protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.
RTFA - the laptop was stolen from Worst Buy, most probably by an employee, as it was in a "secure area". As such, they are liable for the contents - it has nothing to do with any warranty or protection plan.
Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. It's not like someone broke into Best Buy's database and accessed information collected and stored by Best Buy. Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data.
Considering that they lied to her for MONTHS about the laptop being missing, they were worse than wilfully negligent.
Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for.
This is not a warranty issue. If she had brought an out-of-warranty laptop to be repaired, they'd still have the same problem. Someone (almost 100% certainty an employee) stole the laptop. They have to make good on it. Or are you going to argue that I can steal your laptop, your car, or anything else if its not under worranty, and you have no recourse?
Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.
She's not asking for a replacement laptop under warranty - the warranty doesn't cover THEFT!!! She's entitled to be made "complete" - and that involves compensating her for the laptop, its contents, and her lost time while they lied to her about it being stolen.
As a consumer, there is also an obligation to endure inconvenience in the event of a problem. It definitely sucks, but if you have something that breaks, you're going to have the inconvenience of missing that item for a while while it is fixed and/or replaced. Go buy a computer at Dell - you get a basic warranty for free (1 year parts and workmanship) and then if it's important to you, you can PAY for additional coverages like next-day replacement etc. That's a good thing - it let's the people who don't need that reliability get laptops cheaper and lets the people who do need it pay for it to have it.
Again, this is not a warranty issue - Worst Buy "lost" her laptop after it was moved to a supposedly secure area. So, either an employee stole it, or an employee was negligent / gave access to someone else, who stole it. The warranty doesn't cover theft - the store is responsible. Nobody is obliged to "endure inconvenience" while a store loses/steals their property, then lies for months about it, then generates fake computer entries to say "yes, its in the system". Both the original theft and the fake computer entries were criminal acts.
So it seems like what we're really talking about here is some best buy employees did not act in the best manner. It took the woman longer than it should have to get her laptop back.
Please RTFA -she never got it back. It was STOLEN!
The flow of information is poor. She was given a bad customer experience. A $500 gift card for a bad customer experience seems to be entirely reasonable compensation. For example, I recently had a plane flight canceled by the airline for operational reasons. They didn't communicate the situation to me very well, causing me to spend an extra 8 hours at the airport. They gave me a free, extremely restricted, travel voucher, worth about $250. I found this to be reasonable - enough for me to believe that I had experienced an isolate
Yeah I love how she throws in the cost of music and video on her lost computer into her justification for suing for so much. What did she buy enough to fill up an iPod?:)
Obviously you didn't read the whole thing. She originally offered to settle for the cost of the laptop plus a grand to cover part of the cost of lost software, music, etc. She offered this as an alternative to her going to small claims and getting a judgment for $5k, which she probably would have gotten, given the time she's wasted getting them to even admit it was stolen in the first place, and the lies (and the fraudulently generated computer entries in their own system) to try and cover their rectums.
She agrees the amount she's asking is outrageous - and that she's doing so because maybe THAT is what it takes to get Worst Buy's attention, exp. vis. the whole "identity theft" issue.
I particularly like how she "bitch-slapped" the corporate lawyer's motion to quash.
Too bad it didn't happen here - he would have gotten it (along with an additional $10 off). For the last few years, if an item is mis-priced, and the real price is higher, the consumer gets it al the lower advertised price, minus $10 more; items mispriced at under $10 == freebie.
I've gotten a few things for free, and others at $10 off the advertised sale price. It provides a financial incentive for the merchant to keep their systems accurate.
The # of BTUs doesn't lie - ethanol has almost 40% less energy. However, you can always burn MORE of it to make up the difference - and ethanol has an octane rating of 116, so you can go with much higher compresion ratios (and hence more power).
Anyone who tracks their gasoline consumption (gee, with all this concern about the environment, you'd think tree-huggers would) knows that ethanol also makes a lousy fuel additive. My mpg dropped 15% when I tanked up with "gasahol.". 84,000 BTU per gallon as opposed to 115,000 BTU for gasoline - it takes 1.37 gallons of ethanol to produce the same energy as 1 gallon of gas, so your engine isn't running as efficiently on the ethanol-gasoline mix (lower peak cylinder temp/pressure), which explains the disproportionate drop in mpg.
