Computer Opens Unmanned Store For Holiday

tomhudson writes "The Walkato Times in New Zealand is reporting that someone forgot to tell the computer not to unlock the supermarket on the Friday holiday. 'About half of the 24 people who came into the supermarket paid for their groceries using the self-scan service. The service stopped working after alcohol was scanned, requiring a staff member to check a customer's age before the system is unlocked.' The owner, Mr Miller, was quoted as saying 'I can certainly see the funny side of it... but I'd rather not have the publicity to be honest. It makes me look a bit of a dickhead.' Rather than take legal action, Mr Miller is hoping that the people who didn't pay will do the right thing."

Comments

Smart

[stanlyb]

RIAA, did you open your ears and eyes wide open? That's how you should you react, unlike you, you little ...."man"

Re:Smart

[osgeek]

The lesson learned out of this (half the people stealing products) is that the RIAA should treat its customers better?

Really?

Re:Smart

[WRX SKy]

Yes, then half of their customers would pay for things instead of 90% of them stealing things.

Re:Smart

[Dishevel]

That is during the time that you could pay. Before the alcohol was scanned. More than half choose to pay.
After you could no longer pay the rate dropped of to 0%. But while you could pay I am guessing that significantly higher than 50% paid.
Now lets see how many people come back and pay later in the week.

Then with math and facts on your side you can say snide shit about things and have some actual knowledge.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it confirmed that the other half stole? to be honest, I'd just leave and go to another store if it was unmanned like that - it would be a bit too eerie to find a completely empty and unlocked store.

Re:Smart

[tehcyder]

Yes, then half of their customers would pay for things instead of 90% of them stealing things.

What bollocks, there is nothing other than greed/tight-fistedness which makes people illegally download music instead of paying for it. If a business sells its product for $x and you think that is too expensive, you don't fucking buy it.

Sorry, but people don't download stuff without paying as a political protest.

Re:Smart

[ian_from_brisbane]

there is nothing other than greed/tight-fistedness which makes people illegally download music instead of paying for it. If a business sells its product for $x and you think that is too expensive, you don't fucking buy it.

Sorry, but people don't download stuff without paying as a political protest.

The price is irrelevant if you want to obtain the product anonymously... you can't buy songs from itunes anonymously. For some people, it wouldn't matter how cheap the product is selling for; If they have to hand over personal details or register on some crappy database or use their credit card, that's the deal-breaker, not the price.

It's Surprising

[lolololol]

That half the people paid. I would have expected the number to be less. Good job America!

Re:It's Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing it's in New Zealand.

Re:It's Surprising

[gman003]

Maybe they didn't notice that nobody was actually working in the store?

Re:It's Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

That half the people paid. I would have expected the number to be less. Good job America!

New Zealand a.k.a. America

Re:It's Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

That half the people paid. I would have expected the number to be less. Good job America!

"New Zealand " = america??

oops

Re:It's Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

last I heard, NZ was still a sovereign nation...

Re:It's Surprising

[topham]

Right at opening the staff of various stores are often occupied with opening duties. Putting out new signs, fresh food in the deli, etc. I could easily see walking in, picking up a few items and going through the self-checkout without knowing the stores was otherwise empty. I mean, sure, I might clue in something is wrong when going through the checkout and seeing no cashiers, but hey the self-checkout is working so why worry about it...

Re:It's Surprising

[Sir_Sri]

What does america have to do with it? This was in new zealand.

Also, the police were called due to reports of truckloads of groceries being removed. So while some people were honest, it appears the dishonest capitalized quickly.

From the article it appears it took less than an hour between someone realizing the store was unlocked an unattended to trying to run off with a pile of free food.

Re:It's Surprising

[toastar]

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw New Zealand forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Re:It's Surprising

[Thud457]

that doesn't say much for the level of helpfulness of the employees when they are there...

Re:It's Surprising

[gnick]

Just because it's in New Zealand doesn't mean that the people who paid weren't American. After all, we're known world round for honesty and contributing to the less fortunate. That's why our prison rate is so amazingly low. Umm, right?

Re:It's Surprising

[gman003]

I've worked in one of those fast-stop places. Quite frequently, I was the only one actually working - everyone else, including the assistant manager, was on a "smoking break". The manager, of course, was in the back office, doing whatever it is managers do besides managing.

I'd like to think that there's a relation between "me being fired" and "the place going out of business a month later".

Re:It's Surprising

[MBGMorden]

Some people (including myself) have an extreme aversion to self-checkout systems, so I'd notice.

They're too damned temperamental for my tastes. They use scales to weigh the bags to make sure nothing that wasn't scanned ends up in the bag. Of course, if the original input weight was wrong, or (more likely) the scale is just being quirky, you get the prompt to wait for an associate to come over and verify your contents. Then there's the age-related prompts. Things like alcohol, sure, but then you have a myriad of other crap that may trigger an alarm (like just about anything in an aerosol can) for an associate (who may or may not be nearby) to come check out the situation.

Combine that with the 60 year old idiots who are trying that "new fanangled" machine and are staring at it blankly when it asks for payment (which inevitably takes them FOREVER to figure out) and it's just too much hassle for me to deal with. I'll stand in the regular line - any employee that comes by to remind me that the self-checkout is open gets a verbal "No thanks" plus my "Go to hell" look.

Maybe once they work a little better I'll start using the self-checkout machines again.

Re:It's Surprising

[Kral_Blbec]

I love 'em, but I do agree about the idiots who try to use them. IMO they should have a timer and if it takes longer than a predetermined length of time (based on number of items and size, it adds a surcharge for being slow. It should also add a surcharge if you try to scan too many items. It's not for doing your entire groceries with people! It's the modern version of the express line for people with under 10-20 items.

Re:It's Surprising

[Amouth]

on that note - i should get a discount for using it vs eating up an employee.

Re:It's Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The self-checkout machines near me were temperamental 5 or 6 years ago, but they've gotten much better. My favorite was when you would scan an item and place it in a bag, the machine would say:

Unknown item detected in the bagging area. Please remove the item from the bagging area.

So you'd take it back out and hear:

Item removed from bagging area. Please return the item to the bagging area.

It would be stuck in this loop until an employee came by to fix it. However, I haven't had this, or any other problem in several years at any store. I don't know what they did (maybe just a software upgrade), but the machines work much better now.

Re:It's Surprising

[MichaelSmith]

Good thing this happened in NZ. Apparently in the US it is acceptable for people who leave a store without paying to be shot on sight.

Re:It's Surprising

[MichaelSmith]

If you mean Christchurch, you are a bit late.

Re:It's Surprising

[adolf]

I'm not terribly allergic to self-checkouts, though I do view them with a certain disdain (I'd like to have a discount if I'm going to be checking and bagging my own groceries). I often use them when I've just got one or two things that I need and find myself in a bit of a hurry (a missing ingredient for a meal that I've already started prepping, for instance), or if the lines are very long.

As another poster indicated, they are getting better:

The last encounter I had with one went something like this: Approach machine. Ignore prompts. Scan items, tossing each into a bag. Ignore prompts. Insert money. Ignore prompts. Take change and receipt. Leave with items.

This is good enough. In fact, I might even prefer this level of non-interaction over dealing with a human on some days...

It does throw a fit if I'm buying small things (packets of Kool-Aid, for example), as they sometimes seem to be of inadequate mass to make the scale register a change in weight. Pushing the "I don't want to bag this item" button fixes that, annoyingly enough. (The sequence of code which ensures that everything that one has scanned has also subsequently ended up in a bag should be eliminated, IMHO: It protects no one from anything, and is at best merely occasionally annoying.)

It's been years since the opposite has happened, with it over-weighing the bagging area and assuming that I'm putting things in bags that have not yet been scanned.

Buying beer is a bit of a bother sometimes -- some places have little wireless widgets that the person tending to the self-checkouts carries, which alert them wherever they're at in the store. At those places it works OK, especially if they recognize me: They will use the widget to satisfy the machine's want of age verification, and I'll be on my way in a few seconds.

Others are far worse, relying on an attendant to visually notice and act upon a red light that appears above the self-checkout, finish what they're doing, eventually stumble over, figure out if I'm old enough, and then enter an incantation into the machine.

Half Honest

[Mikkeles]

That's about twice as many as I would expect! Good going.

Re:Half Honest

[aBaldrich]

Why do you expect 1/4th to be honest people? I wouldn't trust anybody.

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're a paranoid delusionist.

People are, grosso modo, honest and hard working. The media only reports on 'bad' guys, so you might think everybody is like that. They aren't.

Re:Half Honest

[drb226]

But can you trust more than 75% of people to be non-trustworthy?

Re:Half Honest

[jellomizer]

Well the numbers would make sense.

about 1/2 see this as a good steal and take advantage of it.
about 1/4 would see it as a trick where they could get in trouble later in life. (oh the cameras will get me, or if I do this now and abuse the system they will tighten the system down)
about 1/8 would see this as they will get in trouble after life (Religion is an attempt to keep society honest by removing the idea you can really get away with something if you don't get caught).
about 1/8 are just very honest people.

Re:Half Honest

[vlm]

1/2 of the people in the USA make money, the other 1/2 spend whatever they can get from the productive half. I'm guessing the numbers are not all that different in .nz so I'm not surprised the ratio worked out that way.

The non-productive half who sponge off the productive half probably see it as getting the middleman out of they way ... From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, etc.

Alternately it might be a mapping of peer pressure, 1/2 will zombie like copy whatever they see other people doing, and the half who are actually alive will think about what they're doing.

Then you get into weird religious interpretations, that non-adherents are more honest than the general population, thus the high 50% payment rate (doesn't matter if they're celebrating the good friday religion or the earth day religion?)

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry, but half the US are not trust fund bastards leaching off the backs of the laboring masses.

Re:Half Honest

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why do you expect 1/4th to be honest people? I wouldn't trust anybody.

When you leave your desk to go home, do you lock all the drawers?

Re:Half Honest

[frosty_tsm]

That's about twice as many as I would expect! Good going.

I wonder how many of that half who didn't pay were trying to buy alcohol but had no one to authorize their purchase.

Re:Half Honest

[pspahn]

I went for some groceries yesterday evening. The total came to $59.xx and the clerk gave me $42.xx in change.

I looked at the two extra $1's and then at the receipt to double check her error. I handed the money back to the clerk and went on my way.

My point is that I am currently unemployed and "homeless" (currently staying with a friend). Sure, it would have been in my favor to just ignore her error and keep the extra two bucks. Under the circumstances, I gave it back because:

1. The karma is worth more to me than the two bucks. And,
2. I don't want that kid coming after me on his bike demanding his two dollars.

Sometimes people are motivated to be honest because they know that even though their honesty might cause them to lose some money, that monetary loss is offset by a gain in reputation and character. Honesty != Selflessness.

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you wake up and get past this 18 year old Libertarian BS? It isn't solving anything and is counterproductive.

Also, you aren't as special or hard working as you are lucky, despite what you tell yourself every morning.

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the tone of the conversation has veered towards honest people and percentages thereof, etc. I'll just post a little anecdote here. In the U.S. we celebrated Easter last weekend so last Saturday we took our two year old to the Easter egg hunt. It was divided into age groups so the big kids didn't overrun the small ones. The hunt for the two year old category wasn't a hunt at all, they were all just out on a baseball field. The rules were: that parents were not to pick up the eggs, it was for the kids. I saw plenty of parents who grabbed everything in sight as quickly as they could (there were prizes in some of the eggs, candy in others.) Then there were those, like us, who let the kids have fun and pick them up themselves. Of course our son got only a very small number of eggs (20?) out of 10,000. And other families required both parents to carry out their haul. But my son had a good time as he is too young to realize what greed is. We were walking out and noticed a couple walking towards the hunt with a boy about our son's age. The hunt was over and that little boy wasn't going to get any eggs. We gave him half of what our son picked up.

The point is this: there are not only honest people in the world, there are people who do more than they are required to. I'm posting this anon as, in my opinion, the most heartfelt acts of altruism are anonymous.

Re:Half Honest

[Tumbleweed]

I expect that means a lot of them were too oblivious to even notice anything was off. Perhaps the normal staff tends to be 'away' from their post as a matter of course. :)

Re:Half Honest

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm with you on the first half. 100% .

It's part 2 that you lost me. You... rewarded the people who showed up late? As a result of not showing up on time, they had prizes handed to them in exchange for not spending any time or effort, and for not joining with the rest of the community in the hunt?

Altruism is often paid for by the recipient as well as the giver. Just in different ways than you might expect.

Re:Half Honest

[Belial6]

Your anecdote also points out just how pathetic many people will be. The parents that were picking up the eggs were cheating. They were cheating against two year olds. When my son was 3, we found out that there was an informal chess club in our town. He liked chess, so we figured it would be a good place to let him play against other kids that might be at his skill level. We ended up quitting because the other parents wouldn't stop telling their kids what moves to make. It was disgusting watching the parents teaching their 8 year olds to cheat against a 3 year old.

Re:Half Honest

[izomiac]

IMHO, such statements tend to be projections. Within any social species there exists individuals who are more altruistic and individuals who are more selfish. For humans, who need to rationalize their behavior, you can only really justify it by believing that the majority of people are of your type (unless you're a self-actualized selfish).

It's hard to objectify the data, since it's a gradient and highly situational. Being totally selfish gets you caught and exiled, and being completely altruistic makes a martyr out of you and your genetic/parenting lineage.

Re:Half Honest

[slew]

I am sorry, but half the US are not trust fund bastards leaching off the backs of the laboring masses.

Are you sure? According to the urban institute, 47% don't owe federal taxes in the US. At first I thought that was didn't need to pay more than they withheld (a common issue), but then I read the report and it does indeed say they don't owe federal taxes.

Of course depending on your point of view, the US government may or may not just look like a big trust fund to those that do not pay into it. And those that do not pay into it, but receive their income from it, may or may not be bastards, but you might just sorrily agree that this 1/2 number is not something pulled out of ones ass (like many a /. statistic)...

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Well since we're on the subject would it be alright if I date Beth?

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had situations like that before happen to me a couple times. Once when I was trying to return the extra dollar, the clerk thought she was either being scammed or that I was just an idiot. In any case she refused to take the money, so I just kept it.

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

They were only 10 or 15 minutes late, and the info available did not give an exact starting time for the egg hunt. It did give a time for the Easter Bunny arriving, and we wanted to be there for that. Had the parents not picked up the eggs, which was the majority of the cases, that hunt could and should have gone on for an hour. 2 year olds are easily distracted and the "hunt" should have lasted for quite awhile as the kids were as interested in each other as they were the eggs. Besides, even if you want to place responsibility on the parents for being 10 or 15 minutes late I'd rather make their 2 year old happy rather than give his parents a lecture on timeliness. It wasn't the little boys fault and if I can make a child happy, especially so easily, I'll do it every time.

Re:Half Honest

[lgw]

I am sorry, but half the US are not trust fund bastards leaching off the backs of the laboring masses.

The number of people who receive a check from the government just passed the number of people who pay taxes. Of course, there's some overlap, so it wasn't entirely accurate, but fine as hyperbole goes.

Re:Half Honest

[cusco]

Actually being totally selfish gets you a place on the Tea Party ticket . . .

Re:Half Honest

[sabt-pestnu]

My honesty in "cashier error in your favor" most often is a result of empathy. The money I get is worth less than the cashier's troubles from the till not balancing.

But I deal with the same cashiers on a regular basis, so does that count as reputation? Character?

Am I rationalizing my my honesty? Or is my honesty driving a "character and reputation" rationalization instead?

Re:Half Honest

[sabt-pestnu]

100% of statistics lie. You provide a statistic.

