FTC: Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
However, in the US, nothing really stops an unscrupulous vendor from choosing to ding your credit, requiring you to pursue them in court if you want to have that damage compensated for..... By the time the legal forces come together to levy consequences against the vendor, they will have finished their short-term operation, they'll be out of business, gone, and the $$$ / capital to pursue will be knowhere to be seen.
You accept the EULA when it first boots up into the new OS. If you decline it reverts you back.
You cannot be bound to an agreement in order to approve actions the other party already did or benefits the other
party already provided you without agreement.
An extra EULA could apply to additional benefits to be received from Microsoft AFTER the Windows 10 install.
However, no EULA you click through is capable of waiving your rights to sue them for unauthorized upgrade to Windows 10.
Also, no EULA you click through is capable of binding you to new terms for an upgrade that was already installed on your computer without your
prior agreement.
The option to "revert" or "uninstall" is irrelevent, and possibly further damage due to the unreliability and time loss required for that repair operation.
then you know people will just walk into the streets knowing the cars will stop anyway, so even more jerks will hold up the traffic..
Make laws where pedestrians will be penalized with a ticket and a fine for each instance of improperly entering the road or standing in the way of traffic And can be reported by drivers; Also have it be a new separate offense with an additional $500 fine or month in jail for every 5 minutes they are impeding traffic.
Mechanize the reporting process by having the cars automatically take videos of violations in progress and submit to authorities.
where everyone's car knows when every toddler on Earth decided to wander onto a road?
No.... if a Toddler wanders onto the highway, then that toddler's parents just committed a homicide.
What do you think is going to happen?
Replacing human-driven cars for self-driving ones doesn't change that.
And no, the self-driving car should not facilitate endangerment of more people in the event that a toddler wanders into the road.
Also, in a world where that happens, parents become more careless (If they think autonomous cars will self-sacrifice to protect their toddler), and more toddlers wander into the road, and more people die as a consequence.
Except that's an unavoidable situation. Sometimes there is no option where everybody ends up fine.
It's not necessary for the vehicle to make a decision here.
It can simply attempt to avoid a crash by utilizing only normal means which a human would use, such as braking, or safe swerving within the confines of the road.
Not "Erratic behavior" such as attempting to self-run-off-the-road-into-the-ditch or other self-sacrificial strategies.
The car should just take steps to avoid or mitigate crashes, not to make a tradeoff where other actions are used that further-endanger the driver or passengers.
Extreme avoidance strategies might be considered, but only for the benefit of making sure there is no crash at all and making people in the car more likely to survive or escape serious injury
Even better if they include infrared imagery in the scans.
And start using anti-counterfeit graphics containing unique serialized digital data on the surfaces of the readers and keypad which will be scanned and verified before every transaction.
That's all well and good for the people who understand the problem, but you've got to mandate it.
Actually, you are better off if you can fix the problem only for youself.
That way everybody else will be a distraction for the criminals, so they won't get you.....
Erasing the magstrip might not be the least-obtrusive measure..... How about covering it with foil tape?
Then the court may throw his case out because Comcast, at the time, could easily come up with a reason why the guy hadn't received the check yet.
The promise to write a check in the future does not prevent a case from going forward.
You still have a claim for the hardship and losses caused by their error.
If anything the "promise to pay in 90 days" can be used as an admission of wrongdoing, and
can probably get a judge to sign off on an order to pay immediately the portion of the claim not under dispute.
He shouldn't have allowed it to be drawn out so long.
After 30 days, he should have filed a lawsuit against Comcast in small claims, for the amount due.
I was thinking more along the lines of requesting that Browsers drop their CAs' from the Trust store for reasons along the line of
Bad Faith behavior / Attempting to fraudulently or deceptively appropriate the names of other organizations in a manner
unbecoming of a Trusted Authority or ID certification agency.
All in all I would say selling eBay is a losing proposition. You will extremely frequently lose your item, get no money, and your consolation prize of having paid eBay fees and shipping fees which increase the loss.
In my experience reselling things on eBay.... 60% to 70% of time, after I package up and sent the item to the buyer, the buyer files a claim with PayPal or demands a return and refund saying the item doesn't work.
Then they ship me "my item" back...... Except, when I open the package they returned it's a totally different unit than the one I sent the buyer, So they kept the working item I sent and mailed me back a dud, claiming that is a return.
