I'll have to remember your "early or late" line. It makes me realize that when someone says they were on-time, they mean something like that they were just driving up when they were supposed to be at their desk. And knitting is boring as hell. Having done some in a handiwork class in grade school, I figured it'd be fun to try it again. No, it's the same thing over and over, the kind of thing for machines to do.
This reminds me of a couple of tech crutch ideas I've had in the past:
Timed padlock for sweets: Has multi-day delay before it can be opened again. Padlock is sufficiently expensive that one wouldn't want to break it to get a few dollars' worth of chocolate inside box locked with it. This way lock doesn't have to be metal; could be plastic.
Clock for people who set their clock ahead, but then mentally adjust time and so are late anyway: Time displayed by clock is always ahead, but by a random amount which varies between say 0 and 10 minutes. This way user has to assume it shows the correct time, and thus arrive on average 5 minutes early. Cheap version: cover up ones place of minutes display.
Microsoft has responded to this issue by releasing a metal antenna casing to put around your phone due to the design flaw, preventing transmission of this data.
The online encyclopedia now boasts of being the Internet's fifth largest site, which renews questioning by some as to whether it can afford over the long haul to stand by its policy of refusing advertising.
Being "authorized" has nothing to do with being "qualified".
Indeed; the point was that had we chosen to use Samsung's warranty service, we'd probably have gotten the same poor service, and have been paying shipping each time as well.
One likely problem with repairs is they (much like those customer DISservice people we call on the phones) follow scripts. That is, if a certain problem is presented, a certain "solution" must be applied (despite the fact that many problems can have a variety of causes).
Yeah, I can understand them replacing the lamp the first time, because that's probably a common cause of a black screen after two years. But the second time, when I gave a long description of how the unit would stop responding to the power button (power light wouldn't respond until a minute or so after it went blank), they did the same "repair". And the third time as well. Their system is utterly broken in that there is nobody at any stage that could correct this sphexish behavior.
I'm betting that it was the power supply, probably some bad electrolytic capacitors from the problem batches in 2006-2007. I'd have repaired it myself if it weren't still under warranty (such irony that the warranty probably made things worse).
What I find strange is that anyone would try to repair an LCD screen at all. I have had a few defective electric devices in the past few years, but not once did anyone try to do any repairs. In every case, I went to the store, they took my defective item, and told me to get a replacement from their shelves, or refunded the money, or in one case with an item with extended warranty, gave me the original purchase price towards a new item.
If we had tried it when we bought it, and it didn't work, we could have exchanged it for a new one of the SAME MODEL. That was a BIG error not testing it immediately. That leads to a good lesson: always test anything you buy new within 30 days, EVEN if you're giving it as a gift to someone.
In your case, if you received the purchase price of a 2007 LCD screen towards purchase of a new screen, you'd probably get a much better screen now.
I think we paid $240 for the LCD and $30 for the PSC in 2007, and received $190 in credit for the replacement monitor they gave. Given all the bullshit they put us through, it was not adequate compensation, even though $190 would have bought an equivalent screen in 2010.
In October 2007 a friend bought a $240 Samsung 205BW LCD monitor from Fry's Electronics, with a $30 three-year Performance Service Contract (PSC). She ended up not getting a computer until July 2009, when she first truied the Samsung. Occasionally it would go black and stop responding. The same problem occurred on my computers. Smartly, she delegated repair to me.
In July 2009 I took it to Fry's and brought the original box for protection, but Fry's didn't want it. It was ready in September, but still had the same problem. The screen now had a scratch in the middle and a very visible lint ball INSIDE the LCD. I returned it to Fry's for service, along with a page-long problem description to be sure they fixed it this time. I picked it up in November, but it still had the problem. Both times, "lamp failure" was listed as the (non-)issue. I also noticed more damage: a smashed corner, cracks in the stand, and pry marks around the edge of the case. At least the lint ball had been removed from inside the LCD.
