I think the people left holding the bag here are exactly the right ones: The ones who thought they were gonna make instant big profits.
Not only did think they had bought something something at far below its value, they then signed options contracts to sell what they had just bought at slightly below its regular price. They should have known something was fishy... why would anybody want to pay close to the normal price to them if the price had just plumeted? Why would anybody want to sell to them at far below the usual price?
The should have known that the rules of the game allowed for their trade to be undone, yet they committed to an options contract that couldn't be undone because if they had hesitated, they risked their "instant profits" going away... their fault.
If the "well tested" 2.4 kernel were to be adding new features, such new features might risk making it unstable, therefore the time-tested status it has would have to be restarted.
If 2.6 isn't "well tested" enough for your production servers, wait a while. The test of time will perform itself... of course, if you want the new features, you'll just have to take the plunge because somebody's gotta do the testing...
I'm running an AMD K6 1.1 GhZ chip on the machine I'm using at home, and I feel no need to upgrade right now. Nothing I'm running demands the extra performance... even though I know the cheapest eMachines on the market today is running at double the clock speed.
It seems to me that most consumer users don't need 2+ GhZ chips, but marketing over the years have told consumers that higher clock speeds always equate to better chips, even though that's a myth that Apple has worked hard to counteract.
Maybe it's time for a new generation of "budget" chips that don't headline their clock speed but instead compete on cost, power consumption, or other factors....
When the Visa system issues a forced chargeback in a situation like that, they lose the fraudlent fees they try to collect from you, and get slapped with a penalty fee for having such prohibited practices. If they shipped defective goods, they've gotta reverse the entire transaction. The shipping charge can stick, but their test was worthless (because it was wrong) and they have to buy back the chip at the price you paid, they're not getting a working chip at today's price, they're getting a bad chip they shouldn't have sold.
Too many forced chargebacks through the Visa system has another side effect... being kicked out of the system. Such unethical companies don't last very long.:)
There are several stores in MA, Wal*Mart included, that post signs indicating that such a policy is another advantage of shopping with them, neglecting the fact that they had no choice in the matter due to the state law.:)
Re:Sad state of affairs...
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes. Use a standard credit card, especially one that offers a 1% cash rewards and no annual fee such as the MBNA Motley Fool Visa. Pay off the balance in full every month when you get the bill.
Now, the float's in your favor, and now the bogus authorization for an extra $300 will go against a credit line where you have thousands of extra room that you'll never use, so you won't care about having those "virtual" dollars tied up. What's more, that 1% kickback basically comes out of the murchant fee, so the card issuer is able to provide you a no-fee card and pay you to use it. If you can just get half of that $100,000 a year to run through the card as purchases that's $500.00 a year that lands in your pocket.
Using a credit card is much safer than using a card tied to your credit account. If you ever have a fraudulent transaction made against your "Visa Check Card" the disputed money will be missing from your bank account while the situation is looked into... while on a credit card the disputed transaction sits in a walled off area of your credit limit, which you don't have to pay interest on and eventually gets washed out by the chargeback.
Those Visa Check Cards are just plain a bad idea if you have the ability to get a regular credit card. Granted, there's many un-cardable people with bad credit histories who need such a card just to keep up, but if you're not one of them, why are you sentancing yourself to their punishment?
I think somebody in the finance department decided it was worth $119.40 a year to pay you to keep quiet rather than risk the six digits or so a year they're getting from the electronic payments fee. They could try to break their business relationship with you, but they'd be setting up an ugly test case with an uncertain outcome since the phone company needs a very good reason to discontinue service, and if they can unilaterally declare a fee for selecting a payment method that annoys them, why can't you decalre a fee for their selection of a payment method that annoys you? It'd be different if they had never offered free electronic payments... but they did...
AT&T was a footdragger all along claiming that their systems just weren't ready to handle this, and it turns out they weren't faking it. The FCC may fine them for not being ready to handle outgoing customers, but the biggest penality for not being ready is hitting them naturally from their bugs... they're having equal problems getting numbers into their system as well. That's represents would-be customers who are being told it's not working, some of whom no doubt walked out of the store canceling the purchase and told their friends not to even bother with AT&T Wireless.
January is next month. If her early termination fee was prorated, she'd only be paying 1/12th or maybe even 1/24th of it... one 1/24th of $200 is only $8.33. If your friend knew that, she might just decide that's a pocket-change figure she'd gladly pay to be rid of the committment, then it's a whole new ballgame...
What you get in exchange for the lock-in contract is a piece of property for less than the actual cost of making it. Most carriers will let you buy the phone outright and not have a lock-in clause, but you'll pay $150-$200 more for the phone... which is essentially paying the penality fee right up front!
