The company should just admit they made a mistake and politely request a return...
They did try that first. The customer (singular, that we know of, so far) failed to respond.
[Games blog Dark Zero] published a "final notice" letter sent to one [emphasis mine] Zavvi customer who had originally ordered a copy of the platform game Tearaway.
"As you are aware, as a result of a technical error, you were not sent Tearaway (priced at approximately £19.99) and instead were sent a PS Vita (priced at approximately £169.99). This was an error on our part and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you," it said. Tearaway Affected customers had only expected to receive the game Tearaway
"We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions [emphasis mine] to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself), but to date you have refused to do so.
At this point I'd say the company are reasonable in assuming this guy just wants to keep the Vita despite having no claim to it.
Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish.
And that will convince me, scientifically, that the universe can't possibly be a simulation? Why has no-one picked up a Nobel prize for physics for this yet?! Oh, yeah, maybe because it's not true. Don't believe me? Go read War and Peace from start to finish, it's all in there.
That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible.
They're inventing theories to make their theories possible? What does that mean?
They're following someone else's theory's implications and have narrowed the gaps where discrepancies may have hidden. It's not proof, but it is an interesting indication that puts the theory on a more solid footing.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense
Finding something that someone says absurd doesn't make it a reductio ad absurdum. I'm not sure what I'm meant to have reductio'd from, and my claim about the FSM isn't absurd. Unlikely, yes, but not - in the sense inherent in the definition of reductio ad absurdum - absurd. That's the whole point of such arguments - they're unfalsifiable.
for hypothetical theories
What's a "hypothetical theory"? They're just theories. This particular one is currently unfalsified, at least by any scientific measure. Is that what you meant?
that people claim are factual.
I'm not claiming the universe is a hologram. The writers of these papers aren't claiming the universe is a hologram. They're just showing that the idea is more consistent with observation than it was previously understood to be.
You are explicitly claiming the universe isn't a hologram, though. I'm asking for scientific, not philosophical, evidence to back up your claim. What observations of the universe can you cite which disprove the holographic theory?
Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either?
I expect they're trying, which is better than simply declaring something to be true.
These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Physicists need to stop tugging their dicks in mathematical fancy and start developing ways to TEST things.
As opposed to Slashdotters who waggle their knobs in the air, making themselves feel smart by declaring that physicists are all stupid, because if they (John Q. Slashdotter) can't understand an analogy then it can't be true.
"Hologram" here is not meant to suggest that there's literally a light-years wide piece of photographic film floating out in a lower-level universe with us encoded on it. You may as well argue that regular explosions don't create matter so the big bang theory* must be a load of rubbish.
*Yes, I know that's also the name of a TV show. No, you're not going to be funny if you pick up on that.
time (which we always move forward through at a constant rate
I think of it as: we always move through spacetime at a constant rate - you can change the direction of your path relative to anything else, which leads to time dilation as you do swap motion through (another relatively moving observer's) time for motion through (another relatively moving observer's) space. Except time is inverted and wibbly wobbly and there is stuff.
Rush Limbaugh is simultaneously obnoxious, obviously devoid of integrity in his stated purpose, and doesn't listen to the people he is meant to interview or debate. Oh, and he's a demagogue, intentionally playing against the passions and prejudices of his audience for personal gain.
Quick! Call Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and tell him he's made a terrible mistake!
I mean, sure, it's possible that J. Random Slashdotter doesn't actually have anything more than a monkey's grasp of atmospheric science, and therefore no idea what he's talking about, but hey, what are the chances of that, amiright?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but I read the article before I saw it on Slashdot.
You know, like with child porn?
That's not analogous and you know it.
That's referring to the recovery/return of customer-cancelled orders.
In the UK and Canada they now belong to buyer
No, they don't.
Personally, unless it was a crippling blow to the company, I would have made a big fuss about how anyone that received them could keep them as gifts.
Except there is no right to keep them as gifts in this case. The contact (shipment) was erroneous, but not unsolicited.
I don't think it would be reasonable to believe that.
The company should just admit they made a mistake and politely request a return...
They did try that first. The customer (singular, that we know of, so far) failed to respond.
[Games blog Dark Zero] published a "final notice" letter sent to one [emphasis mine] Zavvi customer who had originally ordered a copy of the platform game Tearaway.
"As you are aware, as a result of a technical error, you were not sent Tearaway (priced at approximately £19.99) and instead were sent a PS Vita (priced at approximately £169.99). This was an error on our part and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you," it said.