In November, I returned it to Fry's a third time. On Thursday, February 18, 2010 I went to pick it up. I had them test it in the store, and it went black in less than five minutes. The PSC specifies replacement after three unsuccessful repairs, but the manager told me that the second and third didn't count because they were "reworks", since both times I had returned it within 30 days of picking it up. He confirmed that this literally meant that they could keep "repairing" it over and over and never have to replace it, if they deemed that the most cost-effective approach. For each repair to count, I had to keep the broken monitor 30 days in between. The PSC offers you a loaner monitor during repair, which you wouldn't be able to keep during these 30 days. Defeated, I left the Samsung there for yet another "repair".
In March I received a certified letter stating that since I hadn't returned the loaner, they were charging me for it and involving their legal department, even though they still had the Samsung and had said in February to keep the loaner. I panicked because I didn't have enough in my account to cover it at the time. I called and was told to ignore the letter. This pushed me past my limit; it was time to make them follow their PSC and provide a replacement. I contacted Fry's corporate customer service and my local Fry's called back with the same "most cost-effective approach" line about continuing to "repair" instead of replacing. After faxing them a copy of my PSC, their legal department finally agreed that they had to replace the Samsung.
Two weeks later they offered a replacement Asus 20" 1600x900 that "meets and exceeds the specs of your unit", even though the Samsung 205BW is 1680x1050. I couldn't understand why their replacement had 18% fewer pixels, and was another brand, even though they had a 20" Samsung model in stock. I explained this and several days later they offered an Acer 22" 1680x1050. The HP loaner monitor had been working perfectly for 6 months, and I didn't want to have any more surprises with another monitor, so I took store credit and paid $32 more to buy the HP. They pointed out that the remaining 7 months of the PSC wouldn't apply to the HP, so I wouldn't be able to take it in to Fry's for repair. As if I'd ever bring another LCD there for repair.
This was frustrating and took many hours of visits to Fry's, troubleshooting, and phone calls. Though they finally replaced it, we're not very satisfied with what we had to go through. Clearly we made mistakes. My friend shouldn't have gotten the PSC, as Samsung already has a 3-year warranty. And we should have tested the Samsung immediately, rather than waiting almost two years. These don't excuse what happened, though. I'm also left with questions. How did they fail to repair it after three attempts? If they had finally repaired the original problem, would the other damage done during repair just have to be put up with? Fry's told me that their technicians are Samsung-authorized. Would I have gotten the same poor service if I had sent this directly to Samsung for repair? A final note, Fry's current PSC apparently does have a "rework" clause, unlike the one from 2007 when the Samsung was bought, so beware.
The owner doesn't want to invest time or money in getting one set up, but I'm sure that in the long run it would save time and money. Can anyone offer suggestions for how to convince the owner that setting up a test suite is in his own best interest?
Why don't you simply explain to him why YOU are so sure that it will save time and money, and what testing you have in mind that will do so. Assuming your certainty is based on strong evidence, he should find it convincing as well.
I wonder whether part of this is unnoticed assumptions that all parties make when confirming results. Then much later when people's assumptions are different, nobody can duplicate the results anymore. Sort of like in any field there's plenty of knowledge that isn't documented well, and gets lost across generations. Sucks. It's like all of the sudden being unable to read anything from your storage media and not knowing why.
But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?
This reminds me of well-done exposition in movies or other fiction, where the audience is given a good amount of information about the characters or story, but in a way that is interesting and not disjoint from the presentation.
Their wanting to call it "peak travel" is clearly just an attempt to make it seem dramatic like peak oil. It's like calling every attempt to hide something X-gate.
The invisible hand of the market says that the buyers just don't care about having N different chargers. They claim to care, but their actions show otherwise.
Hmm... provided you could build some capacitance into the die,
Capacitance definitely makes it more interesting, because the device can store energy for a period, and then use it in a short burst. The instantaneous current can be greater than supplied by the cell, so it could transmit things etc.
It could be good for a pre-amp on a sensor signal which absolutely must be as isolated as possible... eliminating noise on the power line.
