company claimed the rebate was only valid in the US and Hawaii was not in the US! When I called to complain, I was told there was nothing they can do because that rebate offer expired.
That is what the state attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, planetfeedback.com, and small claims court are for. They illegally failed to hold up to their end of the contract, which means they are liable for their incompetence.
That only works if people are stupid enough to fall for it. Since people are no longer willing to fall for it (just look, rebate complaints were the #1 complaint for OfficeMax!), they are stupid to continue using rebates, since that is driving customers away to competitors who don't use such tactics.
What I find funny about this is that it's spoofs supposedly sent by a company notoriously hard to contact by phone. Anyone who has ever tried to contact Paypal about anything would know this. (Of course, the average user doesn't, which is probably what they count on).
Sticking with the CSI example, the camera they used to take pictures with used to have no name on it. The show got popular, and all of a sudden it became a Nikon camera.
It always was. But normal people don't paint over the Nikon logo on the front of the viewfinder/meter assembly.
As a Nikon owner and user myself, I can tell you that the SLR camera is a D100 with either the 24/120mm VR lens or the 105mm non-VR macro lens, with the ring flash (which doesn't work with the newer D50/70/200) and the speedlight is probably an SB-800 but I don't know that other flashes don't use similar cases.
And until the most recent season the shutter sound was a point and shoot shutter sound and not the mechanical mirror-flip of a real SLR. As I'm an amateur photographer, that drove me up the wall and I'm glad it was finally fixed.
The cameras don't bother me one way or another (though I'm pleased to see Nikon getting some exposure, pun intended) but the environment-killing inefficient unnecessary waste of taxpayer money H2 angers me.
Just not with public funds or as athletes affiliated with KSU. Conditions that the athletes agreed to.
Where does it say that they agreed to that? Furthermore, any such restriction is illegal due to the First Amendment rule that the government can't create rules that interfere with free speech, so even if one does exist, it's not enforceable!
If someone is willing to pay more than you, then by logic they should win the auction; what exactly is the problem there? You weren't willing to pay $25 in the first place, so where's your loss?
In the second case, the other user is willing to pay $10, and you were willing to pay $20, so by logic you should win the item; you were willing to pay more, so you won. Where's the problem there?
Unless the definition of "maximum" changed when I wasn't looking, which I don't think it did.
If you bid a max of 20 and a sniper still beats you, you would have paid more than $20 to win the item. Therefore, paid more than you were willing to. Therefore, failed at your objective. Besides, max bids are kept secret, so exactly what information is being broadcast early?
However, the way I see it is if a school is giving you tens of thousands of dollars for your education and they decide they want you to either (1) not advertise that you are a drunken asshole all over the net, or (2) risk losing that free money, then that is their right.
You would be correct if this were a private university. However, as a government institution, KSU has higher standards to uphold. The Constitution doesn't block private institutions from blocking free speech, but it does prevent the government from creating rules that interfere with it.
There is no right present in this case to censor anything. The school might be the one who faces the hardship when it finds itself on the losing end of a lawsuit, which seems to be the only thing that the idiots in today's government seem to understand -- and sometimes not even then, what with their handwaving "you must dismiss this case even though we aren't even a party in it" bullshit.
What about the hundreds of universities across the country blocking bit torrent and other p2p software, preventing you from connecting to online game servers, and other crap..
Blocking someone from downloading from a site (and protecting the network) is not the same as blocking someone from a site (that does not overwhelm the network and wreck things for others) and thus preventing them from making public statements on that site. I don't find myspace or facebook interesting, but I do believe that the government or any of its entities have no business banning anyone from using them. The protection of free speech is so vital that it is amendment number ONE.
The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."
And they cannot do that because they are government funded and are therefore expected to uphold the First Amendment. There was time spent in considering, creating, writing, implementing, and policing this rule. That means that the government is responsible for imposing censorship in direct violation of the highest law of the land.
This should be revoked before it is ever implemented, or if anyone is actually hit by it, that individual needs to sue immediately and demand revocation and a full apology from everyone involved.
It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.