Not I didn't say that those statistics are inaccurate. They are often highly accurate. But it is that "highly" that you need to watch carefully, because it often mean "narrow" as well.

It also doesn't say anything about trust funds.

As for pulled out of one's ass? The source of the chart in the document is Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model.

Which is to say, they pulled the numbers out of a mathematician's ass.

Re:Half Honest

[jrumney]

Actually it is more than half honest. In addition to the half who paid using the self-checkouts until they became stuck waiting for approval of alcohol purchases, at least some people walked back out when they realised the shop was unmanned: "We've even heard from a couple of girls who said they came into the supermarket but left when they sensed something was not right."

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about twice as many as I would expect! Good going.

The Pak 'n Save supermarket chain as the name implies is the most budget of all the supermarket chains in New Zealand by a long way. They cater specifically to the poorest sections of society so this result may not be reflective of New Zealand overall.

Re:Half Honest

[Candid88]

Actually it seems the rate was a lot higher than half, till the automated till broke and people had no method of making payment.

Re:Half Honest

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised half the people were honest; they assume they're on camera.

Re:Half Honest

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Fair enough, given the circumstance

Re:Half Honest

[Rob the Bold]

about 1/2 see this as a good steal and take advantage of it. about 1/4 would see it as a trick where they could get in trouble later in life. (oh the cameras will get me, or if I do this now and abuse the system they will tighten the system down) about 1/8 would see this as they will get in trouble after life (Religion is an attempt to keep society honest by removing the idea you can really get away with something if you don't get caught). about 1/8 are just very honest people.

Couldn't some of the paying customers just have been slashdotters that didn't notice that the no human staff was present?

Only in NZ

[kozmonaut]

What a fantastic official response. If only managers in America would openly admit to being the dickheads they are...

Re:Only in NZ

[xgr3gx]

I was surprised to see 'dickhead' in an official response. Is it a less vulgar term in NZ than in the US?

Re:Only in NZ

[DigiShaman]

Maybe. Or maybe because the cost of fighting it in court with attorney fees would offset the losses in theft.

Re:Only in NZ

[TaoPhoenix]

NZ? Really?

So if you steal groceries you get to go on your way but if you copy three songs you lose da internets?

Re:Only in NZ

[osu-neko]

I was surprised to see 'dickhead' in an official response. Is it a less vulgar term in NZ than in the US?

Excluding hardcore Islamic nations, everything in less vulgar to the rest of the world than it is in the US, which remains, at its core, a nation of Puritans, culturally at least.

Re:Only in NZ

[demonlapin]

Except violence and gore really seem to bother a lot of people. To Americans, not so much.

Re:Only in NZ

[LaurieF]

No - we've just got a better sense of humour. There's used to be an ad on the telly where the participants repeatedly said "Bugger". I think it garnered two or three negative responses to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Re:Only in NZ

[Liam Pomfret]

Both New Zealand and Australia tend to be rather more liberated about language than the rest of the english speaking world, in my experience. Our politicians would be more free with what they can say during interviews for prime time news (or even in election debates) than what I gather Americans would let some of their comedians get away with after midnight. Bugger, bastard, bloody, shit-faced, wanker, etc, etc, it doesn't even rate a shrug.

Re:Only in NZ

[syousef]

What a fantastic official response. If only managers in America would openly admit to being the dickheads they are...

He didn't admit to BEING a dickhead, just to the story making him look like one. Big difference.

Re:Only in NZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Bugger, bastard, bloody, shit-faced, wanker, etc

Our swear words are different than yours. The only one above which American TV considers offensive is shit.

Re:Only in NZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Except violence and gore really seem to bother SOME people.

fixed that for you.

America seems to have no problems with violence, but is terribly afraid of sex, but not sexuality. A movie starlet can wear a revealing dress, but if she performs any kind of suggestive act, the public(the media at least) are mortified. ie. superbowl's 'boobgate', madonna and britney's kiss. YAWN! here (Australia), but in the US: massive outrage and media outcry, because the fact that some people have sex seems shocking and disgusting to american mums and dads.

to me, both acts were PURELY contrived, because of the outcry and publicity(advertising) they would generate. in the case of 'boobgate' it was a slight misjudgement with regards to the response.

Re:Only in NZ

[Liam Pomfret]

They may not be swear words, but I never said they were. I would imagine however that you do consider their use fairly crude, and not something acceptable in polite, professional company. Over here....no one would give a damn.

Honesty vs Convienience

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Tough choice. I wonder how many people stopped paying after the self-scan stopped working.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[osgeek]

To not walk out of a store with unpaid-for products is a tough choice? How so? Unless there was some kind of life threatening emergency, I wouldn't even consider stealing. That half... HALF of the people that went into the store would walk out without paying is really disappointing.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working. You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around. You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort... Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[scharkalvin]

I once ate lunch at a 'greasy spoon' at the local general aviation airport before taking my plane out for some practice around the pattern. I forgot to pay for the meal (you have to go up to the resister to pay) on the way out because my mind was too involved with my pre-flight requirements. On the way out of the airport I stopped back in to the restaurant to pay the bill (a bit red in the face), also left a big tip!

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[StikyPad]

The people who opted not to pay probably don't own their own planes.

Not saying that makes it right by any means, just that your experience may not be representative.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[fishbowl]

I tried to buy something once through a self-scanner, and it rang up a remarkably lower price than it should have. I completed the checkout, paid, and then went to customer service to explain the issue. The customer service clerk looked at me as if I had nine heads, especially after scanning the item and seeing that the barcode scan gave the same price that my receipt said I'd paid. She then said something like, "no, you paid for this", clearly not understanding my motivation for mentioning it, so I left.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working.
You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around.
You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort...
Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".

If you're going to do that you should leave an I.O.U. with your name, phone number and Itemized list. This will protect you legally since an I.O.U is a legal form of payment if the other party accepts the I.O.U. Since, you could argue that that they accepted it by not telling you that you couldn't pay with it. So long as you make good on the note everything should be Okay.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you need your own plane, you just need to be honest. I've had an occasion where I accidentally shoplifted. I paid for my merchandise and noticed an item that I forgot to put on the belt to scan when I was loading my car. I went back in the store and told the greeter I was there to pay for a belt I'd forgotten about. He was happy to point me to customer service and they were happy to have me pay.

I felt a bit bad, though, as customer service had me point out the cashier that didn't pay attention to if my car was empty or not.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[mlts]

Doesn't take much to shuffle the basket aside, perhaps replace the refrigerated/frozen food items so they don't spoil and head out.

It may be inconvenient to go to another store, but I'm not the type of person who would steal for convenience's sake.

Don't forget what one would lose by making it out with a basket of unpaid goods, on different levels of ethics:

1: If someone has so poor ethics that they steal the relatively small cost of food and other grocery store goods, how can one ever trust that individual with big ticket items? If someone is willing to blow their good name on a cartful of groceries, how can one ever trust that person in any position whatsoever?

2: If one does get caught, here in the US, it means that getting a job becomes almost impossible. Employers check for *arrest* records, not convictions. A booking for *any* charge, no matter how small, can mean curtains for any type of career outside flipping burgers. Of course, a shoplifting conviction means mortal turpitude, and that is a virtual guarantee that someone's life will be free of any type of work other than minimum wage positions.

3: Civil bans. Wal-Mart enforces bans across all its stores. Someone on their no-entry list at one store tries to buy at another, the LP guys show up at the cashier and hold the person for the police for criminal trespass. Who in their right mind would want to risk being banned permanently from the grocery store they use all the time, if not the whole chain. It is only a matter of time before businesses cross-reference bans, similar to casinos (one ban in one LV Strip casino == banned from every one), and one wouldn't be allowed entry to *any* supermarket.

4: Civil demand letters. Wal-Mart automatically will levy a $225 fine against any shoplifter (reference found via Google.) Paying for groceries + gas (for driving to another store) is a heck of a lot cheaper than that.

I don't intend to bloviate about ethics. However, there are a lot of bad consequences that await someone who engages in petty larceny, not to mention what it shows about character.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Golddess]

Erm, not sure I see the link between being a pilot and returning later to pay for something you forgot or couldn't pay for at the time.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[MBGMorden]

Not quite the same thing, but I'd liken it to iTunes. iTunes basically took off not because people really wanted to pay for music very badly, but because they made getting legitimate music easier than pirating it, and price it such that paying really wasn't a huge deal. Getting caught doing this wasn't a huge detterent because almost no one ever got caught.

In the same light, many people might not have an issue paying for the groceries (even if they could take them without being caught) if it was quick and easy, but the instant the self-checkout breaks down paying becomes a hassle, and the risk of getting caught is still minimal.

A moral compass isn't binary. It happens in degrees, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that with little chance of consequences people will do the right thing, but only if it's convenient and easy.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Golddess]

She probably understood your motivation, but what was she to do? Call up a few other stores and find out what they were charging for the item? I suppose she could call her manager over and you eventually work your way up/across the chain of command until you get the person who set the prices...

If there is a price difference between what is on the shelf and what the computer rang it up as, I'd say the computer probably has the more up-to-date price. That doesn't mean they get to list one price on the shelf, but ring it up as a higher price. That'd likely fall under false advertising. But I don't think there's any issues with having an "unannounced sale" for lack of a proper term.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Kral_Blbec]

You forgot the very likely possibility of a social experiment with hidden cameras.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[VGPowerlord]

I tried to buy something once through a self-scanner, and it rang up a remarkably lower price than it should have. I completed the checkout, paid, and then went to customer service to explain the issue. The customer service clerk looked at me as if I had nine heads, especially after scanning the item and seeing that the barcode scan gave the same price that my receipt said I'd paid. She then said something like, "no, you paid for this", clearly not understanding my motivation for mentioning it, so I left.

I don't know about where you live, but where I do, once you've paid for the item, they can't change the price on you and insist you give them more money. However, they must fix it if they overcharged you (and give you extra money as well) due to the Michigan Pricing and Advertising of Consumer Items Act. Granted, said Act is being replaced with an updated version later this year to address automated systems like the one in question.

Heck, the retailers I worked for in the early 2000s, unless there was a huge error in the price, even if you pointed out the price was ringing up too low, we'd just give it to you for that price. We were required to fill out a form to give to management to fix it, though.

As a funny anecdote only tangentially related: As a cashier, I've seen an error where a can of baked beans rang up for $30,000+ before. I think it was an issue where the UPC was misread and prompted for the price on the screen, but instead accepted the next scanned item's UPC as the price, cutting off after 7 digits (12345.67). Strangely, scanning the item again after voiding came up with the correct price.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Doesn't take much to shuffle the basket aside, perhaps replace the refrigerated/frozen food items so they don't spoil and head out. It may be inconvenient to go to another store, but I'm not the type of person who would steal for convenience's sake.

While that would make sense if you knew that there was no way to pay ahead of time, by the time I'm done looking at items, deciding what I want to eat, and picking it up, I may have spent 30 minutes. It's an implicit bargin that I would be allowed to purchase those items that made me spend the time. I mean, it's more likely that I'll pay the next day (and I would intend to) than that the store will reimburse me for my time.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[StikyPad]

Really? You don't see a connection between socioeconomic condition and the relative value of food?

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[darkwing_bmf]

Or you could just come back Monday and pay with real money.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[osu-neko]

Really? You don't see a connection between socioeconomic condition and the relative value of food?

I see that someone might try to make such a connection. I don't see a valid connnection, no. But then again, I'm someone who's done the exact same thing, and at the time, I qualified for food-stamps.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[lazybeam]

Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working.
You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around.
You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort...
Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".

You tried to pay but they wouldn't accept it (cashier not around, scanner broken, etc) so my feeling is that walking out isn't so bad. Of course once you realise no-one's around and then take more stuff you wouldn't have paid for, that is much worse, and is proper stealing!

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[osu-neko]

A moral compass isn't binary. It happens in degrees, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that with little chance of consequences people will do the right thing, but only if it's convenient and easy.

This hits the nail right on the head. The fact of the matter is, more people are lazy than greedy, to a degree that they'll be honest, even if it costs, unless you make it too damned inconvenient. They'll be dishonest if you make honesty too much work...

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[osu-neko]

I don't know the cost of the item in question as you didn't mention it, but it should be noted that employee's time is frequently the most expensive thing on a company's books. It's frequently the case that it's cheaper for them to just let you have it at the obviously wrong price than to try to correct the issue immediately. The correcting of the price can wait until the next time they can conveniently update prices in the system (when the right person comes in or whatever), and they'll just eat the loss from now 'til then as it'll cost less than fixing it right now would. The clerk, though, should probably (definitely) have noted the item in question to pass the information on to the appropriate person -- sounds like this one may have just been clueless. Kudos for taking time to try to point it out, though...

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[TommydCat]

Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working. You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around. You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort... Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".

> West

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

>

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[StikyPad]

If there's not a valid connection, then let's meet for dinner at the local soup kitchen. We can sleep in a sleep in a shelter to save money. Oh, and we could eat bugs. They're free and plentiful, if you know where to look.

Or.... you could just admit that there's an obvious connection, and that people without means are willing to go to greater lengths than people WITH means, even if those lengths don't include (or excuse) stealing.

And that's all I was saying. That the life experience of the plane owner is as different from the average Joe as the average Joe's experience is from the impoverished. It's different when you have to make a choice between paying bills or buying food. I'm not saying it automatically turns people into criminals, nor am I taking a position on the moral and ethical aspect of stealing out of necessity; I'm just saying that the experiences are different enough that making any sort of comparison is basically useless (not to mention self-serving on the part of the OP).

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Anonymous Coward]

To not walk out of a store with unpaid-for products is a tough choice? How so? Unless there was some kind of life threatening emergency, I wouldn't even consider stealing. That half... HALF of the people that went into the store would walk out without paying is really disappointing.

According to the article a lot of people didnt even realize there was noone in the store when they walked in. Would you put all your products back in the fridge, freezer, etc? A lot of people probably felt a bit tricked, and decided that they already had all their stuff, so they were going to leave with it.

Honestly, if i was in that situation, I'd definitely consider leaving and simply making a list of what I bought to pay later. Hopefully it wouldnt be a very big grocery run....

Actually, the way i might do it is type all my upcs into a word doc, use an online bar code generator and print out a sheet of bar codes. That would be the easiest way to pay the store back the next time i went in there.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Kalriath]

Which would be illegal on Good Friday. Stores are forbidden from opening.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[drsquare]

Actually I think I remember a study somewhere in a company which had an honesty box for coffee and snacks or something, and the executives were most likely to rip it off.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[DavidTC]

If you're going to do that you should leave an I.O.U. with your name, phone number and Itemized list. This will protect you legally since an I.O.U is a legal form of payment if the other party accepts the I.O.U. Since, you could argue that that they accepted it by not telling you that you couldn't pay with it. So long as you make good on the note everything should be Okay.

Uh, no. An IOU is not a 'legal form of payment', because there is no such thing as 'legal form of payment'. Legally, you can pay for groceries with a paperclip, if the store accept it. (Do not confuse this with 'legal tender', which is for debts. You do not have a debt when buying stuff from a cashier.)

Now, if you were actually borrowing something, leaving your name and address might protect you...it's only theft if you intend to deprive the other person of it, which requires that you don't intend to return it. (Yes, really. I know your mother said otherwise. She was legally incorrect. Borrowing-with-intent-to-return is not theft, if you can prove you meant to return it before they were 'deprived' of it.), Leaving a way to be tracked down might help a claim that you intended to return it.

However, this doesn't work for purchases, which you are not intending to return, even if you leave your name. You're intending to keep them.

Also, perhaps rendering this all moot, how the hell do you total up your purchases if all the stupid displays are asking for alcohol authorization? You can't write 'IOU some amount of money'.

