11–20 of 75 posts
The whole experiments novelty is how about accessible the money is, so who cares that you can run some script and rip it off?
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.
You've come through loud and clear about your personality. Now it's time for you to make a decision that will affect nobody but yourself: Will you choose to learn from this and be a better person, or will you rationalize it all away and live in blissful ignorance of your own self? I sincerely hope this whole saga makes you a better, more open minded person.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
Secondly, the idea that he actually makes a blog post which suggests buying an iPad and then ends up advising to donate it to a charity. It all makes everything very fuzzy. What exactly are his intentions ? Is he just trying to link-bait? If he done something similar with the penny tray, I am sure he would've been taken to the cleaners by the people alongside him.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
I completely agree that this is more a hack thing than a theft thing, it's within the bounds of the experiment.
To me is sounds like "Sam" is doing this for personal gain. It feels like promoting, marketing. Because in all the posts about this, referrals are thrown to his business and his brothers. Which to me is wrong in the first place, as it was about the card not their damn business.
Secondly, it was theft wasn't it? The card wasn't his, it was a good that was lend to him. In this case not only him but severals others as well. It was lend in a leap of faith, no matter it was an experiment or it wasn't. It wasn't lend to be stolen from. If everyone steals something they lend, the world would be an even shittier place. Because if that was the case, I am going to try and borrow a car.
So it was illegal in the first place. Second place he used script to monitor the card and its movements. Which is illegal unless he had a wiretap approved. Third, he was not the owner so he committed theft. Fourth, if it was for charity - USE YOUR OWN GODDAMN POCKETS! You sold a business in the past to Facebook, you have more then enough to go buy.
Or am I seeing this all wrong? Could be, as I am far too young to maybe see the greater good.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
giving your own money away is charity, redirecting somebody else's money isn't a charity, it is management at best theft at worst
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
Firstly, Sam's antics would've been a good discussion if he had taken out $10 out of it and given it to a charity. But the sheer scale of 'hack' i.e. to take a grand total $600 out of the card when the average single expense on the card is hardly $20-40 is plainly out of the way. In my personal opinion, that was never the part of the experiment. Secondly, the idea that he actually makes a blog post which suggests buy…
I had a quick interaction with Lon on TC about the situation. To me is sounds like "Sam" is doing this for personal gain. It feels like promoting, marketing. Because in all the posts about this, referrals are thrown to his business and his brothers. Which to me is wrong in the first place, as it was about the card not their damn business. Secondly, it was theft wasn't it? The card wasn't his, it was a good that was l…
Not stating my position on this entire debate with this comment; but, to be fair, he was simply monitoring an API that Jonathan himself provided to see the balance, so there was no wiretapping or illegal card accessing to determine balance going on.
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.
It's not just that you took the money. You also insulted everyone for being so shallow, when they were trying to be nice. Trying to take the moral high ground is never a good idea, when people think you are wrong. And some people will think you are wrong.
Just use the line: "Yeah, I was wrong to take so much. I'd give it back, but some other jerk will just transfer it all, now that the vulnerability is public. Sorry. So I'm giving it away. But please remember, if I hadn't found out that you could transfer the funds, somebody else would have. These sharing apps are great, but they have to be set-up so that no one person can bring them down. Sooner or later, it was bound to be exploited."
You could also suggest a fix - "this would work, but only if people only donated small amounts. Nobody will transfer the funds if there's just one or two coffees. It would be safe to start the card again if everybody would try to keep the limit under $20.".
Also, you could suggest that the card occasionally put out public service announcements. Aside from warnings about high limits, it could ask the iPhone toting yuppies to throw a few bucks towards the Horn of Africa, which is experiencing the worst famine in years. Or donate to a local charity. But don't make it sound like you are taking the high ground.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
Even though Sam's intent to donate to charity is noble, the means by which he set out to achieve this lacked nobility. He took advantage of something that was on the honor system and acted dishonorably by violating the conditions under which the card was to be used. Unfortunately the original Jonathan's card page is no longer around, but as I recall it stated you could use the image to make an in-store purchase or use the number to reload the card.
Using the number and brute forcing the PIN (if I recall correctly) to siphon money off of the card and then use those funds to do something other than the stated purpose goes against the implicit social contract that everyone was participating in.