I refuse to pay for ringtones. You go on these sites and most of them are crap anyway. For the large part they are just sound clips from the latest teen gangsta sensation. And they charge, what, $5 a pop for this garbage?
Grumble.... it all sounds the same to me, just shouting. You can't even hear the words!
Waste of money! I've offered to lend them my Perry Como LPs and they just laugh and say things like "Oh Dad! You're so square... get hip! Ringtones are groovy!"
No wonder this country's going down the pan. In my day.... (etc etc)
I was at a starbucks once, sitting outside next to the little parking lot. A guy with a loud stereo drove up and left the car idling next to me while he stepped inside to get his drink. But, just before he left it, he turned the volume up so he could hear it inside better. Never mind the dozen of us on the patio... urgh.
That's valid justification for pouring superheated coffee down the guy's trousers (a la McDonalds). Even if you're the girl behind the counter... no court in the world would say that was unreasonable behaviour.
What I don't understand is why people purchase ringtones at all when almost every phone I've dealt with accepts MIDI formatted music of one type or another.
There are websites that have have huge collections of MIDI.
I agree completely. I have Jimi Hendrix, Metallica and AC/DC MIDI ringtones on my phone.
You should see some of the looks I get! I don't know why, it's not like Hendrix's guitar sounds any better than General MIDI patch 029, is it?
Though I'm not sure that "bagpipes" was the best instrument to render Metallica in....
The single most frustrating thing about the mess Enterprise is in right now is that you could have started this show up with any ten or so Star Trek fans plucked from any convention you wanted to get them from and they could have avoided the mistakes that were made over the last two years. You could bring in anyone you found walking around at a Star Trek convention today and correct whatever is still wrong with it.
Pandering to the obsessive fanbase isn't always the best way to keep a show fresh and original; on the contrary, it can sometimes be the reason a show disappears up its own arse.
Don't get me wrong; their opinion should be considered (as potential viewers *and* as people who know the show) but stuff that appeals to someone who lives, and has an obsessive knowledge of a show, might not appeal to the more general viewers needed to keep a show viable.
Generally, hardcore fans are obsessive about consistency; but this IMHO is sometimes what weighs sci-fi down and in the end kills it.
I mean, if sci-fi is about ideas, doesn't the need for consistency with 100 previous episodes kind of stifle this?
I don't know if it was pandering to the fanbase that made Red Dwarf series 7 and 8 so crap, but it certainly seemed to be too obsessed with serious details. Compare this to earlier episodes which didn't seem to bother that much with continuity or scientific coherence, except where it mattered.
Why do you think glasses will be obsolete in 20 years? I doubt surgery will become cheaper
It doesn't have to be cheaper than glasses, it just has to be cheaper than it is now; and is it *that* expensive now?
or less risky than glasses by then
*That's* the issue- not the price. Personally, I wouldn't care if it was free; I wouldn't even consider it for another 10-15 years...
But I'll say one thing; glasses will still be used in third-world countries for a *long* time to come.
Plus, poking myself in the eye every morning just doesn't appeal to me.
It's something you get used to; the monthly disposables (my ones are J&J 'Surevue') are very comfortable, and work out cheaper than daily disposables, even after adding the cost of peroxide solution.
If this is the reason you (or anyone else) is put off getting lenses, you can go to the opticians, ask if you can have a month's trial (even if you have to pay, you have at most the cost of your eye examination and 1 month's lenses). Whereas with non-disposables, the cost-risk is an issue, you don't stand to lose so much if you dislike the monthlies.
One other thing; my optician claims that peroxide-based all-in-one soaks (where the nasty peroxide kills the germs and gets neutralised by a catalyst in the case overnight) doesn't build-up and/or cause potential allergy problems that other solutions can cause some people.
Personally, I like the idea that the un-neutralised peroxide is more likely to kill germs on the lens *and* in the case (cf. non-peroxide solutions), but I don't know how true that is.
By that argument, Voyager was crap too. They had a bald hologram. Surely they could have programmed him some hair.