Before you say 'People should know math', the price usually isn't printed on the goods, so unless you have a really good memory, that's not going to be an option. (And then you have to figure out taxes, which are not obvious and are different rates for different items, although it's possible NZ has them easier.)

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[DavidTC]

Fuck putting the refrigerated items back. I'm not stealing the stuff, but they just wasted thirty minutes of my time, they aren't wasting any more of it.

If they're lucky, they might get me calling the police for them.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[StikyPad]

Indeed, but that doesn't dispute the idea that socioeconomic conditions affect behavior choices; it just reinforces it in an unexpected way.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working. You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around. You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort... Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".

> West

Adam West, Adam West....

>

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[JTsyo]

It seems even those that stole, just took their usual grocery and didn't loot the store. It wouldn't be surprising if one told his friends and word spread and a few came down to loot the deserted store.

Re:Honesty vs Convienience

[Rob the Bold]

To not walk out of a store with unpaid-for products is a tough choice? How so? Unless there was some kind of life threatening emergency, I wouldn't even consider stealing. That half... HALF of the people that went into the store would walk out without paying is really disappointing.

If I incorporate myself, then I'd be returning value to my shareholders.

Free Beer!!!

[ae1294]

So after the Zombie uprising I won't have to break into places because they now open themselves regardless of if anyone is there to watch over them?

Re:Free Beer!!!

[MBGMorden]

No - rather you won't be save inside modern shopping malls because it's going to unlock and let all the zombies in :).

My thought has always been that I'll just hangout in my attic in the event of a zombie apocalypse. I could make access (cutting a hole) to the roof if need be to get away - there is no way up into the attic without pulling down a draw string that can easily be retracted - AND I could "borrow" into my pantry to retrieve groceries as needed (assuming I didn't have time to move all the canned goods up ahead of time).

Whether I there or head out though, I've still got a "survival" bag to take with me. It's got emergency blankets, rain ponchos, gun, ammo, knives, a hatchet, first aid kit, canteen, fishing gear, matches, compass, tarp, rope, etc. in it just in case.

And yes, I've thought about this WAY too much :D (and in reality the bag is more just for "general purpose emergency use" than for zombies)

Re:Free Beer!!!

[Tumbleweed]

(and in reality the bag is more just for "general purpose emergency use" than for zombies)

It would be better to make it a multipurpose apocalypse bag. Silver bullets will still kill zombies (if you shoot them in the head), but will also work on other supernatural creatures, etc. Multi-purpose in your "go bag" is always a good thing.

I recommend a six-demon bag, too. :)

Re:Free Beer!!!

[afidel]

You know what, my survival kit has bluetip matches in paraffin but I'll probably never use the matches because I also have a couple BIC's and a mini-torch, should both of those fail I'm just as likely to use the flint from the BIC's to start a fire as I am the matches. Of course the paraffin is a good idea for starting wet kindling and the matches don't take up that much additional volume so I guess it's ok as a last resort .

The one thing I didn't see in your list is Iodine tabs/water purifier, the canteen isn't going to do you much good if you can't make water potable, though perhaps that's in the etc column =)

Re:Free Beer!!!

[oneiros27]

He's not saying that he's planning on camping out in the store during the zombie apocalypse ... just that'll be easier to resupply.

You won't have to smash in the windows, which (1) attracts zombies who hear the noise, (2) risks injury (getting cut on the glass), and (3) takes time & enercy if it's reinforced glass.

Of course, this also assumes that the power stays on, which might not be the case.

Re:Free Beer!!!

[Shadyman]

Or just break out your trusty set of lockpicks?

Be careful to not misinterpret

[shutdown -p now]

About half of the 24 people who came into the supermarket paid for their groceries using the self-scan service

Note that this doesn't say that all 24 people who came into the supermarket took anything in the first place. I can easily see some going in and filling the shopping cart, but then noticing that registers are unmanned and leaving the cart in the shop (if e.g. the person doesn't feel like using self-checkout, or doesn't know how).

It would be interesting to know how many actually didn't pay for something that they took.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[osgeek]

Well, yeah. That's a good point. Some did just stroll out with merchandise, though.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[malignant_minded]

and could probably be easily found too if anyone really cared. There may very well be cameras on the outside parking lot that caught license plates. All in all I think it is a good indication of the average morality of people. How long is it before stores function in this way anyway with only self checkout and no personnel? You could simply scan a drivers license for alcohol and provide a fingerprint as double verification. With the nanny state upon us it could easily be implemented with an equal amount of flaws as the current verification.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but maybe some people really needed milk for their Easter Feast or baby formula but the automated register had stop working. So they'll come in on Monday and pay for the food.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

Just leaving the cart would most likely result in spoilage (assuming something was from the refrigerated section). Thus they would still have stolen profits; they just didn't benefit from them. But causing the product to spoil is still something that costs the business. I wonder if anyone found no cashiers and then went and put the products BACK? Probably nobody did that.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[gnapster]

I'll bet they counted the people using CCTV footage, so they would know exactly how many people there were and whether they paid, and whether they left their merchandise behind. My question is, were there 24 customers total, or were there only 24 customers who left with goods?

My hypothetical fantasy: there were 12 people who paid at the self-checkout, 6 who made it to the register and abandoned their goods, 3 who took their shopping with them without paying, and two who tried to lift everything they could transport away.

Shopper No. 24 was a hacker who, upon realizing that the store was unmanned, hacked into one of the regular registers and acted as his own cashier.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[mdielmann]

In point of fact, a poorly-thought-out system cost them profits. If the store requires that someone be there to cash out customers, why not just leave the door locks manual and give the management staff who will be there during store hours keys to the doors?

Besides, it's pretty clear that the loss of profits had a great deal to do with no one being there to take the money from at least half of the potential customers.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[shutdown -p now]

I'll bet they counted the people using CCTV footage, so they would know exactly how many people there were and whether they paid, and whether they left their merchandise behind. My question is, were there 24 customers total, or were there only 24 customers who left with goods?

Per TFA, the store opened at 8am, and was closed at 9:20am. Given that it is a holiday, I wouldn't expect many people trying to shop around at this time, so 24 customers sounds legit.

But yeah, it's clear from TFA that they have all records from cameras, so they know exactly how many there are. It's just that it's not in the article (or worded such that it is unclear).

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[MBGMorden]

Not only that but maybe some people really needed milk for their Easter Feast or baby formula but the automated register had stop working. So they'll come in on Monday and pay for the food.

I'm sure there were other shops around that could have sold them those items. Hell I work in a very small town (population is roughly 6,000) and there are no less than 5 grocery stores in town to choose from (plus a myriad of smaller stores that also carry necessities like baby formula and eggs). I don't think "it was an emergency" will hold up.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[mooingyak]

I'll bet they counted the people using CCTV footage

More likely they have some traffic counters installed. (linked to the first one that came up in google since wikipedia didn't have an article that I could find.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[gnapster]

Well, yes, that is a possibility. But TFA quotes the store owner talking about the video footage of the morning's first shopper, who apparently shopped for 20 minutes, used the self-checkout, and left without realizing the store was empty.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[gnapster]

Per /. protocol, I did not read TFA until after making the above comment. I feel vindicated!

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[camperdave]

If this were Canada, the other twelve people would still be waiting in line for the checkout clerk to come back.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Shopper 25 was the hacker.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Kalriath]

I'm sure there were other shops around that could have sold them those items

Not on Good Friday there isn't.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, supermarkets aren't allowed to be open in NZ on Easter Friday, so it wasn't as if those people "didn't notice". They would have known the store was meant to be closed.

Apparently the supermarket gave those "customers" the option of paying for the goods they took, with proceeds going to the Christchurch earthquake appeal.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, supermarkets aren't allowed to be open in NZ on Easter Friday

How many people know that supermarkets have to be closed?

I certainly didn't know that while I studied in NZ for 2.5 years.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh only becuase I have relatives in Canada :)

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[MBGMorden]

Depends. They're in New Zealand so I'm not sure how it works there, but VERY few retail establishments closed here on Good Friday. I'm willing to be that it was at least semi-expected that some stores would be open there too, given the number of people that actually were out trying to shop.

Re:Be careful to not misinterpret

[Kalriath]

I'm in New Zealand, and I assure you - it is illegal for any establishment except foodservice, accommodation, or gas stations to open (there are some other edge cases as well, but supermarkets are not among them) on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, or Christmas Day.

It's Alive!

[Compaqt]

/. continues to chronicle the rise of SkyNet...

I'm honest

[ShavedOrangutan]

Really. I've gone back in to pay for an item that I found in the bottom of the cart, BUT...

For all the time I've waited at the self checkout line for someone to punch the "over 21" button so I could continue scanning my items, I think I might just walk out and consider the bonus earned.


(If we have one of the self checkout software developers here: PLEASE let me continue scanning and require the ID before I pay, instead of halting the entire process.)

Re:I'm honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how many IDs have barcodes on the back, I'm surprised that you can't just scan your ID.

Re:I'm honest

[WRX SKy]

The grocery store by me updated their software to allow scanning to continue while waiting for someone to come over. My faith in humanity has been restored.

Re:I'm honest

[bunratty]

Then teenagers would "borrow" their parent's or brother's or friend's ID card. My local store has changed their system so the ID check comes after scanning all the items, but of course a person has to make sure the picture matches.

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

(If we have one of the self checkout software developers here: PLEASE let me continue scanning and require the ID before I pay, instead of halting the entire process.)

I agree, that's one of the most annoying parts of the checkout scanner -- I generally want to scan alcohol first so I can put it in the bottom of the bag, but when I do that, I sit and wait helplessly for the single clerk that is manning 6 self-checkouts. Though the *most* annoying problem is when the scanner tells me I have to bag my item before continuing and I've already bagged it!

2 other pet peeves:

First, use image recognition to help identify fruits/vegetables (or at least narrow down the list) for those that don't have the little plastic tags - it takes forever to scroll through the list looking for my potato.... why can't they take a picture of it and make a best-guess of the top 5 or 10 items it could be and let me pick one of those items, instead of making me scroll through a huge list of items. Color alone would let them eliminate green leafy vegetables from the list when I scan a potato. Or, at the very least, they should put the produce codes on the shelf so I can write it down or remember it at the checkout. The non-self service clerks have a handy paper flip-book that they can use (though they seem to remember almost all of them without looking them up).

Secondly, when I put my backpack on the bagging shelf before I start scanning anything, zero the bagging scale at that point and let me load my scanned items directly into my backpack. The way it works now, I'm told to remove the unauthorized item from the bagging shelf and I have to put my backpack on the floor, then scan items and stack them on the shelf, then after I'm done paying I have to load the items from the shelf to my backpack, while the person behind me waits to checkout.

Re:I'm honest

[SydShamino]

The ones near me have fixed both of your other pet peeves.

1. The numbers are on the items in the produce section. You can weigh them there, enter the code, and get a printed-out barcode to put on the bag. Then at the register you can treat them as any other pre-coded merchandise. Honest obviously applies.

2. Just after you start, before you scan the first item, there's a button on the screen that says "My Bag". Press that button, and the screen tells you to place your bags in the bagging area. There's a large "Done" button to press when finished. At this point, alas, it does wait for the attendee, I assume to verify that you placed only empty bags in the bagging area, but I've never seen an attendee more than glance my way before they clear this. Then it returns to the other screen and you can proceed with scanning, with your bags all zeroed out.

Re:I'm honest

[fishbowl]

What I took from this story is that New Zealand has an age-based prohibition on alcohol.

Re:I'm honest

[hedwards]

Would you trust a store to access the DOL records?

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

Ahh, you must be in Europe -- my first encounter with weigh-produce-first was in an Irish supermarket when the bemused clerk had to send me back to weigh my produce. I've never seen a store in the USA that does that.

It definitely makes a lot of sense to do it that way -- it speeds the checkout line even for non-self-service lines.

The "My Bag" button sounds perfect, though requiring that someone verify the bag makes it less useful. In my store where the self-service attendant appears to always be busy, it's probably faster for me to continue my practice of just putting my goods on the checkout shelf, then bagging them into my bag on the floor when I'm done.

Re:I'm honest

[houghi]

I never use the self check line. Never. The reason is that it is a small contribution of me keeping people at work and not have them replaced by machines.

I gladly pay with the few minutes it costs me.

Re:I'm honest

[vlm]

Secondly, when I put my backpack on the bagging shelf before I start scanning anything, zero the bagging scale at that point and let me load my scanned items directly into my backpack.

Training people to put stuff on the shelf without paying for it is probably a bad habit to encourage. The other problem has to do with reliability... Those scales are dramatically less accurate than you probably think. Fundamentally, they act as lie detectors where they only pose a security threat to those who really believe in them. So your algorithm is pretty complicated, do you take the max seen or the min seen or... And how do you "really" know your zero is not drifting if you don't enforce at least some minimal time interval of enforced zero?

Re:I'm honest

[vlm]

The non-self service clerks have a handy paper flip-book that they can use (though they seem to remember almost all of them without looking them up).

I can assure you thru extensive personal experience, having worked my way thru school at a retail grocery store, that 99% of all produce dept sales come from 1% of the products. Bananas, Apples, lettuce, cucumbers, grapes, peppers, mushrooms, that's about it. Things like kiwi fruit are stocked for the "ambiance", virtually no one buys them, and they get tossed out as a decorative expense when they start looking bad. Ditto the coconuts, star fruit, etc. Furthermore, there may be 12 slightly different kinds of apples, all with very slightly different prices, but very often the same code will be used by lazy clerks. Finally, many produce depts operate on something remarkably like the salad bar model of you can buy as much as you want at a couple bucks per pound. I worked at a place that did crude unofficial audits of inventory using a flat rate per pound assumption... Also they trained us when receiving shipments from the warehouse to not waste time adding up values, but to go based on a typical dollar value per pallet. If it came from produce, ring it up as apples and you're pretty much close enough that no one will ever complain, neither management nor customers. Produce is not at all like the meat dept where you have a dynamic range of about 20 dB, from 25 cent/pound bones for dogs right next to 25 dollar/pound prime beef tenderloin...

Re:I'm honest

[VGPowerlord]

The other way I've seen of addressing the produce problem is one where there's a camera above each scanner, so if you put your produce on the scanner, the cashier can look it up instead (there was a button to get their attention).

Most of the common produce codes are already known by the cashiers.

Re:I'm honest

[Capt. Skinny]

My god people, are your supermarket lines really that long? Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the self-checkouts when you have something that requires clerk verification or searching through a list of produce? In my experience self-checkouts are a net loss: they might save a couple minutes here and there when I can go through without a hitch, but more often than not it just takes longer than waiting in line -- poorly calibrated touch screens, "please bag item" requirements, produce selection, age verification for all kinds of crap (ID required to buy carb cleaner!?! Anyone huffing that shit doesn't have brain cells worth saving anyway).

Re:I'm honest

[dave562]

I'm with you on that one. I used to pay all of my bills by mail because of the same theory. I stopped doing that though when someone told me that on the receiving end, the process is automated. There is nobody there to actually open the envelopes and retrieve the checks and pay slips.

Re:I'm honest

[Sloppy]

The reason is that it is a small contribution of me keeping people at work and not have them replaced by machines.

Eww, replacing people with machines is desirable. It frees up the people to do something more important, instead of a tedious job of threshing grain, carrying buckets of water, digging trenches with shovels, or adding up columns of numbers. (Or writing variations of the same subroutine over and over -- yep, part of the job of a programmer is to replace himself.) The point of technological progress is to make things cheaper (which also often leads to making it practical to make things better) and ultimately, making things cheaper always comes down to not wasting peoples' time on tedious things that could be automated.

