So, as mentioned in my list-message "Sorry to Luke (and others)", I have some questions. This message is just to give context for the questions.
The questions are regarding the campaign on "Crowd Supply".
I HAVE NOT YET SENT MY ORDER AND PAYMENT.
But from a private reply from Luke (quoted next below), I guess that we have SOME more time.
I will number the "e"mails of questions, as to priority for me deciding whether and what to back, with #1 as top priority for me. (This is not to be pushy, just to inform you what can most help me personally.)
(Actually, now I am thinking to buy the printed lap-top kit, plus the desk-top housing, plus the stand-alone, plus one or more libre-tea cards, plus the break-out board, plus the pass-through card.)
(By the capitals, I did not mean to "shout". I just meant "emphasis". Do you prefer "emphasis" be marked not by capitals but rather *thus* or _thus_?)
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
On 16.8.26 12:11, lkcl . lkcl@rhombus-tech.net wrote:
On ~, {8th month}~ 26, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Crowd Supply orders@crowdsupply.com wrote:
chadvellacott@sasktel.net submitted a question about your project, "Earth-friendly EOMA68 Computing Devices":
~~~~~~
It looks like I only have a few hours left if I wish to order now. (My 3 questions are numbered below.) (1) Can I order, after your campaign ends in a few hours? If I had AT LEAST
another day for deciding on purchasing, that would help me to make a wise decision.
yes you can. i'll be doing a lot of preparation over the next few weeks so you have time.
~~~~~~
I am now thinking of ordering your libre "tea"-card (65.00), and the
lap-top-kit (500.00).
cool.
~~~~~~
l.
On 16.9.2 8:49, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On ~, {9th month}~ 2, 2016 at 6:43 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
~~~~~
Sorry, Luke, for the "shower" of private "e"mails today.
that's ok - i was fine answering up to a point but then realised that the answers i was giving would benefit a lot of other people. and that some i had already answered (dozens of times) so other people would be able to answer them (saving me some time). so, please re-send them.
l.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:13 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
But from a private reply from Luke (quoted next below), I guess that we have SOME more time.
hiya chad, welcome to the list.
ok, so i've learned that crowdsupply is taking preorders from the end date of the campaign, for a second batch which will be after the first one is delivered. exact dates TBD, i'll need to see how things go.
l.
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
On 16.9.7 20:20, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:13 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
But from a private reply from Luke (quoted next below), I guess that we
have SOME more time.
hiya chad, welcome to the list.
ok, so i've learned that crowdsupply is taking preorders from the end date of the campaign, for a second batch which will be after the first one is delivered. exact dates TBD, i'll need to see how things go.
But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same time, and each factory produces it's things as one batch?
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions
enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
On 16.9.7 20:20, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:13 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
But from a private reply from Luke (quoted next below), I guess that
we have SOME more time.
hiya chad, welcome to the list.
ok, so i've learned that crowdsupply is taking preorders from the end date of the campaign, for a second batch which will be after the first one is delivered. exact dates TBD, i'll need to see how things go.
But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same time, and each factory produces it's things as one batch?
produces it is things.... no it doesn't "produce it is things" - that doesn't make any sense. it might produce *its* things...
and each factory produces its things as one batch?
ah, now we're using the relative pronoun "its", instead of the contraction of the two words "it" and "is" with an apostrophe, the sentence makes sense.
yes, the factory produces its things in one batch: the setup and teardown costs (equipment, wasted materials) are pretty much the same no matter how many "things" are made. so if you want one "thing" made, it will cost you.... $USD 1,200. if you want *five* "things" made, it will cost you $1700 (around $340 each). but if you want a *thousand* made, they're $30 each.
... exactly the same "thing", exactly the same factory... exactly the same cost to set up, exactly the same cost to clean up afterwards.
so the more you can get made at once, the less they cost. very simple.
the extreme case is here, very very funny ted talk, by the man who lived as a goat: http://www.geek.com/geek-pick/nine-month-project-to-build-a-toaster-from-scr...
l.
On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: ~~~~~~
On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions
enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
~~~~~~
But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same time, and each factory produces it's things as one batch?
produces it is things.... no it doesn't "produce it is things" - that doesn't make any sense. it might produce *its* things...
and each factory produces its things as one batch?
ah, now we're using the relative pronoun "its", instead of the contraction of the two words "it" and "is" with an apostrophe, the sentence makes sense.
~~~~~~
l.
[No offense intended. (:^) ]
Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. "its" is _not_ a Relative Pronoun. Relative pronouns are "who what where when why how whom whose". "it" is a Personal Pronoun, like "he she they". If it has a possessive form, then that form is a Possessive Pronoun (like "theirs"), or else a Possessive Pronominal Adjective (like "their"). I guess that thou meant the concept of Possessive Pronoun, _not_ Relative Pronoun.
===============================
One general rule in English- with _other_ words (like "crayon") to which an "s" has been added at the end- (like "Crayons color things.") if no apostrophe, then plural. (like "crayon's tip") if apostrophe _before_ the "s", then possessive. (like "crayons' case") if apostrophe _after_ the "s", then plural _and_ possessive.
This general rule conflicts with another common use of apostrophe-s (using it to mean "is" or "has"). How resolve?
Thou seem to propose that "its" is possessive. My small "Oxford"-dictionary said that, as did "The Elements of Style" written by "Strunk" and "White". But, I am not aware of any _other_ English word becoming possessive by mere "s" withOUT an apostrophe. So to decide that "its" is possessive, seems an unreasonable dogmatic "exception" to the general rule above. English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules. So, English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language. (This is not "sour grapes". English is my first language, and I did _not_ have special trouble with it in school.) Are we unwilling, to abandon arbitrary "exceptions" so that others can more-easily learn _our_ _first_ language and communicate with _us_? Then we must look like "arrogant" snobs who try to keep "proper" English difficult enough to "exclude" the riff-raff. Especially since native-English-speakers, on average, seem to not try as hard to learn someone _else's_ language.
