Walmart's application has the same stupidity. "If you saw an employee putting a toy into a customer's cart, what would you do?" "Confront the employee." "Call a manager." "Follow the customer to see that he pays for the item." "Do nothing."
I'd probably do nothing because I always assume my coworkers are honest and if he/she put it into the customer's cart, it was probably already paid. But of course walmart thinks we should rat out our coworkers/customers and create an atmosphere of suspicion, rather than a friendly environment.
>>>After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned
You have that backwards. Betamax is actually an inferior product to JVC. Just look at the specs:
Same performance: - 3 megahertz video bandwidth (250 lines horizontal resolution) - 0.6 megahertz chroma bandwidth - AM sound (initially) - CD-quality HiFi sound (circa 1980)
Worse performance by Betamax: - Only 1 hour per tape versus VHS' 2 hours per tape (when first introduced in 1975) - Only 3 hours per tape versus VHS' 6 hours per tape (circa 1980 with extended record speed)
It's clear why Betamax failed to sell. If you want to tape the evening football game, and you only have 1 hour per tape, how are you supposed to do that? Or, if you are trying to save money, would you rather buy a machine that can squeeze 3 hours versus 6 hours per tape? I'd pick the VHS because it provides the same image quality/audio quality but holds twice as much.
Aside -
Oh and before you say, "But they use Betamax in TV studios," you would be wrong. They used BetaCAM which is an entirely different system based around component video, and with about 3 times faster tape speeds (for better quality). Not the same as the consumer brand which used the inferior S-video recording.
>>>How do you buy games from Sony at a cost of $20? All of the sony games are in the 40-60 range
(stupified)
Where have you been? While games cost $50 or $60 new, after about a year they drop to $20 brand new. Or less. That's why I almost-never pay more than that amount.
>>>The private model we have in the US is all about attracting advertisers and not offending them.
It doesn't have to be that way. Newspapers in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s used to run without ads, funded only by the pocket of their subscribers. Of course those papers only arrived once a week, but still we CAN go back to that model if we so choose.
>>>Yet in the case of government funding (such as BBC), the press is freer, better, and more critical of the government.
False.
Biased BBC - biased-bbc.blogspot.com Criticism of the BBC - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC BBC confesses bias on religion, politics - www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574 BBC report damns its 'culture of bias' - www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece The bias by omission is nothing less than outraging - bustingbbcbias.blogspot.com/ BBC bias in favor of Lisbon Treaty - democracymovementblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/bbc-bias-in-lisbon-treaty-reporting.html 'EU bias' to be probed - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557542/EU-bias-of-Today-show-to-be-probed.html And on and on and on - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=cur&rls=en&q=BBC+bias&btnG=Search&aq=4&aqi=g10&oq=
Only someone who is in denial thinks the Government-funded BBC (or PBS or CBC) is unbiased. They are no different than any of us. We kiss-up to the boss to keep our jobs, and they are not different.
His calculations and statistics are often wrong. For example I was just reading an article where he estimated total gold in the world is about 100 trillion dollars. I thought that sounded wrong, so I turned to the U.S. Treasury website, dug a little bit, and they put the number at just 5. The blogger (or bloggers) behind HSW are not really any more accurate than any of us. .
>>>I find it a bit hard to believe that the daily cost of presses, press staff and press consumables is equal to or less than the daily cost of web servers >>>
Me too. Which is why I did not say printing is "less than" web servers. You inserted words I never uttered. I said that while printing presses cost money to operate, so too do web servers with large electrical bills/cooling costs and typesetting/formatting the webpage, and it's probably about equal overall in cost.
The web server probably *slightly* cheaper than printing, but not enough difference that people should be getting their Online NYT for free or almost-free. So I'd still charge $30 per month for the online subscription (same as the print edition). You're still getting the same content, same reporting, same entertainment to fill your day.
And a reduced cost for the bundle deal (~$35-39 for both print and online).
>>>Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
Go here: http://www.glennbeckclips.com/02-18-10.htm [glennbeckclips.com] (or simply glennbeckclips.com if that link is broke) and watch Segments 3 and 4, and tell me they are not insightful, or at least educational, in regards to our debt situation.