Well within 5 minutes I had a guy in a red vest behind me, "Sir! Sir!... Sir!". I could hear him, but I didn't really care. Eventually he was up in my business telling me camera's were not allowed to be turned on on the premises
You could have just pointed to their security cameras and said "what - those aren't on?"
Besides, what's he gonna do - try to take it away from you? He's a f*cking WallyWorld prole. Go "boo" and he runs away.
I don't know about that, but whoever moderated this, very obvious, joke as "insightful" is definitely smoking something.
There are 4 reasons to do this:
Slashdot's karma system. Mods of "Funny" aren't counted (or at least they weren't a while back) so you could start at 1, get 4 +1 Funnies, then 4 -1 Overrated, and it wouldn't be a wash - you'd end up losing 4 karma points.
People's personal settings: If they rate everything that's "Funny" as -5, they don't get to see some of the funny stuff
It's also accurate - most funny jokes require a certain insight into the culture, target audience, etc
Since they've moved on to another project, tell them that it would be a shame if they couldn't at least get some value out of the code. Then say that if they were smart, maybe they could attract some publicity, etc., if they open-sourced the code they're not going to be using any more, and created a site for it, along with links, blurbs, etc., for the other stuff the company makes.
Benefits:
They get some publicity out of it, and maybe some interest in their other products
If it eventually gets really interesting, they have another revenue stream as THE ones to go to for support, feature requests, etc.
It can give them a relatively painless way to test the whole open-source model
Problem with your plan is, where will we get our medications from? China?
After all, if you're going to make them liable for manufacturing here, they'll just offshore it, and we all know how much contaminated stuff (toys, hard drives, etc) has come from China lately...
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes into the convention center where Obama and Clinton are debating. Who's saved?
A. The United States.
Good news, bad news:
The good news: You wake up and find that everything was a dream - Bush not only never won the election - the votes were properly counted.
The bad news: You slept a LONG TIME, Rumplestiltskin - Richard Nixon is president.
Alternate bad news: Miss Carolina just won the dem nomination - for the children.
"Breaking news bulletin: China, in cooperation with Google and Apple, has just purchased 51% of the United States in a secret Treasury auction, beating out the Gates-Halliburton bid. No elections for YOU!"
All very nice and goode, but until he actually says "these are the laws on my agenda", that's not being transparent.
Your own post says it - we need to be informed. Informed of what? His "feel-good I'm for transparency"? Like someone else is going to run on a platform of "vote for me, and I promise to make things less transparent"? Come on, gt real. Its just poli-speak.
Inform means to impart knowledge. Like specific laws that need to be changed. Specific bills that he'll introduce. Not "I'm running for more transparency" - because anyone should be able to (pardon the pun) see through that for the whitewash it is.
What next - "I'm for apple pie?" "I'm for a strong economy?"
I'm not saying whether he's better or worse than any of the others - I'm just saying that the whole "transparency" thing is just politics as usual.
Haha, I say we pick our President at random...like a jury. Basically, in my mind anyone who wants to be President shouldn't be allowed to be President. Pick 12 random people, have them campaign for 3 months, then have an election. Can't be any worse than we get now:)
And how do you know they're doing it as "outreach"
Simple - I read the article and the links... one of the linked articles admits as much, d'uh!
you're going to side with the NFL on clear copyright abuse
Its the NFL's property to do with as they see fit. They create it. They organize its' distribution. They have a deal with sports bars, and they'll also allow your church to view it, provided that its on a screen of less than a certain size - even though they don't have to. How is this "clear copyright abuse"?
Also, other posters have indicated that their churches alter the content, replacing the advertising with religious stuff. Taking someone's copyrighted material and altering it without permission, in a situation that isn't covered by "fair use" or other exemption, also has no defense.