So, if we use such contractions, then how interpret apostrophe-s? With _most_ words, it does not work to use mere "s" for possessive, because we use that for plural! (Even with "it", to switch to "they" for plural, means losing the neuterness of "it". Babies are not "its"!) (a) Often, context clears up the ambiguity. This is of course how thou, Luke, was able to understand me. Thou evaluated two possible interpretations. Thou remarked that one "doesn't make any sense", while with the other interpretation, "the sentence makes sense". As thou demonstrated, my meaning was adequately clear in context, regardless of apostrophe. (b) For some ambiguous uses, it might help to ask, "If the writer meant this possible interpretation, then could he have easily made his words more clear?" If a person means "it is", then that is nearly as easy to say and type, as "it's". (With typing on a "QWERTY", the difference is merely- thumb down on space-bar and next middle-finger sliding forward to "i", versus little finger awkwardly stretching outward to apostrophe.) If a person means "belonging to it" or "owned by it", those obviously require more additional work than "it is" requires.
These guide-lines seem adequate, to enable writers and readers, to clear up the ambiguity of apostrophe-s, for _practically_all_other_ relevant words. So, it seems (selfish) capricious "special pleading", if we choose to make an "exception" for "it".
I do not presume that I shall change any one else's mind on this. (But, considering all of the significant evidence that I am aware of, I will not change on this.)
I could have silently continued using "it's" for "belonging to it". But since thou prodded me, I thought it'd be less annoying if I replied with an "explanation".
No offense intended, Chad. (:^)
English is a remarkably inconsistent PITA, isn't it...?
Could be worse, though. Esperanto.
;)
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:02 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, <chadvellacott@sasktel.net> wrote: > >> (Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions >> enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.) >> >> ~~~~~~ > But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same >> time, >> and each factory produces it's things as one batch? >> > > produces it is things.... no it doesn't "produce it is things" - that > doesn't make any sense. it might produce *its* things... > > and each factory produces its things as one batch? >> > > ah, now we're using the relative pronoun "its", instead of the > contraction of the two words "it" and "is" with an apostrophe, the > sentence makes sense. > > ~~~~~~ > > l. > > [No offense intended. (:^) ] Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. "its" is _not_ a Relative Pronoun. Relative pronouns are "who what where when why how whom whose". "it" is a Personal Pronoun, like "he she they". If it has a possessive form, then that form is a Possessive Pronoun (like "theirs"), or else a Possessive Pronominal Adjective (like "their"). I guess that thou meant the concept of Possessive Pronoun, _not_ Relative Pronoun. =============================== One general rule in English- with _other_ words (like "crayon") to which an "s" has been added at the end- (like "Crayons color things.") if no apostrophe, then plural. (like "crayon's tip") if apostrophe _before_ the "s", then possessive. (like "crayons' case") if apostrophe _after_ the "s", then plural _and_ possessive. This general rule conflicts with another common use of apostrophe-s (using it to mean "is" or "has"). How resolve? Thou seem to propose that "its" is possessive. My small "Oxford"-dictionary said that, as did "The Elements of Style" written by "Strunk" and "White". But, I am not aware of any _other_ English word becoming possessive by mere "s" withOUT an apostrophe. So to decide that "its" is possessive, seems an unreasonable dogmatic "exception" to the general rule above. English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules. So, English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language. (This is not "sour grapes". English is my first language, and I did _not_ have special trouble with it in school.) Are we unwilling, to abandon arbitrary "exceptions" so that others can more-easily learn _our_ _first_ language and communicate with _us_? Then we must look like "arrogant" snobs who try to keep "proper" English difficult enough to "exclude" the riff-raff. Especially since native-English-speakers, on average, seem to not try as hard to learn someone _else's_ language. So, if we use such contractions, then how interpret apostrophe-s? With _most_ words, it does not work to use mere "s" for possessive, because we use that for plural! (Even with "it", to switch to "they" for plural, means losing the neuterness of "it". Babies are not "its"!) (a) Often, context clears up the ambiguity. This is of course how thou, Luke, was able to understand me. Thou evaluated two possible interpretations. Thou remarked that one "doesn't make any sense", while with the other interpretation, "the sentence makes sense". As thou demonstrated, my meaning was adequately clear in context, regardless of apostrophe. (b) For some ambiguous uses, it might help to ask, "If the writer meant this possible interpretation, then could he have easily made his words more clear?" If a person means "it is", then that is nearly as easy to say and type, as "it's". (With typing on a "QWERTY", the difference is merely- thumb down on space-bar and next middle-finger sliding forward to "i", versus little finger awkwardly stretching outward to apostrophe.) If a person means "belonging to it" or "owned by it", those obviously require more additional work than "it is" requires. These guide-lines seem adequate, to enable writers and readers, to clear up the ambiguity of apostrophe-s, for _practically_all_other_ relevant words. So, it seems (selfish) capricious "special pleading", if we choose to make an "exception" for "it". I do not presume that I shall change any one else's mind on this. (But, considering all of the significant evidence that I am aware of, I will not change on this.) I could have silently continued using "it's" for "belonging to it". But since thou prodded me, I thought it'd be less annoying if I replied with an "explanation". No offense intended, Chad. (:^) _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
[No offense intended. (:^) ]
none taken - we're all learning - let's have some fun with this.
Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. "its" is _not_ a Relative Pronoun. Relative pronouns are "who what where when why how whom whose".
oh! yes, sorry, you're right - i meant "possessive pronoun".
"it" is a Personal Pronoun, like "he she they". If it has a possessive form, then that form is a Possessive Pronoun (like "theirs"), or else a Possessive Pronominal Adjective (like "their"). I guess that thou meant the concept of Possessive Pronoun, _not_ Relative Pronoun.
yes i did. let's take a look, google "its" and that comes up with two top links one for "its" and one for "it's". let's look at the one for "it's":
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/it-s
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com 1. contraction of it is: It's starting to rain. 2. contraction of it has: It's been a long time.
