Except that real-time communication doesn't ever stop. It just keeps coming in, incessantly, causing an ever growing backlog of data that will inevitably consume all available storage space, and eventually data will be ignored, or else they will have to restrict their search to quantities that they can search in real time without creating a backlog (which would be a small minority of the actual data out there).
Except the 50% discount they received was *not* what was advertised... in fact, the products were advertised at one price, and the only ended up getting the discount at checkout time.
It falls into the exact same category as a cashier accidentally giving you too much change... except instead of a few cents that don't matter, it's measured in terms of hundreds of dollars, which do.
If an object is mispriced, and that price was *NOT* put there by the retailer, the retailer does not have any obligation to honor the price.
The retailer, in this case, put one price on the product... and an error in the computer calculations caused the software to assign another price to it... but that other price is not what the retailer put there.
With a sufficient quantity of data coming in, even simply searching it is not necessarily viable Try doing a grep on a constantly growing data stream.... now imagine what happens when the rate of data you have going in exceeds your computer's ability to process even for something as simple as a search. The amount of information moving around the net every second is immense. You'll end up either with a constantly growing backlog that never gets empied or else you end up with large amounts of data being ignored because based on random sampling, it's assumed that nothing of import is going to be found in temporally proximate data packets. Either way, large amounts of data never get examined.
Even if it *were* ruled as illegal, they'd still go and do it anyways... the only difference being that we wouldn't know about it. It would still be just as ineffective, and you'd still be paying for it, so, as I said... is this really that serious a problem that it's explicitly legal for them?
I mean, the amount of data flowing out there is enormous, and I can't see them possibly being able to assimilate it all. Only a couple of days ago it was mentioned that they were drowning in data, and being explicitly legal for them to monitor stuff won't change that (if anything, it will make it worse) Any security you have will ultimately have to come from being a figurative (non-ferromagnetic) needle in a haystack.
Customers are perfectly welcome to file complaints... but ultimately, the price was not ever one that the Brick intended. Operative words here... "not ever". The price of the goods wouldn't be getting modified after the fact... because the price they were sold at wasn't ever the real price in the first place. Admittedly the customer may not have any reasonable way of knowing that, and they would be welcome to return the item for a full refund (even if the store would not have otherwise offered a return) but they cannot lay legal claim to an item that was sold to them at a price that was below what the retailer had *ever* agreed to sell it for. Now it may very well be that the reason why the Brick is offering the customers a discount on something as a thank you for returning the item or paying the difference is because it will cost the Brick more than that discount to sue them for it... (which is what they would have to do if they want the money back and the customer does not voluntarily return it), but the store would still win.
That's not how it works in Canada.... if you have completed a purchase at a price that the retailer never intended, once you realize the error, you are legally obligated to either return the difference, or you can return the item and receive a complete refund (even if the retailer otherwise has no return policy).. The retailer will have to sue you to get it, but they will definitely win if they can show that they never intended to sell it for that price. The operative words here are "never intended". If they intended to sell something for a particular price for a certain period and by human error neglected to remove the advertisement when the period ended, they can still be obligated to sell it for that price. But the price has to at least be something that they actually intended to offer at the time that they initially offered it. Computer errors, typos, or other calculation errors do not count. If a customer knowingly tries to keep an item that the retailer has claimed and can clearly show they had no intention of ever selling it for the price the customer obtained it for, the customer is basically no different from a thief... and in some cases, a Canadian court may even treat them as such if they had ample opportunity to correct the issue and deliberately chose not to.
It's my understanding that he *only* obligation that a retailer might ever have to a customer to honor a currently advertised price is when that advertisement was at least initiially and deliberately placed there by the retailer. Typographical, mathematical, and other computer errors on the price being advertised do not count in this respect. So, if the retailer intended to advertise something on sale for $10, and a misplaced decimal caused it to be advertised for $1, then while the retailer can reasonably be accused of not paying enough attention to what they are advertising, they aren't obligated to sell it for $1, but they can be obligated to sell it for $10 even outside of the sale period if they had simply forgotten to remove the notice of the discount because the advertisement was something that they initially deliberately put there.
Currently, the expectation for developers who use Unity and who want to target Linux is that they do their development on a Windows machine or a Mac. Some would argue that, in that respect, it makes it no different than developing for mobile or game consoles. Of course, if one was intending to develop a game that is supposed to be played on a full-fledged home computer, using a desktop operation system,it differs immensely from the Mac and Windows versions of the software.