On the liberal side Rachel Maddow has similar investigative/educational segments. Why would I pay New York Times or any other newspaper ~$400 a year when I can get pretty much the same info for FREE from television or radio?
>>>had to resort to publications from the federal reserve
Oh yeah. They are trustworthy. (rolls eyes). There's a reason Congress wants to audit them as soon as possible. The Fed officers are NOT trustworthy, or unbiased. (There really is no such thing as unbiased reporting, so you're basically wasting time looking for a holy grail that doesn't exist.)
>>>Wait....you consider those guys insightful? I weep for our future....
Go here: http://www.glennbeckclips.com/02-18-10.htm (or simply glennbeckclips.com if that link is broke) and watch Segments 3 and 4, and tell me they are not insightful, or at least educational, in regards to our debt situation.
On the liberal side Rachel Maddow has similar investigative/educational segments. Why would I pay New York Times or any other newspaper ~$400 a year when I can get pretty much the same info for FREE from television or radio?
>>> The closest thing I've found for true journalism (on TV) anymore is "Dan Rather Reports" on HD Net.
Alright.
I would also add the various PBS news/investigative shows. So then you sustain my point that there's no need to buy a paper, when you can find investigative reporting on television. For free.
This is the second time in less than 24 hours you pushed Chrome. Hmmm. (shrug)
Anyway I've heard that Opera is actually the #1 browser in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. So if you live in those regions, it makes logical sense to use Opera as your development tool and target.
Using similar names makes sense in marketing. "I'm looking for a civic." "Oh no, you meant Cirrus. We have one of those right over here," says the marketing drone. Confusion == opportunity to mislead customer.
Sometimes I think spending ten years in retail made me cynical. l-)
Great! Now I can read usenet and email. Too bad Verizon has stopped carrying Usenet groups and providing POP email. They also refuse to give me the password on my modem so I can open the incoming ports. My Internet Service Provider has slowly-but-surely turned a WWW-only Provider.:-(
Anyway...... this is great news. I love Opera and Opera Dragonfly sounds like a great product. I wish them much success with their new open source plan. I hope the users are patient enough to withstand the transition from closed source to open source.
Aside -
Remember when Opera was ad-supported? That model has faded-away but there are still some that support it, like the ad-suppported Free Netzero.
Can I have a translation on that please? I'm not sure what you mean by, "grats? they lost $0?" but my point is that I'm willing to pay the base price for a service, but not any additional fees.
It's why I pay $20 for my cable TV, but not the $1 rental fees for on-demand movies or sports or whatever. Likewise I'm willing to pay about $20 to buy a game from Sony, but not an additional $20 registration fee for online gaming.
Likewise you forget the costs of the servers, the electricity, the computer screens, the work done to typeset/format the webpage, where the articles are placed, etc. etc. It ends-up being essentially a wash... no significant difference in paper versus website costs. Actually it's not just you. I've noticed a lot of slashdotters mistakenly believe websites/servers/et cetera cost no money to operate.
>>>They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone
???. Bluray hold more data (50 gig v. 30 gig). Has faster datarates (50 Mbit/s versus 30 Mbit/s). And now has a scratchproof coating. Bluray is superior.
As for "underhanded deals" the Toshiba HD-DVD alliance also partook in several of those. For example, they gave Panasonic several million dollars to become HD-DVD exclusive. ----- And I agree with the rest of your points, with one addendum: Microsoft is no better than Sony. Their Xbox360's have a 40% failure rate, and although MS claimed to fix the problem, the failure rate is still unacceptably high.
Buy Nintendo.;-)
>>>They are the reason we have Celine Dion
I like Celine. Whatcha gotta go pickin' on Celine for? Jeez.
I don't play online at all, so I could care less. I prefer a game that has a story, with a fixed beginning, middle, and end. I don't like games that just goes on forever (Final Fantasy 11) and sucks up all your cash with no endgoal.
>>>"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
Okay. Whatever. Have fun Sony because I'm not paying. Almost every game I bought cost $19 or less (new), so you can take your additional fee and shove it up your concrete HQ building's ass.