Can be confused it's, its (see confusables note at its )
interesting! i'll use that one in future, i didn't realise that "it's" can be a short-hand for "it has".
Definition:
"pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or (Obsoleteor Dialect) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them."
so the word "it" is qualified as a "pronoun", and the word "its" is defined as a *possessive* pronoun.
the definition in merriam-webster is much less helpful but gives good examples: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
this one's i can see it's much more helpful: http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-possessive-adjec...
it's also showing that "its" is a possessive pronoun. i wonder why i said "relative pronoun" when in all other instances i've said "possessive"? huh.
But, I am not aware of any _other_ English word becoming possessive by mere "s" withOUT an apostrophe. So to decide that "its" is possessive, seems an unreasonable dogmatic "exception" to the general rule above.
it's explained here: https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/homophones/homophones-its-and-its
English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules.
ahhh! gotcha! you mean "english usage has many Unreasonable "exceptions" to its (possessive pronoun) rules" :)
So, English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language.
it turns out that numbers, as an example, in all european languages, cause a huge amount of difficulty for children, resulting in significantly-delayed development of numerical arithmetic skills. in the far east, numbers are really *really* straightforward: 0-9 have their own word, you just read the digits out using those 0-9 words, to the point where on the HK stock exchange i heard that people are able to communicate at ten numbers *PER SECOND* which is phenomenal. my friend phil also pointed out to me the "flash-card" technique of training kids in japan as young as seven and eight to do six-digit mental arithmetic, where they're expected to have 100% accuracy on something mad like... i can't remember exactly what he said but i believe it was in excess of two six-digit sums *per second*. i may be underestimating there so as not to trip any "total disbelief verging on bullshit" mental radars.
in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount of physical effort required to morph the mouth between some of the syllables! qua-tre vingt dix huit. pronounced "ka-tr-uh va-i-ngg dee-ss-wh-ee-t" and translated in english "four-twenty ten-eight"!!
(This
is not "sour grapes". English is my first language, and I did _not_ have special trouble with it in school.) Are we unwilling, to abandon arbitrary "exceptions" so that others can more-easily learn _our_ _first_ language and communicate with _us_?
english is the international language for programming, and programming is about absolute clarity and precision. so in this *very specific* field... i'd say yes, absolutely.
*outside* of the world of computing, whilst it just makes people who should know better (such as in marketing), it just makes people "look dumb". i've seen both BT *and* Shell as recently as 10-15 years ago put up huge signs across all their stores in the UK make basic fundamental mistakes with the use of possessive pronouns.
http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that-make-you-look-dumb/
but even if they "look dumb" it's not so critical - it's not so important in its level of clarity that a product be marketed in its best possible light, but it's clearly important in its level of security and effectiveness for a program to be at its most accurately specified and actioned, as well as being important that it's well-documented.
If a person means "it is", then that is nearly as easy to say and type, as "it's". (With typing on a "QWERTY", the difference is merely- thumb down on space-bar and next middle-finger sliding forward to "i", versus little finger awkwardly stretching outward to apostrophe.)
*ROTFL* yeah... the hilarious thing is: it's actually more physical effort to type the *correct* word "its" than it is to type the wrong phrase "it's" :)
I do not presume that I shall change any one else's mind on this. (But, considering all of the significant evidence that I am aware of, I will not change on this.)
... and you'd be perfectly within your right to self-determination to make such a declaration, and to continue to adhere to it for as long as you perceive it to be useful to you.
now, do allow me to summarise what *my* position is (from the above). as a hardware engineer in training, and a software engineer, clarity and unambiguity is absolute and paramount. one small mistake in hardware can cost $10,000 or even more. so with that training (and level of penalty for not getting it right) comes an in-built "radar' for pointing out *any* possible ambiguity, especially in written language. and that's why i really appreciated you pointing out the mistake that i made.
l.
Bonjour,
Le Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:42:17 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net a écrit:
in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount of physical effort required to morph the mouth between some of the syllables! qua-tre vingt dix huit. pronounced "ka-tr-uh va-i-ngg dee-ss-wh-ee-t" and translated in english "four-twenty ten-eight"!!
Yep -- that's a legacy from the Gauls IIRC, who made a habit of counting in twenties, which we kept in part (why in part only is one of those marvellous mysteries of language). But we're slowly getting better: in older times, counting in twenties was way more pervasive, with for instance a famous hospital being named "quinze-vingt" (literally : fifteen twenties) because it could accommodate 300 beds.
<nag mode ON>
OTOH, we French have primed the use of the metric system before 1800 while even today the British and Americans (among others) insist on using some imperial system(s). :)
</nag>
(I can't help smiling every time I re-read the footnote in _Good Omens_ about the old British currency system and how the Brits considered the decimal currency system /too complicated/ to adopt.)
Amicalement,
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Bonjour,
allo albert. i found the 2 frida LCDs btw.
<nag mode ON>
OTOH, we French have primed the use of the metric system before 1800 while even today the British and Americans (among others) insist on using some imperial system(s). :)
</nag>
haha yeah in electronics they use mm *and* mil (thousands of an inch) - i use both (!) regularly in the electronics designs i'm doing... blergh...
(I can't help smiling every time I re-read the footnote in _Good Omens_ about the old British currency system and how the Brits considered the decimal currency system /too complicated/ to adopt.)
oo, oo, i remember! well, it's true. 12 you can count on the knuckles of four fingers, and it divides cleanly by 2, 3, 4 *and* 6! 12 is a coool number...
l.
On 2016-09-10 at 15:15, Stefan Monnier wrote :
in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount
Sorry, but I only count 3 (or 4 if you pronounce the "e") syllables in "nonante-huit".