Nah; remember, when they made the Final Fantasy movie, something like 25% of the rendering time was due to Aki Ross's hair?
I'm sure they could have given the Doctor in Voyager hair that was long, shiny and bounced around like something from a shampoo ad- but only at the cost of consuming 99.99999% of the onboard computer's power, leaving them just enough to play 'Super Breakout' on the viewing screen.
And don't give me some explanation as to how this wouldn't happen because holograms work differently or something. IT'S NOT REAL. IT'S A DAMN TV SHOW, and I don't want a 20,000 word explanation using pseudo-science that some scriptwriter invented to let Wesley Crusher get Captain Picard out of trouble in the final five minutes of a first-season ST:TNG show. AAAWWRGH!!!
Frankly, I'd rather spend the time learning about quantum theory, or whatever....
And BTW, Voyager *was* crap because of the hologram; not for the reason you mentioned, but because the hologram/holodeck was a grossly overused plot device by that time.
Sometimes, a good executive-type person can be a Good Thing (think Brian Epstein and the Beatles
Probably a good manager overall, but didn't exactly ensure they were getting the money from Beatles merchandise.
Col. Tom Parker and Elvis
I'd subscribe to the theory that he did a good job in the beginning, bringing Elvis to stardom, but ultimately he destroyed Elvis as a credible artist. Apparently, lots of (very fashionable) people wanted to work with Elvis in the 60s/70s, but he put the lid on that; and he was the one that pushed Elvis to do a gruelling number of shows in Las Vegas (as apparently Parker had lots of gambling debts that needed financing), which probably contributed to Elvis's early death. Elvis hardly went on tour outside the US, it's speculated because Parker was an illegal immigrant, and thus couldn't travel and exert control on Elvis when he was out of the country.
The much-praised '68(?) Comeback Special was (IIRC) done *against* Parker's wishes.
hell, Bill Gates and MS-DOS)
Why is MS-DOS A Good Thing? It was an unwieldy rip-off of CP/M.
Would this stifle their creativity? Maybe... but think of what else they could do if they had the money/resources.
See Col. Tom Parker, above, and consider how quickly Elvis was pushed from credible rock n' roll artist into commercially-friendly MOR singer then into Vegas cabaret artist.
I mean, seriously, it's ******* weird when you think about it.
ROFL... this is the most incompetent troll I've seen for a long time; everyone knows that the goatse.cx account has been suspended for *months*! (BTW, looks like its replacement, goat.cx has met a similarly tragic fate)
How does the exectution of a proxy bidding algorithm whose workings are fully disclosed ahead of time constitutue an "interest".
Read the article; where did eBay disclose that increasing your maximum bid(*) (when you were the current high bidder) would increase your bid?
If they "fully disclosed" this in advance, then there is no case, and the class action will fail. If they did not, then you are wrong.
However, the conflict of interest is more general; the automatic bidder should act in the interests of the person instructing it; eBay (who control it), however, stand to gain if it does (otherwise) illogical things like the situation above. Even if they disclosed this behaviour (which apparently they haven't). Even if the auto-bidder was totally fair, there would still be a potential conflict of interest.
Your statement is sort of like saying the rules of chess have a conflict of interest between the white pieces and the black pieces.
No it's not. There are two separate parties with different aims in that case.
White has no say in the behaviour of black, nor in the rules of chess.
(*) Where 'maximum bid' is not an actual bid, just an instruction to the automatic bidder.
>> When EBay says "someone has outbid you with a bid of $100, do I hear $105?", your
>> automatic bidder won't bid $101; so your analogy is flawed.
> If I read the article correctly, your statement is exactly what the lawsuit is about.
> The guy was expecting to win with a bid of $101.50 (or somesuch) and ended up paying 102.50
> because the system increnments in $2.50 amounts in this dollar range. So, eBay is in effect
> saying "do I hear $102.50?"
If I've understood what you're saying correctly, then no.
The previous (lower) bid had been *accepted* (e.g. $101.50) and was the current highest bid. EBay sent a warning to the person that they *could* be outbid. But that had not happened yet.
No-one had outbid the person who just increased their maximum bid; so why would they increase their own bid?