One other detail is that most of those lock-in clauses pro-rate the penalty over time, as state laws tend to require that be included. Therefore, if you're 4 months away from the end of a 24-month commitment, you might be paying 1/6 of the original $200, which works out to $33.33... and that'd make a whole lot of sense if you're moving to a better-for-you service with a newer phone that costs $10/mo. less, not to mention the whole exchange leaves you with a high-tech paperweight of a phone that might have some eBay value...
If you want to avoid Radio Shack, just take your bill (which is your proof that you really do possess the number that you will be porting) to anybody who sells phones attached to the service you want to switch to... they'll all be more than happy to help you.
Radio Shack is happy with all this because in most of their stores, they have more than one carrier, so anybody upset at carrier A can go to B, and anybody upset at B can go to A at their store.
Call, complain... that fee just might vaporize on you.
There's no government tax for number portibilty, Sprint's simply trying to tell you that because of this new set of rules, they've decided to raise your rates by $2.20 a month. They can do that, the contract you signed with them says they can. But, if you're on a month-to-month status, you can use number portibilty to break away from them right here right now. Even if you've got time to go on your contract, you can put them on notice that if they don't retract that fee, they have a 0% chance of keeping you when the contract ends... or you might just ask them to calculate the penalty fee and see if it's worth paying.
The America's Most Wanted TV show also has that same problem on a regular basis. The actor who plays the criminal in the dramatic reenactment is always easier to locate than the criminal...
Yep... we're now seeing what would have happened in the USA should the DMCA not have been passed. Giving copyright holders more power increases the value of their content, giving them less power decreases the value...
There's no proof that AOL voluntarily cooperated here. Again, if Wells Fargo had installed a "report the IP whenever connected" software and the thief was too dumb to have not completely wiped the machine, then Wells Fargo would have instantly had the IP address, which they could quickly determine was assigned to AOL. Having a timestamp and an IP address is enough to get a search warrant for AOL's records... and that leads to the theif's screenname, real name, and billing info if it was his own accout, or at least a caller ID phone location if it was the one stored on the computer, which.
This was a case where the system worked. The theif slipped up by connecting to AOL and the laptop was able to broadcast it's identity as belonging to Wells Fargo.
First lesson of surveys... your results are only going to be as good as your selection of survey population, and if you want a biased survey to reach your conclusion, simply find a biased survey population.
Port80's sales pitch is that big corperations are so dumb that not only that they run IIS, but they're also broadcasting that fact for anybody who wants to see. Don't be dumb like them, if you have to run IIS, at least use our product to hide that fact...
Not quite. See, if you're saying your running IIS but actually not, you're immune to all IIS-exclusive hacks. They simply aren't gonna work against Apache... so you give the illusion you're Superman when they fire bullets at you. Of course, you're still at risk to kryptonite should an Apache expolit be released... but hackers looking for Apache servers to hit will think you're an IIS server and hopefully not bother with you.
It's security by misdirection... a cousin to security by obscurity. Not a complete security solution, but it does help a bit in convincing hackers looking for an easy target that you're not one, so move on to the next victim.
Their main product is one that induces IIS to lie about its identity when queried... something Apache can do with a config change as well. (What they're basically selling is a GUI to the registry key that IIS uses for that configuration setting...)
Which brings up a valid point. Any survey of web server market share has to accept the fact that their results may get corrupted by the fact that servers have the ability lie to the poll-takers. And, it's a pretty good security step to have your web servers lie about what software you're running, as some hackers might get fooled by the misdirection.
Actually, the one day was today. So, it was a desperate attempt to try to con some small-market holiday-short-handed news teams to go to Best Buy today in order to create a puff piece for tomorrow's show.
When you obtained your copy of the flyer illegally. Everyone who knows the exact contents of the Best Buy flyer that'll be released tomorrow is under NDAs not to tell. Clearly, when somebody leaked details in a post on FatWallet.com, somebody told a secret they weren't allowed to tell, and Best Buy is trying prevent the spread of that information.
The same post, if made tomorrow, would be reporting news. Best Buy today revealled some of the items on sale in a press release today, but the items in that release were not enough to fill a circular so there has to be more that they're not talking about yet.
Guys, we want the "DMCA test case" to be a case that's actually won by the good guys...
In this case, Best Buy has an argument... because we're not talking about offered prices, but future prices that haven't been announced yet. This isn't about walking into a store and writing down a number, this is about insider information that gets leaked, and Best Buy is trying to contain their trade secrets.
There's a chance that Best Buy might actually win this, and as a result strengthen the DMCA... we don't want that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the people left holding the bag here are exactly the right ones: The ones who thought they were gonna make instant big profits.