Stefan "speaking French from another country than France"
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Sorry Stefan, but I strongly doubt that "nonante" for 90 and "septante" for 70 are widely used in Francophonie. The most widely used term should take precedence over regionalisms.
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonante
Normand "from Québec, Canada where "nonante" is *never, ever* used."
Le 2016-09-10 à 15:25, Normand Chamberland a écrit :
On 2016-09-10 at 15:15, Stefan Monnier wrote :
in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount
Sorry, but I only count 3 (or 4 if you pronounce the "e") syllables in "nonante-huit".
Stefan "speaking French from another country than France"
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Sorry Stefan, but I strongly doubt that "nonante" for 90 and "septante" for 70 are widely used in Francophonie. The most widely used term should take precedence over regionalisms.
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonante
Normand "from Québec, Canada where "nonante" is *never,
ever* used."
I'm sorry to admit that I didn't bother reading the whole conversation prior to replying first. I mistakenly assumed this was related to some planned documentation about EOMA, but it appears it was just iddle talk. So please disregard and carry on, nothing wrong in using regionalisms in a specific country... In French Canada we have a boatload of them! :-P
Again sorry,
Normand
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Normand Chamberland gemnoc@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to admit that I didn't bother reading the whole conversation prior to replying first. I mistakenly assumed this was related to some planned documentation about EOMA, but it appears it was just iddle talk.
idle talk that hopefully illustrates a point...
So please disregard and carry on, nothing wrong in using regionalisms in a specific country... In French Canada we have a boatload of them! :-P
... that drive parisians nuts, i hear :)
On 2016-09-10 at 15:40, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote :
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Normand Chamberland gemnoc@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to admit that I didn't bother reading the whole conversation prior to replying first. I mistakenly assumed this was related to some planned documentation about EOMA, but it appears it was just iddle talk.
idle talk that hopefully illustrates a point...
So please disregard and carry on, nothing wrong in using regionalisms in a specific country... In French Canada we have a boatload of them! :-P
... that drive parisians nuts, i hear :)
Our way of speaking French certainly baffles any French speaker not accustomed to it. :P Of course like for any languages there are different levels of language and sub-regionalisms. I myself can have a hard time understanding some French Canadians from other areas with a wildly different accent than mine. :)
I do not have time for this debate now. I am "swamped" with work. I need to get other things done.
Sincerely, Chad. (:^)
On 16.9.9 10:42, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On ~~, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
[No offense intended. (:^) ]
none taken - we're all learning - let's have some fun with this.
Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. "its" is _not_ a Relative Pronoun. Relative pronouns are "who what where
when why how whom whose".
oh! yes, sorry, you're right - i meant "possessive pronoun".
"it" is a Personal Pronoun, like "he she they". If it has a possessive
form, then that form is a Possessive Pronoun (like "theirs"), or else a Possessive Pronominal Adjective (like "their"). I guess that thou meant the concept of Possessive Pronoun, _not_ Relative Pronoun.
yes i did. let's take a look, google "its" and that comes up with two top links one for "its" and one for "it's". let's look at the one for "it's":
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/it-s
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
contraction of it is: It's starting to rain.
contraction of it has: It's been a long time.
Can be confused it's, its (see confusables note at its )
interesting! i'll use that one in future, i didn't realise that "it's" can be a short-hand for "it has".
Definition:
"pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or (Obsoleteor Dialect) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them."
so the word "it" is qualified as a "pronoun", and the word "its" is defined as a *possessive* pronoun.
the definition in merriam-webster is much less helpful but gives good examples: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
this one's i can see it's much more helpful: http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-possessive-adjec...
it's also showing that "its" is a possessive pronoun. i wonder why i said "relative pronoun" when in all other instances i've said "possessive"? huh.
But, I am not aware of any _other_ English word becoming possessive by
mere "s" withOUT an apostrophe. So to decide that "its" is possessive, seems an unreasonable dogmatic "exception" to the general rule above.
it's explained here: https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/homophones/homophones-its-and-its
English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules.
ahhh! gotcha! you mean "english usage has many Unreasonable "exceptions" to its (possessive pronoun) rules" :)
So, English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language.
it turns out that numbers, as an example, in all european languages, cause a huge amount of difficulty for children, resulting in significantly-delayed development of numerical arithmetic skills. in the far east, numbers are really *really* straightforward: 0-9 have their own word, you just read the digits out using those 0-9 words, to the point where on the HK stock exchange i heard that people are able to communicate at ten numbers *PER SECOND* which is phenomenal. my friend phil also pointed out to me the "flash-card" technique of training kids in japan as young as seven and eight to do six-digit mental arithmetic, where they're expected to have 100% accuracy on something mad like... i can't remember exactly what he said but i believe it was in excess of two six-digit sums *per second*. i may be underestimating there so as not to trip any "total disbelief verging on bullshit" mental radars.
in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount of physical effort required to morph the mouth between some of the syllables! qua-tre vingt dix huit. pronounced "ka-tr-uh va-i-ngg dee-ss-wh-ee-t" and translated in english "four-twenty ten-eight"!!
(This
is not "sour grapes". English is my first language, and I did _not_ have special trouble with it in school.) Are we unwilling, to abandon arbitrary "exceptions" so that others can more-easily learn _our_ _first_ language and communicate with _us_?
english is the international language for programming, and programming is about absolute clarity and precision. so in this *very specific* field... i'd say yes, absolutely.
*outside* of the world of computing, whilst it just makes people who should know better (such as in marketing), it just makes people "look dumb". i've seen both BT *and* Shell as recently as 10-15 years ago put up huge signs across all their stores in the UK make basic fundamental mistakes with the use of possessive pronouns.
http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that-make-you-look-dumb/
but even if they "look dumb" it's not so critical - it's not so important in its level of clarity that a product be marketed in its best possible light, but it's clearly important in its level of security and effectiveness for a program to be at its most accurately specified and actioned, as well as being important that it's well-documented.