And yet, your conclusion is correct anyway. What's fucked up about self-checkout is that it isn't technological progress, because it doesn't replace a person with a machine; it just replaces a person with another person. And the new person (the customer) is less well practiced/skilled at the activity than the old person (checkout clerk). If anything, the expert is so good at the job that they're mentally on auto-pilot anyway, so you could even argue it replaces a (semi-) machine with a person, making it a technological regression. (Ah, the joys of externalizing costs.) It's sort of like they're un-invented the assembly line by selling assemble-it-yourself kits.

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

I never use the self check line. Never. The reason is that it is a small contribution of me keeping people at work and not have them replaced by machines.

I gladly pay with the few minutes it costs me.

Then why are you going to a grocery store large enough to have automated checkout stands? You should be supporting your neighborhood grocer, getting your produce from a local produce market or farmer's market, getting your meat from the local butcher, and your bread from the local baker. People like you that shop at mega-chain grocery stores are putting butchers and bakers out of business!

I, on the other hand, am happy to support efficient businesses - I purchase a *lot* of stuff from Amazon - even some grocery staples. If Amazon can 2-day ship something for less money than a local store sells it for, why should I have to pay a local markup for a product I don't need to see before I purchase?

Some things are better seen or tried-on in person - like shoes, and sometimes clothes, though I can generally buy a shirt in the mail and it fits me just fine.

Oh, and I do pay use-tax on Amazon purchases so I'm not using Amazon just to save (nearly 10%!) on sales tax. I have a small business and want to keep my financials clean, so I do pay my use-tax on all of my non-taxed online purchases.

Re:I'm honest

[c6gunner]

And the new person (the customer) is less well practiced/skilled at the activity than the old person (checkout clerk). If anything, the expert is so good at the job that they're mentally on auto-pilot anyway, so you could even argue it replaces a (semi-) machine with a person, making it a technological regression. (Ah, the joys of externalizing costs.) It's sort of like they're un-invented the assembly line by selling assemble-it-yourself kits.

Yeah, I said the same thing when they made slavery illegal. How am I supposed to make coffee and cook breakfast as efficiently as my boy did? Talk about technological regression!

Re:I'm honest

[IICV]

Actually, if you or the people in front of you are getting a lot of produce, it may very well be worth your time to go through a cashier line; cashiers generally have all of the produce codes memorized and know that they can look at a sticker on the item to get it if the need to, while the idiot in front of you probably has to scroll through the entire list of fruits and vegetables to get to the one he wants because he doesn't understand what the numbers on the sticker are for.

Re:I'm honest

[darkwing_bmf]

Maybe we'd all be better off without the law in the first place. You're 12, you want to spend your income from mowing lawns on beer and cigs, go for it.

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

And yet, your conclusion is correct anyway. What's fucked up about self-checkout is that it isn't technological progress, because it doesn't replace a person with a machine; it just replaces a person with another person. And the new person (the customer) is less well practiced/skilled at the activity than the old person (checkout clerk).

In my store, they have 6 self-checkouts with a single line. So if there are 5 people in the regular checkout line, and 10 people in the self-check line, I can still get through faster by using the self checkout since I only have to wait (on average) for 2 people to complete their self-checkout purchase instead of waiting for 5 people to complete their clerk-assisted checkout.

I'm happy to scan my own groceries if it means I get out of the store faster. There are many more things I'd rather do than wait in line for checkout, I'm not doing anything useful while I'm standing in line, so I'm fine with having to expend a little work to scan my own groceries to get out of the store faster.

Re:I'm honest

[osu-neko]

I never use the self check line. Never. The reason is that it is a small contribution of me keeping people at work and not have them replaced by machines.

I'd rather see people working at jobs that require people, rather than wasting time doing tasks to mindless they can be done (and frankly done better) by a machine. And, gods help me, I seem to get the "chatty" ones far too often. I need some polite way of letting people know their incessant chatter is making it really hard for me to pretend they don't exist.

For some reason, my friends think I'm antisocial... ;)

Re:I'm honest

[osu-neko]

You should be supporting your neighborhood grocer... People like you that shop at mega-chain grocery stores are putting butchers and bakers out of business!

My neighborhood grocer? A place to buy meat and bread that's not part of a mega-chain?

I'm not sure where you live, but it's simply not possible to do what you suggest for most of us who don't own time machines.

Re:I'm honest

[thesandtiger]

While I like the sentiment, I think you might be contributing to the problem in a way.

If we had systems such that we could routinely and easily replace some jobs with machines, and we actually deployed those systems as much as possible, we'd ultimately wind up hurrying along the day where we finally change our underlying systems to reflect the massive increases in productivity we have achieved.

I work a 40 hour week (usually more) as my mother did. Yet, because of advances in tech, I am vastly more productive than she was at her job. Even worse, proportionately to executive wages, I'm paid less than my mom was despite doing vastly more work and contributing more to the bottom line.

Once we hit a point where we have permanently high (25% or so) unemployment there will have to be a change to the way things run or there will be armed revolt. I say hurry that day along rather than artificially delaying it.

Also, I always get stuck behind someone who causes trouble and a delay when I don't use self checkout.

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

You should be supporting your neighborhood grocer... People like you that shop at mega-chain grocery stores are putting butchers and bakers out of business!

My neighborhood grocer? A place to buy meat and bread that's not part of a mega-chain?

I'm not sure where you live, but it's simply not possible to do what you suggest for most of us who don't own time machines.

Then you shouldn't lament the loss of jobs by people being replaced my machines if your lifestyle is contributing to the loss of jobs in the grocery service industry. You needn't go back in time, just use care when choosing where to live.

Within 4 blocks of my house, I have several neighborhood grocery stores, 2 produce markets, a butcher and a baker. And I do actually use those shops (I walk or past several of them on my way home from work), but once every couple of weeks I go to the big grocery store to pick up staples are aren't available at the smaller stores.

Re:I'm honest

[BradleyUffner]

Ahh, you must be in Europe -- my first encounter with weigh-produce-first was in an Irish supermarket when the bemused clerk had to send me back to weigh my produce. I've never seen a store in the USA that does that.

Giant (http://www.giantfoodstores.com) here in the central PA area of the US has been doing it for a few years now.

Re:I'm honest

[selven]

Classic broken window fallacy there. If you went for the self-check line, the money saved by you and the store would have instead gone toward employing someone to actually do something useful.

Re:I'm honest

[adolf]

Yeah, I said the same thing when they made slavery illegal. How am I supposed to make coffee and cook breakfast as efficiently as my boy did? Talk about technological regression!

This is what wives are for. When they're not cleaning, tending to offspring, fellating, or working to pay the mortgage, they should be cooking -- and making coffee.

Hope this helps. :)

Re:I'm honest

[adolf]

Or it could have gone into lower prices, in a race toward the bottom.

Or it could have gone toward paying higher dividends to shareholders.

Or it could have gone toward any number of other things other than employing someone to do something useful, like keeping the lights on longer before being run out of business by Wal-Mart.

Not that I'm in favor of paying people to do useless things, or that I'm attempting to imply that any of the things I've listed here are bad in some way. I just want to point out that just because a store saves money on self checkouts vs. having a cashier run the till, does not mean that their savings will automatically be put into the employment of a productive employee.

Re:I'm honest

[DavidTC]

Dude, where do you live that you have '4 blocks' nearby and can walk?

Do you even know what America looks like? You have described...New York. That's about it.

Re:I'm honest

[DavidTC]

The broken window fallacy is when you destroy goods in order to stimulate the economy. Saying 'I will choose interactions that require human employees' is not the same thing at all.

In fact, the entire argument is stupid, as the breaking windows is correct, from the POV of what the parent is trying to do, which is keep people employed.

I love how so many people have internalized 'Everyone must do what is best of the economy' that they bring up the 'broken windows fallacy' in non-economic situations.

Breaking the windows of a store does not help 'the economy' in a global sense. And wasting the resources of a store by deliberately choosing interactions that require humans doesn't help the economy in a global sense. Those things are true.

But it sure as fuck help glass manufacturers, or, in this example, minimum wage cashiers, at the expense of the store.

And, you know what? Fuck the store. The parent, and me, will support the min wage cashier instead. We have rightly realized that giant corporations don't pass any savings on to anyone, so doesn't even slightly matter what we do.

I get the exact sort of bullshit in response when I talk about how offshoring is bad. I don't care if it helps the giant abstract economy. I will cheerfully admit it does that, but I don't fucking care at all. I care that it, you know, actually doesn't seem to help any actual workers, and harms quite a few. We do not exist to be ground up by 'the economy' and spit out.

Re:I'm honest

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it went to lower prices, rampant consumerism wouldn't possibly result in it being spent in purchasing more goods? Therefore employing people.

Paying shareholders? I'm sure they'll just light it on fire, not spend it on a product requiring the useful employment of someone to make it.

Ultimately, money goes to employ someone. The exceptions are the rare cases where someone socks it away under their mattress. So the question is, would I rather have someone employed checking out my groceries, or doing something useful?

(Of course, as pointed out elsewhere, it's not like that anyway -- we're operating on the assumption that checking out groceries is useless and should/shouldn't be done by a machine instead of a cashier. In reality, it's done by slow, clumsy, irritated shoppers instead of a well-practiced cashier. Which is why I don't use self-checkouts -- if you're gonna make me do the work, you can damn well pay me with a self-checkout discount.)

Re:I'm honest

[hawguy]

I described any sizable city in the USA - NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, even Austin and Denver.

Walkable neighborhoods are not that hard to find, but walkability usually comes with density, which often means a city.

Re:I'm honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like kiwi fruit are stocked for the "ambiance",

Screw that, I stock up on Kiwis whenever they go on sale, 3 for a dollar typically.

Starfruit is awesome, but costs an arm and a leg.

Re:I'm honest

[SydShamino]

No, Texas. And yes, just using the shelf does remain faster for smaller loads.

More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Que_Ball]

So I infer from the description that if those first customers did not lock up all the checkouts by scanning in Alcohol perhaps more of the later customers could have also paid for their purchases.

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Super Dave Osbourne]

Taking anything in most societies without paying is theft, in some cases you lose a hand. In some you get people hoping you come back and do the right thing. The mechanism or justification of theft doesn't override the intent and in many cases the consequences. I wish people would stop trying to infer that somehow equipment, technology or something A, B or C is somehow responsible or justifies the actions of criminals.

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[SydShamino]

Not that I agree with not paying in any way, but I'm curious: would you consider it necessary for them to put all their merchandise back before they leave? Or can they just leave the cart at the front and walk out? What about any refrigerated items? Should they be responsible for those if they leave the cart and they spoil? What if the person is managing a small child or two? Maybe they don't have time to put everything back. Maybe they or a loved one have a medical condition that requires them to get home quickly.

Would it be okay for them to slip a check, or maybe an IOU, under the manager's door and leave with their items?

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[The Flymaster]

More to the point, what if you really needed that butter, couldn't pay because the register was locked, and planned to return on Monday with cash? Is that so bad?

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving the cart with dry items wouldn't be stealing or destruction of property. And would be fair because a little hard work for the manager for being a dumbass is fair play. :)

Leaving items unrefrigerated wouldn't be theft, but would be destruction of property, and that's also wrong. And yes, if they spoil (which they would) would mean that the person who did it is responsible for them (payment and cleanup is needed).

If you don't have time to put the stuff back, and you can legitimately prove it (due to emergency), you would probably be off the hook (maybe not legally, but morally). But, seriously, we're talking, what... 5 minutes to return the refrigerated items? There's usually just an outside wall or two and one aisle. It wouldn't take long. Hell, if you're lazy, you could visit any freezer for the frozen stuff and dump it all there, and one fridge for the fridge items and dump them all there. Sure, it's a mess, but at least then you didn't ruin anything. That'd take maybe 1 minute.

If you have a medical condition that requires you to be somewhere at a certain time, I imagine you would ensure that your shopping trip had some extra time in case of a slow line (in this case there was none!).

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Anonymous Coward]

They said that half of the people who entered the store paid. They didn't say that half stole. That other half might have entered the supermarket, picked stuff, noticed the checkout was locked and leave without taking anything.

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Super Dave Osbourne]

Moving stuff around a store and not putting it back is just a hassle to the establishment, but not illegal. Changing price tags is illegal, intent to defraud. Leaving with groceries not paid is illegal, theft. Scanning one's own items, paying in full and leaving is perfectly cool. Not putting items back on the shelf is fine, a problem but not theft and not likely illegal unless the intent is to disrupt the establishments ability to conduct business. Then it would seem more of a civil matter for the court to take up and settle for loss of revenue of damages due to cost of restocking. I think it would be fine with a check as long as there was a way for the check-rite system to work without a cashier. As for the store shutting down and being an inconvenience to the shopper, the shopper does have a rite to file with the BBB (at least in the USA) and also blog online about the situation. In other countries, that may vary. A legal IOU signed is indeed a civil note and in most countries would be substantial evidence of the person's debt and recoverable. These are my views, some of sound and founded and others are speculative.

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Super Dave Osbourne]

That is a good point, and the intent is/was good. However, it still sadly constitutes theft due leaving without payment. Now, leave and IOU might be different. It really depends on what kind of agreement you have with the establishment. If it was so tight you could leave and come back and pay in full later, likely you would know the owner and/or managers and call them or the police and have this whole thing settled in a matter of minutes (maybe 10-15). If you were that close to them, sticking around to pay in full would not be an issue, and strengthen the bond you have with your local grocer. My take on all of this is the people that took and didn't pay were thieves, knowingly taking without paying and thinking they would not get caught. Whether or not is an inconvenience that the registered were locked up or not is certainly not at all justification for what is right or wrong. If someone thinks stealing food from a store is justifiable at any level, for any reason, then we are moving to a third world model of rioting/looting thinking before the catastrophe even hits. Image what it will be like when folks are actually in need of food/services and the options are not even available (gasp, third world as usual).

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[green1]

I think that it would still be an interesting data point to know. I'm not saying it would be right to take stuff if there is no way to pay for it, but I'm definitely curious to see if people were more honest with working self-checkouts than when they had no way to pay at all. Call it a social experiment.

We know that theft goes up as the ease of doing so increases and as the perceived consequences decrease. (That's why we lock our door, not because it makes theft impossible, but because it makes it harder. Also why we have security cameras (especially the fake ones), it increases the perceived consequences of the action (they think they'll be caught)) This would give us a gauge on the other end of things where instead of gauging the ease of the theft we gauge the ease of doing the right thing and see what effect that has on theft.

To clarify, I believe that taking merchandise from a store without paying is very wrong and should not be done. My question here is not one of legality, or morality, my question here is one of psychology or sociology.

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we're nice people. I think people deserve some thanks for their good work. That way, I motivate them to do more for me in the future.
Burning bridges is not a wise strategy.
Especially, since we humans base so much of our success on teamwork. :)

Re:More would have paid if checkouts didn't lock

[osu-neko]

I wish people would stop trying to infer that somehow equipment, technology or something A, B or C is somehow responsible or justifies the actions of criminals.

The person you're responding to didn't do that. They merely made a statement that is, to the best of my ability to judge, a 100% correct assessment of what events would have transpired under the hypothetical situation proposed. What conclusion you draw from it are your own responsibility. OP certainly didn't say anything like what you just said.

Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

From all of the claims the *AA made, I would have expected an empty store and 0 paying customers.

Re:Fascinating

[Americium]

Well it's not America. Just look how long it look for looting to start in Japan, compared to Katrina. Cultures with history and a lack of diversity seem to get along much better.

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

If it were open like this every day, and kids could see their friends go in and take items out of the store without paying day after day, yes the store would be empty soon. During disasters, looters take items from unguarded stores because they see others getting away with it and take advantage of the situation. Sometimes it even happens when the store is guarded, but the looters overwhelm the people guarding the store. At that point, the guards may decide to take drastic action, such as stating that looters will be shot. At least you can take comfort that the RIAA hasn't gone that far.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It's worth noting that 'looting' usually follows something pretty big and serious happening. Otherwise all shopping centers would require armed security at all times.