>>>Therefore it's entirely reasonable to ask for a discount for a delivery mechanism which costs next to nothing, so long as they're still selling advertising space. >>>
Okay. Delivery costs (gasoline) are about 1% of the print paper's subscription fee. So instead of paying $30, you'll pay $30 times 0.99 == $29.70 for online. Happy?:-)
Endowments would enhance newspapers autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.
And by "endowments" he really means government handouts by the Congress. I call "shenanigans" on that. I no more want to support your "hobby" of reading the paper than you want to pay an extra $100 in taxes to support my modeling hobby. I am sick-and-tired of people thinking they have a right to suck dollars out of MY paycheck, and just as I fund my modeling hobby with my OWN money, so too should you fund your newspaper hobby with YOUR own money.
As for the Jefferson quote, if it were updated to the present, he'd likely say that newspapers are as obsolete as concept as Kings or Nobility. He'd say that newspapers have been replaced with newer, better technologies called audio and video.
Jefferson would also comment, "I can lay my hand on no part of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to give the People's money to a private business." On the contrary, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such power to the individual State legislatures.
I'm sorry if this post sounded... um... aggressive. But I think it's time for this country to wakeup and realize we can no longer continue down this path of spend, spend, spend. See my signature.
>>>Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
I consider folks like Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Olberman, and so on to be filling those roles...... and they are available free-of-charge via AM radio or Cable tv. It's one of the reasons I don't buy the paper - why pay for stuff I can get free via my audio or video?
- The online version, assuming it contains the same full content, should be priced the SAME as the paper edition. That seems logical to me, because producing the content still requires the same amount of workers, and that cost must be compensated. ----- If you buy both print and online versions, then there should be a discount, just the same as my phone/DSL bundle is discounted.
A year subscription to New York Times in paper format is $30/month, therefore I'd charge the same for the online version. If people subscribed to both, I'd give them a 75% discount - $30 + $7.50 == $37.50 for the bundle. Simple.
And yes I know about the argument "online does not need to be delivered", which is true, but MOST of the cost of running a paper comes from reporters' wages, not a few dollar spent on gas, so the savings is minimal.
>>>Gee, if only there were a legal way to get the opinions of others before you bought something
Yeah except you can't trust others opinions because:
- Most people have poor taste. They rated Transformers 2 very very high, but it was completely boring. If the opinions of others are poor, then you can not rely on them.
- A lot of those opinions are BOUGHT opinions. It's like a modern version of the 1950s Payola scam, but on sites like amazon.com and imdb.com instead of in magazines/radio.
- So basically I can't rely on anything but myself, by watching the movie or hearing the music FIRST, before I buy it. (Or else being guaranteed that if I buy the T2 DVD, and it sucks, I can take it back for refund or store credit.)
The difference when buying a car you get to have a look at it, generally a drive around in it. You get to make your choice of satisfaction prior to making the purchase. So you in fact get BETTER than a money refund. If you don't like it, you don't buy it. If I had the choice of listening to an album before making a purchase, there would be a lot of music I wouldn't have bought over time.
Quoted For Truth.
Also I wanted to add, like you, I've wasted a lot of money on junk CDs or junk DVDs. I have tapes/discs laying around collecting dust that, if I had been able to hear them FIRST before buying, I never would have bought them. And of course taking them back to the store does no good, because there's no "satisfaction guaranteed or money back" warranty like virtually all other products have.
Now that the internet is fast enough to transfer this stuff, I throw away virtually no money. I can hear or watch the product first before I buy it. That's how it should be:
- Let the customer try a product before throwing away his/her money -or- - Don't let the customer try a product, but be able to return it if they don't like it (like a candybar or other food products)
Slashdot Mirror
Walmart's application has the same stupidity. "If you saw an employee putting a toy into a customer's cart, what would you do?" "Confront the employee." "Call a manager." "Follow the customer to see that he pays for the item." "Do nothing."