Also, if item gets tied up for delay in customs, often the buyer will file a claim and be awarded a refund by eBay, even when the item is still shipping to them, So they will keep both the money and the item.....
Get all PS3 owners to Object to the settlement and demand the remedy of Specific Performance.
Sony will be ordered by the court to restore 100% of the OtherOS functionality present before the update, which we paid for.
30% if PCs ships with dedicated graphics cards. The market is > $1 billion.
These do not count as video card purchases.
These are mostly sales of laptops and desktops that happen to contain integrated video functionality;
most of the time, the buyer won't even learn what kind of GPU hardware has been included
It's kind of like pointing to the exploding sales of Google Android devices and attempting to argue from that
it's the year of the Linux desktop, because these are all sales of the Linux kernel.
They've been discreetly buying the stuff they test — including cars — for decades now.
I like consumer reports, but they concentrate on products that appeal to the masses, not highly-technical products like computer video cards that the average consumer is not interested in.
It's amazing what you can do, when you have 7 million subscribers, each paying $30 a year, isn't it?
The market for consumer computer hardware component reviews, does not have this kind of reach, however.
Think there might be a lot more consumers looking for reviews on products in the $100 billion+ per Year market for Cars, Versus the $50 mllion+ per Year market for video cards?
It has not always been like that, but In fact.... I would dare say that discrete video cards are becoming a niche market for hobbyists.
There's no way 7 million people are going to subscribe to a publication that reviews computer components; not going to happen. That is going to be one hell of an expensive subscription (which people will therefore not buy), Or, it's going to by necessity wind up subsidized by manufacturers anyways.....
I'm sure there's no way they could get that, if they weren't concentrating on things of interest to their subscribers.
Also, the fact they are buying Cars means that's money they aren't spending on other types of products for review....
A heck of a large amount of money, also, by the way: cars are expensive. Video cards have a small market and are expensive enough that a significant commitment is necessary.
Also, I see Consumer reports would more likely be reviewing something such as Smartphones that would bring in interest by subscribers and potential subscribers.
Shouldn't some blame be placed on the review sites, for not purchasing cards at retail
I think the public would be better served by that. But where is the money going to come from to purchase all these cards at retail?
Many of the review sites are not exactly raking in many dollars, or their current source of revenue might actually be sponsorship dollars from the very companies whose products they are reviewing (Which seems even worse to me than getting review samples).
I agree they should disclose if review samples were given by the manufacturer......
They are subject to possible cheating.
Apple is Surface-mount SOLDERING the RAM on new Imacs and Mac Minis.
If your ram stick goes bad, then it's Replace the whole logic board, Because Apple-authorized repair centers
are essentially prohibited from doing component-level replacements.
Also, upgrading is almost impossible now..... And if you do it, according to Apple your computer is now a PC, and you voided the license to run MacOS on it.
Wait, wha? Just because you personally haven't seen them doesn't mean they failed.
I've seen them, and I have personally been around, and seen the places where I once saw them have removed them.
Even CVS has removed theirs.
Studies are showing that the self-checkouts are actually less-efficient (slower) for customers, and still require much attention by store employees.
Perhaps your local CVS and Lowes' just have not taken them out yet for some reason.
I assume them to be a marginal case: the vast majority of checkouts will be with a human checker....
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck off, the corners can either be rounded or square and no, they're not going the be square.
I'm going to take the same design and patent Elliptical corners and Trapezoidal corners.......
Patents are supposed to be about implementations of ideas and not just a vague description of something that would be nice to have.
Yeahh... And if they weren't, then there should be a suit from paramount pictures who invented the PADD
Hell.... StarTrek even had Touch Screen tablets, before the Palm Pilot or the 1st gen Blackberry was a thing.
It is the same deal in the United States.
However, in the US, nothing really stops an unscrupulous vendor from choosing to ding your credit, requiring you to pursue them in court if you want to have that damage compensated for..... By the time the legal forces come together to levy consequences against the vendor, they will have finished their short-term operation, they'll be out of business, gone, and the $$$ / capital to pursue will be knowhere to be seen.
You accept the EULA when it first boots up into the new OS. If you decline it reverts you back.
You cannot be bound to an agreement in order to approve actions the other party already did or benefits the other party already provided you without agreement.