I'm sure we could contrive a situation where that might be beneficial in a traditional auction (1), where the same person could "occupy" the next increment and scare off timid (or less serious) bidders (e.g. Alice bids $100; Bob is considering bidding up to his maximum of $105. Alice also has a maximum of $105. If Alice bids $105, Bob has to bid $110 to get it, which he won't do). But it's not what would happen in real life AFAIK.
Plus, it's here that EBay *isn't* like a traditional auction, and that the blurring of the auctioneer/proxy-bidder roles confuses things.
The "maximum bid" is *not* a proxy bid. It's not a bid at all; it's an instruction to the proxy bidder that "this is the most I want you to automatically bid."
This should have nothing to do with the auctioneer until an actual bid is made. And if the automatic bidder is filling the role of your (trusted) proxy (which it should), why would it increase its own bid if it is currently winning- unless you count (1) above as a valid tactic, which strikes me as fairly unusual.
But ultimately (and I accept that you likened EBay to an auctioneer rather than saying they were one), it starts to get counter-productive to compare eBay to traditional auctioneers (and it's rather academic anyway). The important question is whether eBay were clear about the behaviour of their automatic bidder. Since it isn't really behaviour that most people would expect, eBay should have made this clear (regardless of whether there is any justification for the behaviour).
If they didn't, then what they did was probably illegal.
I also think this illustrates a conflict of interest, as "your" automatic proxy bidder is being used to make eBay profit.
At the risk of repeating stuff I posted elsewhere in more depth, it's probably worth pointing out one thing:-
Conflict of interest.
EBay are acting both as an auctioneer and as a proxy bidder on your behalf. The line between the two roles gets blurred in practice by the EBay system, but their purpose is clearly different; one is working for you, one is out to get your money.
Increasing your maximum bid should be akin to phoning up the proxy (automatic) bidder during the auction and informing him that *if* you are outbid, he should counter up to your new maximum bid.
I liken this to a physical auction where the auctioneer is saying, "I have $100, do I hear $150, $150?" He's looking for $150, not for some dimwit to yell $110. If he gets no bites at $100, he may sell at $100 or ask for $125. What he doesn't do is throw it open for said dimewit to say, "I'll give you $100.01."
Two things (actually three):-
Firstly, the analogy breaks down because the nature of EBay auctions is clearly different to that of a traditional auction. People will not sit in front of their computer for several days until the auction ends, constantly refreshing a single auction. People need a way to bid in their own absence, hence the maximum bid. Which brings me to the next point:-
Raising your maximum bid is not the same as making an actual bid. The confusion arises because EBay fills two roles, the auctioneer *and* your proxy (automatic) bidder. You are essentially informing your proxy bidder that you would like them to bid higher if someone else does. You are *not* saying this to the auctioneer.
When EBay says "someone has outbid you with a bid of $100, do I hear $105?", your automatic bidder won't bid $101; so your analogy is flawed.
My proper second point is this; It doesn't matter. Your analogy doesn't matter. What I said above doesn't really matter, except for the difference between EBay and traditional auctions. The only thing that matters is the agreement you have with EBay, and if they haven't mentioned something like this in the agreement, then they can't do it.
We can argue stuff from our ivory towers all we like, but it's what happens in court (or what *would* happen in court) that matters.
An "EBay is an auction house and people should know how it works" legal argument would probably fail because EBay is clearly different from a traditional auction, and because they fill additional roles other than that of the auctioneer.
One thing I can say is good, though, is that eBay doesn't nail bidders for a fee as well. I've had to shell some $$ in the past on other auctions and thought that was pretty scurvy, but it actually is practice at many large auction houses. Sothebys and the like didn't become famous for their charity to buyers and sellers.
Yeah, but acccording to themselves (IIRC) EBay are not auctioneers:-
3.1 eBay is not an auctioneer. Although we are commonly referred to as an online auction web site it is important to realise that we are not a traditional auctioneer. Instead, the Site acts as a venue which allows registered users to offer, sell, and buy just about anything which is legal, at any time, from anywhere, in a variety of price formats. We do not review listings provided by users, we never possess the items offered through the Site and we are not involved in transactions between buyers and sellers.