Not only did think they had bought something something at far below its value, they then signed options contracts to sell what they had just bought at slightly below its regular price. They should have known something was fishy... why would anybody want to pay close to the normal price to them if the price had just plumeted? Why would anybody want to sell to them at far below the usual price?
The should have known that the rules of the game allowed for their trade to be undone, yet they committed to an options contract that couldn't be undone because if they had hesitated, they risked their "instant profits" going away... their fault.
If the "well tested" 2.4 kernel were to be adding new features, such new features might risk making it unstable, therefore the time-tested status it has would have to be restarted.
If 2.6 isn't "well tested" enough for your production servers, wait a while. The test of time will perform itself... of course, if you want the new features, you'll just have to take the plunge because somebody's gotta do the testing...
I'm running an AMD K6 1.1 GhZ chip on the machine I'm using at home, and I feel no need to upgrade right now. Nothing I'm running demands the extra performance... even though I know the cheapest eMachines on the market today is running at double the clock speed.
It seems to me that most consumer users don't need 2+ GhZ chips, but marketing over the years have told consumers that higher clock speeds always equate to better chips, even though that's a myth that Apple has worked hard to counteract.
Maybe it's time for a new generation of "budget" chips that don't headline their clock speed but instead compete on cost, power consumption, or other factors....
When the Visa system issues a forced chargeback in a situation like that, they lose the fraudlent fees they try to collect from you, and get slapped with a penalty fee for having such prohibited practices. If they shipped defective goods, they've gotta reverse the entire transaction. The shipping charge can stick, but their test was worthless (because it was wrong) and they have to buy back the chip at the price you paid, they're not getting a working chip at today's price, they're getting a bad chip they shouldn't have sold.
:)
Too many forced chargebacks through the Visa system has another side effect... being kicked out of the system. Such unethical companies don't last very long.
There are several stores in MA, Wal*Mart included, that post signs indicating that such a policy is another advantage of shopping with them, neglecting the fact that they had no choice in the matter due to the state law. :)
Yes. Use a standard credit card, especially one that offers a 1% cash rewards and no annual fee such as the MBNA Motley Fool Visa. Pay off the balance in full every month when you get the bill.
Now, the float's in your favor, and now the bogus authorization for an extra $300 will go against a credit line where you have thousands of extra room that you'll never use, so you won't care about having those "virtual" dollars tied up. What's more, that 1% kickback basically comes out of the murchant fee, so the card issuer is able to provide you a no-fee card and pay you to use it. If you can just get half of that $100,000 a year to run through the card as purchases that's $500.00 a year that lands in your pocket.
Using a credit card is much safer than using a card tied to your credit account. If you ever have a fraudulent transaction made against your "Visa Check Card" the disputed money will be missing from your bank account while the situation is looked into... while on a credit card the disputed transaction sits in a walled off area of your credit limit, which you don't have to pay interest on and eventually gets washed out by the chargeback.
Those Visa Check Cards are just plain a bad idea if you have the ability to get a regular credit card. Granted, there's many un-cardable people with bad credit histories who need such a card just to keep up, but if you're not one of them, why are you sentancing yourself to their punishment?
I think somebody in the finance department decided it was worth $119.40 a year to pay you to keep quiet rather than risk the six digits or so a year they're getting from the electronic payments fee. They could try to break their business relationship with you, but they'd be setting up an ugly test case with an uncertain outcome since the phone company needs a very good reason to discontinue service, and if they can unilaterally declare a fee for selecting a payment method that annoys them, why can't you decalre a fee for their selection of a payment method that annoys you? It'd be different if they had never offered free electronic payments... but they did...
It's a last-gasp chance to sneak in a price increase... number portability in the long term will drive prices down by nature.
AT&T was a footdragger all along claiming that their systems just weren't ready to handle this, and it turns out they weren't faking it. The FCC may fine them for not being ready to handle outgoing customers, but the biggest penality for not being ready is hitting them naturally from their bugs... they're having equal problems getting numbers into their system as well. That's represents would-be customers who are being told it's not working, some of whom no doubt walked out of the store canceling the purchase and told their friends not to even bother with AT&T Wireless.
January is next month. If her early termination fee was prorated, she'd only be paying 1/12th or maybe even 1/24th of it... one 1/24th of $200 is only $8.33. If your friend knew that, she might just decide that's a pocket-change figure she'd gladly pay to be rid of the committment, then it's a whole new ballgame...
What you get in exchange for the lock-in contract is a piece of property for less than the actual cost of making it. Most carriers will let you buy the phone outright and not have a lock-in clause, but you'll pay $150-$200 more for the phone... which is essentially paying the penality fee right up front!