Neither of which have anything to do with government money being used (as it is a state university) to block people from exercising free speech in the manner they see fit. Even if the scholarships are not funded by the government, the university itself is still funded by the state, and it takes time and effort to implement the restriction and to police it, so what you have here is the government creating rules restricting the free speech of the public.
The NFL is a private organization, and skydiving and riding motorcycles are not forms of free speech.
It is not the fault of the rest of us that you tried to be cheap by not putting in the max you were willing to pay in the first place, and someone else was willing to pay more and got the item.
Don't be cheap.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sure you'll win it. If you decide you want to pay $20 and bid $20 early on, your bid has priority over someone else who bids $20 or less later. If someone else wins the item, they will have paid more than you were willing to pay anyway, so you wouldn't have wanted the item. So your point is what, exactly? It does not have any bearing on the strategy being discussed. It's in your best interest to bid sooner if you know exactly what your upper limit is.
I haven't needed to. I don't actually have a use for TTG at the moment, although the lack of a Mac version still does bother me because there's no excuse to not have it.
restrictive DRM that forces me to used Windows or any particular device
Considering the tool only runs on Windows, they've already managed to accomplish that.
I'm a TiVo user (have lifetime sub on my box, actually, and 160GBx2 of drive space, and might get a Series 3; we'll see) but I'm also a Mac user, and every time there's a new update, it still doesn't have a Mac counterpart.
They may have been morons for failing to even take the basic step of enabling security or requiring other forms of authentication, which means it was a public resource, but they did tell him to stop using their network.
I don't know why he couldn't have gone to another place with network access. Another shop, a library (you don't even have to buy anything there since they don't sell anything!), a McDonalds, an Apple Store, etc. etc. etc. Maybe he was too lazy to look in the phone book for locations of places known to offer wireless...
Because if the store doesn't secure its network, it cannot as easily make a case that anyone who wants to use its network is doing so without authorization, should it choose to do that.
It's one thing to say "there's a guy out on the sidewalk using my AP to do things" if it's unsecured (and thus public) and another to say "there's a guy out on the sidewalk using my AP to do things, and he cracked the security to do it".
I secure my AP through passwords and a hidden SSID and etc., and I don't apologize for it. It's for my use, not yours, and if I want you to have it I'll log you on myself or give you the SSID/key. And it'd make my case all that much stronger if you hack in anyway since you're guilty of trespass AND breaking into a secure system.
If they didn't want people to use it, they should have secured it. Making the AP free for anyone to use made it OK for anyone to use it.
If they want people to have to buy something before using it, they should place a sign on the cash register with the SSID/hexkey/password or hand out cards or print the info on the back of receipts.
They're just whining because they couldn't make any money off the guy, and didn't think to use the basic security steps that experts have been pushing for YEARS now. It's a typical "I did something stupid, or I failed to do something mindnumbingly simple, or I failed to ask for help, so IT MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT, GIVE ME MONEY NOW" case.
I fail to see how a search engine can decide we aren't allowed to research the laws we're expected to obey, and do it with a straight face. Ignorance is no excuse to ignore the law, but don't you think that refusing to let people know what the laws ARE is going to contribute, at some level, to crime rates? If I can't find out that it's illegal to do something in a particular area, and get a ticket for doing it because I have assumed that it is okay (I don't have a particular hypothetical example in mind, so don't nitpick, just listen to my point), then even though I'm still obligated to answer the charge, the search engine is still to blame for imposing really stupid "restrictions".
Slashdot Mirror
company claimed the rebate was only valid in the US and Hawaii was not in the US! When I called to complain, I was told there was nothing they can do because that rebate offer expired.
That is what the state attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, planetfeedback.com, and small claims court are for. They illegally failed to hold up to their end of the contract, which means they are liable for their incompetence.
That only works if people are stupid enough to fall for it. Since people are no longer willing to fall for it (just look, rebate complaints were the #1 complaint for OfficeMax!), they are stupid to continue using rebates, since that is driving customers away to competitors who don't use such tactics.
So the original comment stands.