Like I said elsewhere - churches should focus on their own product, instead of riding on the coat-tails of the NFLs'. That they have to do this sort of stuff just shows just how irrelevant religion is nowadays.
God says to Adam, "I have some good news and some bad news. What do you want to hear first?" Adam says, "Tell me the good news first."
God says, "I'm going to give you a penis and a brain. You'll derive from these great pleasure and great intellect."
Adam replies, "Wonderful! But what's the bad news?"
God says, "I'm only going to give you enough blood supply to work one at a time."
- and -
God is sitting up in his ivory tower, tired and worn out. He's had enough of the pressures and stresses of being the number one, so he's decided to take a holiday. He calls all his super-being mates together to discuss a few suggestions.
St. Peter, thinking, nods his head, then says, "How about Mars? It's nice and warm there this time of year." God shakes His head before answering, "Nah I went there 15,000 years ago. It was shit, no atmosphere and too dusty."
"What about Pluto?" suggests another. "No way!" God mutters. "I went there 10,000 years ago. Fucking freezing it was too."
"What about Mercury?" says another. "Are you kidding?" says God. "I went there 5,000 years ago, I nearly burnt me bollox off it was that hot, never again."
"I've got it," says St. Peter, his face lighting up. "How about going down to Earth for your vacation?"
"You must be joking," says God, chuckling, "I went there 2,000 years ago, knocked up some Jewish bird, and they're STILL bloody talking about it."
If politicians stopped worrying about the average voter, they'd quickly discover that the average voter doesn't exist - especially on issues that polarize people. And non-issues that don't polarize people also don't get out the vote for any one particular candidate, so who cares about them?
They're too much like the "leader" who looks to see which way people are going, then quickly runs to the head of the pack. What am I saying? That's exactly what they do!
I've got a better solution - make me your benevolent ruler. I even promise to steal less than the others, since I won't be beholden to any special interests.
I agree, but the problem is that people don't want to hear it. I think it was Michigan where McCain told a group of autoworkers that their $30/hour to weld a part together jobs were probably not coming back (which is probably the closest thing to the truth). His numbers fell immediately. Then look at (I think it was Huckabee) who told a similar group he was going to bring all the jobs back (of course with not mention on how) and his number jumped.
So why didn't McCain do the smart thing, and call Huckabee a two-faced liar? That would have been "offensive" enough to demand a retort, a "put up or shut up" moment, and it would have cut through all the political BS.
He could have gone further - "If you have a viable plan, why are you keeping it to yourself? Why aren't you talking to the heads of GM, Ford, etc.? Its because you're full of shit, and they'd call you on it in a second."
Now THAT would have been a breath of fresh air. That would have been THE sound bite for the week. And it also puts Huckabee into the position where he either doesn't have an answer, or if he did, he's saying "elect me or you'll lose your jobs because only I have the secret sauce."
I blame the politicians. Any politician with half an instinct for leadership, and a bit of guts, would have seen that this was a golden opportunity to slam-dunk the opposition.
Its not a question of "personal" gain... they are using it to attract people - they even admit as much. They should be working to make their own product more attractive, not pike someone elses'.
Besides, if this was, say, put on by aid workers keeping troubled youth out of harm's way, would YOU have a big problem with it?
Aid workers probably don't have 100" TVs. They'd also realize that its better to get the kids to actually PLAY the game rather than sit around eating junk food and watching beer commercials...
The NFL allows sports bars to do so. They don't allow churches. There's no reason a church can't decide to hold their gathering at the local pub, provided they buy a few rounds and don't start getting all snarky when someone goes "JESUS H CHRIST DID YOU SEE THAT MOTHERF*CKER?"
Its not like the sports bars are showing religious programming to try to "entrap" church-goers.
At a mental hospital the staff found some of the patients were gaining weight, so they were put on a diet of a glass of Tab and one apple for lunch.
After eating their light lunch, the group would start to sing to everyone else.
... or try to use an event to gain church-members.
This is part of the rationale offered for doing such events. "Outreach." The NFL is in the right on this one. Not that I'd waste my time with either:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong.