If a person means "it is", then that is nearly as easy to say and type,
as "it's". (With typing on a "QWERTY", the difference is merely- thumb down on space-bar and next middle-finger sliding forward to "i", versus little finger awkwardly stretching outward to apostrophe.)
*ROTFL* yeah... the hilarious thing is: it's actually more physical effort to type the *correct* word "its" than it is to type the wrong phrase "it's" :)
I do not presume that I shall change any one else's mind on this. (But,
considering all of the significant evidence that I am aware of, I will not change on this.)
... and you'd be perfectly within your right to self-determination to make such a declaration, and to continue to adhere to it for as long as you perceive it to be useful to you.
now, do allow me to summarise what *my* position is (from the above). as a hardware engineer in training, and a software engineer, clarity and unambiguity is absolute and paramount. one small mistake in hardware can cost $10,000 or even more. so with that training (and level of penalty for not getting it right) comes an in-built "radar' for pointing out *any* possible ambiguity, especially in written language. and that's why i really appreciated you pointing out the mistake that i made.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
I do not have time for this debate now. I am "swamped" with work. I need to get other things done.
Sincerely, Chad. (:^)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
I do not have time for this debate now. I am "swamped" with work. I need to get other things done.
not a problem man.
l.
On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On ~~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions
enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
On 16.9.7 20:20, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:13 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
But from a private reply from Luke (quoted next below), I guess that
we have SOME more time.
~~~~~~
ok, so i've learned that crowdsupply is taking preorders from the end date of the campaign, for a second batch which will be after the first one is delivered. exact dates TBD, i'll need to see how things go.
But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same time, and each factory produces it's things as one batch?
~~~~~~
yes, the factory produces its things in one batch: the setup and teardown costs (equipment, wasted materials) are pretty much the same no matter how many "things" are made. so if you want one "thing" made, it will cost you.... $USD 1,200. if you want *five* "things" made, it will cost you $1700 (around $340 each). but if you want a *thousand* made, they're $30 each.
... exactly the same "thing", exactly the same factory... exactly the same cost to set up, exactly the same cost to clean up afterwards.
so the more you can get made at once, the less they cost. very simple.
So is it correct that the second batch of backers, must pay SOON ENOUGH that you can, at ONE time, pay the factory to, in the same set-up, produce for BOTH the FIRST backers AND the SECOND backers?
(Or do the second batch of backers, have to, sadly, wait until they have ordered 150,000.00 worth, before their parts start to get produced?)
Eagerly, Chad. (:^)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:33 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
so the more you can get made at once, the less they cost. very simple.
So is it correct that the second batch of backers, must pay SOON ENOUGH that you can, at ONE time, pay the factory to, in the same set-up, produce for BOTH the FIRST backers AND the SECOND backers?
(Or do the second batch of backers, have to, sadly, wait until they have ordered 150,000.00 worth, before their parts start to get produced?)
i'm thinking about it (as in, it's a really good question) that i'm wrestling with. there's 800 EOMA68-A20 computer cards pledged for, for example, in this first batch. should i order 200 more, make it 1,000, because the cost of 1,000 will be even lower cost than ordering 800?
bear in mind that the extra 200 is going to have to come out of the "spare" budget (which is only around $50k and needs to pay for tons of other things).
if we leave it until afterwards, and the preorders from the second batch is less, it'll be more expensive both for the first batch *and* the second batch. now, we did make the estimates based on a MOQ of 250, so in *theory* it should be okay...
or, should i take on a contract that pays me $80k+ / yr, such that i can then *pay* other people to do the work, and invest some of it in extra stock, such that it really doesn't matter?
huge number of questions and at some point in the very near future i'll just have to make a decision and go with it.
l.
On Friday 9. September 2016 18.47.15 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i'm thinking about it (as in, it's a really good question) that i'm wrestling with. there's 800 EOMA68-A20 computer cards pledged for, for example, in this first batch. should i order 200 more, make it 1,000, because the cost of 1,000 will be even lower cost than ordering 800?
Are there any differences in the way the product must be represented (and is regulated by laws/contracts) between the fulfilment of pledges/pre-orders and with regard to the matter of selling off excess stock?
I follow another crowd-funding campaign where manufacturing may have been done at levels to fulfil both pledges and orders from retailers, but then I start to wonder about things like warranties (and such): a "pledger" is getting a reward, but a customer through a retailer is getting a purchase that is presumably regulated rather differently.
Maybe excess units are required to cover a small proportion of units that might fail for unforeseen reasons, where you might offer to replace units at your discretion.
[...]
huge number of questions and at some point in the very near future i'll just have to make a decision and go with it.
Maybe another update or two to indicate some kind of deadline might solve this dilemma for you.
Paul
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Friday 9. September 2016 18.47.15 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i'm thinking about it (as in, it's a really good question) that i'm wrestling with. there's 800 EOMA68-A20 computer cards pledged for, for example, in this first batch. should i order 200 more, make it 1,000, because the cost of 1,000 will be even lower cost than ordering 800?
Are there any differences in the way the product must be represented (and is regulated by laws/contracts) between the fulfilment of pledges/pre-orders and with regard to the matter of selling off excess stock?
quite probably! certainly, pledges are "gifts" - there's no warranty, there's no contract of sale, they're *definitely* not "orders". that's very very important even in light of the fact that i'm here on a 90-day visa waiver! customs declaration *specifically* asked, "are you bringing in product for the solicitation of orders" and the *only* reason i was able to say *NO* to that was precisely because this is a gift-economy-based crowd-funding campaign.
I follow another crowd-funding campaign where manufacturing may have been done at levels to fulfil both pledges and orders from retailers, but then I start to wonder about things like warranties (and such): a "pledger" is getting a reward, but a customer through a retailer is getting a purchase that is presumably regulated rather differently.
yeahyeah. the moment that for example chris, my sponsor, starts *selling* through *his* web site (which he can now do as the contract period with crowdsupply is over), that *definitely* qualifies as "sales"
Maybe excess units are required to cover a small proportion of units that might fail for unforeseen reasons, where you might offer to replace units at your discretion.
good point.
