Personally, I'm cancelling my order for the PlayStation2 and anything else made by Sony. I'm also going to email sony and let them know why. If everyone did this I think we might just get their attention.
they'll firewall my PC? so that means they'll partner with the FBI to allow Carnivore to block your PC from the 'net until you sign an agreement not to use Napster. Seriously, I can see the big media giants partnering up with the phone companies(AT&T for cable services, USWorst for DSL, etc) and then the phone companies forcing all their customers to sign an agreement not to use Napster due to "bandwidth" or some other nonsense.
Seems to me Napster should be able to take that little statement to court...
I'm not ignoring any data. However, I do have a problem with a small group of people that want to rule our lives and consistently have asked for the government to force me to change due to some half-baked theory that is mostly driven by political BS. For example, ask a "environmentalist" if it'd be a good idea to raise gas prices by $3/gallon. He'll say hell yes! Ask him if normal people should have cars and he'll say no. Ask him what the weather was like today 500 years ago as compared today and he won't have any idea, but he'll tell you it was alot colder.
No, actually that's what they SAID would happen as of about 20 years ago. They were predicting a 15 degree increase over a period of 20 years. Now, when that was proven wrong, they're down to saying maybe 1-2 degrees over a period of 100 years! Most "environmentalists" are really nothing more than socialists at heart. They want the government to fix it. Think about the solutions every single environmental organization has proposed. Every single one was government-oriented. Too many vehicles on the streets? Up the gas price! Have the government charge more tax for gas! The trees are being cut? Regulate it government!
15 years ago, they told one of the small islands that they'd be covered in 15 years unless the United States stopped polluting the air. Want to know what's happened? The water line has grown a total of -2 inches! Oh wait a sec, that should read lowered 2 inches.
Get real eco-freaks.
I've noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, the two parties have converged on most things. There's still differences, but both of the candidates are going to go for the big money on the important internet issues. I would imagine neither of them have any idea what DeCSS is, let alone it's importance. Napster they'll say is bad and move on to the next question. The others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, so nobody cares.
I think it's telling that none of the major candidates thinks that Vote Smart and similar services are worth acknowledging. Meanwhile, they're willing to hire web designers to create their own web pages to show how progressive and interested they are in the Internet.
The comments weren't changed to neutrals, they were already neutral(you can't leave a negative without an item number. No item number=no negative) eBay recently changed their feedback to transaction-only, which is why there aren't any more recent feedbacks. As for suing eBay, try reading their VeRO policy first: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/vero-program. html If Micro$oft reports it, eBay has to end it or face the legal consequences. If it was reported wrong, you get to sue Micro$oft, not eBay.
Thought y'all might want some info on running these kinds of auctions successfully. Or at least it's more likely to be successful. Actually, I work for eBay and noticed the link here on slashdot and rushed to it. We've usually got alot of charity auctions and there's a couple of options. First is the option to put in a disclaimer that says the seller reserves the right to verify all bids above $X amount. Anyone that can't be verified will have their bid cancelled. If you look at the Rosie Auctions and the General Motors auctions that are happening now you'll see what I mean. The other option is to have the item in Great Collections(http://www.ebaygreatcollections.com/) That way the bids are verified and all. For something like this, it wouldn't work well since Great Collections has all kinds of requirements before you can bid. I'd personally go for the disclaimer side and call the high bidder to verify anything above say $1000.
No, the bid was cancelled. It would've been good if this guy had included a disclaimer saying he reserved the right to verify bids by phone within an hour. Alot of the eBay charity auctions do that(see #237672807 and 239968029 currently, plus all the Rosie auctions say it)
Why is this big news when this place is sued but not when Auction Watch was sued for doing the same thing? The reason eBay did this was because of the unnecessary strain on the servers. The reason the other sites(Auction Rover and others) weren't sued is that they agreed to a solution that basically let them index a backup copy, which meant it was about an hour or so behind but didn't place a strain on eBay's servers. Think of the slashdot effect continuously happening and you've got the kind of traffic these indexes would give on a regular basis! Why should eBay have to pay for someone else's indexing?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm cancelling my order for the PlayStation2 and anything else made by Sony. I'm also going to email sony and let them know why. If everyone did this I think we might just get their attention.
they'll firewall my PC? so that means they'll partner with the FBI to allow Carnivore to block your PC from the 'net until you sign an agreement not to use Napster. Seriously, I can see the big media giants partnering up with the phone companies(AT&T for cable services, USWorst for DSL, etc) and then the phone companies forcing all their customers to sign an agreement not to use Napster due to "bandwidth" or some other nonsense. Seems to me Napster should be able to take that little statement to court...