I'd probably do nothing because I always assume my coworkers are honest and if he/she put it into the customer's cart, it was probably already paid. But of course walmart thinks we should rat out our coworkers/customers and create an atmosphere of suspicion, rather than a friendly environment.
>>>After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned
You have that backwards. Betamax is actually an inferior product to JVC. Just look at the specs:
Same performance:
- 3 megahertz video bandwidth (250 lines horizontal resolution)
- 0.6 megahertz chroma bandwidth
- AM sound (initially)
- CD-quality HiFi sound (circa 1980)
Worse performance by Betamax:
- Only 1 hour per tape versus VHS' 2 hours per tape (when first introduced in 1975)
- Only 3 hours per tape versus VHS' 6 hours per tape (circa 1980 with extended record speed)
It's clear why Betamax failed to sell. If you want to tape the evening football game, and you only have 1 hour per tape, how are you supposed to do that? Or, if you are trying to save money, would you rather buy a machine that can squeeze 3 hours versus 6 hours per tape? I'd pick the VHS because it provides the same image quality/audio quality but holds twice as much.
Aside -
Oh and before you say, "But they use Betamax in TV studios," you would be wrong. They used BetaCAM which is an entirely different system based around component video, and with about 3 times faster tape speeds (for better quality). Not the same as the consumer brand which used the inferior S-video recording.
>>>How do you buy games from Sony at a cost of $20? All of the sony games are in the 40-60 range
(stupified)
Where have you been? While games cost $50 or $60 new, after about a year they drop to $20 brand new. Or less. That's why I almost-never pay more than that amount.
>>>The private model we have in the US is all about attracting advertisers and not offending them.
It doesn't have to be that way. Newspapers in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s used to run without ads, funded only by the pocket of their subscribers. Of course those papers only arrived once a week, but still we CAN go back to that model if we so choose.
>>>Yet in the case of government funding (such as BBC), the press is freer, better, and more critical of the government.
False.
Biased BBC - biased-bbc.blogspot.com
Criticism of the BBC - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
BBC confesses bias on religion, politics - www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574
BBC report damns its 'culture of bias' - www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
The bias by omission is nothing less than outraging - bustingbbcbias.blogspot.com/
BBC bias in favor of Lisbon Treaty - democracymovementblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/bbc-bias-in-lisbon-treaty-reporting.html
'EU bias' to be probed - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557542/EU-bias-of-Today-show-to-be-probed.html
And on
and on
and on - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=cur&rls=en&q=BBC+bias&btnG=Search&aq=4&aqi=g10&oq=
Only someone who is in denial thinks the Government-funded BBC (or PBS or CBC) is unbiased. They are no different than any of us. We kiss-up to the boss to keep our jobs, and they are not different.
>>>This guy (howstuffworks)
His calculations and statistics are often wrong. For example I was just reading an article where he estimated total gold in the world is about 100 trillion dollars. I thought that sounded wrong, so I turned to the U.S. Treasury website, dug a little bit, and they put the number at just 5. The blogger (or bloggers) behind HSW are not really any more accurate than any of us.
.
>>>I find it a bit hard to believe that the daily cost of presses, press staff and press consumables is equal to or less than the daily cost of web servers
>>>
Me too. Which is why I did not say printing is "less than" web servers. You inserted words I never uttered. I said that while printing presses cost money to operate, so too do web servers with large electrical bills/cooling costs and typesetting/formatting the webpage, and it's probably about equal overall in cost.
The web server probably *slightly* cheaper than printing, but not enough difference that people should be getting their Online NYT for free or almost-free. So I'd still charge $30 per month for the online subscription (same as the print edition). You're still getting the same content, same reporting, same entertainment to fill your day.
And a reduced cost for the bundle deal (~$35-39 for both print and online).
>>>Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
Go here: http://www.glennbeckclips.com/02-18-10.htm [glennbeckclips.com] (or simply glennbeckclips.com if that link is broke) and watch Segments 3 and 4, and tell me they are not insightful, or at least educational, in regards to our debt situation.
On the liberal side Rachel Maddow has similar investigative/educational segments. Why would I pay New York Times or any other newspaper ~$400 a year when I can get pretty much the same info for FREE from television or radio?