[...]
huge number of questions and at some point in the very near future i'll just have to make a decision and go with it.
Maybe another update or two to indicate some kind of deadline might solve this dilemma for you.
... or i could just wing it :) no, can't do that - too much involved (and it would jeapordise / risk the goal of reaching mass-volume levels).
i'll start to put in costs / quotes as they come in, and then all this can be assessed properly.
l.
On 09/09/16 19:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
certainly, pledges are "gifts" - there's no warranty, there's no contract of sale, they're *definitely* not "orders". that's very very important even in light of the fact that i'm here on a 90-day visa waiver! customs declaration *specifically* asked, "are you bringing in product for the solicitation of orders" and the *only* reason i was able to say *NO* to that was precisely because this is a gift-economy-based crowd-funding campaign.
I don't know anything about visa waivers, but it seems worth pointing out that Crowd Supply pledges do not appear to be gifts. They are covered by a contract: https://www.crowdsupply.com/terms-of-use
It says, among other things:
"Creator: a User responsible for running a Campaign, filling Pre-orders, or otherwise supplying products for commercial sale. [...]
A Creator is required to fulfill all Premiums of a Creator’s successful Campaign or refund Pledges to any Backer whose Premium the Creator does not or cannot fulfill.
A Creator may cancel and refund a Backer’s Pledge at any time and for any reason, and, in so doing, is not required to fulfill the Premium."
IANAL, but that looks quite a lot like a contract of sale to me.
Also, Crowd Supply definitely promotes itself as a store:
https://blog.crowdsupply.com/2013/03/04/crowd-supply-is-a-store/
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/09/crowd-supply-is-succeeding-where-ki...
I follow another crowd-funding campaign where manufacturing may have been done at levels to fulfil both pledges and orders from retailers, but then I start to wonder about things like warranties (and such): a "pledger" is getting a reward, but a customer through a retailer is getting a purchase that is presumably regulated rather differently.
yeahyeah. the moment that for example chris, my sponsor, starts *selling* through *his* web site (which he can now do as the contract period with crowdsupply is over), that *definitely* qualifies as "sales"
Now that the crowd-funding period is over, Crowd Supply has switched to offering pre-orders, which are distinct from pledges under the terms linked above. I have no idea what regulatory implications that has, if any.
Oddly, the wording around pre-orders seems to be more lax than the wording around pledges. Perhaps an oversight on the part of Crowd Supply or whoever drafted their terms of use.
- spk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
On 09/09/16 19:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
certainly, pledges are "gifts" - there's no warranty, there's no contract of sale, they're *definitely* not "orders". that's very very important even in light of the fact that i'm here on a 90-day visa waiver! customs declaration *specifically* asked, "are you bringing in product for the solicitation of orders" and the *only* reason i was able to say *NO* to that was precisely because this is a gift-economy-based crowd-funding campaign.
I don't know anything about visa waivers, but it seems worth pointing out that Crowd Supply pledges do not appear to be gifts. They are covered by a contract: https://www.crowdsupply.com/terms-of-use
It says, among other things:
"Creator: a User responsible for running a Campaign, filling Pre-orders, or otherwise supplying products for commercial sale. [...]
A Creator is required to fulfill all Premiums of a Creator’s successful Campaign or refund Pledges to any Backer whose Premium the Creator does not or cannot fulfill.
looks reasonable to me... so that people don't "run away" with the money, basically!
IANAL, but that looks quite a lot like a contract of sale to me.
a contract of sale has very very specific terms which involve things like "warranties", "WEEE Directives" and so on.
Also, Crowd Supply definitely promotes itself as a store:
https://blog.crowdsupply.com/2013/03/04/crowd-supply-is-a-store/
that's *after* the crowdfunding campaign... and it's run *by crowdsupply* - not by the backers and not by the campaign creators.
Now that the crowd-funding period is over, Crowd Supply has switched to offering pre-orders, which are distinct from pledges under the terms linked above. I have no idea what regulatory implications that has, if any.
they're sold by crowdsupply - not by me. crowdsupply will be ordering a batch of units (from me). i will be *crowdsupply's* supplier (for fulfilling *their* preorders). any "contracts of sale" - for the preorders and for the preorders only - will be with *crowdsupply* (not me).
l.
On 10/09/16 00:13, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
"Creator: a User responsible for running a Campaign, filling Pre-orders, or otherwise supplying products for commercial sale. [...]
A Creator is required to fulfill all Premiums of a Creator’s successful Campaign or refund Pledges to any Backer whose Premium the Creator does not or cannot fulfill.
looks reasonable to me... so that people don't "run away" with the money, basically!
Right. It's a basic contract of sale: the seller must provide the goods that have been paid for, or return the payment.
IANAL, but that looks quite a lot like a contract of sale to me.
a contract of sale has very very specific terms which involve things like "warranties", "WEEE Directives" and so on.
IIUC, statutes may impose such requirements on sellers, depending upon the jurisdiction, nature of the product, etc. But such statutory requirements do not form part of the contract of sale: they simply apply to specified parties to contracts of sale.
Also, Crowd Supply definitely promotes itself as a store:
https://blog.crowdsupply.com/2013/03/04/crowd-supply-is-a-store/
that's *after* the crowdfunding campaign... and it's run *by crowdsupply* - not by the backers and not by the campaign creators.
The idea of Crowd Supply as a store includes the crowd-funding aspect of Crowd Supply, as the other article I linked makes clear:
"In late 2012, Kickstarter began its 'this is not a store' rhetoric. ... It was that very blog post that encouraged Crowd Supply to make its move. Six months later, it had its first blog post titled 'Crowd Supply is a Store.'