I'm not ignoring any data. However, I do have a problem with a small group of people that want to rule our lives and consistently have asked for the government to force me to change due to some half-baked theory that is mostly driven by political BS. For example, ask a "environmentalist" if it'd be a good idea to raise gas prices by $3/gallon. He'll say hell yes! Ask him if normal people should have cars and he'll say no. Ask him what the weather was like today 500 years ago as compared today and he won't have any idea, but he'll tell you it was alot colder.
No, actually that's what they SAID would happen as of about 20 years ago. They were predicting a 15 degree increase over a period of 20 years. Now, when that was proven wrong, they're down to saying maybe 1-2 degrees over a period of 100 years! Most "environmentalists" are really nothing more than socialists at heart. They want the government to fix it. Think about the solutions every single environmental organization has proposed. Every single one was government-oriented. Too many vehicles on the streets? Up the gas price! Have the government charge more tax for gas! The trees are being cut? Regulate it government! 15 years ago, they told one of the small islands that they'd be covered in 15 years unless the United States stopped polluting the air. Want to know what's happened? The water line has grown a total of -2 inches! Oh wait a sec, that should read lowered 2 inches. Get real eco-freaks.
I've noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, the two parties have converged on most things. There's still differences, but both of the candidates are going to go for the big money on the important internet issues. I would imagine neither of them have any idea what DeCSS is, let alone it's importance. Napster they'll say is bad and move on to the next question. The others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, so nobody cares. I think it's telling that none of the major candidates thinks that Vote Smart and similar services are worth acknowledging. Meanwhile, they're willing to hire web designers to create their own web pages to show how progressive and interested they are in the Internet.
The comments weren't changed to neutrals, they were already neutral(you can't leave a negative without an item number. No item number=no negative) eBay recently changed their feedback to transaction-only, which is why there aren't any more recent feedbacks. As for suing eBay, try reading their VeRO policy first: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/vero-program. html If Micro$oft reports it, eBay has to end it or face the legal consequences. If it was reported wrong, you get to sue Micro$oft, not eBay.
Thought y'all might want some info on running these kinds of auctions successfully. Or at least it's more likely to be successful. Actually, I work for eBay and noticed the link here on slashdot and rushed to it. We've usually got alot of charity auctions and there's a couple of options. First is the option to put in a disclaimer that says the seller reserves the right to verify all bids above $X amount. Anyone that can't be verified will have their bid cancelled. If you look at the Rosie Auctions and the General Motors auctions that are happening now you'll see what I mean. The other option is to have the item in Great Collections(http://www.ebaygreatcollections.com/) That way the bids are verified and all. For something like this, it wouldn't work well since Great Collections has all kinds of requirements before you can bid. I'd personally go for the disclaimer side and call the high bidder to verify anything above say $1000.
No, the bid was cancelled. It would've been good if this guy had included a disclaimer saying he reserved the right to verify bids by phone within an hour. Alot of the eBay charity auctions do that(see #237672807 and 239968029 currently, plus all the Rosie auctions say it)
Why is this big news when this place is sued but not when Auction Watch was sued for doing the same thing? The reason eBay did this was because of the unnecessary strain on the servers. The reason the other sites(Auction Rover and others) weren't sued is that they agreed to a solution that basically let them index a backup copy, which meant it was about an hour or so behind but didn't place a strain on eBay's servers. Think of the slashdot effect continuously happening and you've got the kind of traffic these indexes would give on a regular basis! Why should eBay have to pay for someone else's indexing?