TWCP OTD (The Who Cares Puzzle Of The Day) - 20th of February, 2017
-
It is fascinating how math and ethics can differ... :thumbsup:
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
Nothing was stolen from the shop, but $100 was stolen from The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World[^] (Although how One managed that I do not know!)
-
Ah, but there was nothing about the money being given back being counted as non-stolen. 0. He stole $11 Amount stolen = $100 1. He paid for goods with stolen money, from which he got change; i.e. he stole $100-worth of goods and change. Amount stolen = $100 Total amount stolen = $200 You have to remember the devious mind of the question-setter.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
If he had purchased $70 of goods with $100 of his own money, you would agree that the store had received $100, and had given $70 of goods and $30 of change, for a total "loss" of $0. The only loss here was the crime - stealing $100, and therefore the store lost $100. Your method counts the stolen money twice.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
If he had purchased $70 of goods with $100 of his own money, you would agree that the store had received $100, and had given $70 of goods and $30 of change, for a total "loss" of $0. The only loss here was the crime - stealing $100, and therefore the store lost $100. Your method counts the stolen money twice.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
But the (trick) question doesn't say anything about discounting the fact that the money was paid back in, or anything about profit/loss, and all three amounts were /technically/ theft.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
But the (trick) question doesn't say anything about discounting the fact that the money was paid back in, or anything about profit/loss, and all three amounts were /technically/ theft.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Hmm. So according to you, we have a few additional crimes here: 1. The customer stole $100 (theft) 2. The customer took $70 worth of merchandise and paid for them with the stolen $100 (paying with stolen money) 3. The shopkeeper received stolen goods (the $100 stolen by the customer) 4. The shopkeeper gave $30 under false pretenses to the customer If your legal theory is correct, then 1. Every shopkeeper who receives money must somehow verify that the money is legitimately owned by the customer. 2. "Fencing" has been expanded to the case where the thief also uses the proceeds of the theft. From a "God's eye" view, you may be correct, but I'd hate to be the prosecutor who has to prosecute this case...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Hmm. So according to you, we have a few additional crimes here: 1. The customer stole $100 (theft) 2. The customer took $70 worth of merchandise and paid for them with the stolen $100 (paying with stolen money) 3. The shopkeeper received stolen goods (the $100 stolen by the customer) 4. The shopkeeper gave $30 under false pretenses to the customer If your legal theory is correct, then 1. Every shopkeeper who receives money must somehow verify that the money is legitimately owned by the customer. 2. "Fencing" has been expanded to the case where the thief also uses the proceeds of the theft. From a "God's eye" view, you may be correct, but I'd hate to be the prosecutor who has to prosecute this case...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Hey, it ain't no "legal theory"! Although,legally, they guy would be prosecuted on all counts, and receive a harsher sentence. It's an "awkward bugger setting trick questions" theory! The phrasing avoided any mention of "returned" money not being definable as "stolen", so there were three trick-question-style acts of theft: 0. The cash was stolen from the till. $100 stolen 1. The goods were stolen, because they were paid for with stolen money. $70 stolen 2. The change was obtained unlawfully. $30 stolen From the trick-question perspective, that's $200 stolen (that word being the only pertinent one). It's only logically that it's only $100.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It's not Maths, either; it's logic.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote:
How much was actually stolen from the shop?
By definition the $100 was "stolen money" - giving it to the shop to pay for goods does not make it any less stolen Basically he stole $100, used stolen money to pay for the goods, and got change of $30 from money that was never his. The $100 was stolen, the goods were not paid for using his money, the change was received on money not his. Using stolen money even at the place you stole it from does not make it batter. "two wrongs do not make a right?" How much was actually stolen from the shop? NOT: How much did the thief get away with. Even though the cash register is only out $100 the total theft (by definition of theft and by law) was $200, add in the crime of using ill gotten proceeds - 3 strikes - he's down. It's English people, learn proper use of your language.
Sin tack the any key okay
Lopatir wrote:
It's English people, learn proper use of your language.
Um, ITYM: "It's English, people; learn proper use of your language." The law of Skitt[^] can never be beated.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Hey, it ain't no "legal theory"! Although,legally, they guy would be prosecuted on all counts, and receive a harsher sentence. It's an "awkward bugger setting trick questions" theory! The phrasing avoided any mention of "returned" money not being definable as "stolen", so there were three trick-question-style acts of theft: 0. The cash was stolen from the till. $100 stolen 1. The goods were stolen, because they were paid for with stolen money. $70 stolen 2. The change was obtained unlawfully. $30 stolen From the trick-question perspective, that's $200 stolen (that word being the only pertinent one). It's only logically that it's only $100.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods? How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods? How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods?
If it were 60 years ago, and the shopkeeper were Margaret Thatcher, I'd vote Aye, and demand the death penalty. Think how much suffering that would have prevented.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
It's still $200, but this clarifies the non-logic of it -- he steals $100 from one shop, and $100 from another shop. But that still wasn't my point. The way the question was phrased, the answer can only be $200. It's a trick question, phrased in a way to get logic-centric people to make the mistake of thinking logically.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
LOST One took a $100 bill from the register without being noticed. After that he collected goods worth $70 and payed with the stolen bill... The cashier - unaware of the theft - gave back the $30 change. How much was actually stolen from the shop?
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
$100 Money is fungible.