In short, they do a lot less than Sothebys and friends, so I don't consider this largesse in any way.
Maybe we will not see the fall of the US as a super power in the next few hundred years, but I'm sure time will prove me right.And I do believe that some european authorities have also realized this, and are starting to strengthen relations with other economies and becoming less us dependant, which can't be anything but a good thing.
Well, the problem with giving people the choices of "with us or against us" is that many people (myself included) will take this implied threat masquerading as biblical text and say "Fuck you; against."
Tony Blair kisses Bush's ass and does everything he wants; it's not a question of amorality, it's a question of competence. When you whore out yourself (and hence your country) to support people like that, you would at least expect to get influence in return.
Of course, Blair has *no* real influence, because Bush won't do anything he didn't want to do anyway. This is where Blair is blinded by power, and therefore just plain incompetent.
And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world.
Uh, because most people, even living in the US, don't have Yosemite and/or the Grand Canyon at their front door; vacations cost money and you need time off work to get there.
Not that I don't agree with you about watching crappy TV shows on a $4000 screen. There's nothing on TV or DVD that would make me want to spend $1000 (or equivalent) on a TV, let alone $4000.
Haha based on your username and posts its obvious you are outcast, pissed off at society and bitter. Meanwhile all of us "consumer drones" are enjoying a high quality of life, learning, having fun, and socializing.
Is that so? Then why are you posting as an AC on Slashdot when you could be doing all that great stuff?:-P
If you want to show off, better have 100 XServe G5s networked as a supercomputer. Sure, you may burn your house, but think what a ladder you are on.
Hmm. You haven't *quite* got this "minimalist" thing, have you?
By the way, the perpex cube in question is an extremely expensive Luis Vuitton perspex cube, thus I can show off my wealth without all that... (*shudder*) bling.
(Actually, I'm lying here; I keep all my bling in my *other* 67th floor New York penthouse apartment- I fly between the buildings in a private jet, even though they're only half a mile apart.).
In which Dogtanian questions amichalo's sexuality
on
Apple Updates iPod
·
· Score: 1
Now I'm not saying I like computers as much as I did before I recognized the wonders of "woman", but I do enjoy using them a whole lot more now!
Women? Sorry, but you're in denial mate. Sorry, but it's true; just ask any -1 troll....
But I really like that the album cover can be displayed while the song is playing. It may seem like a very small thing, but to someone as anal about their music collection as I am, this is very appealing.
If you were *really* as anal as you claim, you wouldn't be satisfied with a tiny little reproduction of (the front only of) the album cover.
It sounds about as appealing as those 1970s cassette reissues of classic albums which reduced the 12"x12" LP cover to a 2.5"x2.5" piece of crap on the front of an otherwise generic template which omitted almost everything from the LP except the track listing and copyright notices.
If I wasn't so bored of my CD collection, I'd have bought an iPod by now, but slapping in functionality like the iPod Photo smacks of the featuritis that Apple's imitators are more reliant upon.
Re:One thing the editor left off..
on
Apple Updates iPod
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I'm not sure I would define a product that doesn't come with a keyboard, mouse or screen as "complete". Perhaps if all you want to do is admire your $449 white brick, the mac mini is complete.
Screens, keyboards, mice, leads, etc. all disturb the minimalist aesthetic associated with Apple products.
I just leave mine on top of a solitary perspex cube in the centre of my living room. I can't turn it on or use it at all (power leads are *so* ugly) but it makes a powerful expression of my place in society and position on the Apple purchasing ladder.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to pay for ringtones. You go on these sites and most of them are crap anyway. For the large part they are just sound clips from the latest teen gangsta sensation. And they charge, what, $5 a pop for this garbage?
Grumble.... it all sounds the same to me, just shouting. You can't even hear the words!
Waste of money! I've offered to lend them my Perry Como LPs and they just laugh and say things like "Oh Dad! You're so square... get hip! Ringtones are groovy!"