Re:Fascinating

[MickyTheIdiot]

If this were to happen in Japan, they'd have 90% or more that would have paid. They are a society that loves rules and order and (to an extent) they still believe in personal honor.

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

The problem is that once there's no security and some people realize that they can take without being punished, that releases a flood of people who will overwhelm anyone but armed security. That's why all stores have some type of security and typically prosecute shoplifters. If they didn't, they'd be looted. On the Internet, there is no security, so downloaders feel free to download whatever they want without paying, thinking they'll never be caught.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The problem is that once there's no security and some people realize that they can take without being punished, that releases a flood of people who will overwhelm anyone but armed security.

It's not just that, there's always something like a natural disaster motivating it. Again, if it were just as simple as you're saying, it'd be a huge free-for-all.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory reference to Nazi Germany.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

This the same Japan that had looting at breweries damaged by the earthquake?

Although I suppose that's an exception, it being a crime against nature to waste beer.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, alternatively, during a natural disaster there are more people starving to death due to circumstances outside of everyone's control and "moral behavior" is a few steps higher on Maslow's hierarchy than "eat to live".

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is flawed. New Zealand has a shorter (Western) history than the USA and has a similar level of diversity. Therefore NZ, the USA and Japan don't fit a tidy trend like you try to present. Having visited each of these countries myself, the difference I see is that there is a greater proportion of Americans who feel an obligation* to be arseholes.

* of the "use your rights or lose them" type.

Re:Fascinating

[richlv]

yes the store would be empty soon

i'm having a problem following your analogy. so you are saying the downloaders will empty the internet soon ?

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the LA riots were fueled by a natural disaster. Right....
 
You're full of crap and you know it. It happens around a natural disaster because it's a matter of survival in some cases. It happens like the LA riots and around stuff like the G8 because these events create a diversion.
 
And you're a crappy human being.

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

If people can take without paying, they'll do it. Just the way they download music and movies without paying currently.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're full of crap and you know it.

I might realize it if you weren't supporting my point.

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

Yeah, sort of like the free-for-all of people downloading music and movies for free, huh? Or like the looting during the NY blackout of 1977 -- that had nothing to do with people having to steal to survive a natural disaster either. When people realize they can get away with something they shouldn't do, many people do take advantage of the situation.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yeah, sort of like the free-for-all of people downloading music and movies for free, huh?

Not really, nothing (i.e. revenue) has actually been reported missing.

When people realize they can get away with something they shouldn't do, many people do take advantage of the situation.

Yeah, that's why this store was completely emptied and nobody paid, right?

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

If you look at one of the first posts in this story, you'll see the claim that currently 90% of people download instead of paying, and that if the RIAA were nice only 50% would do so. If this is true, wouldn't downloading cause lower revenues?

My point was that the store wasn't open long enough for people to realize they could get away without paying. If it were open every day, and anyone could see people going into the store and taking out goods without paying, yes, it would be emptied soon. This is the situation we currently have with downloading. Most people realize they can get away with it, so they do it without paying. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur with this statement. After living in the U.S. for several years now, I'd also guess that a good number of those 10% who you refer to who would not have paid would be Americans on holiday there.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If you look at one of the first posts in this story, you'll see the claim that currently 90% of people download instead of paying, and that if the RIAA were nice only 50% would do so. If this is true, wouldn't downloading cause lower revenues?

You would expect so. But in reality, there hasn't been a drop in revenue that paralells an increase in 'piracy'. What has happened is sales have gone up. In fact, I think it was 2009 that movie sales had reached an all time high. (I may have the year wrong.)

If it were open every day, and anyone could see people going into the store and taking out goods without paying, yes, it would be emptied soon.

Of course it would, by that point it's assumed that it's intentional. In the mean time, they HAD shoppers there and like half of them paid. On the flip side, we have retail all over the place with a very low shop-lifting rates and virtually no real 'security'. The assumption that everybody's a thief just waiting for an opportunity has not played out.

Most people realize they can get away with it, so they do it without paying. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

In 2003 the RIAA claimed two billion (yes, billion with a B) songs were being traded a month. They had record sales that year. If two billion songs were really getting traded at the expense of spending money, that'd turn up on some sales report somewhere. A document like that would have been pure gold for the RIAA's case, but it never materialized. In the last 8 years, piracy has only gotten easier,. During that time, iTunes has grown more and more successful.

I'm being told that masses of people are thieves but nobody's showing me proof of it. So, yes, it is hard for me to understand.

Re:Fascinating

[osu-neko]

When people realize they can get away with something they shouldn't do, many people do take advantage of the situation.

Most, however, do not. If the majority were like that, looting would occur 24/7 even without blackouts or disasters, given that there aren't enough police in the world to stop them, and they'd pretty much all get away with it if they were the majority.

What makes police necessary is that there are people like that. What makes police effective rather than a futile gesture is that these people are the minority.

Re:Fascinating

[bunratty]

Survey says... Illegal downloads rife. Don't let this stop you from making a lame excuse for dismissing the survey results because they're inconvenient to your belief system.

Re:Fascinating

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Don't let this stop you from making a lame excuse for dismissing the survey results because they're inconvenient to your belief system.

Heh. I like how 'show me the losses' is a 'belief system', but a small sample survey from a country that gets everything last is irrefutable fact.

He said the survey showed Kiwis were willing to pay for products, but they were frustrated with supply.

Oh lookie lookie. Thank you for sharing that with me.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe we've heard enough of your opinion now. And I might add, it's been countered enough that continuing to see this "aaaa all the downloaders aaaaa" FUD is really starting to get annoying.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's not America. Just look how long it look for looting to start in Japan, compared to Katrina. Cultures with history and a lack of diversity seem to get along much better.

We have plenty of diversity in New Zealand, and it's arguable whether we have "a" culture or "history" behind us due to that mix and the fact we're one of the youngest countries on earth.

I felt like San Francisco (the only American city I have ever visited) was quite similar to most places in New Zealand - apart from all the street beggars or course, but that is, I gather, a common American phenomenon due to more of a dog-eat-dog social system.

In China as a comparison (since many people seem to think of China as a "police state"), I have to say I felt just as safe, if not safer than anywhere else I've been on my travels or even my own little home town in New Zealand.

Of course, being a laowai (foreigner), I was also assumed to have more $$ than locals and had to haggle a lot harder when buying ;-)

America's "aggression" issues seem more similar to the middle east, the main difference being in the US they seem to be ethnic and persecution complex driven whilst in the middle east they mostly seem due to religious intolerance.

Hope is not ...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

a plan of action. Dickhead needs to look over the tapes, and prosecute those that stole from him. Otherwise dickhead is setting himself and the store/employees up as suckers to which other dickheads will take advantage. Dickhead is indeed right, he's being a dickhead by just hoping.

Re:Hope is not ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is how much was stolen, and is it worth the time and trouble to prosecute.

It is possible to lose by winning.

Re:Hope is not ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost benefit analysis.

It takes money to spend time looking through tapes, tracking down people, then any legal procedures.

We're not told how much was stolen; it might not be worth the effort and the owner may just write it off and be extra careful next ANZAC. Anyone whose conscious nags at them is just gravy.

Eheh, managers

[SmallFurryCreature]

And what about the people who stole groceries? What are they? 1 manager, how many thieving customers?

This is actually a useful social study and most liberals will NOT like the result. This "experiment" shows that a large number of people will ONLY obey the rules of society if somebody is standing behind them with a heavy stick.

Yes, a lot of people will behave. For the rest, we need armed police and guard dogs. Pity. If only there was some method of getting rid of the assholes. But we can't and so to counter 1 asshole, we need the entire justice system. (Because while not everyone paid, a few will also simply have left without taking anything)

If you ever handle an event or social place, you will know just how annoying the dickheads are, managers or otherwise. You can do so many things in a world without dickheads. For instance, you hate 3g coverage and price? No problem just use my Wifi. I don't mind you downloading email or browsing on it. Oh wait, I got to use a password because 1 dickhead in thousands will use it to break the law. No easy free roaming wifi for everyone else.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Puzzleer]

Why is it that "most liberals will NOT like the result."? Isn't it is the *conservatives* who keep saying "we don't need more big government, we can self-regulate." ?

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably an example of "countries divided by a common language."
In a number of countries they use the label "liberal" to refer to what Americans call "economically conservative", the laissez-faire approach of government towards business.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your getting Modern Liberals confused with Classic Liberals. Modern Liberals are actually Socialists (that's what other country call them). While Classical Liberals are freedom seeking(Liberal Parties in all other countries). I think GP was talking about Classic Liberals when he referred to "Liberals." "American Conservatives" should also be freedom loving because the country has a long history of liberty(In Comparison to other countries) and thus would like to conserve it at least in theory. The problems arise when Big Unions, Wall Street, Hollywood, The Born Rich and Corporations start handing out money with political strings attached.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

The "liberals" think corporations need rigidly controlled, citizens are basically good cooperative little darlings.
The "conservatives" thinks corporations require no special attention, but people are bad, and must be crushed under an iron fist when they step out of line.

They say a conservative is a liberal who's survived a mugging.

I submit that a libertarian is a conservative who's walked past a tough-on-crime police officer at the wrong place and time.

Re:Eheh, managers

[elrous0]

I used to be pretty cynical about humanity until I worked in a grocery store in the hood once in college. I was expecting to encounter a lot of thieves and miscellaneous punks, but they were actually very rare (even in one of the shittiest neighborhoods in town). I encountered WAY more people who would point out to me that I gave them too much change than who were out to steal or con. I had many a gang-banger tell me when I had undercharged them and many people who would offer to pay for something even if they dropped it.

People are actually, by and large, a pretty decent lot. And that's true pretty much anywhere you go, I suspect.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Bogtha]

-1, Troll.

Trying to ignite a political flame war with a idiotic screed about how a slow news day story proves liberals are wrong about supposedly not wanting the rule of law? Your trolling is far too obvious. Try a little subtlety next time.

Re:Eheh, managers

[snowgirl]

This is actually a useful social study and most liberals will NOT like the result. This "experiment" shows that a large number of people will ONLY obey the rules of society if somebody is standing behind them with a heavy stick.

You're making an implication that this means that we have to stand behind them with a heavy stick to obey. The German Bahn system works by letting pretty much anyone on board. If it's ICE, or regional then you're probably going to have your ticket checked by an attendant... the punishment for boarding without a ticket? Buying a ticket. What happens if you just happen to be in the bathroom when they pass? Nothing.

If you're using the S-Bahns, or U-Bahns, or Straßebahns, then you're less likely to get checked, but the costs go up equivalently. The fee for using the S-Bahns/U-Bahns without a ticket? About 40€, which puts it at the same cost as a month-long ticket.

The advantages of this system are: no annoying turnstiles that don't let you through unless you have a ticket, no need to hire armed guards to patrol the facilities looking for people trying to beat the system, and while sure, some people get through without paying, and perhaps even ride a lot without paying, those that you do catch end up paying for a monthly ticket anyways, so you still get the funding that you need to keep operating, and the person learns a lesson in social responsibility...

And of course, even if you do stand behind them with a big stick, you're never going to completely stop everyone from ever committing a crime... that's simply a fact... and of course, the wonderful lesson here is: only a police state will stand behind you all the time with a big stick threatening to use it if you break the law... because only in a police state do they feel the need to ensure that people don't ever break the law in the first place.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives want to give everyone their own sticks. Liberals want to take away all the sticks and give them to a giant. This shows what happens when the giant falls asleep.

(or something confusing like that, I wish pizzaanalogyguy were here)

Re:Eheh, managers

[dev.null.matt]

Actually, as noted in the summary (you didn't even read the summary?) the system stopped working when someone scanned an alcoholic beverage, as this requires a human to manually verify the id. It might actually have been that everyone who walked in the store at least tried to be honest, but just couldn't pay because the machine was "broken".

Reminds me of Clerks a bit, I must say

Re:Eheh, managers

[Registered Coward v2]

This is actually a useful social study and most liberals will NOT like the result. This "experiment" shows that a large number of people will ONLY obey the rules of society if somebody is standing behind them with a heavy stick.

You're making an implication that this means that we have to stand behind them with a heavy stick to obey. The German Bahn system works by letting pretty much anyone on board. If it's ICE, or regional then you're probably going to have your ticket checked by an attendant....

The advantages of this system are: no annoying turnstiles that don't let you through unless you have a ticket, no need to hire armed guards to patrol the facilities looking for people trying to beat the system, and while sure, some people get through without paying, and perhaps even ride a lot without paying, those that you do catch end up paying for a monthly ticket anyways, so you still get the funding that you need to keep operating, and the person learns a lesson in social responsibility...

Of course, the first time or so you use it as a foreigner you wonder "Where do I pay?" I looked for the conductor (like they used to do in Europe years ago) and none was to be found. I asked a co-worker about it and he explained the process to me.

BTW - the US does this as well. Portland, OR has a pay before you board system. I actually had trouble with it - it didn't vend a ticket, and I got on so as not to miss my tram. Of course, that was the one with a random check - I explained what happened, the guy said "Next time, tell the driver," and went on his way. Americans can actually be reasonable as well.

Re:Eheh, managers

[richpoore]

While I'll agree it's not as big of a stick, the possibility of paying for a month when you're riding for a day is a stick. There's still consequences for breaking the rules.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a useful social study and most liberals will NOT like the result. This "experiment" shows that a large number of people will ONLY obey the rules of society if somebody is standing behind them with a heavy stick.

Social liberal, fiscal conservative here. I'm quite happy with the result. The rules of society are often stupid, and should be ignored whenever possible.

Re:Eheh, managers

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You make a compelling case, but....

, so you still get the funding that you need to keep operating, and the person learns a lesson in social responsibility...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will even if you don't) but aren't repairs, maintenance, and extensions to the Bahn system get paid for (at least in part) out of general funds of local and state governments?

Page 54-55: http://books.google.com/books?id=m09SySxAy2EC&lpg=PA54&ots=XN1l9TGRiJ&pg=PA55#v=onepage

Re:Eheh, managers

[DamonHD]

Interesting and heartening. I think you're right, but nice to hear someone else say it.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Eheh, managers

[sourcerror]

Isn't petrol subsidized in the US?

Re:Eheh, managers

[osu-neko]

People are actually, by and large, a pretty decent lot. And that's true pretty much anywhere you go, I suspect.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the vast majority who are kind and decent in the world get little press and make little noise. The crooks get all the headlines, and the a-hats make all the noise. People who aren't very observant will tend to think they are the majority.

Re:Eheh, managers

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This "experiment" shows that a large number of people will ONLY obey the rules of society if somebody is standing behind them with a heavy stick.

No, it doesn't.

Re:Eheh, managers

[demonlapin]

Despite what you've read elsewhere, and the strenuous efforts of a remarkably vocal segment of society to associate limited government with anarchy, the two are quite different. Other than a handful of totally stoned anarchists (none of whom I'd describe as conservative), I'm not aware of anyone who believes that there should be no laws or law enforcement. Nor am I aware of anyone who really thinks that actual theft of physical objects is OK.

Re:Eheh, managers

[demonlapin]

No. Though it's not as highly taxed as in Europe.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Sprouticus]

Whats the difference between a conservative and a liberal.

Liberals want the government to fix everyones problems.
Conservatives want the government to fix their problems. Everyone else is on their own.

dont believe me? Ask a conservative on SSN or medicare or farm subsidies or whatever government program they might get money from if they are ok losing their services. It is only the other guy who doesnt deserve it.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Palal]

Petrol is not taxed (as heavily) in the US as it is in Germany, it's not subsidized. This, however, does give an advantage to the automobile. Oh yea, the USofA also goes to war over petrol while Germany and some other EU members try to stop using petrol. But I digress.