You did keep copies, and therefore sent them a complaint letter, complained to the BBB, and filed a small claims lawsuit, right?
What I find funny about this is that it's spoofs supposedly sent by a company notoriously hard to contact by phone. Anyone who has ever tried to contact Paypal about anything would know this. (Of course, the average user doesn't, which is probably what they count on).
Sticking with the CSI example, the camera they used to take pictures with used to have no name on it. The show got popular, and all of a sudden it became a Nikon camera.
It always was. But normal people don't paint over the Nikon logo on the front of the viewfinder/meter assembly.
As a Nikon owner and user myself, I can tell you that the SLR camera is a D100 with either the 24/120mm VR lens or the 105mm non-VR macro lens, with the ring flash (which doesn't work with the newer D50/70/200) and the speedlight is probably an SB-800 but I don't know that other flashes don't use similar cases.
And until the most recent season the shutter sound was a point and shoot shutter sound and not the mechanical mirror-flip of a real SLR. As I'm an amateur photographer, that drove me up the wall and I'm glad it was finally fixed.
The cameras don't bother me one way or another (though I'm pleased to see Nikon getting some exposure, pun intended) but the environment-killing inefficient unnecessary waste of taxpayer money H2 angers me.
I got through that whole thing without anyone pointing out how arrogant Sony was at thinking it could get away with rootkitting millions of PCs.
...
Y'all are slipping
Why is it that the ones who deserve the most punishment for what they've done always conveniently die or vanish before they can be punished?
Resurrect him, I don't care how, then punish him most painfully, then re-kill him, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, and let's parade photos of his dead body through the streets just like we did with that dead terrorist a few months ago.
Prove he's dead.
Just not with public funds or as athletes affiliated with KSU. Conditions that the athletes agreed to.
Where does it say that they agreed to that? Furthermore, any such restriction is illegal due to the First Amendment rule that the government can't create rules that interfere with free speech, so even if one does exist, it's not enforceable!
Bravo! We need more people like you who would do something about the sad state of affairs.
(I don't go to college -- graduated in '99 -- nor am I an athlete nor did I go to KSU, so I wouldn't be helpful there).
If someone is willing to pay more than you, then by logic they should win the auction; what exactly is the problem there? You weren't willing to pay $25 in the first place, so where's your loss?
In the second case, the other user is willing to pay $10, and you were willing to pay $20, so by logic you should win the item; you were willing to pay more, so you won. Where's the problem there?
Unless the definition of "maximum" changed when I wasn't looking, which I don't think it did.
If you bid a max of 20 and a sniper still beats you, you would have paid more than $20 to win the item. Therefore, paid more than you were willing to. Therefore, failed at your objective. Besides, max bids are kept secret, so exactly what information is being broadcast early?
However, the way I see it is if a school is giving you tens of thousands of dollars for your education and they decide they want you to either (1) not advertise that you are a drunken asshole all over the net, or (2) risk losing that free money, then that is their right.
You would be correct if this were a private university. However, as a government institution, KSU has higher standards to uphold. The Constitution doesn't block private institutions from blocking free speech, but it does prevent the government from creating rules that interfere with it.
There is no right present in this case to censor anything. The school might be the one who faces the hardship when it finds itself on the losing end of a lawsuit, which seems to be the only thing that the idiots in today's government seem to understand -- and sometimes not even then, what with their handwaving "you must dismiss this case even though we aren't even a party in it" bullshit.
What about the hundreds of universities across the country blocking bit torrent and other p2p software, preventing you from connecting to online game servers, and other crap..
Blocking someone from downloading from a site (and protecting the network) is not the same as blocking someone from a site (that does not overwhelm the network and wreck things for others) and thus preventing them from making public statements on that site. I don't find myspace or facebook interesting, but I do believe that the government or any of its entities have no business banning anyone from using them. The protection of free speech is so vital that it is amendment number ONE.
The school DID say "If you want to participate in our optional program, or continue to receive funding from us, then you will not do this."