RTFA - the laptop was stolen from Worst Buy, most probably by an employee, as it was in a "secure area". As such, they are liable for the contents - it has nothing to do with any warranty or protection plan.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
Considering that they lied to her for MONTHS about the laptop being missing, they were worse than wilfully negligent.
This is not a warranty issue. If she had brought an out-of-warranty laptop to be repaired, they'd still have the same problem. Someone (almost 100% certainty an employee) stole the laptop. They have to make good on it. Or are you going to argue that I can steal your laptop, your car, or anything else if its not under worranty, and you have no recourse?
She's not asking for a replacement laptop under warranty - the warranty doesn't cover THEFT!!! She's entitled to be made "complete" - and that involves compensating her for the laptop, its contents, and her lost time while they lied to her about it being stolen.
Again, this is not a warranty issue - Worst Buy "lost" her laptop after it was moved to a supposedly secure area. So, either an employee stole it, or an employee was negligent / gave access to someone else, who stole it. The warranty doesn't cover theft - the store is responsible. Nobody is obliged to "endure inconvenience" while a store loses/steals their property, then lies for months about it, then generates fake computer entries to say "yes, its in the system". Both the original theft and the fake computer entries were criminal acts.
Please RTFA -she never got it back. It was STOLEN!
Obviously you didn't read the whole thing. She originally offered to settle for the cost of the laptop plus a grand to cover part of the cost of lost software, music, etc. She offered this as an alternative to her going to small claims and getting a judgment for $5k, which she probably would have gotten, given the time she's wasted getting them to even admit it was stolen in the first place, and the lies (and the fraudulently generated computer entries in their own system) to try and cover their rectums.
She agrees the amount she's asking is outrageous - and that she's doing so because maybe THAT is what it takes to get Worst Buy's attention, exp. vis. the whole "identity theft" issue.
I particularly like how she "bitch-slapped" the corporate lawyer's motion to quash.
Outer Space has a Smell
Dammit, I told you not to play "Pull my finger" while wearing a space suit!Houston, we have a problem. Send up some Bean-O.
Too bad it didn't happen here - he would have gotten it (along with an additional $10 off). For the last few years, if an item is mis-priced, and the real price is higher, the consumer gets it al the lower advertised price, minus $10 more; items mispriced at under $10 == freebie.
I've gotten a few things for free, and others at $10 off the advertised sale price. It provides a financial incentive for the merchant to keep their systems accurate.
The # of BTUs doesn't lie - ethanol has almost 40% less energy. However, you can always burn MORE of it to make up the difference - and ethanol has an octane rating of 116, so you can go with much higher compresion ratios (and hence more power).
With ethanol, its less all around ...
Anyone who tracks their gasoline consumption (gee, with all this concern about the environment, you'd think tree-huggers would) knows that ethanol also makes a lousy fuel additive. My mpg dropped 15% when I tanked up with "gasahol.". 84,000 BTU per gallon as opposed to 115,000 BTU for gasoline - it takes 1.37 gallons of ethanol to produce the same energy as 1 gallon of gas, so your engine isn't running as efficiently on the ethanol-gasoline mix (lower peak cylinder temp/pressure), which explains the disproportionate drop in mpg.
It's a rip-off.
You could have just pointed to their security cameras and said "what - those aren't on?"
Besides, what's he gonna do - try to take it away from you? He's a f*cking WallyWorld prole. Go "boo" and he runs away.
Hey - the government doesn't like competition!
There are 4 reasons to do this:
Since they've moved on to another project, tell them that it would be a shame if they couldn't at least get some value out of the code. Then say that if they were smart, maybe they could attract some publicity, etc., if they open-sourced the code they're not going to be using any more, and created a site for it, along with links, blurbs, etc., for the other stuff the company makes.
Benefits:
Problem with your plan is, where will we get our medications from? China?
After all, if you're going to make them liable for manufacturing here, they'll just offshore it, and we all know how much contaminated stuff (toys, hard drives, etc) has come from China lately ...