No wonder this country's going down the pan. In my day.... (etc etc)
I was at a starbucks once, sitting outside next to the little parking lot. A guy with a loud stereo drove up and left the car idling next to me while he stepped inside to get his drink. But, just before he left it, he turned the volume up so he could hear it inside better. Never mind the dozen of us on the patio... urgh.
That's valid justification for pouring superheated coffee down the guy's trousers (a la McDonalds). Even if you're the girl behind the counter... no court in the world would say that was unreasonable behaviour.
What I don't understand is why people purchase ringtones at all when almost every phone I've dealt with accepts MIDI formatted music of one type or another. There are websites that have have huge collections of MIDI.
I agree completely. I have Jimi Hendrix, Metallica and AC/DC MIDI ringtones on my phone.
You should see some of the looks I get! I don't know why, it's not like Hendrix's guitar sounds any better than General MIDI patch 029, is it?
Though I'm not sure that "bagpipes" was the best instrument to render Metallica in....
On the outside chance you come back and look at this
Well, the message system informs me of any replies, and I normally check them out, if for no other reason than curiosity.
The single most frustrating thing about the mess Enterprise is in right now is that you could have started this show up with any ten or so Star Trek fans plucked from any convention you wanted to get them from and they could have avoided the mistakes that were made over the last two years. You could bring in anyone you found walking around at a Star Trek convention today and correct whatever is still wrong with it.
Pandering to the obsessive fanbase isn't always the best way to keep a show fresh and original; on the contrary, it can sometimes be the reason a show disappears up its own arse.
Don't get me wrong; their opinion should be considered (as potential viewers *and* as people who know the show) but stuff that appeals to someone who lives, and has an obsessive knowledge of a show, might not appeal to the more general viewers needed to keep a show viable.
Generally, hardcore fans are obsessive about consistency; but this IMHO is sometimes what weighs sci-fi down and in the end kills it.
I mean, if sci-fi is about ideas, doesn't the need for consistency with 100 previous episodes kind of stifle this?
I don't know if it was pandering to the fanbase that made Red Dwarf series 7 and 8 so crap, but it certainly seemed to be too obsessed with serious details. Compare this to earlier episodes which didn't seem to bother that much with continuity or scientific coherence, except where it mattered.
Why do you think glasses will be obsolete in 20 years? I doubt surgery will become cheaper
It doesn't have to be cheaper than glasses, it just has to be cheaper than it is now; and is it *that* expensive now?
or less risky than glasses by then
*That's* the issue- not the price. Personally, I wouldn't care if it was free; I wouldn't even consider it for another 10-15 years...
But I'll say one thing; glasses will still be used in third-world countries for a *long* time to come.
Plus, poking myself in the eye every morning just doesn't appeal to me.
It's something you get used to; the monthly disposables (my ones are J&J 'Surevue') are very comfortable, and work out cheaper than daily disposables, even after adding the cost of peroxide solution.
If this is the reason you (or anyone else) is put off getting lenses, you can go to the opticians, ask if you can have a month's trial (even if you have to pay, you have at most the cost of your eye examination and 1 month's lenses). Whereas with non-disposables, the cost-risk is an issue, you don't stand to lose so much if you dislike the monthlies.
One other thing; my optician claims that peroxide-based all-in-one soaks (where the nasty peroxide kills the germs and gets neutralised by a catalyst in the case overnight) doesn't build-up and/or cause potential allergy problems that other solutions can cause some people.
Personally, I like the idea that the un-neutralised peroxide is more likely to kill germs on the lens *and* in the case (cf. non-peroxide solutions), but I don't know how true that is.
By that argument, Voyager was crap too. They had a bald hologram. Surely they could have programmed him some hair.
Nah; remember, when they made the Final Fantasy movie, something like 25% of the rendering time was due to Aki Ross's hair?
I'm sure they could have given the Doctor in Voyager hair that was long, shiny and bounced around like something from a shampoo ad- but only at the cost of consuming 99.99999% of the onboard computer's power, leaving them just enough to play 'Super Breakout' on the viewing screen.
