is safe to make claims of operation at (little understood
>areas of) the quantum level--who can refute them?  <grin>
Surely the onus is on the manufacturer to be able to substantiate their
claims with scientific proof?
>
>Daniel

--
Clint Sharp

2007\10\10@123810 by scott larson

picon face
> >Anyway, it is safe to make claims of operation at (little understood
> >areas of) the quantum level--who can refute them?  <grin>
> Surely the onus is on the manufacturer to be able to substantiate their
> claims with scientific proof?
> >

how about 20 ridiculous audiophile projects that are scientifically
astounding and astronomically expensive:
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm


-Scott

2007\10\10@171156 by Jinx

face picon face

> Surely the onus is on the manufacturer to be able to substantiate their
> claims with scientific proof?

As I've found out, until someone makes a complaint, the manufacturer
doesn't have to do squat. And even then, a few complaints may not be
enough to change anything. Just look at the enormous number of dodgy
products (often in the tree-hugger sandal-wearing category) on the
market, some of which we've discussed here. Like crystals and magnetic
thingies for example

2007\10\11@001336 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

>> Surely the onus is on the manufacturer to be able to substantiate their
>> claims with scientific proof?
>
> As I've found out, until someone makes a complaint, the manufacturer
> doesn't have to do squat. And even then, a few complaints may not be
> enough to change anything. Just look at the enormous number of dodgy
> products (often in the tree-hugger sandal-wearing category)

As a tree-hugging sandal-wearer, I resent that :)

I'm positive that products of questionable objective quality are mainly
sold to other target groups. Maybe start with cosmetics. No real
objectively proven benefit needs to be there (and, following the common
economic prerogative, I'm pretty sure there is not much more than there
needs to be; after all, those products are created by engineers) -- the
product just may not do any illegal harm.

Also, while a crystal may not have the qualities sometimes claimed, it
usually sells for much less than the audio toys also discussed here
recently. And these are commonly not targeted towards tree-hugging
sandal-wearers :)

I think the aversion towards tree-hugging sandal-wearers here is way out of
proportion to their actual participation in the economy. Most of the crap
goes to other groups.

Gerhard

2007\10\11@041946 by Jinx

face picon face
> As a tree-hugging sandal-wearer, I resent that :)

OK OK. But no socks those sandals, please

> Maybe start with cosmetics. No real objectively proven benefit
> needs to be there

I saw part of one of those wretched make-over shows recently, and
the participants were given anonymous wrinkle creams. The worst
performing, ie virtually no improvement, was a very well-known brand,
L'Orleal IIRC, that cost UKP128 per tiny bottle, and the best was
Boots' (the pharmacy chain store) own brand at UKP8. A chemist
determined that the expensive one had almost no active ingredient

Seen similar tests with 'name brand' clothing too, eg Levis etc vs
discount denims. Price often has no relativity to quality. Or put
another way, 10x the price doesn't mean 10x the efficacy or longevity.
As I noted lately in a discussion about power tools and batteries

Some product qualities, like those above, can be quantified. But
when it comes to crystals, fortune-telling, astrology, magnetic bedding
and the like, you have to deal with people's faith and the feel-good
factor. Which is obviously and apparently worth something

2007\10\11@073319 by Gerhard Fiedler
picon face
Jinx wrote:

>> As a tree-hugging sandal-wearer, I resent that :)
>
> OK OK. But no socks those sandals, please

Ah, you don't know me (I suppose :). Ever since I left adolescence (did
I?), sandals are my preferred footwear. On dry winter days in Germany, I
used them with thick woolen socks. And even in Brazil it's not always warm
enough to get by without socks.

>> Maybe start with cosmetics. No real objectively proven benefit
>> needs to be there

> Some product qualities, like those above, can be quantified. But when it
> comes to crystals, fortune-telling, astrology, magnetic bedding and the
> like, you have to deal with people's faith and the feel-good factor.
> Which is obviously and apparently worth something

Not only in those cases, as you clearly described. If most people bought
products based primarily on their objective qualities, marketing wouldn't
be the market it is. And IMO that goes for pretty much all consumer
products (and many non-consumer products).

Gerhard

2007\10\11@074012 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>I'm positive that products of questionable objective quality are mainly
>sold to other target groups. Maybe start with cosmetics. No real
>objectively proven benefit needs to be there (and, following the common
>economic prerogative, I'm pretty sure there is not much more than there
>needs to be; after all, those products are created by engineers) -- the
>product just may not do any illegal harm.
>
>Also, while a crystal may not have the qualities sometimes claimed, it
>usually sells for much less than the audio toys also discussed here
>recently. And these are commonly not targeted towards tree-hugging
>sandal-wearers :)
>
>I think the aversion towards tree-hugging sandal-wearers here is way out of
>proportion to their actual participation in the economy. Most of the crap
>goes to other groups.

The junk goes to scientifically illiterate consumers, which seem to
make up about 90% of the population. Although the gross margins on
the $750 power cords are better, the market is a lot smaller.  How
many people are buying $750 power cords? I suspect not nearly as many
as crystals, magnetic bracelets, aromatherapy, and magical herbs. Not
to mention the magnets to improve gas efficiency, and those to often
your water. What would happen if you accidently used the wrong
magnets? Soft gasoline? ;-)


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\11@122110 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Chris Smolinski wrote:

> The junk goes to scientifically illiterate consumers, which seem to
> make up about 90% of the population.

Possibly. You're sure you always buy based upon objectively verifiable
criteria ("I like it" is not one)? What's the difference of someone who
considers himself "scientifically literate" buying something he just likes
and someone else who may by "scientifically illiterate" buying something he
likes? Both may, additionally, think they know something, but all too often
neither does :)

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...