Hawaii called - they're a mite pissed with you.
Hillary and Obama were in the debating hall that the plane crashed into ... happy now?
There's got to be a better way to choose a leader.
A. The United States.
The good news: You wake up and find that everything was a dream - Bush not only never won the election - the votes were properly counted.
The bad news: You slept a LONG TIME, Rumplestiltskin - Richard Nixon is president.
Alternate bad news: Miss Carolina just won the dem nomination - for the children.
Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.
(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)
All very nice and goode, but until he actually says "these are the laws on my agenda", that's not being transparent.
Your own post says it - we need to be informed. Informed of what? His "feel-good I'm for transparency"? Like someone else is going to run on a platform of "vote for me, and I promise to make things less transparent"? Come on, gt real. Its just poli-speak.
Inform means to impart knowledge. Like specific laws that need to be changed. Specific bills that he'll introduce. Not "I'm running for more transparency" - because anyone should be able to (pardon the pun) see through that for the whitewash it is.
What next - "I'm for apple pie?" "I'm for a strong economy?"
I'm not saying whether he's better or worse than any of the others - I'm just saying that the whole "transparency" thing is just politics as usual.
That's the "None of the above candidates" option in my benevolent dictatorshi^Wleadership platform :-)
Simple - I read the article and the links ... one of the linked articles admits as much, d'uh!
Its the NFL's property to do with as they see fit. They create it. They organize its' distribution. They have a deal with sports bars, and they'll also allow your church to view it, provided that its on a screen of less than a certain size - even though they don't have to. How is this "clear copyright abuse"?
Also, other posters have indicated that their churches alter the content, replacing the advertising with religious stuff. Taking someone's copyrighted material and altering it without permission, in a situation that isn't covered by "fair use" or other exemption, also has no defense.
Like I said elsewhere - churches should focus on their own product, instead of riding on the coat-tails of the NFLs'. That they have to do this sort of stuff just shows just how irrelevant religion is nowadays.
- and -
If politicians stopped worrying about the average voter, they'd quickly discover that the average voter doesn't exist - especially on issues that polarize people. And non-issues that don't polarize people also don't get out the vote for any one particular candidate, so who cares about them?
They're too much like the "leader" who looks to see which way people are going, then quickly runs to the head of the pack. What am I saying? That's exactly what they do!
I've got a better solution - make me your benevolent ruler. I even promise to steal less than the others, since I won't be beholden to any special interests.
So why didn't McCain do the smart thing, and call Huckabee a two-faced liar? That would have been "offensive" enough to demand a retort, a "put up or shut up" moment, and it would have cut through all the political BS.
He could have gone further - "If you have a viable plan, why are you keeping it to yourself? Why aren't you talking to the heads of GM, Ford, etc.? Its because you're full of shit, and they'd call you on it in a second."
Now THAT would have been a breath of fresh air. That would have been THE sound bite for the week. And it also puts Huckabee into the position where he either doesn't have an answer, or if he did, he's saying "elect me or you'll lose your jobs because only I have the secret sauce."
I blame the politicians. Any politician with half an instinct for leadership, and a bit of guts, would have seen that this was a golden opportunity to slam-dunk the opposition.
Its not a question of "personal" gain ... they are using it to attract people - they even admit as much. They should be working to make their own product more attractive, not pike someone elses'.
Aid workers probably don't have 100" TVs. They'd also realize that its better to get the kids to actually PLAY the game rather than sit around eating junk food and watching beer commercialsThe NFL allows sports bars to do so. They don't allow churches. There's no reason a church can't decide to hold their gathering at the local pub, provided they buy a few rounds and don't start getting all snarky when someone goes "JESUS H CHRIST DID YOU SEE THAT MOTHERF*CKER?"
Its not like the sports bars are showing religious programming to try to "entrap" church-goers.
Good point - I should have said "in constant dollars" so I'll rephrase it. You'll end up with a US dollar worth 1/10 of a Euro.
This is part of the rationale offered for doing such events. "Outreach." The NFL is in the right on this one. Not that I'd waste my time with either :-)