8,655 karma · joined November 9, 2010
Has there been any research on producing stem cells from specialized cells? Or is there something fundamentally impossible about this, akin to producing the original content given only a hash value?
Does it really require that? Perhaps for some items expensive enough to have expert forgeries (like with artwork where sometimes you need to test the composition of the paint itself or x-ray the canvas) but I doubt that’s the case for the typical knock-off item where all you need are pictures.
Here’s how I would go about this if I, as someone who knows absolutely nothing about any of this, wanted to setup this kind of business.
First, I would search for images of popular items which have known knock-offs produced. Let’s say the Nike sneakers or the Louis Vuitton bag mentioned. I would gather as many pictures of the known, proven knock-offs as I could. Then I would find official images published by Nike and Louis Vuitton. Put the images side-by-side and it’s simply a matter of going through that children’s exercise where you spot as many differences between the two pictures as you can.
Then given all the differences I spotted, I would start writing up guides documenting all of what my rudimentary exercise discovered. Publish the guides to gain credibility and then participate in various forums where those products are discussed. Pump the free guides and get established as an authority, even though all I’ve done is use my eyes to spot differences.
Then, just as they wrote up, start offering to check people’s stuff for free. When it hits a certain volume, offer priority service, etc. Same playbook for that.
When you get an item you’ve never reviewed before — say, a Rolex watch — ask the customer to submit photos that exactly match ones that Rolex publishes (actually, you should always ask for matching photos to make the work 100% trivial). Rinse and repeat: spot the differences.
You may not find 100% of the differences but you can get close enough to authoritatively state if it’s a knock-off or not. If you hit a wall where you’re not sure if the Rolex is real or not, there are two options. If Rolex is amenable to this, send the images to Rolex and ask them if there are obvious signs of a fake. Then you’re just playing the middleman and if Rolex needs more photos to authenticate, relay that back to the customer. If they’re not, I’m sure it’s not too difficult to locate someone who you know has a Rolex. Or maybe partner with a jeweler and cut them in.
Hey, now it’s not just you anymore and you can claim you have a team of people performing authentications behind the scenes. Customers don’t need to know that your team is really just you and a buddy who can spot differences between pictures, plus occasional ad-how strangers, and maybe even the official companies themselves from time to time.
I’d be somewhat surprised if they didn’t do exactly what I described.
tl;dr: once downloaded to a device you have it until you delete it.
It’s not ideal and I do wish they would retain the right to keep an archived copy on their servers for all customers who have bought it so they could re-download or stream at any time without having to deal with backup and restore.
I’ll do it for $10M/year, paid in advance of course due to the company’s financial situation. Oh, he probably means for whatever meager wages they were paying this guy. Yeah, no wonder.
The individual leaves a review for the software developer saying “I paid upfront for help with my software. But what I got was just the Stack Overflow information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. Another scam developer.”
If the developer uses the site the review was left on to obtain business and they can demonstrate a specific monetary loss after the review was posted, they have claims for damages. A non-trivial portion of a software developer’s job is looking stuff up on Stack Overflow, so applying that knowledge using their experience isn’t scammy at all.
Details of the legal advice provided are missing, but the same could be true. Client sends contract and seeks advice on what their obligations are upon contract termination, and the law firm responds by rewording the portion of the contract which spells out their obligations. If they find the obligations to be obvious, then maybe they didn’t need legal advice in the first place. If they don’t understand the quoted obligations, they should follow up asking for clarification. But saying “another scam solicitor” is libelous.
And isn’t his offer to remove the review in exchange for a refund considered extortion?
Many mail servers function by answering all “RCPT TO:” commands (for the domains served) with a success message that is effectively “Yeah, sure... give it a try” and, if the mailbox doesn’t exist, will email the sender a bounce message.
So long as a company adheres to those principles, it doesn't matter if an individual investor can obtain their shares via ShortTermScumbags.com or the like. Having investors who are along for the long haul is a nice-to-have, not a must-have, since the goal is long-term focused companies which will naturally, via its principles, eschew reacting to short-term trends in share price.
This is literally the reason lawyers exist. It’s not hard to draft up an agreement where the former co-founder transfers all rights and ownership and relinquishes any claim to the technology.
> It’s officially out of beta today and available for all paid plans.