So you are arguing that they didn't deliberately put uncomfortable chairs in to reduce the time of those waiting?
I am suggesting that they put in functional chairs that are cheap...and while unarguably uncomfortable, are not expressly chosen for that fact, except insomuch as it may arise out of a consequence of their low cost. What you appear to be stating is that chairs that are not comfortable are being deliberately designed so as to be so. that's the allegation to which I am disagreeing.
I'm stating that they purposefully built the chairs to be deliberately uncomfortable for some expected use cases.
I'll agree they are uncomfortable for some use cases, even including some expected ones, but those use cases fall outside of the deign parameters for all that a purely functional chair is expected to accomplish in the first place..
You seem to be arguing that merely because most people may find such chairs uncomfortable for such use cases, that there must be some kind of deliberate conspiracy on the designer's part to have made it so, when alternative and far simpler explanations which have to do with social and economic factors are much more likely to be the cause.
I won't argue that they are uncomfortable, but I would argue that they are designed to be such. There is a an distinction, you see, between something that was just designed to be purely functional, and never really designed for comfort and something being deliberately designed to actually be uncomfortable. You seem to be confusing the two.
Now it's highly possible that arm rests are added to chairs in such places to keep people from laying across them, but realy that issue has far less to do with any express intent to make people uncomfortable and more to do with the economics and social implications of doing otherwise. If they did not have the armrests there, in addition to having to deal with possible increased amounts of vagrancy, they would also need more chairs and more space than what they otherwise occupy because some people would end up take up multiple chairs. Sure, it discourages lying down, but then the chairs aren't beds, so why would anyone expect a chair to be used as such?
A road isn't that comfortable to lie on either, compared to a bed... or even compared to a grassy hill, but that doesn't mean that a road is actually designed to be uncomfortable to lie on... it wasn't built for that purpose in the first place.
Yes, that's an excellent example. Thank you. Designs of an appliance converge on a particular one not necessarily out of any attempt to copy another particular one, but as a consequence of what is actually discovered to be genuinely practical in the real world, both functionally and cosmetically.
I would argue that Google copied Apple in their design of phone to about the same degree that Linus copied Minix. It influenced it, quite heavily, even, but was not a copy.
The reason they are similar is, as I said, a matter of what is intuitive operation, combined with the state of what is technologically possible to achieve at the time, and overall practicality. The fact that the first generation of Android phones looked more like blackberries while those that came later looked more like iphones is no more reason to suspect that they copied the iphone than the fact that Apple's device looked like LG's first such device was a reason to suspect that Apple copied LG (in actuality, they could not have... the devices were unveiled within mere months of eachother, and neither could have even conceivably copied the other's design).
Now I won't argue that the iPhone had influence on the design of future devices... but influence, even if quite obvious and direct, is not the same thing as actually copying something.
I have an issue with dealing with deliberately rude people in a place designed to be as uncomfortable as possible.
You have not given any examples of how either a) the police are being deliberately rude to you beyond making you wait (by that reasoning, traffic lights are also being rude to people) , or b) how such places are "designed to be as uncomfortable as possible". For example, an unpadded chair may not be the most comfortable thing to sit in for a prolonged period, but that doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to actually *BE* uncomfortable. The only thing that I could infer from your previous description was that your only issues were with bureacratic red tape... which has less to do with them being rude and much more to do with how much patience you have. I opened this discussion by asking how they treat you like a criminal, and you really haven't really clarified what should have been a very straightforward question beyond any way that I could come to any other conclusion.
I haven't said you were wrong about not wanting to go into a police station... I only asked what they did there that somehow genuinely made it so intolerable. Your initial answer gave me absolutely nothing more to conclude than what I did.
Did they restrain you? Did they force you to stand when you could have otherwise been sitting down in a nearby chair? Did they constantly interrupt you when you were trying to speak? What the heck did they do that was so rude or that made you feel like they were treating you like a criminal?
Apple did not invent what we now call the smartphone. The iPhone merely has the distinction of being the first really popular such device.
IBM came out with their touch-based "Simon" phone in 1993, which although it had a black-and-white screen and lacked multitouch capabilities, still had many of the features we associate with smartphones today. Users dialed with a onscreen keypad, and Simon included a calendar, address book, can be understood alarm clock, and e-mail functionality.
