In article <[email protected] >, [email protected] (Osmo
Ronkanen) wrote:

    > But that is not the rounding that is used in Finland. The roundign to five cents is
    > done only on the total. That means individual prodicts can be priced at one cent
    > precision without the need to handle small coins.

Several people have been pointing this out to Mxsmanic over and over again. I think
s/he simply does not _want_ to understand.

A discussion where one participant simply refuses to listen is going nowhere.

-H

--
Indian restaurants in Vienna: http://www.aardvark.at/inder/index_e.html Public
transport in Vienna: http://www.aardvark.at/metro/

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > > Eliminating the one and two cent coins will cause inflation of 30%?
    >
    > It depends on many variables, but it could easily cause substantial inflation with
    > respect to items with low prices.

I can't think of any item that sells for less than 10 cents that is commonly
purchased that way. Things that sell for low prices are normally sold in groups so
that, in effect, it becomes a single item at a higher price.

Horst Prillinger wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected] >, [email protected]
    > (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
    >
    > > But that is not the rounding that is used in Finland. The roundign to five cents
    > > is done only on the total. That means individual prodicts can be priced at one
    > > cent precision without the need to handle small coins.
    >
    > Several people have been pointing this out to Mxsmanic over and over again. I think
    > s/he simply does not _want_ to understand.
    >
    > A discussion where one participant simply refuses to listen is going nowhere.
    >

Then he probably won't listen if you tell him that rounding to the closest 10 cents
on the total price can also favor the customer at times. After all, everything over 0
isn't rounded up to the next 10 cents.

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:28:15 GMT, Mxsmanic wrote in
<[email protected] .com>:

    >"Chris Raistrick" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
    >news: [email protected]...
    >
    >> No one's disputing that but are you claiming that consumer whining causes
    >> inflation?
    >
    >No, I am claiming that consumer ignorance and laziness causes inflation.

I wouldn't argue with that but, no, you weren't claiming that at all.

    >> And we all agree that eliminating small coins causes rounding, don't we?
    >
    >In cash transactions, yes.

There are non-cash transactions that involve coins?

    >> So there would have been a recent burst of inflation in Finland, then. Which I'm
    >> still waiting for you to point out.
    >
    >I don't have any numbers for Finland, nor do I worry much about anything that
    >happens there alone.

So then you have no proof that eliminating small coins causes inflation. OTOH, the
lack of a surge of inflation in Finland is evidence to the contrary. Your ignorance
of that evidence does not devalue it.

    >> The fact that you are ignoring the country where rounding has been strongest is
    >> not much of an argument.
    >
    >Not ignoring, just not considering significant. I don't live in Finland and I have
    >no plans to visit the country, so what happens there is irrelevant to
    >me. Only things that happen in countries I live in or may visit (France, the UK,
    > Germany, and so on) are important to me. As long as the Finnish anomaly can be
    > confined to that country, no problem.

Not long ago, you seemed quite happy to claim the right to pass judgement on
countries you have never visited, what's changed? Does this tack suit you this week?

    >> As you were trying to prove that a 50% increase in a service that used to cost
    >> around 2 FRF was caused by rounding to the nearest cent, your point is extremely
    >> elusive.
    >
    >No, I was pointing out that rounding is highly conducive to inflation.

And failing, as usual, to provide anything to back yourself up.

--
Cheers,

Chris

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:34:39 GMT, Mxsmanic wrote in
<[email protected] .com>:

    >"Chris Raistrick" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
    >news: [email protected]...
    >
    >> There's salami attacks intended to make the fraudster lose money?
    >
    >No,

Good. So what was your point?

    >but there are salami attacks that can help a fraudster to eliminate debt.

What of it?

    >> It's curious how often the term "salami attack" is defined as a computer fraud.
    >
    >Why? That is how it is usually carried out today.

So what? It is not exclusively so.

    >> It almost always is now but then accounting is almost always done by computer,
    >> especially when amounts worth stealing are involved.
    >
    >So why is it curious to define it as a computer fraud?

In the same way that it would be curious to see Scrabble defined as a computer game.

Or are you just struggling with the difference between "Defined as" and
"Referred to"?

    >> Why does the account need to be a normal one?
    >
    >It doesn't, but the account to which the fraudster will have access is likely to be
    >a normal account, not a special account.
    >
    >> What's a "normal" account anyway?
    >
    >One against which one can carry out normal transactions, such as transfers,
    >withdrawals, and deposits outside the institution. A fraudster will usually want
    >something against which he can write checks or withdraw cash.

Ah, laymen's terms. Why didn't you say that you have no understanding of accounting
more than that required to run a household budget?

The type of accounts you are describing are no more normal than others.

    >> Again, a narrow world, an auditor questioning something does not mean that it
    >> isn't legit.
    >
    >If he questions it but does nothing about it, his questioning is moot.

You also do not understand the meaning of the word "moot", either. I suggest you look
it up and then rewrite the above sentence in a way that makes sense.

If his questioning costs the bank time and therefore money to respond to, then his
questioning matters.

    >> If the purpose is to lose money, then yes.
    >
    >If money is what you owe, losing part of that might be a good idea.

That's poor, even by your standards.

    >> For example............
    >
    >Interest calculations. When you award interest to accounts, you don't end up with
    >negative amounts.

Unless it's interest on an overdrawn account, Einstein.

    >> No transactions are always positive. Otherwise the books stop balancing.
    >
    >The negative counterbalancing transaction may not be subjected to the attack.

In which case, the books stop balancing.

    >> It isn't noticed because the fraudster doesn't distribute the differences to
    >> several accounts.
    >
    >It doesn't matter how he distributes them, as long as the books balance.

Unless someone looks at the books, like, say, an auditor.

    >> Small world. I'm not talking about using an ATM. I'm talking about taking cash out
    >> of a financial system not notes out of a machine.
    >
    >Same thing.

LOL!

    >> More fool the bank then.
    >
    >Obviously, otherwise the fraud wouldn't work.

Problem with your argument is that it doesn't work.

--
Cheers,

Chris

Have you forgotten how little kids buy one sweet at a time when they only have a few pence/ cents left of their pocket money?

newstartnz <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > Michael Marchmo wrote:
    > > I can't think of any item that sells for less than 10 cents that is commonly
    > > purchased that way. Things that sell for low prices are normally sold in groups
    > > so that, in effect, it becomes a single item at a higher price.
    >
    >
    >
    > Have you forgotten how little kids buy one sweet at a time when they only have a
    > few pence/ cents left of their pocket money?

The idea of having money left was strange to me when I was a kid. Same was buying
candy one at a time.

Osmo

"Tim Challenger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] ay.telekom.at>...
    > > Well you seem to be an expert on how stores do things in Finland. I wonder where
    > > did you became sucnh an expert.
    >
    > You seem to be an expert on how they do things everywhere else. I never mentioned
    > Finland though.

The issue was how cents are rounded in Finland.

Osmo