This is more of a cultural issue. I bet in Germany the % of those paying would be a lot higher, unlike in the anglo-saxon counterpart countries.

Re:Eheh, managers

[moortak]

It is pretty sad that you are making this a political issue.

Re:Eheh, managers

[cusco]

Indeed. My wife works at a large retailer. She says that she sees far more middle/upper class customers trying to rip off her store than poor/lower class. The worst apparently are the 'trophy wives' who have nothing more to do than make a cashier or customer service person's afternoon miserable.

Re:Eheh, managers

[cusco]

Directly subsidized, no. Drilling operations in many areas are subsidized, drilling on public land is so close to being free that the manpower for filing the paperwork is several times the cost of the lease, a lot of equipment can be depreciated in as little as a year, many refinery operations are subsidized, and there are more tax breaks available to Big Petrol than you can shake a stick at. Exxon, with record profits last year, paid **NO** taxes. I suppose it's not technically a subsidy, but it's damn close.

Re:Eheh, managers

[PessimysticRaven]

Where was your 'hood?' Greenwich?

My beliefs in the goodness of people went right out the door when working for a drugstore one evening, and I had someone kick in the glass doors for a bottle of NyQuil when there was a 24-hour store down the street.

Or the time someone griping about their EBT card not having an adequate balance came back later and bought three cartons of name-brand cigs.

Oh, or maybe the time I caught someone pissing in the water fountain because they didn't want to bother asking someone for the key-code for the restrooms.

Or when I had someone squat and shit in the middle of a snack aisle. No rhyme or reason.

Could have been when a mother used her young children as distractions as she 'helped herself' to some cosmetics off the peg-wall.

You know, that time when someone swiped their invalid mother's ID card to try and get her prescription painkillers might have done it. By the way, she was already dead, a clerical error had the script filled and waiting for her.

Yeah. Folks are a decent lot. What I will say is this: I find more 'well-to-do'-looking folks are the biggest thieves of all, at least, at a retail level.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the problem is that those who often call themselves "conservatives" are not.

I'm what I would consider a classical liberal. You know, all that jazz about the empowerment of the individual. I would happily bow out of social security, medicare, mortgage interest write offs, etc... So what is your point again?

Re:Eheh, managers

[ljw1004]

Wait, what? This shows that even a mild authority presence (e.g. checkout staff) is enough, and neither armed police nor guard dogs are needed.

Re:Eheh, managers

[DavidTC]

So how would you cover your medical costs when you're old?

Please note that insurance companies will not sell policies to old people.

So what's your answer?

You've even managed to exclude social security disability, which you would probably qualify for, being mentally handicapped like you are.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not him, but I suspect he'd rely on his kids to take care of him when he's old, just like he took care of his parents, just like they took care of theirs. Probably save some of that money he saved by not paying SS tax, too, and compound interest's a wonderful thing.

If he doesn't have any kids... maybe nephews or younger siblings? Worst case, depend on charity from others (the local church, traditionally, but those are pretty uncool this past century -- I don't know what the proper "modern" social structure to fill this role is...).

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you notice how the store wasn't emptied out? 50% who could pay paid, and 50% apparently *couldn't pay* because the system had locked up. But no one walked in and just emptied out the store, because (obviously) no-one saw that as an option.

What remains is an odd situation with no established pattern, so those people had to wing it. No predicting what solutions they'd come up with. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of them figured they'd come back to the store on a working day to pay the manager the amount due.

The normal honesty level should be ~79% (from Freakonomics), but since the Right Thing To Do wasn't available for ~ half the people, one should *expect* those people to exhibit Undefined Behaviour .

I think that in the case of WIFI, we should have laws that open wifi==common carrier. ;)

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the S-Bahn system is great... as long as you can read German. I got a 40euro fine in Stutgart trying to go down town because apparently I didn't count the rings correctly on the fare board (all instructions in German) and I didn't buy enough fares to get where I wanted to go. But yeah, other then that it was a great system. Step right out of the hotel hop a train, and 10 minutes later you're right downtown.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

People who aren't very observant

or intelligent

any concern that has vested interests in getting you to pay attention to it, will say what is more likely to get you to pay attention to it. fairly simple.
if you're told that everything is ok, will you sit forward on your seat with anticipation, waiting for the explanation? most people won't.

it's a pretty simple conlusion that if i get paid for having you pay attention to me, that'll i'll *bend* the societal moral rules(if i get caught breaking those rules i'll blame the guy who did what i told him, and say he did it without my knowledge), and say whatever is most likely to get your attention.

is the government raping your children, coming to your house during the night, beating your dog and giving you cancer? find out after these messages from our sponsors.

captcha:pollute

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realise that both the angles and the saxons were germanic tribes?

i know what you meant but i'm sure others didn't.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

those german BASTARDS!

I suppose that means that you have successfully petitioned your local goverments to put all signs in german? sanskrit, hindi, cantonese, farsi, wongai, spanish, iroqois?

besides, counting from a picture doesn't generally require polylinguistic skills.

Re:Eheh, managers

[DavidTC]

Really? He'd rely on his hypothetical kids to take care of the $200,000 dollars a year his cancer treatments cost?

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious what the rate of evasion is. In St. Louis we have a light rail that works similar to yours (the S- and U-Bahns, or light trains and subways for the non-german), but I know that evasion is very easy. They only check so many trains a day, though the fines cost probably $60 or so. The problem is that you can take a ticket for a daily or 2 hour pass and smudge off the validation time-stamp and re-use it 3-5 times before it is really worn out. Still, I imagine that a great number of the people have tickets with them, as usually the only people who seem to not are out of towners coming in from the airport (unless the ticket checker is a particular asshole, they let them off and just have them buy a ticket.

Re:Eheh, managers

[snowgirl]

I'm curious what the rate of evasion is. In St. Louis we have a light rail that works similar to yours (the S- and U-Bahns, or light trains and subways for the non-german), but I know that evasion is very easy. They only check so many trains a day, though the fines cost probably $60 or so. The problem is that you can take a ticket for a daily or 2 hour pass and smudge off the validation time-stamp and re-use it 3-5 times before it is really worn out. Still, I imagine that a great number of the people have tickets with them, as usually the only people who seem to not are out of towners coming in from the airport (unless the ticket checker is a particular asshole, they let them off and just have them buy a ticket.

I only spent a month in Munich, and there were only two checks the whole month (riding it at least twice a day), and I only saw one pack of two or three kids get busted, so it's probably similar evasion rates... But the term for it, "Schwartzfahren" (black riding) is a well known word, so...

The whole kind of intent of my thing was that we should worry less about evasion... too many companies get miserly about their money, e.g. while working for Wal-Mart in the cereal isle, I was informally reprimanded for not putting up some cereal boxes that were seriously chewed up... it didn't matter that the product wasn't "up to snuff", they wanted someone to buy it, because they couldn't waste one box of cereal...

Re:Eheh, managers

[Nutria]

take care of the $200,000 dollars a year his cancer treatments cost?

Why does an old (.gt. 70 years) person *need* US$200,000 a year of cancer treatment? $500 of morphine is what they really need.

(I saw my uncles incessantly badgering my grandfather to try this weird treatment or that, all while the cancer spread throughout his body. Same w/ my grandmother except I'm not sure what she exactly died of. Thank the non-existent deity that my newly minted Doctor-cousin came into town, was suitably horrified and promptly prescribed morphine. After months of extreme pain, she died pain-free the next night.)

Re:Eheh, managers

[DavidTC]

Ah, the Republican health care plan:

Part one, don't get sick. Part two, if you do get sick... Part three, die quickly.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Nutria]

Nah, that's the Big Tobacco HCP: smoke a lot, die early and save Medicaid jillions of geriatric treatment dollars.

Anyway, you didn't actually answer my question.

Re:Eheh, managers

[DavidTC]

Why does an old (.gt. 70 years) person *need* US$200,000 a year of cancer treatment?

Because otherwise they will die, you sociopathic fucktard.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Nutria]

Because otherwise they will die, you sociopathic fucktard.

Everyone dies, you numbnuts. The question is: after how much cost and effort compared to pain (in case you didn't know: radiation and chemotherapy are extremely painful) and expected longevity.

Re:Eheh, managers

[Anonymous Coward]

So conservatives should bow out of programs that they paid into? Is that your point? Or is your point that conservatives should be allowed to opt out of these programs and not reap the "rewards" of them in the future? If that's the case I'll opt out today, just kindly give me back my money I paid into these programs and I'll call it a wash and you won't have to worry about me being a number in your little government run Ponzi schemes.
 
Oh, but that won't work for you now would it? I'd be leaving everyone high and dry by taking the rewards of my productivity away and putting them to my own use instead of paying for those who refused to do for themselves. If I do what you say I get ripped off by a government that can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar, if I do what I want I'm selfish and greedy for wanting a better future for myself. If I'm going to take the blame I'm going to reap the benefits from it too.

Brillant

[Sarten-X]

So let me get this straight... Somebody designed and built a computer-controlled lock system (that apparently also turns on the self-checkouts), and didn't think something like this would happen?

Would it be that hard to have an "unlock" button to pair with the computer's instructions? When the store's supposed to be locked, the button would do nothing. Between zero and five minutes after the scheduled opening, it unlocks the doors. Five minutes after opening time, a nice reminder sounds. After ten minutes, the computer could assume human error, and stop trying to unlock the doors.

Developing and installing the system would likely cost a trivial amount compared to the risk of leaving a store unlocked and unattended all day.

Re:Brillant

[olibri]

Sounds like a Skynet design to me. It now controls our food...

Re:Brillant

[Anubis IV]

Maybe grocery chains are just different in NZ than the US, or maybe just in the places I've lived, but all of the chains I know handle this issue by simply not closing. Ever. I can't think of a single grocery store I've ever lived near that I would have expected to be closed on a holiday, and most of them make a point of emphasizing that they are. in fact, always open, even on holidays. Here, grocery stores, for better or worse, are open on Christmas day and other holidays in order to handle the needs that people weren't expecting (e.g. "I thought YOU were bringing the ham!", "Little Jimmy's toy didn't come with batteries?!", or "What do you mean we don't have a way to light the fireplace?").

Re:Brillant

[leonardluen]

The place i work has electronic locks on many of our doors throughout multiple buildings. (note: i programmed portions of it) the internal doors will unlock based on a schedule from our events software without interaction from anyone. however the external doors require someone to hit a button in the software to unlock. they can hit a single button to unlock all public external doors, however they don't unlock themselves without someone hitting that button.

so if the buildings were unmanned some of the internal doors might still unlock, however no one would be able to get into the building because the outside doors would remain locked.

Re:Brillant

[demonlapin]

Talking with a couple of friends who have lived in Europe, the thing they always miss most about the US is 24-hour shopping. From my much briefer travels abroad, I'm inclined to agree.

Re:Brillant

[osu-neko]

Reminds me of a local convenience store/gas station near where I lived what was severely damaged by a tornado. It was bad enough they had to close the place, and eventually tear it down and rebuild it. When they went to close it, they found out no one had the key. It had been lost, possibly years before, and no one ever noticed as its one of those places that's open 24/7 regardless of holidays. They eventually had to get a locksmith...

Re:Brillant

[LaurieF]

No supermarkets, and most shops except for local convenience stores, are allowed to be open on Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day until 1pm and Christmas Day. Very few, if any, supermarkets are open between 10pm and 8am. We get by.

Re:Brillant

[keeperofdakeys]

I've heard of a subway store that couldn't start business because daylight savings had occurred early and the computer didn't know this, so it wouldn't let things be bought for an hour. Imagine if the computer system refused to open the store if it thought it shouldn't be.

Re:Brillant

[Anonymous Coward]

The system already has a "do not open tomorrow" button, which the Manager forgot to press. (Hopefully it has a full calendar system so you can enter the closed dates in advance)

There is no need for the designers to think "What if the Manager is a dickhead?", and it is not the fault of the designers that the manager was negligent.

and my captcha is "simpler", so it seems /. agrees with me ;)

Re:Brillant

[cyberfunkr]

Unless you're missing steps in your description, you're forgetting the part where the customer is standing outside waiting for the doors to open. So in the time of "Between zero and five minutes after the scheduled opening, it unlocks the doors" they walk in and start shopping.

Five minutes later a buzzer sounds which means nothing to the customer and they continue shopping.

"After ten minutes, the computer could assume human error, and stop trying to unlock the doors." But the doors were already unlocked, so I'm guessing you mean they re-lock, trapping the poor customer inside. Through no fault of their own they are now a trespassing criminal and will need police intervention to open the doors so they can get out.

If you really meant that the doors wouldn't open until someone hits the button, then what's the point of automating the opening of the doors? You're still asking for a human to unlock the door, just via a button instead of a key.

Re:Brillant

[Anubis IV]

We get by.

Oh, I apologize if I suggested NZ had it backwards or something. That was by no means my intention. I was just taking note of my ignorance. As many others I know, I fall into American-centric thinking all too often, likely most of the time without realizing it, so it's always refreshing to discover the ways that other places are different. I find that it makes the world a far more interesting place.

Re:Brillant

[LaurieF]

I didn't think you were - that's why I played it completely straight. Otherwise I would have added: "Dickhead".

Re:Brillant

[Anubis IV]

Hah! I'd have earned it too.

Re:Brillant

[lahvak]

What is the point of automating opening the door in the first place?

Re:Brillant

[qubezz]

But I'm an insomniac athiest, you insensitive Kiwi clods!

Re:Brillant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so surprised that no one hasn't had the same obvious thought I did: They could also just stop selling alcohol! After all, a large percentage of the customers were honest. By carefully balancing the price against the shoplifting risk, they could very well cut down on personnel.

Re:Brillant

[Sarten-X]

To clarify, I meant that between zero and five minutes after the scheduled opening, the human-operated button unlocks the doors.

More specifically, any human employee (perhaps verified by an ID card) can tell the computer "It's okay, there's a person here" at a time specified by a sufficiently-privileged manager, and the computer can then take care of unlocking all the doors, turning on signage, ambient music, and anything else necessary. It takes an employee only a few seconds to open the whole store, but still has the security of requiring a human presence. The point is that an employee isn't spending a half an hour running through an error-prone process to start everything up, and that the doors are still managed by the computer's scheduling, which can be configured by a manager at any time.

Also note that for safety, commercial buildings usually have a clearly-marked exit that's always unlocked, so being trapped in a store isn't a realistic risk.

Re:Brillant

[Sarten-X]

If I were a store owner, I'd prefer a system that requires opting in to risk, rather than opting out regularly.

As a software engineer, there is indeed always a need for me to think "What if the user makes a mistake?", and it's my responsibility to understand the risks involved with all possible mistakes that my software allows. If I'm programming an alarm clock, I need to know that a mistake could cost someone a job. If I'm programming a door lock system for a store, I need to know that a mistake could cost the store thousands of dollars' worth of inventory. If I'm programming a radiation therapy machine, I need to know that a mistake could kill someone.

Re:Brillant

[Sardaukar86]

We get by.

Oh, I apologize if I suggested NZ had it backwards or something. That was by no means my intention. I was just taking note of my ignorance. As many others I know, I fall into American-centric thinking all too often, likely most of the time without realizing it, so it's always refreshing to discover the ways that other places are different. I find that it makes the world a far more interesting place.

Heh, don't worry, we've got it backwards alright. Like most things it's a trade-off though; we may be last in the west to see movies but (for example) our banking system was ahead of its time and has kept up with developments (or so I understand).