An extra EULA could apply to additional benefits to be received from Microsoft AFTER the Windows 10 install.
However, no EULA you click through is capable of waiving your rights to sue them for unauthorized upgrade to Windows 10.
Also, no EULA you click through is capable of binding you to new terms for an upgrade that was already installed on your computer without your prior agreement.
The option to "revert" or "uninstall" is irrelevent, and possibly further damage due to the unreliability and time loss required for that repair operation.
It's not funny, that's actually what the new Windows 10 Upgrade dialog looks like, happened to me personally.
An important thing is they removed the "Decline" option AND wrote the software so it could continue if you do not accept.
You cannot "automatically" be committed to a new contract or agreement, you have not explicitly agreed with.
The courts do the right thing to throw that out.
then you know people will just walk into the streets knowing the cars will stop anyway, so even more jerks will hold up the traffic..
Make laws where pedestrians will be penalized with a ticket and a fine for each instance of improperly entering the road or standing in the way of traffic And can be reported by drivers; Also have it be a new separate offense with an additional $500 fine or month in jail for every 5 minutes they are impeding traffic.
Mechanize the reporting process by having the cars automatically take videos of violations in progress and submit to authorities.
where everyone's car knows when every toddler on Earth decided to wander onto a road?
No.... if a Toddler wanders onto the highway, then that toddler's parents just committed a homicide.
What do you think is going to happen?
Replacing human-driven cars for self-driving ones doesn't change that.
And no, the self-driving car should not facilitate endangerment of more people in the event that a toddler wanders into the road.
Also, in a world where that happens, parents become more careless (If they think autonomous cars will self-sacrifice to protect their toddler), and more toddlers wander into the road, and more people die as a consequence.
Except that's an unavoidable situation. Sometimes there is no option where everybody ends up fine.
It's not necessary for the vehicle to make a decision here.
It can simply attempt to avoid a crash by utilizing only normal means which a human would use, such as braking, or safe swerving within the confines of the road.
Not "Erratic behavior" such as attempting to self-run-off-the-road-into-the-ditch or other self-sacrificial strategies.
The car should just take steps to avoid or mitigate crashes, not to make a tradeoff where other actions are used that further-endanger the driver or passengers.
Extreme avoidance strategies might be considered, but only for the benefit of making sure there is no crash at all and making people in the car more likely to survive or escape serious injury
Even better if they include infrared imagery in the scans.
And start using anti-counterfeit graphics containing unique serialized digital data on the surfaces of the readers and keypad which will be scanned and verified before every transaction.
That's all well and good for the people who understand the problem, but you've got to mandate it.
Actually, you are better off if you can fix the problem only for youself. That way everybody else will be a distraction for the criminals, so they won't get you.....
Erasing the magstrip might not be the least-obtrusive measure..... How about covering it with foil tape?
then stick something in the card receptacle in order to trap your card in there.
I would pull out pliers and rip the card out by force, before leaving.
Then the court may throw his case out because Comcast, at the time, could easily come up with a reason why the guy hadn't received the check yet.
The promise to write a check in the future does not prevent a case from going forward.
You still have a claim for the hardship and losses caused by their error.
If anything the "promise to pay in 90 days" can be used as an admission of wrongdoing, and can probably get a judge to sign off on an order to pay immediately the portion of the claim not under dispute.
What's even more bizarre is seeing executives of Comodo claiming LetsEncrypt Stole their business model.
Apparently Comodo was the first to issue 90-day Free SSL Certificates, So any future CA who does that is stealing Comodo's business model.
Doesn't make sense to me. a Key difference with LetsEncrypt, is the 90-Day certificates can be Renewed Indefinitely.
With Comodo, the 90-Day issuance is an Evaluation/Trial per Domain name, and you cannot renew after the 90 days without paying.
He shouldn't have allowed it to be drawn out so long. After 30 days, he should have filed a lawsuit against Comcast in small claims, for the amount due.
I was thinking more along the lines of requesting that Browsers drop their CAs' from the Trust store for reasons along the line of Bad Faith behavior / Attempting to fraudulently or deceptively appropriate the names of other organizations in a manner unbecoming of a Trusted Authority or ID certification agency.
Any party who is harmed can potentially file a Lanham Act Opposition
The problem is, You probably have to appear in person, or pay somebody to appear in person.