A Swedish company, Neonode, came out with a touch screen phone in 2003 (arguably unimaginatively named the N1m) that even utilized gestures, including the now very familiar "slide to unlock" functionality... which so many people associate with the iPhone these days (although in actuality, the intuitiveness of slide-to-unlock gesture is really quite obvious when you compare such an operation to that of sliding a deadbolt open).
But arguably neither of these phones looked a lot like the iPhone... But this in no small part because technology really needed to catch up to the concept. Nonetheless, if you look at pictures of either of those devices, especially in operation, you will probably recognize many familiar concepts which we now come to expect in a smartphone today.
Enter the LG Prada, in 2006, a fully multitouch smartphone unveiled not that long before Apple publicly unveiled the iPhone, and which looks so similar to the iPhone that LG actually accused Apple of copying *THEM* (although in actuality, their release dates were near enough to each other that it is unlikely that either had had any significant influence on the other).
So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality... not, as you put it, imitation that is both "transparent and egregious"
All I;m saying is that from how you've described it, your biggest grievance with them is that you have to deal with waiting for things to complete. That, I'm suggesting, is a problem within yourself and not an artifact of treating people with anything less than the respect that they may deserve. If you could elaborate more on how they made you feel like a criminal, I may have more information to draw a conclusion from.
I've never been to Texas so I can't speak personally for how the police there treat people who are just trying to do their civic duty by reporting crimes, but how you described "being treated like a criminal" genuinely did not sound like anything more suspicious than bureaucratic red tape
Your exact words were:
...Put in a "holding cell" to fill out paperwork, and made to wait for an arraignment for someone to accept my papers....
which suggested to me that the problem was your patience, and not really them treating you like a criminal. A criminal, for instance, would even not be permitted to get up and go to the bathroom without supervision while waiting, for example.
Sarcasm noted... that would be because wine isn't very important in making Linux a mainstream desktop OS. Any more than it was necessary to make OSX such an OS. It will either happen because it offers things that people want that they aren't getting from their existing OS... or it won't. One or the other. But what won't make it happen is software like wine, which runs native windows applications... offering no particular benefit to a windows user since they likely already have windows and are familiar with it.
Or I could, you know, actually use slackware, and pay attention to what packages are supported and which ones are not.
That it happens to be the first result of a google search should tell you something about how popular slackware is, and illustrate that although it claims that it might work, it also explicitly says it is UNSUPPORTED.... which is all I ever said above as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that is only applicable if there is a human cashier involved. Online purchases are basically self-checkout systems.
Except that real-time communication doesn't ever stop. It just keeps coming in, incessantly, causing an ever growing backlog of data that will inevitably consume all available storage space, and eventually data will be ignored, or else they will have to restrict their search to quantities that they can search in real time without creating a backlog (which would be a small minority of the actual data out there).
Except the 50% discount they received was *not* what was advertised... in fact, the products were advertised at one price, and the only ended up getting the discount at checkout time.
It falls into the exact same category as a cashier accidentally giving you too much change... except instead of a few cents that don't matter, it's measured in terms of hundreds of dollars, which do.
Even google can't search through the entire world's communications in real time.
Yes, intent is the relevant factor.
If an object is mispriced, and that price was *NOT* put there by the retailer, the retailer does not have any obligation to honor the price.
The retailer, in this case, put one price on the product... and an error in the computer calculations caused the software to assign another price to it... but that other price is not what the retailer put there.
In a nutshell, typo's don't count.
With a sufficient quantity of data coming in, even simply searching it is not necessarily viable Try doing a grep on a constantly growing data stream.... now imagine what happens when the rate of data you have going in exceeds your computer's ability to process even for something as simple as a search. The amount of information moving around the net every second is immense. You'll end up either with a constantly growing backlog that never gets empied or else you end up with large amounts of data being ignored because based on random sampling, it's assumed that nothing of import is going to be found in temporally proximate data packets. Either way, large amounts of data never get examined.
Even if it *were* ruled as illegal, they'd still go and do it anyways... the only difference being that we wouldn't know about it. It would still be just as ineffective, and you'd still be paying for it, so, as I said... is this really that serious a problem that it's explicitly legal for them?
I mean, the amount of data flowing out there is enormous, and I can't see them possibly being able to assimilate it all. Only a couple of days ago it was mentioned that they were drowning in data, and being explicitly legal for them to monitor stuff won't change that (if anything, it will make it worse) Any security you have will ultimately have to come from being a figurative (non-ferromagnetic) needle in a haystack.