Oh, and while we're on the topic of NZ, can we let that sheep-shagger thing rest guys? We may still be outnumbered by sheep by some embarrassing ratio but there are plenty of people in our major cities who've never even seen a sheep in the flesh just like the rest of the world. :-)

That said your intent was clear and your attitude is refreshing.

Pak n' Save Acquired by Aperture Laboratories

[LordStormes]

Self-checkout machine: "You have purchased forty-five pounds of spare ribs. You must throw the best barbecue in [your hometown here]."

Re:Pak n' Save Acquired by Aperture Laboratories

[MarkGriz]

I hear their cakes are awesome

Also, show of hands, who read the parent quote with the GLaDOS voice in their head.

A few bad apples

[pwileyii]

From the article, the police were alerted when it was reported that people were driving off with "truckloads of groceries." This is the type of person that will not feel guilty and "cough up" because they clearly knew what happened and took advantage of the situation. While I don't think legal action should be taken against all individuals that didn't pay, these "bad apples" should be dealt with because they are not the type of person that will ever feel guilt about this type of action.

Re:A few bad apples

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I don't think legal action should be taken against all individuals that didn't pay,"

Why? This is a frightening trend in our society where people equate getting away with it as doing nothing wrong. If people were driving away with truckloads then we're talking thousands in groceries. If it had been a car dealership and they were driving away with cars would you feel differently? When I was growing up in the 60s a few people may have taken stuff but some one would have called the police minutes after they realized the situation. I know that this is the entitled generation but why are you entitled to what some one else has? Victimless crime? The store owner would beg to differ and if they lost a lot of money then they may have to close up and lay off the staff. Even if they survive it could mean few if any raises but hey some people got some free stuff so where's the bad?

Re:A few bad apples

[houghi]

I think he is doing the right thing by not going after anybody. Sometimes you should just file things under "Shit happens" and then get on with your life.

Re:A few bad apples

[Golddess]

Why? This is a frightening trend in our society where people equate getting away with it as doing nothing wrong. If people were driving away with truckloads then we're talking thousands in groceries.

I think you missed the part where OP said the ones driving off with "thousands in groceries" (the "bad apples" OP called them) should be dealt with.

If it had been a car dealership and they were driving away with cars would you feel differently?

Considering how they appear to feel regarding thousands in groceries, no, I do not think they would feel differently about thousands in automobiles. However, I suspect they would feel differently from how you are trying to portray them as feeling.

Kudos to the store owner

[devleopard]

In a world where the increasing response to our own stupidity is to litigate, kudos to the store owner for admitting a screw-up and taking responsibility.

Double kudos to the folks who actually paid.

Shame on the folks who stole. Double shame on them for not calling authorities when the store was unmanned. That's more than groceries.. what if the owner was being held at gun point in the back? Of course, can't expect people to actually do the *right thing*, now can we?

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[e9th]

Double kudos to the folks who actually paid.

Yes. If I were Mr. Miller, I would make an effort to find those who had paid and to reward them. Maybe free groceries, or employee t-shirts, or inviting their families to the next company picnic. The goodwill it would generate might even help recoup some of the losses caused by the dirtballs who stole.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Capt. Skinny]

We should reward people for being honest now? As if they did something they didn't have to do, went above and beyond what was expected of them? Rewarding people for being honest only validates the actions of those who stole. It suggests that dishonesty is the status quo, and that honesty is some self-sacrificing act of heroism.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[JonySuede]

It suggests that dishonesty is the status quo, and that honesty is some self-sacrificing act of heroism.

It must be fun living in utopia but you stated the state of the world and its affairs correctly.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Golddess]

We should reward people for being honest now?

IANAP, but from what I can recall from Psychology 101, positive reinforcement does appear to be better than negative reinforcement.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[osu-neko]

We should reward people for being honest now?

Yes.

As if they did something they didn't have to do, went above and beyond what was expected of them?

No.

Rewarding people for being honest only validates the actions of those who stole.

No it doesn't. Do you believe frequent customer rewards validate the actions of those who shop with your competitor? Is it not possible to show appreciation to anyone without suggesting they're somehow supermen for being appreciated? You can't appreciate someone unless they're somehow exceptional? Gods forbid ordinary people be treated like they're appreciated by the people around them. That might lead to all kinds of horribly things, like...

It suggests that dishonesty is the status quo, and that honesty is some self-sacrificing act of heroism.

This is so patently absurd it's ridiculous. "I'm sorry, you're not a paragon of heroism. I can't show you the slightest appreciation for anything you do, or civilization might come to an end..." Please...

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a world".

Not all of the world is as litigious as USoA.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Capt. Skinny]

Appreciation is typically shown for things that people choose to do. I might appreciate the fact that my neighbor has never put sugar in my gas tank, but I don't explicitly thank him for it. I might appreciate that most other vehicles don't run the red light when I'm passing through an intersection, but I don't wave at them for it. I would, however, wave to someone who let me into traffic -- because he chose to do something that he wasn't obligated to do.

Offering a customer rewards program certainly does validate the act of shopping with my competitor. It says, "I know you don't have any obligation to shop in my store, so here's a little something for choosing to shop here anyway." The existence of such a program suggests a recognition of the customer's right to choose where they shop. When it comes to theft, the customer does have a (moral) obligation to refrain from it. Offering a reward for those who don't steal says, "I know you didn't have to pay, so here's a little something for choosing to pay anyway." It implicitly acknowledges the customer's right to choose whether to pay. The message sent by ethics ("don't steal") conflicts with the message sent by offer of reward ("it's your choice") and provides false justification for stealing. If smoking is prohibited in my restaurant, I would be a fool to put ashtrays on the tables. If I did, someone might be just a little more inclined to light up, with the ashtray providing some degree of validation of that action. The more tables that have ashtrays, the more likely it is someone will conclude that it is okay to smoke.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheers! Cheers to the manager and honest customers.

Jeers! Jeers to the dishonest people and to the poopy-headed computer system designer.

Re:Kudos to the store owner

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have made a mistake, but that definitely doesn't absolve the thieves. He would be well within his rights to litigate, especially seeing as how he's got a security camera.

Personally I wouldn't even consider taking something from an unmanned store. It's wrong, period.

What the article didn't say

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1/2 of people who couldn't figure out the self scan were 55 or older and couldn't bother reading the directions.

Publicity

[Graham J - XVI]

I'd rather not have the publicity to be honest.

Looks like that's working out well...

No employees in the store?

[tgd]

Hell, I'd pay extra for that level of service at most of the grocery stores around me!

In Related News...

[DavidD_CA]

In related news, grocery supermarket chain Pack-N-Save has announced they will be laying off 75% of their workforce. After a one-day experiment to test customer honesty and self-checkout systems, the chain discovered it would be cheaper to fire all of their checkout employees and let customers do it themselves.

Other retail chains are expected to follow suit sometime later this year.

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

If labor costs exceed the losses experienced at a basically unmanned store, then economics says go for it.

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the comparably small margin on groceries (if you include losses through spoilage, theft etc), I don't think you can run a profitable business, if only 1/2 of the customers pay. I don't think you could survive with 90% honest buyers.

Re:In Related News...

[tsstahl]

Self check out != self pay. :) Just thought I'd point that out.

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

while sort of sad it is more true than you realize. Went to home depot last week. 2 cashiers working. 1 working 'running down stuff and doing returns'. The other running 5 checkouts. 1 she would scan herself. The other 4 self checkout.

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect this will improve their service at the checkout too

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is concerning knowing that even regional Australia has self serve counters. Though I am advised by staff that they are not worth it given the supervisor is always over there having to check ID's, re-stock bags, unjam what people have managed to do (like my mother still trying to find "Start" on her computer). Also knowing a number of people that rely on these jobs and large corporations for work needs, it is sad and it is scary. I remember first using them in the USA in 02 and also wondering what the? when my friend took me through a drive through bank (on yet further unrelated news).

If we take the jobs away, where will be the people to which many chat to as a friendly face in their community and others spill like they're at a hairdressor's or in psych rooms (not to mention someone for people to take their aggression out).

Re:In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

People around the world, bolstered by proof that people in general are hard-working and honest, have stopped accusing the job- and home-less of laziness. Governments around the world have hired experts to work on programs to support the indigent in the short-term while planning for long-term, sustainable solutions to economic injustice.

Dilbert...

[Anonymous Coward]

this sounds like an episode of Dilbert ...

Did they make a profit?

[BLAG-blast]

Given that they didn't have to pay any human staff, and 50% of customers paid, did they make or lose money? Also, if the automated teller hadn't of shutdown due to alcohol being purchased, would the number of paying customer have been much higher?

• 1) Fire human employees.
• 2) User computers.
• 3) Relie on human honesty
• 4) Profit!

Re:Did they make a profit?

[kryliss]

I don't think that there would have been any profit. Consider if even $500 in groceries were stolen.. How many people at minimum wage working for one hour would cost $500.00?

Re:Did they make a profit?

[Zerth]

Considering the very narrow margin on groceries and the fact they can write off the thefts, they probably made more this way. Not that they could feasibly continue this without being dropped by their insurance company.

Re:Did they make a profit?

[JonySuede]

about 5

Re:Did they make a profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Labor (and its related costs) is the highest expense in business. I would suspect they could tolerate a much higher theft rate and still maintain operating margins if they didn't have employees.

Re:Did they make a profit?

[darkwing_bmf]

The profit margin on most groceries is very thin. There is profit in alcohol but that is precisely what broke the automation due to laws requiring verification of age by actual people.

Re:Did they make a profit?

[darkwing_bmf]

According to TFA, he didn't claim insurance nor threaten to sue anyone.

Title got my hopes up.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I thought this was going to be a story about a grand opening of a store that is completely computer run.

The Big Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Try that shit in New Orleans. Place would be cleaned out... even the registers would be gone.

Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Link
Includes some CCTV footage.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

Thanks! This has the missing bit - specifically, there is a mention that "over 50 people" visited the store. So then 24 is likely to be the number of those who actually took something.

Another interesting thing in the report is that store owner agreed to release CCTV footage to the TV network only on the condition that they blur the faces of all customers - even those who can be seen not paying in the video. It's a good thing to see such respectful attitude towards privacy, especially when the owner has all reasons to not be polite towards those people.

Less then half?

[alexander_686]

OK, this is somewhat off topic, but what the hey – it about honesty and controls.

I just heard a story about the person who ran the gift store at Kennedy Center. For those of you who don’t know, this is where the president goes when he wants to hear a little light opera or what not. The gift store was run by volunteers, mainly older retired people who like high culture. Not the profile of the average criminal. And yet people where ripping off the till right and left. A few dollars here to pay for a cab, lunch, whatever.

The manager puts in some really simple controls. Goes away from the honor system to sings with prices, receipt books, etc. Shrinkage drops from 40% to 8%. Remove all controls and yeah, a lot of honest people will chisel the system a little. Sigh.

This American Life, Esp 431, See No Evil, Act Three. I Worked at the Kennedy Center and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.

Re:Less then half?

[Mogusha]

If this is a volunteer run gift store in a place that's reasonably prestigious, then it could potentially be the volunteer type themselves that are of the type that have a high likelyhood of stealing. I'm not saying that high society are more likely to steal, I'm more trying to point out that one situation isn't entirely convincing of an epedemic everywhere and with every person. All that can be gathered from your situation is that older, retired people interested in high culture possibly are likely to skim off the top. There is even a motive for these older retired people to steal as well, as they are retired, which typically implies they are on a fixed income, and they are interested in high culture, which means that they may not have the means to get to high society other than skimming off the top.

What I don't get...

[John Pfeiffer]

Why would they have an automated system that opens the store without any operator intervention? I mean, I could understand if they had a system that went through the process of turning everything on and unlocking all the doors once there was someone there to turn a key or something... But to have it just automatically open the store at 8am every morning? The flaw in their system is so painfully obvious.

Watch out, you're next

[JoeCommodore]

This is a chilling sign of the times, shows that an non-managed store could do sales... so with that PHBs may decide maybe only half the staff is really necessary or just a few attendants. Yeah, more layoffs, that will fix the economy*.

(*economy == business profits)

just cutting the cashiers and then you will need m

[Joe The Dragon]

just cutting the cashiers and then you will need more self check out attendants.

A non-managed store could do sales but not restocking or over 18 / 21 stuff.

and LP.

Eastertime in New Zealand

[Zugok]

With the exception to gas stations and convenience stores, laws in New Zealand either require or make it uneconomical to operate on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

It's bedlam in New Zealand at Easter. Going to the supermarket on the Thursday before Good Friday is like feeding time at the zoo. Then there is the small opportunity to on Easter Saturday to do some shopping again before closing on Easter Sunday, but again, it's chaos!

And don't get people started about Easter Monday which happens to fall on ANZAC Day day this year and shops cannot open until midday on ANZAC Day. (The unrelated complaint among so-called intelligence New Zealanders is that ANZAC Day is not observered on the following weekeday because of this conincidence).

Given the inconvenience at Easter time particularly this year, I can see why people too the opportunity to go to the supermarket when it opened accdientally. As for the non-payment, those people are stupid to think there is no CCTV footage of them strolling out the door without paying.

Re:Eastertime in New Zealand

[lazybeam]

(The unrelated complaint among so-called intelligence New Zealanders is that ANZAC Day is not observered on the following weekeday because of this conincidence)

Today is "Easter Monday" over here in .au, even though it is Tuesday. Yesterday was Anzac Day. Easter is less important than returned veterans. (I'm not being sarcastic) Easter gets moved. It's its fault for jumping around so violently anyway!

Re:Eastertime in New Zealand

[Zugok]

Well thats interesting that Easter Monday gets moved rather than ANZAC day. New Zealand has been in debate over whether to 'Mondayise' (observed holiday in any other English speaking culture with a decent vocabulary) ANZAC Day and Waitangi Day if they fall on a weekend, and in this case coinciding with Easter. One of the arguments was that Australia observes the holiday.

Problem is though, even in well educated New Zealand, you'd be hard pressed to find many people that know on what day ANZAC Day or Waitangi Day falls...that is until the 'holiday' gets taken away from them.

Exiled From Earth

[wcrowe]

In 1971 Ben Bova wrote a sci-fi novel called "Exiled From Earth". It described a future not too different from our current society. I was always intrigued by a part in the book where some of the characters, using a credit-card-like device could get access to a 24-hour store and buy stuff without any human interaction at all. When I read the first couple of sentences of this article, I thought they might be talking about stores like this that exist now, instead of some sort of mistake. Such a store is not entirely out of the question. I am encouraged by the fact that half the customers just got their items and paid for it in the regular way.

Re:Exiled From Earth

[lazybeam]

That could be called a vending machine

Re:Exiled From Earth

[Lord_Byron]

I stayed in a hotel like that a couple of times. It was over Christmas, so you might've seen people at other times, but I checked in via credit card at a terminal in the vestibule, and got my keycard which gave me access to the lobby and room. The next morning, I checked out via the same system, got my receipt, and moved on. It was really very peaceful.

He didn't justify

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would stop trying to infer that somehow equipment, technology or something A, B or C is somehow responsible or justifies the actions of criminals.

I think what you're missing is that people steal for reasons, regardless of whether you think those reasons are right or wrong. He didn't even remotely imply that the reason (machine refuses to sell alcohol) justified theft, merely that the theft was a consequence.

Just to Godwinize it, let's say you convincingly tell Hitler that you're landing at Normandy. The invasion will be more difficult as a consequence of this. Saying this, doesn't mean I'm a Nazi sympathizer; believe me, I'll be most happy if Hitler just surrenders, just as we'd all be happier if people didn't steal. Nevertheless, consequences are consequences so you should plan for the obvious ones. That means there is probably an upside to 1) keeping your invasion plans a secret from the Nazis 2) stop getting in peoples' way when they want to buy alcohol.