And don't give me some explanation as to how this wouldn't happen because holograms work differently or something. IT'S NOT REAL. IT'S A DAMN TV SHOW, and I don't want a 20,000 word explanation using pseudo-science that some scriptwriter invented to let Wesley Crusher get Captain Picard out of trouble in the final five minutes of a first-season ST:TNG show. AAAWWRGH!!!
Frankly, I'd rather spend the time learning about quantum theory, or whatever....
And BTW, Voyager *was* crap because of the hologram; not for the reason you mentioned, but because the hologram/holodeck was a grossly overused plot device by that time.
Sometimes, a good executive-type person can be a Good Thing (think Brian Epstein and the Beatles
... but think of what else they could do if they had the money/resources.
Probably a good manager overall, but didn't exactly ensure they were getting the money from Beatles merchandise.
Col. Tom Parker and Elvis
I'd subscribe to the theory that he did a good job in the beginning, bringing Elvis to stardom, but ultimately he destroyed Elvis as a credible artist. Apparently, lots of (very fashionable) people wanted to work with Elvis in the 60s/70s, but he put the lid on that; and he was the one that pushed Elvis to do a gruelling number of shows in Las Vegas (as apparently Parker had lots of gambling debts that needed financing), which probably contributed to Elvis's early death. Elvis hardly went on tour outside the US, it's speculated because Parker was an illegal immigrant, and thus couldn't travel and exert control on Elvis when he was out of the country.
The much-praised '68(?) Comeback Special was (IIRC) done *against* Parker's wishes.
hell, Bill Gates and MS-DOS)
Why is MS-DOS A Good Thing? It was an unwieldy rip-off of CP/M.
Would this stifle their creativity? Maybe
See Col. Tom Parker, above, and consider how quickly Elvis was pushed from credible rock n' roll artist into commercially-friendly MOR singer then into Vegas cabaret artist.
I mean, seriously, it's ******* weird when you think about it.
ROFL... this is the most incompetent troll I've seen for a long time; everyone knows that the goatse.cx account has been suspended for *months*! (BTW, looks like its replacement, goat.cx has met a similarly tragic fate)
Good account name though...
How does the exectution of a proxy bidding algorithm whose workings are fully disclosed ahead of time constitutue an "interest".
Read the article; where did eBay disclose that increasing your maximum bid(*) (when you were the current high bidder) would increase your bid?
If they "fully disclosed" this in advance, then there is no case, and the class action will fail. If they did not, then you are wrong.
However, the conflict of interest is more general; the automatic bidder should act in the interests of the person instructing it; eBay (who control it), however, stand to gain if it does (otherwise) illogical things like the situation above. Even if they disclosed this behaviour (which apparently they haven't). Even if the auto-bidder was totally fair, there would still be a potential conflict of interest.
Your statement is sort of like saying the rules of chess have a conflict of interest between the white pieces and the black pieces.
No it's not. There are two separate parties with different aims in that case.
White has no say in the behaviour of black, nor in the rules of chess.
(*) Where 'maximum bid' is not an actual bid, just an instruction to the automatic bidder.
"Just about" anything which is legal.
"Just about" can cover quite a lot of exclusions, if you're so minded. Companies are used to manipulating language in this manner.
>> When EBay says "someone has outbid you with a bid of $100, do I hear $105?", your
>> automatic bidder won't bid $101; so your analogy is flawed.
> If I read the article correctly, your statement is exactly what the lawsuit is about.
> The guy was expecting to win with a bid of $101.50 (or somesuch) and ended up paying 102.50
> because the system increnments in $2.50 amounts in this dollar range. So, eBay is in effect
> saying "do I hear $102.50?"
If I've understood what you're saying correctly, then no.
The previous (lower) bid had been *accepted* (e.g. $101.50) and was the current highest bid. EBay sent a warning to the person that they *could* be outbid. But that had not happened yet.
No-one had outbid the person who just increased their maximum bid; so why would they increase their own bid?