If the light it was powered by had any brightness modulation, it would pick that up as power supply noise as well, so you need a filter on the power supply regardless. Common examples of modulated light are LED and fluorescent, which are quite common.
It's not ego-centrism to be wary of reducing the barrier between having your rights respected and having them violated, without any ability of recourse. That you read this as being ego-centric suggests that you're an ego-centric person who imagines that others are as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Error 503 Service Unavailable
No, yes, no, no, no.
Slashdot is a blog. I have to say, though, that this summary is far from the worst of "X happened. . " type summaries.
or perhaps add a keyword that only appears once at least one person has reviewed.
Ugh my eyes, capital letters in the middle of word.
Yes, very stupid headline. I doubt many astronomers own the huge telescopes they use anyway; some university or research organization does.
I'll have to remember your "early or late" line. It makes me realize that when someone says they were on-time, they mean something like that they were just driving up when they were supposed to be at their desk. And knitting is boring as hell. Having done some in a handiwork class in grade school, I figured it'd be fun to try it again. No, it's the same thing over and over, the kind of thing for machines to do.
Timed padlock for sweets: Has multi-day delay before it can be opened again. Padlock is sufficiently expensive that one wouldn't want to break it to get a few dollars' worth of chocolate inside box locked with it. This way lock doesn't have to be metal; could be plastic.
Clock for people who set their clock ahead, but then mentally adjust time and so are late anyway: Time displayed by clock is always ahead, but by a random amount which varies between say 0 and 10 minutes. This way user has to assume it shows the correct time, and thus arrive on average 5 minutes early. Cheap version: cover up ones place of minutes display.
Do not like
Fixed that for you.
Disk space is cheap.
Indeed; the point was that had we chosen to use Samsung's warranty service, we'd probably have gotten the same poor service, and have been paying shipping each time as well.
Yeah, I can understand them replacing the lamp the first time, because that's probably a common cause of a black screen after two years. But the second time, when I gave a long description of how the unit would stop responding to the power button (power light wouldn't respond until a minute or so after it went blank), they did the same "repair". And the third time as well. Their system is utterly broken in that there is nobody at any stage that could correct this sphexish behavior.
I'm betting that it was the power supply, probably some bad electrolytic capacitors from the problem batches in 2006-2007. I'd have repaired it myself if it weren't still under warranty (such irony that the warranty probably made things worse).
If we had tried it when we bought it, and it didn't work, we could have exchanged it for a new one of the SAME MODEL. That was a BIG error not testing it immediately. That leads to a good lesson: always test anything you buy new within 30 days, EVEN if you're giving it as a gift to someone.
I think we paid $240 for the LCD and $30 for the PSC in 2007, and received $190 in credit for the replacement monitor they gave. Given all the bullshit they put us through, it was not adequate compensation, even though $190 would have bought an equivalent screen in 2010.
In October 2007 a friend bought a $240 Samsung 205BW LCD monitor from Fry's Electronics, with a $30 three-year Performance Service Contract (PSC). She ended up not getting a computer until July 2009, when she first truied the Samsung. Occasionally it would go black and stop responding. The same problem occurred on my computers. Smartly, she delegated repair to me.
In July 2009 I took it to Fry's and brought the original box for protection, but Fry's didn't want it. It was ready in September, but still had the same problem. The screen now had a scratch in the middle and a very visible lint ball INSIDE the LCD. I returned it to Fry's for service, along with a page-long problem description to be sure they fixed it this time. I picked it up in November, but it still had the problem. Both times, "lamp failure" was listed as the (non-)issue. I also noticed more damage: a smashed corner, cracks in the stand, and pry marks around the edge of the case. At least the lint ball had been removed from inside the LCD.