>>>had to resort to publications from the federal reserve
Oh yeah. They are trustworthy. (rolls eyes). There's a reason Congress wants to audit them as soon as possible. The Fed officers are NOT trustworthy, or unbiased. (There really is no such thing as unbiased reporting, so you're basically wasting time looking for a holy grail that doesn't exist.)
>>>Wait....you consider those guys insightful? I weep for our future....
Go here: http://www.glennbeckclips.com/02-18-10.htm (or simply glennbeckclips.com if that link is broke) and watch Segments 3 and 4, and tell me they are not insightful, or at least educational, in regards to our debt situation.
On the liberal side Rachel Maddow has similar investigative/educational segments. Why would I pay New York Times or any other newspaper ~$400 a year when I can get pretty much the same info for FREE from television or radio?
>>> The closest thing I've found for true journalism (on TV) anymore is "Dan Rather Reports" on HD Net.
Alright.
I would also add the various PBS news/investigative shows. So then you sustain my point that there's no need to buy a paper, when you can find investigative reporting on television. For free.
This is the second time in less than 24 hours you pushed Chrome. Hmmm. (shrug)
Anyway I've heard that Opera is actually the #1 browser in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. So if you live in those regions, it makes logical sense to use Opera as your development tool and target.
>>> Confusion indeed.
Can I run that Live Linux BSD on my Commodore with Amiga OS 4??? Or will it be incompatible with Workbench?
Using similar names makes sense in marketing. "I'm looking for a civic." "Oh no, you meant Cirrus. We have one of those right over here," says the marketing drone. Confusion == opportunity to mislead customer.
Sometimes I think spending ten years in retail made me cynical. l-)
Great! Now I can read usenet and email. Too bad Verizon has stopped carrying Usenet groups and providing POP email. They also refuse to give me the password on my modem so I can open the incoming ports. My Internet Service Provider has slowly-but-surely turned a WWW-only Provider. :-(
Anyway...... this is great news. I love Opera and Opera Dragonfly sounds like a great product. I wish them much success with their new open source plan. I hope the users are patient enough to withstand the transition from closed source to open source.
Aside -
Remember when Opera was ad-supported? That model has faded-away but there are still some that support it, like the ad-suppported Free Netzero.
Can I have a translation on that please? I'm not sure what you mean by, "grats? they lost $0?" but my point is that I'm willing to pay the base price for a service, but not any additional fees.
It's why I pay $20 for my cable TV, but not the $1 rental fees for on-demand movies or sports or whatever. Likewise I'm willing to pay about $20 to buy a game from Sony, but not an additional $20 registration fee for online gaming.
Likewise you forget the costs of the servers, the electricity, the computer screens, the work done to typeset/format the webpage, where the articles are placed, etc. etc. It ends-up being essentially a wash... no significant difference in paper versus website costs. Actually it's not just you. I've noticed a lot of slashdotters mistakenly believe websites/servers/et cetera cost no money to operate.
How perplexing?
And if you don't realize that reviews in "proper newspapers" are bought-and-paid-for, and therefore can't be trusted, then you're a fool.
Or a MAFIAA employee/shill.
>>>If I don't want to play online, am I allowed to return the code to Sony for a $20 refund? I should be.
No but when you later sell your game on ebay.com, it will be worth about $20 more because it has an unused online code.
>>>They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone
???. Bluray hold more data (50 gig v. 30 gig). Has faster datarates (50 Mbit/s versus 30 Mbit/s). And now has a scratchproof coating. Bluray is superior.
As for "underhanded deals" the Toshiba HD-DVD alliance also partook in several of those. For example, they gave Panasonic several million dollars to become HD-DVD exclusive. ----- And I agree with the rest of your points, with one addendum: Microsoft is no better than Sony. Their Xbox360's have a 40% failure rate, and although MS claimed to fix the problem, the failure rate is still unacceptably high.
Buy Nintendo. ;-)
>>>They are the reason we have Celine Dion
I like Celine. Whatcha gotta go pickin' on Celine for? Jeez.