I'm sure we could contrive a situation where that might be beneficial in a traditional auction (1), where the same person could "occupy" the next increment and scare off timid (or less serious) bidders (e.g. Alice bids $100; Bob is considering bidding up to his maximum of $105. Alice also has a maximum of $105. If Alice bids $105, Bob has to bid $110 to get it, which he won't do). But it's not what would happen in real life AFAIK.
Plus, it's here that EBay *isn't* like a traditional auction, and that the blurring of the auctioneer/proxy-bidder roles confuses things.
The "maximum bid" is *not* a proxy bid. It's not a bid at all; it's an instruction to the proxy bidder that "this is the most I want you to automatically bid."
This should have nothing to do with the auctioneer until an actual bid is made. And if the automatic bidder is filling the role of your (trusted) proxy (which it should), why would it increase its own bid if it is currently winning- unless you count (1) above as a valid tactic, which strikes me as fairly unusual.
But ultimately (and I accept that you likened EBay to an auctioneer rather than saying they were one), it starts to get counter-productive to compare eBay to traditional auctioneers (and it's rather academic anyway). The important question is whether eBay were clear about the behaviour of their automatic bidder. Since it isn't really behaviour that most people would expect, eBay should have made this clear (regardless of whether there is any justification for the behaviour).
If they didn't, then what they did was probably illegal.
I also think this illustrates a conflict of interest, as "your" automatic proxy bidder is being used to make eBay profit.
At the risk of repeating stuff I posted elsewhere in more depth, it's probably worth pointing out one thing:-
Conflict of interest.
EBay are acting both as an auctioneer and as a proxy bidder on your behalf. The line between the two roles gets blurred in practice by the EBay system, but their purpose is clearly different; one is working for you, one is out to get your money.
Increasing your maximum bid should be akin to phoning up the proxy (automatic) bidder during the auction and informing him that *if* you are outbid, he should counter up to your new maximum bid.
I liken this to a physical auction where the auctioneer is saying, "I have $100, do I hear $150, $150?" He's looking for $150, not for some dimwit to yell $110. If he gets no bites at $100, he may sell at $100 or ask for $125. What he doesn't do is throw it open for said dimewit to say, "I'll give you $100.01."
Two things (actually three):-
Firstly, the analogy breaks down because the nature of EBay auctions is clearly different to that of a traditional auction. People will not sit in front of their computer for several days until the auction ends, constantly refreshing a single auction. People need a way to bid in their own absence, hence the maximum bid. Which brings me to the next point:-
Raising your maximum bid is not the same as making an actual bid. The confusion arises because EBay fills two roles, the auctioneer *and* your proxy (automatic) bidder. You are essentially informing your proxy bidder that you would like them to bid higher if someone else does. You are *not* saying this to the auctioneer.
When EBay says "someone has outbid you with a bid of $100, do I hear $105?", your automatic bidder won't bid $101; so your analogy is flawed.
My proper second point is this; It doesn't matter. Your analogy doesn't matter. What I said above doesn't really matter, except for the difference between EBay and traditional auctions. The only thing that matters is the agreement you have with EBay, and if they haven't mentioned something like this in the agreement, then they can't do it.
We can argue stuff from our ivory towers all we like, but it's what happens in court (or what *would* happen in court) that matters.
An "EBay is an auction house and people should know how it works" legal argument would probably fail because EBay is clearly different from a traditional auction, and because they fill additional roles other than that of the auctioneer.
And because EBay themselves state that they are not an auctioneer , as I mention elsewhere.
One thing I can say is good, though, is that eBay doesn't nail bidders for a fee as well. I've had to shell some $$ in the past on other auctions and thought that was pretty scurvy, but it actually is practice at many large auction houses. Sothebys and the like didn't become famous for their charity to buyers and sellers.
Yeah, but acccording to themselves (IIRC) EBay are not auctioneers:-
From Ebay.com and also at Ebay.co.uk, they say that:-
3. eBay is Only a Venue.
3.1 eBay is not an auctioneer. Although we are commonly referred to as an online auction web site it is important to realise that we are not a traditional auctioneer. Instead, the Site acts as a venue which allows registered users to offer, sell, and buy just about anything which is legal, at any time, from anywhere, in a variety of price formats. We do not review listings provided by users, we never possess the items offered through the Site and we are not involved in transactions between buyers and sellers.