In November, I returned it to Fry's a third time. On Thursday, February 18, 2010 I went to pick it up. I had them test it in the store, and it went black in less than five minutes. The PSC specifies replacement after three unsuccessful repairs, but the manager told me that the second and third didn't count because they were "reworks", since both times I had returned it within 30 days of picking it up. He confirmed that this literally meant that they could keep "repairing" it over and over and never have to replace it, if they deemed that the most cost-effective approach. For each repair to count, I had to keep the broken monitor 30 days in between. The PSC offers you a loaner monitor during repair, which you wouldn't be able to keep during these 30 days. Defeated, I left the Samsung there for yet another "repair".
In March I received a certified letter stating that since I hadn't returned the loaner, they were charging me for it and involving their legal department, even though they still had the Samsung and had said in February to keep the loaner. I panicked because I didn't have enough in my account to cover it at the time. I called and was told to ignore the letter. This pushed me past my limit; it was time to make them follow their PSC and provide a replacement. I contacted Fry's corporate customer service and my local Fry's called back with the same "most cost-effective approach" line about continuing to "repair" instead of replacing. After faxing them a copy of my PSC, their legal department finally agreed that they had to replace the Samsung.
Two weeks later they offered a replacement Asus 20" 1600x900 that "meets and exceeds the specs of your unit", even though the Samsung 205BW is 1680x1050. I couldn't understand why their replacement had 18% fewer pixels, and was another brand, even though they had a 20" Samsung model in stock. I explained this and several days later they offered an Acer 22" 1680x1050. The HP loaner monitor had been working perfectly for 6 months, and I didn't want to have any more surprises with another monitor, so I took store credit and paid $32 more to buy the HP. They pointed out that the remaining 7 months of the PSC wouldn't apply to the HP, so I wouldn't be able to take it in to Fry's for repair. As if I'd ever bring another LCD there for repair.
This was frustrating and took many hours of visits to Fry's, troubleshooting, and phone calls. Though they finally replaced it, we're not very satisfied with what we had to go through. Clearly we made mistakes. My friend shouldn't have gotten the PSC, as Samsung already has a 3-year warranty. And we should have tested the Samsung immediately, rather than waiting almost two years. These don't excuse what happened, though. I'm also left with questions. How did they fail to repair it after three attempts? If they had finally repaired the original problem, would the other damage done during repair just have to be put up with? Fry's told me that their technicians are Samsung-authorized. Would I have gotten the same poor service if I had sent this directly to Samsung for repair? A final note, Fry's current PSC apparently does have a "rework" clause, unlike the one from 2007 when the Samsung was bought, so beware.
Why don't you simply explain to him why YOU are so sure that it will save time and money, and what testing you have in mind that will do so. Assuming your certainty is based on strong evidence, he should find it convincing as well.
I wonder whether part of this is unnoticed assumptions that all parties make when confirming results. Then much later when people's assumptions are different, nobody can duplicate the results anymore. Sort of like in any field there's plenty of knowledge that isn't documented well, and gets lost across generations. Sucks. It's like all of the sudden being unable to read anything from your storage media and not knowing why.
Duh, because it involves a computer!
Perfect for writing a two-faced contract.
This reminds me of well-done exposition in movies or other fiction, where the audience is given a good amount of information about the characters or story, but in a way that is interesting and not disjoint from the presentation.
Their wanting to call it "peak travel" is clearly just an attempt to make it seem dramatic like peak oil. It's like calling every attempt to hide something X-gate.
Amazing, that's how much I've spent this year on electricity, Internet service, groceries, and rent!
The invisible hand of the market says that the buyers just don't care about having N different chargers. They claim to care, but their actions show otherwise.
Capacitance definitely makes it more interesting, because the device can store energy for a period, and then use it in a short burst. The instantaneous current can be greater than supplied by the cell, so it could transmit things etc.
If the light it was powered by had any brightness modulation, it would pick that up as power supply noise as well, so you need a filter on the power supply regardless. Common examples of modulated light are LED and fluorescent, which are quite common.
It's not ego-centrism to be wary of reducing the barrier between having your rights respected and having them violated, without any ability of recourse. That you read this as being ego-centric suggests that you're an ego-centric person who imagines that others are as well.