Customers are perfectly welcome to file complaints... but ultimately, the price was not ever one that the Brick intended. Operative words here... "not ever". The price of the goods wouldn't be getting modified after the fact... because the price they were sold at wasn't ever the real price in the first place. Admittedly the customer may not have any reasonable way of knowing that, and they would be welcome to return the item for a full refund (even if the store would not have otherwise offered a return) but they cannot lay legal claim to an item that was sold to them at a price that was below what the retailer had *ever* agreed to sell it for. Now it may very well be that the reason why the Brick is offering the customers a discount on something as a thank you for returning the item or paying the difference is because it will cost the Brick more than that discount to sue them for it... (which is what they would have to do if they want the money back and the customer does not voluntarily return it), but the store would still win.
That's not how it works in Canada.... if you have completed a purchase at a price that the retailer never intended, once you realize the error, you are legally obligated to either return the difference, or you can return the item and receive a complete refund (even if the retailer otherwise has no return policy).. The retailer will have to sue you to get it, but they will definitely win if they can show that they never intended to sell it for that price. The operative words here are "never intended". If they intended to sell something for a particular price for a certain period and by human error neglected to remove the advertisement when the period ended, they can still be obligated to sell it for that price. But the price has to at least be something that they actually intended to offer at the time that they initially offered it. Computer errors, typos, or other calculation errors do not count. If a customer knowingly tries to keep an item that the retailer has claimed and can clearly show they had no intention of ever selling it for the price the customer obtained it for, the customer is basically no different from a thief... and in some cases, a Canadian court may even treat them as such if they had ample opportunity to correct the issue and deliberately chose not to.
It's my understanding that he *only* obligation that a retailer might ever have to a customer to honor a currently advertised price is when that advertisement was at least initiially and deliberately placed there by the retailer. Typographical, mathematical, and other computer errors on the price being advertised do not count in this respect. So, if the retailer intended to advertise something on sale for $10, and a misplaced decimal caused it to be advertised for $1, then while the retailer can reasonably be accused of not paying enough attention to what they are advertising, they aren't obligated to sell it for $1, but they can be obligated to sell it for $10 even outside of the sale period if they had simply forgotten to remove the notice of the discount because the advertisement was something that they initially deliberately put there.
Still, 90 years is an awfully long time... these copyrights should have reasonably expired several decades ago.
Currently, the expectation for developers who use Unity and who want to target Linux is that they do their development on a Windows machine or a Mac. Some would argue that, in that respect, it makes it no different than developing for mobile or game consoles. Of course, if one was intending to develop a game that is supposed to be played on a full-fledged home computer, using a desktop operation system,it differs immensely from the Mac and Windows versions of the software.
I am suggesting that they put in functional chairs that are cheap...and while unarguably uncomfortable, are not expressly chosen for that fact, except insomuch as it may arise out of a consequence of their low cost. What you appear to be stating is that chairs that are not comfortable are being deliberately designed so as to be so. that's the allegation to which I am disagreeing.
I'll agree they are uncomfortable for some use cases, even including some expected ones, but those use cases fall outside of the deign parameters for all that a purely functional chair is expected to accomplish in the first place..
You seem to be arguing that merely because most people may find such chairs uncomfortable for such use cases, that there must be some kind of deliberate conspiracy on the designer's part to have made it so, when alternative and far simpler explanations which have to do with social and economic factors are much more likely to be the cause.
I won't argue that they are uncomfortable, but I would argue that they are designed to be such. There is a an distinction, you see, between something that was just designed to be purely functional, and never really designed for comfort and something being deliberately designed to actually be uncomfortable. You seem to be confusing the two.
Now it's highly possible that arm rests are added to chairs in such places to keep people from laying across them, but realy that issue has far less to do with any express intent to make people uncomfortable and more to do with the economics and social implications of doing otherwise. If they did not have the armrests there, in addition to having to deal with possible increased amounts of vagrancy, they would also need more chairs and more space than what they otherwise occupy because some people would end up take up multiple chairs. Sure, it discourages lying down, but then the chairs aren't beds, so why would anyone expect a chair to be used as such?
A road isn't that comfortable to lie on either, compared to a bed... or even compared to a grassy hill, but that doesn't mean that a road is actually designed to be uncomfortable to lie on... it wasn't built for that purpose in the first place.
Yes, that's an excellent example. Thank you. Designs of an appliance converge on a particular one not necessarily out of any attempt to copy another particular one, but as a consequence of what is actually discovered to be genuinely practical in the real world, both functionally and cosmetically.