In short, they do a lot less than Sothebys and friends, so I don't consider this largesse in any way.
The site is blocked for "sexuality" by websense.
My best guess is it reported the LokiTorrent owners to have fled to Scunthorpe.
In all seriousness, sites about Scunthorpe *have* been blocked by filters in the past.
Has the BCS (brit.comp.soc) done anything? doubt it.
Thought the BCS were pro-patents anyway.
Maybe we will not see the fall of the US as a super power in the next few hundred years, but I'm sure time will prove me right.And I do believe that some european authorities have also realized this, and are starting to strengthen relations with other economies and becoming less us dependant, which can't be anything but a good thing.
Well, the problem with giving people the choices of "with us or against us" is that many people (myself included) will take this implied threat masquerading as biblical text and say "Fuck you; against."
Tony Blair kisses Bush's ass and does everything he wants; it's not a question of amorality, it's a question of competence. When you whore out yourself (and hence your country) to support people like that, you would at least expect to get influence in return.
Of course, Blair has *no* real influence, because Bush won't do anything he didn't want to do anyway. This is where Blair is blinded by power, and therefore just plain incompetent.
And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world.
Uh, because most people, even living in the US, don't have Yosemite and/or the Grand Canyon at their front door; vacations cost money and you need time off work to get there.
Not that I don't agree with you about watching crappy TV shows on a $4000 screen. There's nothing on TV or DVD that would make me want to spend $1000 (or equivalent) on a TV, let alone $4000.
Haha based on your username and posts its obvious you are outcast, pissed off at society and bitter. Meanwhile all of us "consumer drones" are enjoying a high quality of life, learning, having fun, and socializing.
:-P
Is that so? Then why are you posting as an AC on Slashdot when you could be doing all that great stuff?
If you want to show off, better have 100 XServe G5s networked as a supercomputer. Sure, you may burn your house, but think what a ladder you are on.
Hmm. You haven't *quite* got this "minimalist" thing, have you?
By the way, the perpex cube in question is an extremely expensive Luis Vuitton perspex cube, thus I can show off my wealth without all that... (*shudder*) bling.
(Actually, I'm lying here; I keep all my bling in my *other* 67th floor New York penthouse apartment- I fly between the buildings in a private jet, even though they're only half a mile apart.).
Now I'm not saying I like computers as much as I did before I recognized the wonders of "woman", but I do enjoy using them a whole lot more now!
Women? Sorry, but you're in denial mate. Sorry, but it's true; just ask any -1 troll....
"@pp13 u53r5 4r3 teh gh3y!!!!!!!!"
Thank you Mister Troll.
But I really like that the album cover can be displayed while the song is playing. It may seem like a very small thing, but to someone as anal about their music collection as I am, this is very appealing.
If you were *really* as anal as you claim, you wouldn't be satisfied with a tiny little reproduction of (the front only of) the album cover.
It sounds about as appealing as those 1970s cassette reissues of classic albums which reduced the 12"x12" LP cover to a 2.5"x2.5" piece of crap on the front of an otherwise generic template which omitted almost everything from the LP except the track listing and copyright notices.
If I wasn't so bored of my CD collection, I'd have bought an iPod by now, but slapping in functionality like the iPod Photo smacks of the featuritis that Apple's imitators are more reliant upon.
I'm not sure I would define a product that doesn't come with a keyboard, mouse or screen as "complete". Perhaps if all you want to do is admire your $449 white brick, the mac mini is complete.
Screens, keyboards, mice, leads, etc. all disturb the minimalist aesthetic associated with Apple products.
I just leave mine on top of a solitary perspex cube in the centre of my living room. I can't turn it on or use it at all (power leads are *so* ugly) but it makes a powerful expression of my place in society and position on the Apple purchasing ladder.
I love cannons because they're good for blowing stuff up. I believe you mean Canon.
*I* know the difference; hence the joke. Sheesh.......