One other detail is that most of those lock-in clauses pro-rate the penalty over time, as state laws tend to require that be included. Therefore, if you're 4 months away from the end of a 24-month commitment, you might be paying 1/6 of the original $200, which works out to $33.33... and that'd make a whole lot of sense if you're moving to a better-for-you service with a newer phone that costs $10/mo. less, not to mention the whole exchange leaves you with a high-tech paperweight of a phone that might have some eBay value...
If you want to avoid Radio Shack, just take your bill (which is your proof that you really do possess the number that you will be porting) to anybody who sells phones attached to the service you want to switch to... they'll all be more than happy to help you.
Radio Shack is happy with all this because in most of their stores, they have more than one carrier, so anybody upset at carrier A can go to B, and anybody upset at B can go to A at their store.
Call, complain... that fee just might vaporize on you.
There's no government tax for number portibilty, Sprint's simply trying to tell you that because of this new set of rules, they've decided to raise your rates by $2.20 a month. They can do that, the contract you signed with them says they can. But, if you're on a month-to-month status, you can use number portibilty to break away from them right here right now. Even if you've got time to go on your contract, you can put them on notice that if they don't retract that fee, they have a 0% chance of keeping you when the contract ends... or you might just ask them to calculate the penalty fee and see if it's worth paying.
In other news, almost all of the people who you have listed above are also dead.
The America's Most Wanted TV show also has that same problem on a regular basis. The actor who plays the criminal in the dramatic reenactment is always easier to locate than the criminal...
Yep... we're now seeing what would have happened in the USA should the DMCA not have been passed. Giving copyright holders more power increases the value of their content, giving them less power decreases the value...
There's no proof that AOL voluntarily cooperated here. Again, if Wells Fargo had installed a "report the IP whenever connected" software and the thief was too dumb to have not completely wiped the machine, then Wells Fargo would have instantly had the IP address, which they could quickly determine was assigned to AOL. Having a timestamp and an IP address is enough to get a search warrant for AOL's records... and that leads to the theif's screenname, real name, and billing info if it was his own accout, or at least a caller ID phone location if it was the one stored on the computer, which.
This was a case where the system worked. The theif slipped up by connecting to AOL and the laptop was able to broadcast it's identity as belonging to Wells Fargo.
If any company installed such call home software by default, it'd be a security-concerned company like Wells Fargo...
First lesson of surveys... your results are only going to be as good as your selection of survey population, and if you want a biased survey to reach your conclusion, simply find a biased survey population.
Port80's sales pitch is that big corperations are so dumb that not only that they run IIS, but they're also broadcasting that fact for anybody who wants to see. Don't be dumb like them, if you have to run IIS, at least use our product to hide that fact...
Not quite. See, if you're saying your running IIS but actually not, you're immune to all IIS-exclusive hacks. They simply aren't gonna work against Apache... so you give the illusion you're Superman when they fire bullets at you. Of course, you're still at risk to kryptonite should an Apache expolit be released... but hackers looking for Apache servers to hit will think you're an IIS server and hopefully not bother with you.
It's security by misdirection... a cousin to security by obscurity. Not a complete security solution, but it does help a bit in convincing hackers looking for an easy target that you're not one, so move on to the next victim.
Their main product is one that induces IIS to lie about its identity when queried... something Apache can do with a config change as well. (What they're basically selling is a GUI to the registry key that IIS uses for that configuration setting...)
Which brings up a valid point. Any survey of web server market share has to accept the fact that their results may get corrupted by the fact that servers have the ability lie to the poll-takers. And, it's a pretty good security step to have your web servers lie about what software you're running, as some hackers might get fooled by the misdirection.
Actually, the one day was today. So, it was a desperate attempt to try to con some small-market holiday-short-handed news teams to go to Best Buy today in order to create a puff piece for tomorrow's show.
Why do I get the feeling you're about to run out of stores to shop at...
Since when is posting an ad flyer online illegal?
When you obtained your copy of the flyer illegally. Everyone who knows the exact contents of the Best Buy flyer that'll be released tomorrow is under NDAs not to tell. Clearly, when somebody leaked details in a post on FatWallet.com, somebody told a secret they weren't allowed to tell, and Best Buy is trying prevent the spread of that information.
The same post, if made tomorrow, would be reporting news. Best Buy today revealled some of the items on sale in a press release today, but the items in that release were not enough to fill a circular so there has to be more that they're not talking about yet.
Guys, we want the "DMCA test case" to be a case that's actually won by the good guys...
In this case, Best Buy has an argument... because we're not talking about offered prices, but future prices that haven't been announced yet. This isn't about walking into a store and writing down a number, this is about insider information that gets leaked, and Best Buy is trying to contain their trade secrets.
There's a chance that Best Buy might actually win this, and as a result strengthen the DMCA... we don't want that.