I don't play online at all, so I could care less. I prefer a game that has a story, with a fixed beginning, middle, and end. I don't like games that just goes on forever (Final Fantasy 11) and sucks up all your cash with no endgoal.
>>>"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
Okay. Whatever. Have fun Sony because I'm not paying. Almost every game I bought cost $19 or less (new), so you can take your additional fee and shove it up your concrete HQ building's ass.
>>>Therefore it's entirely reasonable to ask for a discount for a delivery mechanism which costs next to nothing, so long as they're still selling advertising space.
>>>
Okay. Delivery costs (gasoline) are about 1% of the print paper's subscription fee. So instead of paying $30, you'll pay $30 times 0.99 == $29.70 for online. Happy? :-)
Endowments would enhance newspapers autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.
And by "endowments" he really means government handouts by the Congress. I call "shenanigans" on that. I no more want to support your "hobby" of reading the paper than you want to pay an extra $100 in taxes to support my modeling hobby. I am sick-and-tired of people thinking they have a right to suck dollars out of MY paycheck, and just as I fund my modeling hobby with my OWN money, so too should you fund your newspaper hobby with YOUR own money.
As for the Jefferson quote, if it were updated to the present, he'd likely say that newspapers are as obsolete as concept as Kings or Nobility. He'd say that newspapers have been replaced with newer, better technologies called audio and video.
Jefferson would also comment, "I can lay my hand on no part of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to give the People's money to a private business." On the contrary, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves such power to the individual State legislatures.
I'm sorry if this post sounded... um... aggressive. But I think it's time for this country to wakeup and realize we can no longer continue down this path of spend, spend, spend. See my signature.
>>>Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
I consider folks like Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Olberman, and so on to be filling those roles...... and they are available free-of-charge via AM radio or Cable tv. It's one of the reasons I don't buy the paper - why pay for stuff I can get free via my audio or video?
I view it like this:
- The online version, assuming it contains the same full content, should be priced the SAME as the paper edition. That seems logical to me, because producing the content still requires the same amount of workers, and that cost must be compensated. ----- If you buy both print and online versions, then there should be a discount, just the same as my phone/DSL bundle is discounted.
A year subscription to New York Times in paper format is $30/month, therefore I'd charge the same for the online version. If people subscribed to both, I'd give them a 75% discount - $30 + $7.50 == $37.50 for the bundle. Simple.
And yes I know about the argument "online does not need to be delivered", which is true, but MOST of the cost of running a paper comes from reporters' wages, not a few dollar spent on gas, so the savings is minimal.
>>>Gee, if only there were a legal way to get the opinions of others before you bought something
Yeah except you can't trust others opinions because:
- Most people have poor taste. They rated Transformers 2 very very high, but it was completely boring. If the opinions of others are poor, then you can not rely on them.
- A lot of those opinions are BOUGHT opinions. It's like a modern version of the 1950s Payola scam, but on sites like amazon.com and imdb.com instead of in magazines/radio.
- So basically I can't rely on anything but myself, by watching the movie or hearing the music FIRST, before I buy it. (Or else being guaranteed that if I buy the T2 DVD, and it sucks, I can take it back for refund or store credit.)
The difference when buying a car you get to have a look at it, generally a drive around in it. You get to make your choice of satisfaction prior to making the purchase. So you in fact get BETTER than a money refund. If you don't like it, you don't buy it. If I had the choice of listening to an album before making a purchase, there would be a lot of music I wouldn't have bought over time.
Quoted For Truth.
Also I wanted to add, like you, I've wasted a lot of money on junk CDs or junk DVDs. I have tapes/discs laying around collecting dust that, if I had been able to hear them FIRST before buying, I never would have bought them. And of course taking them back to the store does no good, because there's no "satisfaction guaranteed or money back" warranty like virtually all other products have.
Now that the internet is fast enough to transfer this stuff, I throw away virtually no money. I can hear or watch the product first before I buy it. That's how it should be:
- Let the customer try a product before throwing away his/her money
-or-
- Don't let the customer try a product, but be able to return it if they don't like it (like a candybar or other food products)