In an instant, Crowd Supply knew what it was, and had to be. It was clear then, just as it is now, that people who backed projects wanted products, not promises. [Crowd Supply] manages how products are delivered to backers."
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/09/crowd-supply-is-succeeding-where-ki...
Now that the crowd-funding period is over, Crowd Supply has switched to offering pre-orders, which are distinct from pledges under the terms linked above. I have no idea what regulatory implications that has, if any.
they're sold by crowdsupply - not by me. crowdsupply will be ordering a batch of units (from me). i will be *crowdsupply's* supplier (for fulfilling *their* preorders). any "contracts of sale"
- for the preorders and for the preorders only - will be with
*crowdsupply* (not me).
The terms state that pre-orders *are* contracts between Creators and Users, and that they are *not* contracts with Crowd Supply:
"By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and Creator. All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless of the Company’s role as an intermediary."
Seems pretty clear to me :)
You might have been thinking of Crowd Supply's third option under the "Summary of Service" heading:
"Customers can purchase a Creator’s in-stock products via an online retail transaction."
IIUC, that option would only arise if at some point - and for any reason - Crowd Supply has more units in stock than have been accounted for by pledges or pre-orders. As the units haven't yet been manufactured, this option cannot yet have arisen.
- spk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
"By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and Creator. All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless of the Company’s role as an intermediary."
Seems pretty clear to me :)
hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample".
l.
On 16.9.9 20:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
"By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and Creator. All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless of the Company’s role as an intermediary."
Seems pretty clear to me :)
hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample".
l.
Would it work to just ship those items, from outside of the "US", like "MiniFree" or "Kano" seem to or seemed to? At least for shipping TO addresses outside of the "US"?
Eagerly, Chad. (:^)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
On 16.9.9 20:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
"By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and Creator. All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless of the Company’s role as an intermediary."
Seems pretty clear to me :)
hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample".
l.
Would it work to just ship those items, from outside of the "US", like "MiniFree" or "Kano" seem to or seemed to? At least for shipping TO addresses outside of the "US"?
we need to work out if it's cheaper to ship everything first to the US and then outwards from there (because there's no customs duty, just a one-off "fee" that pales into insignificance). certainly, sea freight (which is by volume) would be a lot lower than air freight (which is by weight).
i've been trusting the amounts that both chris and joshua independently use: they're both experienced at this. me, i'm just getting my head down into the PCBs etc. for now - logistics comes later.
l.
On 16.9.12 0:25, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
~~~~~
On ~, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
~~~~~
On 16.9.9 20:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
~~~~~
On ~~, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:
"By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and Creator. All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless of the Company’s role as an intermediary."
Seems pretty clear to me :)
hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample".
l.
Would it work to just ship those items, from outside of the "US", like
"MiniFree" or "Kano" seem to or seemed to? At least for shipping TO addresses outside of the "US"?
we need to work out if it's cheaper to ship everything first to the US and then outwards from there (because there's no customs duty, just a one-off "fee" that pales into insignificance). certainly, sea freight (which is by volume) would be a lot lower than air freight (which is by weight).
i've been trusting the amounts that both chris and joshua independently use: they're both experienced at this. me, i'm just getting my head down into the PCBs etc. for now - logistics comes later.
l.
~~~~~~ I have been aiming, to "pre-order" in the next few days. But, how likely, do you think, shall you be able to FILL "pre-orders"? If how you will respond to "pre-ordering" is "up in the air", then me "pre-ordering" now, might result in hassle for both of us, rather than be of benefit to both of us. So then perhaps I should wait until a decision has been made?
Eagerly, Chad. (:^)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
On 16.9.12 0:25, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> > On ~, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, <chadvellacott@sasktel.net> wrote:
On 16.9.9 20:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> >>> On ~~, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper >>> >>> <sampablokuper@posteo.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are >>>> offering Users the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you. By >>>> using the Service to place a Pre-order, you as the Customer accept that >>>> offer and the agreement between Customer and Creator is formed. Crowd >>>> Supply is not a party to the agreement between the Customer and >>>> Creator. >>>> All dealings related to Pre-orders are solely between Users, regardless >>>> of the Company’s role as an intermediary." >>>> >>>> Seems pretty clear to me :) >>> >>> >>> >>> hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and >>> bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample". >>> >>> l. >>> >> Would it work to just ship those items, from outside of the "US", >> like >> "MiniFree" or "Kano" seem to or seemed to? At least for shipping TO >> addresses outside of the "US"? > > > we need to work out if it's cheaper to ship everything first to the > US and then outwards from there (because there's no customs duty, just > a one-off "fee" that pales into insignificance). certainly, sea > freight (which is by volume) would be a lot lower than air freight > (which is by weight). > > i've been trusting the amounts that both chris and joshua > independently use: they're both experienced at this. me, i'm just > getting my head down into the PCBs etc. for now - logistics comes > later. > > l. >
I have been aiming, to "pre-order" in the next few days. But, how likely, do you think, shall you be able to FILL "pre-orders"? If how you will respond to "pre-ordering" is "up in the air", then me "pre-ordering" now, might result in hassle for both of us, rather than be of benefit to both of us.
right. this is an open project: it's not like a "profit maximising company" where they do their absolute best to hide absolutely everything except the "positive marketing messages" such as "we're now shipping!!!! so you can trust us!!!! give us yer money!!!!"
ordinarily, if an "employee" said "i don't know" it wouldn't matter, would it? you'd *never know* that he'd said "i don't know", or that the manager who had been asked to find out had to go back the boss and say "we don't know", would you?
here's the thing: *everybudy* doesn't really "know" until it actually happens. you "don't know" if there's going to be an earthquake in Taiwan which destroys the foundries (this happened a few years ago), or some floods or a fire will destroy the DDR RAM factories (which also happened a few years ago), or the factory where things are being manufactured might have a fire (as happened with the NexDock - it started in the factory next door and spread, destroying 50% of the stock).
to make judgements based on these kinds of things, where you *don't know* if they're going to happen or not - is part and parcel of life... *not* just this campaign.
bottom line, it's up to you to decide. just be aware that you're getting an honest glimpse into a world you've never seen before, in just the same way that the openpandora and openmoko operated a decade ago.
l.