Tearaway Affected customers had only expected to receive the game Tearaway
"We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions [emphasis mine] to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself), but to date you have refused to do so.
At this point I'd say the company are reasonable in assuming this guy just wants to keep the Vita despite having no claim to it.
it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Two situations similarly covered in the linked article.
Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish.
And that will convince me, scientifically, that the universe can't possibly be a simulation? Why has no-one picked up a Nobel prize for physics for this yet?! Oh, yeah, maybe because it's not true. Don't believe me? Go read War and Peace from start to finish, it's all in there.
That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible.
They're inventing theories to make their theories possible? What does that mean?
They're following someone else's theory's implications and have narrowed the gaps where discrepancies may have hidden. It's not proof, but it is an interesting indication that puts the theory on a more solid footing.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense
Finding something that someone says absurd doesn't make it a reductio ad absurdum . I'm not sure what I'm meant to have reductio'd from, and my claim about the FSM isn't absurd. Unlikely, yes, but not - in the sense inherent in the definition of reductio ad absurdum - absurd. That's the whole point of such arguments - they're unfalsifiable.
for hypothetical theories
What's a "hypothetical theory"? They're just theories. This particular one is currently unfalsified, at least by any scientific measure. Is that what you meant?
that people claim are factual.
I'm not claiming the universe is a hologram. The writers of these papers aren't claiming the universe is a hologram. They're just showing that the idea is more consistent with observation than it was previously understood to be.
You are explicitly claiming the universe isn't a hologram, though. I'm asking for scientific, not philosophical, evidence to back up your claim. What observations of the universe can you cite which disprove the holographic theory?
I'm guessing it says that on average they must be the same audio level as the programming.
FTFY.
How do I know? Logic, study, rational thought.
Oh, that's me convinced then.
Any evidence?
Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either?
I expect they're trying, which is better than simply declaring something to be true.
These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It's simple, Descartes was right and you are wrong. The Universe is not a big computer simulation, and you do exist.
How do you know? If you can actually prove those things you deserve a Nobel prize. Oh, wait, let me guess. You're not a scientist.
Holograms are not stored in 2 dimensions.
Not in our universe, perhaps.
Physicists need to stop tugging their dicks in mathematical fancy and start developing ways to TEST things.
As opposed to Slashdotters who waggle their knobs in the air, making themselves feel smart by declaring that physicists are all stupid, because if they (John Q. Slashdotter) can't understand an analogy then it can't be true.
"Hologram" here is not meant to suggest that there's literally a light-years wide piece of photographic film floating out in a lower-level universe with us encoded on it. You may as well argue that regular explosions don't create matter so the big bang theory* must be a load of rubbish.
*Yes, I know that's also the name of a TV show. No, you're not going to be funny if you pick up on that.
time (which we always move forward through at a constant rate
I think of it as: we always move through spacetime at a constant rate - you can change the direction of your path relative to anything else, which leads to time dilation as you do swap motion through (another relatively moving observer's) time for motion through (another relatively moving observer's) space. Except time is inverted and wibbly wobbly and there is stuff.
Using your real name is just stupid.
You tell 'em, Pike*!
-
-
-
*just substitute "Steve" if you don't get the reference.
I though the UK owned the HK SAR?
Did they lose another war? Falklands.
Stunning grasp of history you've got there, champ.
The head of delivery for the UK's Department for Work and Pensions' flagship welfare reform project
The guy works in the mailroom, what do you expect?
Rush Limbaugh is simultaneously obnoxious, obviously devoid of integrity in his stated purpose, and doesn't listen to the people he is meant to interview or debate. Oh, and he's a demagogue, intentionally playing against the passions and prejudices of his audience for personal gain.
Dawkins hasn't been in Family Guy.
And how do we know you're the same AC?
And it could kill off wire transfers through companies like Western Union — just like Bitcoin.
There are all manner of things Bitcoin could do, but I don't think it's succeeded at this one yet.
Quick! Call Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and tell him he's made a terrible mistake!
I mean, sure, it's possible that J. Random Slashdotter doesn't actually have anything more than a monkey's grasp of atmospheric science, and therefore no idea what he's talking about, but hey, what are the chances of that, amiright?
CO2 freezes at 78 C
I think you accidentally a -.
Or is there some other point to this?
Compensating.
Is stability control the same thing as traction control? They have separate Wikipedia pages, neither of which I can be bothered to read.
The court had been told that Horner
Aww, I misread that. I'd love to meet a Muslim called Homer.