I would argue that Google copied Apple in their design of phone to about the same degree that Linus copied Minix. It influenced it, quite heavily, even, but was not a copy.
You're right... it's no coincidence.
The reason they are similar is, as I said, a matter of what is intuitive operation, combined with the state of what is technologically possible to achieve at the time, and overall practicality. The fact that the first generation of Android phones looked more like blackberries while those that came later looked more like iphones is no more reason to suspect that they copied the iphone than the fact that Apple's device looked like LG's first such device was a reason to suspect that Apple copied LG (in actuality, they could not have... the devices were unveiled within mere months of eachother, and neither could have even conceivably copied the other's design).
Now I won't argue that the iPhone had influence on the design of future devices... but influence, even if quite obvious and direct, is not the same thing as actually copying something.
You have not given any examples of how either a) the police are being deliberately rude to you beyond making you wait (by that reasoning, traffic lights are also being rude to people) , or b) how such places are "designed to be as uncomfortable as possible". For example, an unpadded chair may not be the most comfortable thing to sit in for a prolonged period, but that doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to actually *BE* uncomfortable. The only thing that I could infer from your previous description was that your only issues were with bureacratic red tape... which has less to do with them being rude and much more to do with how much patience you have. I opened this discussion by asking how they treat you like a criminal, and you really haven't really clarified what should have been a very straightforward question beyond any way that I could come to any other conclusion.
I haven't said you were wrong about not wanting to go into a police station... I only asked what they did there that somehow genuinely made it so intolerable. Your initial answer gave me absolutely nothing more to conclude than what I did.
Did they restrain you? Did they force you to stand when you could have otherwise been sitting down in a nearby chair? Did they constantly interrupt you when you were trying to speak? What the heck did they do that was so rude or that made you feel like they were treating you like a criminal?
Apple did not invent what we now call the smartphone. The iPhone merely has the distinction of being the first really popular such device.
IBM came out with their touch-based "Simon" phone in 1993, which although it had a black-and-white screen and lacked multitouch capabilities, still had many of the features we associate with smartphones today. Users dialed with a onscreen keypad, and Simon included a calendar, address book, can be understood alarm clock, and e-mail functionality.
A Swedish company, Neonode, came out with a touch screen phone in 2003 (arguably unimaginatively named the N1m) that even utilized gestures, including the now very familiar "slide to unlock" functionality... which so many people associate with the iPhone these days (although in actuality, the intuitiveness of slide-to-unlock gesture is really quite obvious when you compare such an operation to that of sliding a deadbolt open).
But arguably neither of these phones looked a lot like the iPhone... But this in no small part because technology really needed to catch up to the concept. Nonetheless, if you look at pictures of either of those devices, especially in operation, you will probably recognize many familiar concepts which we now come to expect in a smartphone today.
Enter the LG Prada, in 2006, a fully multitouch smartphone unveiled not that long before Apple publicly unveiled the iPhone, and which looks so similar to the iPhone that LG actually accused Apple of copying *THEM* (although in actuality, their release dates were near enough to each other that it is unlikely that either had had any significant influence on the other).
So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality... not, as you put it, imitation that is both "transparent and egregious"
All I;m saying is that from how you've described it, your biggest grievance with them is that you have to deal with waiting for things to complete. That, I'm suggesting, is a problem within yourself and not an artifact of treating people with anything less than the respect that they may deserve. If you could elaborate more on how they made you feel like a criminal, I may have more information to draw a conclusion from.
Your exact words were:
which suggested to me that the problem was your patience, and not really them treating you like a criminal. A criminal, for instance, would even not be permitted to get up and go to the bathroom without supervision while waiting, for example.
It might use more power, but it won't be needed for as long. The net amount of energy will be lower.
Sarcasm noted... that would be because wine isn't very important in making Linux a mainstream desktop OS. Any more than it was necessary to make OSX such an OS. It will either happen because it offers things that people want that they aren't getting from their existing OS... or it won't. One or the other. But what won't make it happen is software like wine, which runs native windows applications... offering no particular benefit to a windows user since they likely already have windows and are familiar with it.
Or I could, you know, actually use slackware, and pay attention to what packages are supported and which ones are not.
That it happens to be the first result of a google search should tell you something about how popular slackware is, and illustrate that although it claims that it might work, it also explicitly says it is UNSUPPORTED.... which is all I ever said above as well.