Because the next step after filing opposition is a Proceeding at USPTO to resolve the Dispute between parties
I don't know about you..... but for me travelling all the way to the USPTO in Washington D.C. would be quite a hardship.
Not to mention all the time I couldn't be working in my job or working on improving my business or service.......
They can't exclude LetsEncrypt from Using it, BUT They might be able to stop LestEncrypt from trademarking it.
Their planned disruption could be not to get the Trademark, but to start using the name for something disreputable.
Stop LE from getting their mark AND dilute the name by intentionally abusing it.
How does that tagline sound?
All in all I would say selling eBay is a losing proposition. You will extremely frequently lose your item, get no money, and your consolation prize of having paid eBay fees and shipping fees which increase the loss.
In my experience reselling things on eBay.... 60% to 70% of time, after I package up and sent the item to the buyer, the buyer files a claim with PayPal or demands a return and refund saying the item doesn't work.
Then they ship me "my item" back...... Except, when I open the package they returned it's a totally different unit than the one I sent the buyer, So they kept the working item I sent and mailed me back a dud, claiming that is a return.
Also, if item gets tied up for delay in customs, often the buyer will file a claim and be awarded a refund by eBay, even when the item is still shipping to them, So they will keep both the money and the item.....
Get all PS3 owners to Object to the settlement and demand the remedy of Specific Performance. Sony will be ordered by the court to restore 100% of the OtherOS functionality present before the update, which we paid for.
30% if PCs ships with dedicated graphics cards. The market is > $1 billion.
These do not count as video card purchases.
These are mostly sales of laptops and desktops that happen to contain integrated video functionality; most of the time, the buyer won't even learn what kind of GPU hardware has been included
It's kind of like pointing to the exploding sales of Google Android devices and attempting to argue from that it's the year of the Linux desktop, because these are all sales of the Linux kernel.
They've been discreetly buying the stuff they test — including cars — for decades now.
I like consumer reports, but they concentrate on products that appeal to the masses, not highly-technical products like computer video cards that the average consumer is not interested in.
It's amazing what you can do, when you have 7 million subscribers, each paying $30 a year, isn't it?
The market for consumer computer hardware component reviews, does not have this kind of reach, however.
Think there might be a lot more consumers looking for reviews on products in the $100 billion+ per Year market for Cars, Versus the $50 mllion+ per Year market for video cards?
It has not always been like that, but In fact.... I would dare say that discrete video cards are becoming a niche market for hobbyists. There's no way 7 million people are going to subscribe to a publication that reviews computer components; not going to happen.
That is going to be one hell of an expensive subscription (which people will therefore not buy), Or, it's going to by necessity wind up subsidized by manufacturers anyways.....
I'm sure there's no way they could get that, if they weren't concentrating on things of interest to their subscribers. Also, the fact they are buying Cars means that's money they aren't spending on other types of products for review....
A heck of a large amount of money, also, by the way: cars are expensive.
Video cards have a small market and are expensive enough that a significant commitment is necessary.
Also, I see Consumer reports would more likely be reviewing something such as Smartphones that would bring in interest by subscribers and potential subscribers.
Shouldn't some blame be placed on the review sites, for not purchasing cards at retail
I think the public would be better served by that.
But where is the money going to come from to purchase all these cards at retail?
Many of the review sites are not exactly raking in many dollars, or their current source of revenue might actually be sponsorship dollars from the very companies whose products they are reviewing (Which seems even worse to me than getting review samples).
I agree they should disclose if review samples were given by the manufacturer...... They are subject to possible cheating.
Apple is Surface-mount SOLDERING the RAM on new Imacs and Mac Minis.
If your ram stick goes bad, then it's Replace the whole logic board, Because Apple-authorized repair centers are essentially prohibited from doing component-level replacements.
Also, upgrading is almost impossible now..... And if you do it, according to Apple your computer is now a PC, and you voided the license to run MacOS on it.
Wait, wha? Just because you personally haven't seen them doesn't mean they failed.
I've seen them, and I have personally been around, and seen the places where I once saw them have removed them.
Even CVS has removed theirs.
Studies are showing that the self-checkouts are actually less-efficient (slower) for customers, and still require much attention by store employees.
Perhaps your local CVS and Lowes' just have not taken them out yet for some reason.
I assume them to be a marginal case: the vast majority of checkouts will be with a human checker....