And they cannot do that because they are government funded and are therefore expected to uphold the First Amendment. There was time spent in considering, creating, writing, implementing, and policing this rule. That means that the government is responsible for imposing censorship in direct violation of the highest law of the land.
This should be revoked before it is ever implemented, or if anyone is actually hit by it, that individual needs to sue immediately and demand revocation and a full apology from everyone involved.
It's the same way that NFL teams can write contracts that forbid things like skydiving or riding motorcycles.
Neither of which have anything to do with government money being used (as it is a state university) to block people from exercising free speech in the manner they see fit. Even if the scholarships are not funded by the government, the university itself is still funded by the state, and it takes time and effort to implement the restriction and to police it, so what you have here is the government creating rules restricting the free speech of the public.
The NFL is a private organization, and skydiving and riding motorcycles are not forms of free speech.
Report it. That's a common form of fee evasion and will get the seller in trouble and discourage ripoffs if enough people get smacked for it.
It is not the fault of the rest of us that you tried to be cheap by not putting in the max you were willing to pay in the first place, and someone else was willing to pay more and got the item.
Don't be cheap.
Sure you'll win it. If you decide you want to pay $20 and bid $20 early on, your bid has priority over someone else who bids $20 or less later. If someone else wins the item, they will have paid more than you were willing to pay anyway, so you wouldn't have wanted the item. So your point is what, exactly? It does not have any bearing on the strategy being discussed. It's in your best interest to bid sooner if you know exactly what your upper limit is.
I haven't needed to. I don't actually have a use for TTG at the moment, although the lack of a Mac version still does bother me because there's no excuse to not have it.
restrictive DRM that forces me to used Windows or any particular device
Considering the tool only runs on Windows, they've already managed to accomplish that.
I'm a TiVo user (have lifetime sub on my box, actually, and 160GBx2 of drive space, and might get a Series 3; we'll see) but I'm also a Mac user, and every time there's a new update, it still doesn't have a Mac counterpart.
Simply inexcusable.
They may have been morons for failing to even take the basic step of enabling security or requiring other forms of authentication, which means it was a public resource, but they did tell him to stop using their network.
...
I don't know why he couldn't have gone to another place with network access. Another shop, a library (you don't even have to buy anything there since they don't sell anything!), a McDonalds, an Apple Store, etc. etc. etc. Maybe he was too lazy to look in the phone book for locations of places known to offer wireless
Because if the store doesn't secure its network, it cannot as easily make a case that anyone who wants to use its network is doing so without authorization, should it choose to do that.
It's one thing to say "there's a guy out on the sidewalk using my AP to do things" if it's unsecured (and thus public) and another to say "there's a guy out on the sidewalk using my AP to do things, and he cracked the security to do it".
I secure my AP through passwords and a hidden SSID and etc., and I don't apologize for it. It's for my use, not yours, and if I want you to have it I'll log you on myself or give you the SSID/key. And it'd make my case all that much stronger if you hack in anyway since you're guilty of trespass AND breaking into a secure system.
If they didn't want people to use it, they should have secured it. Making the AP free for anyone to use made it OK for anyone to use it.
If they want people to have to buy something before using it, they should place a sign on the cash register with the SSID/hexkey/password or hand out cards or print the info on the back of receipts.
They're just whining because they couldn't make any money off the guy, and didn't think to use the basic security steps that experts have been pushing for YEARS now. It's a typical "I did something stupid, or I failed to do something mindnumbingly simple, or I failed to ask for help, so IT MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT, GIVE ME MONEY NOW" case.
Until it runs over your neighbor's DOGMA, and you get sued for all you're worth.
I fail to see how a search engine can decide we aren't allowed to research the laws we're expected to obey, and do it with a straight face. Ignorance is no excuse to ignore the law, but don't you think that refusing to let people know what the laws ARE is going to contribute, at some level, to crime rates? If I can't find out that it's illegal to do something in a particular area, and get a ticket for doing it because I have assumed that it is okay (I don't have a particular hypothetical example in mind, so don't nitpick, just listen to my point), then even though I'm still obligated to answer the charge, the search engine is still to blame for imposing really stupid "restrictions".