To play the devil's advocate...

[damn_registrars]

We are talking about a grocery store here. People do need to eat; this wasn't people raiding an unlocked best buy. It would be interesting to know how many people left with a modest amount of groceries without paying vs how many left with "truck loads" of food. While certainly someone leaving with truck loads is likely taking (a lot) more than what they need, you may have also had some customers actually walking out with a gallon of milk or what not.

Re:To play the devil's advocate...

[RapmasterT]

We are talking about a grocery store here. People do need to eat

The store was supposed to be CLOSED. How much outrage would you have felt because a grocery store was closed on a holiday when "People do need to eat"? I'm guessing zero. So your point is rather specious.

Re:To play the devil's advocate...

[damn_registrars]

The store was supposed to be CLOSED.

It was, however, a grocery store. You know, where people go to buy food, so they can eat. Most of the grocery stores that I frequent are open 24/7; I don't tend to look for a stores hours sign. And if the automatic door opens automatically for me, then I generally expect that the store is open.

My point is that these people didn't break into the store. In the case of most of those customers, there was no looting or even malicious activity. There were a few bad apples of course, but clearly quite a few people expected the store was open because the lights were on, the doors were open, and the cash registers were working.

Re:just cutting the cashiers and then you will nee

[Capt. Skinny]

Restocking is a non-issue: make the vendors do it. Some grocery stores in my area require vendors of certain perishables (bread, milk, etc.) to stock their own products. Vendors maintain ownership of the goods until the point of sale, and the retailer doesn't pay for it until after it is sold. Added bonus for retailer: liability for shrinkage lies with the vendor as well.

who designed this kakafka system?!!

[Thud457]

What idiot designed a computerized system that didn't require human interaction to unlock the doors ?! I mean, people could just go in and walk out with anything if nobody was working there. Oh wait, they did...

Re:who designed this kakafka system?!!

[cusco]

It's an access control system, I install these all the time. You have to manually put in the holidays for the year, since different companies/countries have different holidays. That store automatically unlocks the door at X:00 every day **UNLESS** it's marked as a holiday in the software. They just forgot to put Friday into the system. We have customers do this all the time.

What they should have done is impliment a procedure called 'First Card Unlock'. At X:00 the door is still locked UNTIL someone reads their key card, pushes a button, turns a switch, or some such. The door stays secure until the end of what would normally be the work day, at which point it goes back to the Locked mode until the next morning. They probably will now, although from the sound of things doing so will likely cost more than they lost.

Most people honest

[RobinEggs]

Back home in Spokane, WA I met a guy and his wife who ran a candy shop at a country tourist attraction. He said whenever people didn't have enough money or said they'd lost their wallets he let them take whatever they wanted, gave them a business card, and asked them to mail a check when they went home.

They'd been open at least five years and he said he could count the number of people who'd stiffed him on one hand.

It's absolutely shocking how much your expectations of people change their actual behavior; look up the documentary "A Class Divided" from PBS for a good example.
 
  Don't expect people to do wrong and act surprised when they don't. Expect them to do the right thing, treat them with respect, and you'll make a tangible difference in their choosing good behavior.

Do the right thing...

[johnsnails]

What exactly is the right thing to do? Go back their and shop again? Pay money for any unpaid goods? Not pay for any unpaid goods? Something else you insensitive clod?

Re:just cutting the cashiers and then you will nee

[zvar]

and LP.

You mean like propane? Actually wrong as there are places around here, usually in from of Home Depot and the like that have a 24hr LP station. It has lots of pre-filled bins and after one pays with CC and a terminal next to it a bin is unlocked to take a full bottle out and put your empty in.

WaIkato? WTF?

[kiwijapan]

The name of the newspaper is the Waikato Times - not the WaIkato Times (http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/). Mind seem pedantic, but kiwis are proud of our maori heritage and place names. Oh, and the store manager is a dickhead.

Eheh, shame.

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, even if you do stand behind them with a big stick, you're never going to completely stop everyone from ever committing a crime... that's simply a fact... and of course, the wonderful lesson here is: only a police state will stand behind you all the time with a big stick threatening to use it if you break the law... because only in a police state do they feel the need to ensure that people don't ever break the law in the first place.

So does public shame count as a "police state"?

Re:Only in NZ - Actually I think it's bogus!

[Ganthor]

Yeah I read the article and I can't get all the bits of the story to fit together properly.

For this story to be 100% true as told we need to make some assumptions.

Assumption 1). ONE computer system needs to have control of the lights, door locks and registers.- or each of the separate computer systems together are coordinated and have control of the above items.
Assumption 2). The self-checkout registers were on and were pre-set to auto-start at a given time of day or "ready-to-go" state even though they were "cashed up" at the end of the previous day. - (read cash removed and tallied at the end of the previous day).
Assumption 2.1). The self-checkout registers have the ability to log on in the morning with no manager authorisation including connecting to the bank for the EFT/Credit machines.
Assumption 3. As NZ was an early adopter for EFTPOS so no one tried to pay with cash and expect change before someone tried to buy alcohol.

Reasoning 1). Unlikely. - More likely given the type of shop it is - the duty manager would have to do all of the above manually. Besides the duty manager would need to select what registers would be on at the beginning of the day.
Reasoning 2). No cash would be left in the machines overnight. - Therefore it's More than likely the machines turned off after cashing up was complete.
Reasoning 2.1). Again because the manager would select which registers would be active during the day I doubt the registers would be setup to do this automatically.
Reasoning 3). - Possible but unlikely.

I think the real story is something like, legislation prevents the shop opening on "Good Friday".
See: http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/wanaka/157571/businesses-defy-easter-law-again

More likely than the above: One manager figures he's being clever by not having the shop staffed and blaming it on a computer glitch.

Bzzzt wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The German Bahn system works by letting pretty much anyone on board. If it's ICE, or regional then you're probably going to have your ticket checked by an attendant... the punishment for boarding without a ticket? Buying a ticket.

Bzzzt wrong.
You will have to pay a surcharge when buying aboard an IC/EC or ICE train, and there's no onboard sale on regional/local trains (IRE, RE, RB and below). Plus, any sign that you were trying to evade the attendant and you'll be fined, too. Boarding a regional/local train without a ticket means a 40 EUR (or twice the regular fare for your ride, whichever is greater) fine plus legal consequences if you get caught.
The only exception happens to be "my"* line, where we do sell tickets even though we're part of DB Regio - the reason being that some of our stops are so small and remote locations that it would not be economical to install a ticket vending machine there.

What happens if you just happen to be in the bathroom when they pass? Nothing.

Bzzzt wrong again.
We *do* knock at the door and expect you to provide your ticket. Of course you'll be given sufficient time to finish your "business" and wash your hands first. ;-)

-Sincerely, Attendant #93, RB22396 / RB22397

*Kursbuchstrecke (KBS) 759, for the trainspotters out there

Re:Bzzzt wrong.

[snowgirl]

The German Bahn system works by letting pretty much anyone on board. If it's ICE, or regional then you're probably going to have your ticket checked by an attendant... the punishment for boarding without a ticket? Buying a ticket.

Bzzzt wrong.
You will have to pay a surcharge when buying aboard an IC/EC or ICE train, and there's no onboard sale on regional/local trains (IRE, RE, RB and below). Plus, any sign that you were trying to evade the attendant and you'll be fined, too. Boarding a regional/local train without a ticket means a 40 EUR (or twice the regular fare for your ride, whichever is greater) fine plus legal consequences if you get caught.
The only exception happens to be "my"* line, where we do sell tickets even though we're part of DB Regio - the reason being that some of our stops are so small and remote locations that it would not be economical to install a ticket vending machine there.

Oh... I was never doing Schwartzfahren, so I never actually learned what the full and real consequences were... thanks for the info!

What happens if you just happen to be in the bathroom when they pass? Nothing.

Bzzzt wrong again.
We *do* knock at the door and expect you to provide your ticket. Of course you'll be given sufficient time to finish your "business" and wash your hands first. ;-)

Oh, I was in the bathroom at one point, and no one knocked... I suppose I shouldn't have expected that to be actual policy.

Frees them to do what?

[Chemisor]

replacing people with machines is desirable. It frees up the people to do something more important, instead of a tedious job of threshing grain, carrying buckets of water, digging trenches with shovels, or adding up columns of numbers.

That could be valid logic if people were assigned to their jobs by some central planning authority. In a free market where you are free to choose your job, nobody forces you to choose an unimportant tedious job like threshing grain by hand, carrying buckets of water, or digging with shovels. You are already free to choose some important job that can not be automated. So why don't you? Why don't all these checkout clerks become lawyers, programmers, senators, or whatever it is that you believe to be important? The answer, of course, is that the market is already full. There is only so much that needs to be done in the world to keep everyone fed, clothed, and happy.

A single farmer with modern equipment can feed hundreds of people. A factory worker making clothes can make hundreds of garments a day. High efficiency means that only a fraction of the population is actually needed to do everything. Only that leaves the rest unemployed and unable to buy anything. What does it matter if the products are cheap when nobody has money? Money only works in a world where everybody is a producer and can trade their labor for the labor of others. If there is nothing sellable you can produce, because an automation owned by someone else can do it for free, you'll always be broke, starving, and homeless.

Re:Frees them to do what?

[Sloppy]

[Frees them to do what?]

I don't know.

Why don't all these checkout clerks become lawyers, programmers, senators, or whatever it is that you believe to be important? The answer, of course, is that the market is already full.

I think that's an oversimplification. There are lots of reasons they might take the less glamorous job. Some of those (lawyer, programmer) take some skill or education. You've got a point about the Senator market having limited demand, but that's a special case (and even that market isn't as limited as we make it be).

And one thing I'm sure of, is that the market is never full. It's never even remotely close to full. Granted, I don't have the imagination or ideas to figure out what is still missing (if I did, I would be an entrepreneur instead of an employee), but there are plenty of people who see beyond all the limitations that many of us incorrectly place on ourselves. Saying the market is full reminds me of those amusing quotes like "everything that can be invented has been invented" or "the world market has room for 6 computers." Believe me, there's somebody out there right now who is scrambling to do something new, and his problem is that he only has so many hours in a day, rather than worrying about a "full" market. And when we hear about what he's doing, we're all going to slap our foreheads. (Good grief, who would have ever guessed something as dumb as Twitter could be a business?)

A single farmer with modern equipment can feed hundreds of people. A factory worker making clothes can make hundreds of garments a day. High efficiency means that only a fraction of the population is actually needed to do everything. Only that leaves the rest unemployed and unable to buy anything.

When everyone really believes that, we'll be living the in the Star Trek economy and celebrating unemployment rather than dreading it, because we won't need to buy things. You'll say, "Computer, Earl Grey," and that will be that. At that level of efficiency, the premise behind all current economic systems (resources are scarce) will be violated.

All the "green" causes would be already won. If farming were really as easy as you say, the world could be fed without cutting down forests for farmland or adding fertilizers that end up in the oceans, because the costs of sustainability could be easily born (or rather, the subsidy of externalizing wouldn't be "needed"). The clothing factory could run on nearly-"free" energy and fiber supply. The statements that "nuclear energy is too cheap to bother metering" wouldn't be seen as a joke; it would just be a statement of fact.

Every cost we pay ultimately comes down to peoples' labor for which there is a limited supply. Coal and uranium and the ingredients for making solar cells -- as well as clothing and food -- really are free, if you totally ignore the human cost of getting these things, cleaning up byproducts, etc.

The problem with unemployment isn't that there isn't anything for people to do; it's with figuring out what to do. I know it's hard; I'll even admit I'm not smart enough to solve it. But nevertheless that is the problem, and every time we automate something (assuming the labor cost of providing that automation is less than the labor it saves) we get a little more wealth and narrow down the "what to do" list.

Re:Frees them to do what?

[Chemisor]

Every cost we pay ultimately comes down to peoples' labor for which there is a limited supply.

You must be living in some other world. Around here there is plenty of labor. Or, more precisely, there is plenty of labor in China, India, and the rest of south-east asia. There you will find hordes of people willing to work for peanuts, since they have the choice of peanuts or nothing. Even here, in the US, there is plenty of unemployed labor. They can't compete with the rest of the world because they are not cheap enough. While you can live on peanuts in Vietnam, you better have at least $10000/year in the US, and even at that level you'll be dirt poor.

If farming were really as easy as you say, the world could be fed without cutting down forests for farmland

Farming really is as easy as I say, and the world could easily be fed at our current production levels. It isn't, because insufficient agricultural output is not the problem. The problem is that the poor people who don't have the food, don't have anything to trade for the food either. Traditionally you are supposed to be able to trade your labor for your sustenance, but when people breed like rabbits the pool of labor eventually gets so large that it takes more than a day of your labor to buy enough food to feed you for that day. Then, of course, you have all those poor and hungry people, because there are so many of them, there is not enough work for them all to do. When they can't work, they don't get paid, and they don't get food, and they starve and die.

Saying the market is full reminds me of those amusing quotes like "everything that can be invented has been invented"

That's too bad, because the quote is not appropriate. The problem is not that there is not enough for those poor people to do. The problem is that there is not enough paid work for them to do. Sure, I can always find something to do. The question is whether what I'm doing is worth something to somebody else. Given the resources available to a typical poor man in Kenya, the only thing he could realistically produce is food. No matter how creative he can get, there is no way for him to produce cars for export, or container ships, or computers, or even furniture.

Large scale automation has made things very cheap, effectively bringing the profit margins on each item to near zero. A large corporation can make a million RAM chips at 1% profit margin and still support quite a few highly paid executives. A poor man making things one at a time can't afford a 1% profit margin because he makes too few to even feed himself at that rate. Automation does indeed create more wealth for the owners of the automation, and it does save money for people who buy products thus produced, but the resulting cheapening of labor makes it impossible to make things in any other way but with large scale automation.

Coal and uranium and the ingredients for making solar cells -- as well as clothing and food -- really are free, if you totally ignore the human cost of getting these things

Only if you ignore the question of who owns these resources. Do you expect people to just give them to you for free? Or are you a militant socialist who believes that nobody should own anything and all resources are to be taken by force by the state? Resources, after all, are limited, and you can't just let anyone come and take them on a first-come-first-serve basis. If nobody owns them, the state would have to ration their use, and we all know how well that system worked out in the Soviet Union.

Same with land. If you want to grow your own food, you need to own enough land to do so. An acre can probably feed a family of four, if you are a good farmer and don't waste anything. But arable land is a limited resource. There is not enough of it to give an acre to each family in the world. Even if there were, those poor people would just keep breeding until

Incorrect Assumption

[SkimTony]

Ultimately, money goes to employ someone. The exceptions are the rare cases where someone socks it away under their mattress.

This is actually a common assumption that just isn't true for certain segments of the population. The "sock it away in a mattress" scenario is the exception for the comparatively poor, but for the comparatively wealthy, it's the rule. Take for example, $100 in the hands of a) someone who is paid $30,000/yr., vs. b) someone who is paid $300,000/yr. (Note I didn't say "earns" in either case; that's a different discussion).

Person a is likely to spend that $100, putting it back into circulation and as you say, eventually employing someone. Person b, however, is more likely than not going to put it either in that figurative mattress, or in some kind of market-based investment, fueling speculation in commodities and driving up the prices of basic goods, in the end making it harder to employ people because more money has to go to pay for the speculation.

If we had anything resembling a labor shortage, then my money would be better spent in the self-checkout line, freeing up someone to do something more productive. But in our current economy (and I mean in general, not just since 2008), if I want my dollar to do some real work, I'm better off if it goes to paying a cashier than an executive.