On 16.9.12 14:15, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On ~~, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
On 16.9.12 0:25, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> > On ~, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM, <chadvellacott@sasktel.net> wrote:
On 16.9.9 20:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> >>> On ~~, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Sam Pablo Kuper >>> >>> <sampablokuper@posteo.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "By using the Service to accept Pre-orders, you as the Creator are
~~~~
Seems pretty clear to me :)
hmm.... have to think about that, as i can't come back in the USA and
bring in anything that could be construed as a "sample".
l.
Would it work to just ship those items, from outside of the "US",
like "MiniFree" or "Kano" seem to or seemed to? At least for shipping TO addresses outside of the "US"?
we need to work out if it's cheaper to ship everything first to the US and then outwards from there (because there's no customs duty, just a one-off "fee" that pales into insignificance). certainly, sea freight (which is by volume) would be a lot lower than air freight (which is by weight).
i've been trusting the amounts that both chris and joshua independently use: they're both experienced at this. me, i'm just getting my head down into the PCBs etc. for now - logistics comes later.
l.
I have been aiming, to "pre-order" in the next few days. But, how likely, do you think, shall you be able to FILL "pre-orders"? If how you will respond to "pre-ordering" is "up in the air", then me "pre-ordering" now, might result in hassle for both of us, rather than be of benefit to both of us.
right. this is an open project: it's not like a "profit maximising company" where they do their absolute best to hide absolutely everything except the "positive marketing messages" such as "we're now shipping!!!! so you can trust us!!!! give us yer money!!!!"
ordinarily, if an "employee" said "i don't know" it wouldn't matter, would it? you'd *never know* that he'd said "i don't know", or that the manager who had been asked to find out had to go back the boss and say "we don't know", would you?
here's the thing: *everybudy* doesn't really "know" until it actually happens. you "don't know" if there's going to be an earthquake in Taiwan which destroys the foundries (this happened a few years ago), or some floods or a fire will destroy the DDR RAM factories (which also happened a few years ago), or the factory where things are being manufactured might have a fire (as happened with the NexDock - it started in the factory next door and spread, destroying 50% of the stock).
to make judgements based on these kinds of things, where you *don't know* if they're going to happen or not - is part and parcel of life... *not* just this campaign.
bottom line, it's up to you to decide. just be aware that you're getting an honest glimpse into a world you've never seen before, in just the same way that the openpandora and openmoko operated a decade ago.
l.
I did not really mean to ask you to predict the likelihood of an earth-quake or flood or fire, or things which are generally relevant to life rather than specifically relevant to this campaign. I was not trying to get you to promise something which you cannot thoughtfully promise. I understand being sensitive to not over-promising, in the position which you are in. I myself try to avoid over-promising. And I aim to give others reasonable and compassionate latitude in regard to anything which they word as a promise to me.
The context for my question, was the discussion between thee and Sam Kuper, as to "Crowd Supply's" terms for pledges and for pre-orders. Thou ended up seeming to admit to having mis-understood regarding pre-orders, and to be having some kind of "second thoughts" regarding pre-orders, as shown in the top quotes of this "email" and my previous "email". I deliberately included those quotes now and previously. Because they were relevant "background" to my question.
I only meant to ask a question as to your plans, and as to whether you were re-considering some one or more plans. I guess that I should have asked, "how likely will" instead of "shall".
(a) Are you considering suspending pre-orders? If so, then perhaps I might as well wait, until that decision is made in one direction or another.
(b) "Would" it help you at all, in your decision-making (such as whether to get the factory to make 200 more cards), if I pre-"order" (it'd be at least 1 computer-card and at least 1 "PFY" lap-top-kit) as soon as I am ready?
Eagerly, Chad. (:^)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
I did not really mean to ask you to predict the likelihood of an earth-quake or flood or fire, or things which are generally relevant to life rather than specifically relevant to this campaign. I was not trying to get you to promise something which you cannot thoughtfully promise. I understand being sensitive to not over-promising, in the position which you are in. I myself try to avoid over-promising. And I aim to give others reasonable and compassionate latitude in regard to anything which they word as a promise to me.
i didn't read - and still haven't read (and am not going to read) - the terms and conditions: instead i've been relying on *other people* to tell me what the deal is. i've been getting on with the job of getting things done, and i'm trusting *other people* to tell me what the deal is.
i need to get on with the job of completing the PCB CAD designs, and finding somewhere to live, and communicating with the factory, and sorting out china visas, and a ton of other things.
The context for my question, was the discussion between thee and Sam Kuper, as to "Crowd Supply's" terms for pledges and for pre-orders. Thou ended up seeming to admit to having mis-understood regarding pre-orders, and to be having some kind of "second thoughts" regarding pre-orders, as shown in the top quotes of this "email" and my previous "email". I deliberately included those quotes now and previously. Because they were relevant "background" to my question.
i haven't got time. sorry. i have to be out of this hotel, get photos, get the form filled in for the china visa, find somewhere to put 120kg worth of luggage, all in the next 2 hours.
I only meant to ask a question as to your plans, and as to whether you were re-considering some one or more plans. I guess that I should have asked, "how likely will" instead of "shall".
i don't know.
(a) Are you considering suspending pre-orders?
no. preorders increase dramatically when the first batch starts shipping.
(b) "Would" it help you at all, in your decision-making (such as whether to get the factory to make 200 more cards), if I pre-"order" (it'd be at least 1 computer-card and at least 1 "PFY" lap-top-kit) as soon as I am ready?
one person, no. 200 people, yes. too early to tell yet.
l.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk