what incentive do I have to ship it bug-free to begin with? (OT: There is no such thing as bug-free code on the operating system scale. There are undetected bugs, unresolved (or "known") bugs and allegedly those intentionally placed. For the purpose of this thread, let "bug" = "intentionally placed bug".)
If you release a crappy widget with bugs and someone else releases a good widget in which those bugs were repaired, they will eat up your market share. Given the availability of competition in providing/supporting Linux, your suggestion is crazy. The reason the question comes up is because there is no competition for the Windows product (Linux is a different kind of widget in this aspect). While you are correct that Microsoft are not the only commercial vendor, they are the only vendor which can sell Windows. Oracle may have a proprietary database, but it does have to compete with other (now even Open Source) database products. There is nothing keeping other databases from competing, whereas Microsoft can and does effectively stifle operating system competition by being so proprietary. This issue can be applied towards any company that acts like them. Imagine Oracle using some old patent to control SQL and not allow other vendors to incorporate it into their database.
Since Red-Hat as an Open Source vendor do not have control over their code after releasing it (which Microsoft retains), customers are free to find another company to fix those problems. They are also free to move to a competing distribution (an equivalent widget). In the broken window, the vandal is assumed to have a high likelihood of gaining the victim's business, which is clearly not the case with Linux. In addition, the placement of intentional bugs is likely to be noticed and/or otherwise publicized in the community, akin perhaps to the glazier not wearing gloves when he throws rocks at windows (fingerprints). The reward is not worth this risk, since nothing forces customers to stay with Red Hat should this kind of activity be made public.
Thus, Red-Hat has a huge incentive to provide good products and actual support, and also an incentive not to risk its reputation.
Sure, engineers have skills useful to terrorists. But on the other hand, those skills are useful at fighting the same engineers that terrorists employ. For example, many US engineers are trying to protect our troops against IEDs, the most well known being the good folks at iRobot. As for planes, you forget that the same kind of brainstorming session is required by those in the FAA, to prevent planes going down. Who's going to do that- bureaucrats?
I'd argue that Engineers make less effective terrorists than say political science or theology students, since they seek real proof. Given the lack of scientific evidence that I'd get 72 virgins, it'd be difficult to convince me that there's something good about blowing myself up or enabling another to do so. This is especially true given my ability to create a good life for myself with a normal job. I've got too much to lose hanging out with that Bin Laden nut- screw living in some smelly cave on rice with goat milk! I want my pizza, Mountain Dew, and time to waste reading Slashdot.
Your argument suggests* that government build and maintain a complete wireless network for the uncommon event of emergency**. That and the government is trying to get emergency cash (these spectrum sales provide a one-time cash flow) in the face of a terrible deficit.
It also ignores how U.S. government works. We like our public officials to be technical nitwits who need a contractor to screw in a light bulb. This makes it easier for us to build companies that overcharge the Feds for shoddy work. Have you missed our favorite stories about the brilliant things done by employees of the US Patent Office?
But seriously- the only cost-effective way of building this "E911" network is to add requirements to an existing or commercially-built network. Not only that, but if government was to build a network it would not be online before 2012. These new commercial spectrum holders will likely go online the day they become available.
* (assuming "interesting" didn't miss what would be an interesting exercise in sarcasm) ** 911 calls are not of poor enough quality today to justify the cost of starting from scratch. Even if police and fire departments used this network for their normal communications (replacing landlines) any technology deployed today would be overkill for that purpose and the system would still not be in use enough of the time to excuse ongoing operating costs.
I wonder how the box itself would respond to observing sex. Would it find them some pr0n, advertise condoms and morning-after pills, or perhaps turn the volume way up? Could one program it to switch to an abstinence-preaching Christian network to get them to stop?
I agree- collaborative studying has its uses. My comp sci algorithms class was divided into study groups from the first lesson, since that kind of problem solving is extremely difficult. As for previous poster's suggestion that this invites slackers to enjoy a free ride, we quickly learned about an abuser in our group, and "forgot" to invite him to a study session. He missed credit on that work and straightened out.
In other classes the general rule I followed with friends was effective and simple to follow: don't write down the answers to homework questions. I think it was my Calc2 professor who made the suggestion. In her class that huge book let us use questions not assigned as homework to ensure we stayed clearly on the honest side of the line.
But this story differs on both accounts- the work was supposed to be independent, and everything discussed was stored online. I don't know if there's much of an argument to "this is how modern studying is done". While I'm all for using technology to improve our lives, all those students are in the same school and can meet easily. I don't think that's too much to ask to ensure academic honesty.
Read the article. It explains that the kid knows made some bad choices. He's just crying "not fair" and making excuses. I'd be far more supportive if he actually brought the issue up before the school's ethics body.
Can you tell me the difference between a knockoff of windows XP and the real thing? Bad example. "Counterfeit" copies of Windows are (almost always*) simply "unlicensed" copies (mistakenly called "pirated") and are identical to the real ones. The only difference being Microsoft and retailers did not authorize their distribution and get money off them.
* It's possible for counterfeiters to change the Windows CD producing a non-identical copy. I can think of no good reason for this other than allowing them to add their own advertising, spyware or such nastiness to the junk Microsoft puts on there. I've never heard of this being done, but I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to accomplish.
I see your strawman warning and raise you a bullshit alert.
Autocomplete a URL is like tab-completion in the shell. No it isn't, and that's why you have no idea what the problem is with that post.
How can this be insightful? It's stupid and insane, and makes no sense. You mean, how can it be, when compared to your masterpiece of insightful commentary?
Since you need parent's insight explained to you explicitly, here it is:
Tab-completion (Win, Linux) uses alphabetic sorting to order the results of your partial text. Firefox 2.0's URL bar sorts in order of frequency of visiting a URL starting with your partial text.
Neither is 100% predictable, unless you assume that you have a good understanding of the files/commands on your system or the URLs you visit often. The later may sound less predictable, though in many cases isn't. For example, if I want Netflix.com rather than my more often visited News.Google.com, I'll type N-E-T and not N-E. Due to my browsing habits, it is 100% consistent.
You and GP have a problem with the selection of algorithm, not the fact that there is an algorithm. What I find funny and hypocritical is that the algorithm you say you prefer contains exactly the kind of "learning" you're bitching about. Software must become smarter to handle the current and future web, and Firefox 3.0 is an attempt (if perhaps a poor one) at that. If you insist on using unintelligent software, you'll lag behind the rest of us, even if we trip a few times along the way.
Did the Firefox developers screw up on 3.0? Perhaps the algorithm is buggy or flawed by design. Maybe they should provide a toggle button for people who can't adapt to the new algorithm. These are the questions that need to be asked.
That's almost a good question, despite being phrased so rudely.
Why would you use energy to make hydrogen to make electricity in a fuel cell to run an electric motor when you could of just used that same energy to run the motor in the first place First, because energy != electricity. You're confusing the amount of energy required for electrolysis (very small) with the amount of energy used to move the vehicle (large). Analogy: the energy it takes to drill, refine and transport a tank of gasoline versus the amount of energy that tank of gasoline provides your car. If they were the same, it'd be 0% efficient, and the gasoline would never reach your gas tank, or it have would do so at the cost of some secondary resource.
Ignoring that apples-to-orange error, your question asks for the reason behind researching hydrogen powered cars, rather battery-powered.
Unless I'm mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there is still the problem where batteries can only hold so much charge per unit of weight. Since a car has to expend energy on a relatively heavy battery, this would mean that battery size increases at an increasing rate as you extend the range of the car. The dollar-to-mile ratio in this type of system would be far worse than using gasoline.
By carrying hydrogen or water (and being able to refuel them quickly, compared to slower electric recharge rates) you get a much longer range.
1) Religion is often used as a tool by which political power is wielded. Don't assume religion, even if related, is the cause for violence.
2) You're confusing "internal" sense with "natural" sense or some other term. Some* of the Christians you're trying to bash follow their "internal" morality, which they argue could only come from a supreme moral being. This point is actually one of "Intelligent Design"'s favorite arguments.
3) Internal (or "natural", or whatever you want to call them) senses of right and wrong aren't necessarily either. Certain tyrants (think Fidel Castro) actually believe they are doing the right thing for their citizens, regardless of how "wrong" we in the democratic world see it. One man's "right" is another's "wrong". Should we have opposing ideals, I'd argue that I'm the moral one, and you'd claim the same. Science requires that you provide a better method of determining this without resorting to fallacy (see #1), and refute contradicting arguments (see #2) in a logical manner.
* Other Christians actually believe they communicate with Jesus. My girlfriend often tells of her college roommate (an evangelical Christian), who prayed for the wisdom to know which pair of pants to wear each day. A magical tube of microscopic ladybugs stuck to a window provides guidance to me.
TFA states that four cellular providers actually met with the Taliban. They have already been noticed, and it reads that this happened before an ultimatum was delivered.
Their threat seems to me a little short-sighted. They depend on cellular technology for their asymmetric warfare operations. While taking out towers, and kidnapping engineers may sound like a good way to pressure the mobile providers, but any resulting downtime prohibits them from operating. What else are they going to do? Switch providers?
What happens depends on the companies' business ideals (whether they adhere to the American "we don't negotiate with terrorists") and resolve after stuff hits the fan. I have no idea what legal/political influence the American government has on Afghani business, but I'm sure they're already looking into providing some sort of "support".
We know you're a shill, but go back and actually read my post this time- you've ignored my main point.
In your compassionate crusade for Best Buy, you neglected to note that this is not a case of fraud.
Don't compare the two. They really screwed up here and free market theory says they deserve a punishment. A laptop is not a punishment, and as I explained to you, their gift card is even less such.
What they owe her *is* above and beyond that which should be given in (undeserved) good faith to one actually committing fraud.
Your post has already been torn apart by other posters. I'm only going to comment on the last bit.
>> $500 to me says "We know we screwed up and we're sorry. $54 million says "I'm a self-centered bitch..."
You're either biased against her or are not aware that she's not actually looking to win $54 million. She has stated that she doesn't consider it appropriate and has willingly provided evidence of this fact to Best Buy. This isn't a hot coffee at McDonald's suit- it's about demanding accountability.
You're also naive to accept Best Buy at their words, and their actions as genuine. She explains clearly how they are not, and I'll extend her point on the gift card issue.
$500 Gift Card does not equal $500.
Legally speaking, a gift card is not legal tender, so its worth is not equivalent. Nor can their sending her one unilaterally count as part of a legal dispute resolution. In fact, they card they sent is legally considered a gift,, no-strings attached. If they agree to settle by giving her $1000 and a $500 gift card, they have to give her another card. But you're not talking about the legal matter, you're talking about intentions and customer service.
A $500 gift card to me says "We're buying your life-time silence regarding this incidence of us screwing you over due to our terrible business practices, poor customer service and imbecilic staff at an actual cost to us of $400, at most, though more likely at $100". (Have you ever seen retail markups on CDRs, USB cables and printer ink? I have and it's quite shocking from a consumer's standpoint, regardless of how necessary it may be due to how these businesses are run.)
If she buys a new laptop, the goal is to make her use the $500 to buy a replacement at their store, rather than buy a crappier one at the competition. $500 doesn't buy many items that have low profit margins such as electronics, so it's really a perfect amount to give out as a "peace offering".
And if you don't like my take on it you, yourself state: "The appropriate remedy for a bad business experience in which you receive a full refund is to take your business elsewhere." Given this, how does giving a gift card amount to giving anything at all?
If they really meant to say they're sorry, they'd give her cold hard cash, or better yet, a gift card to Circuit City (well, that and actually fix the damn problem to ensure no other customers would suffer due to the same failure- the point you missed behind the $54M). That would actually constitute repentance by self-punishment. Their offer is closer to a drug dealer giving you a free hit.
I wouldn't say I'm worried about Yahoo's possible fizzling. I used them exclusively as a search engine and directory until I leaned about Google in 2001. Now I won't even send my junk-mail there. My sister even got my mom to shift over from her paid Yahoo mail account to Gmail.
I love Pipes, I just wish Google created it (not a big fan of GME just yet- too steep a learning curve for the general public), so it would do some hard work, rather than the trivial stuff it's currently capable of (Location Extractor just plain sucks). Yahoo isn't competitive anymore in my book- it may serve the unwashed masses well, but I'm unimpressed by their innovation.
Nowadays the word "Yahoo!" reminds me of sudoku and bingo. I think that if the servers are left alone, and with someone creative at Microsoft, they may be able to harness that customer base. But if they try to "upgrade" those games to promote Silverblight, IE8 and Vista we'll all be stepping lightly around a lot of pissed off old ladies.
I noticed that too and laughed. Then I read the article to learn that the summary is totally botched.
U2's agent actually mentioned Oracle, Intel and other major companies in a plea for a solution to "save the music industry". While I disagree with his plea, he's not as dumb as the summarizer to suggest Oracle profits from so-called "piracy".
I was talking of your apparent sense of entitlement. That means you feel you are entitled to more than you are legally. Since I actually explained your legal entitlement, your "go look up what it means" was out off topic.
About the cost, my point was stop complaining about legal contracts you freely enter into. Grow up.
Why are so many of you "hardcore" Slashdotters do defensive and offensive?
Your point wasn't as deep as you seem to think it is, and I understood it perfectly, thank you: You made a baseless, populist argument. I'd also like to mention that you did so using rather poor communication skills, so to blame one for not understanding you is simply pointing to your own faults.
Had you pointed to previous history of their manipulation of statistics and the media, that would be fine. But you didn't- you just made a rash smart-ass quip.
Regardless, no matter how they try to spin the number, anyone with half a brain can easily bring their credibility into question by reporting on their lack of ability to conduct a survey, providing evidence of their own admission of guilt. They can't use "X" because it points right back to this fact and thus can't use an X/Y relationship.
You PAID for the new content Your premise is faulty and reeks of entitlement.
Blizzard have a contract with players to simply provide the existing content and access service in exchange for subscription fees. Not to correct bugs, not to provide excellent service, and certainly not to provide added value by giving you the new content you've demanded above. One could argue it's good business practice through advertising and/or good will, but that's all beside the point.
When Blizzard does these, they do provide added value, as you claim. The thing is that they do it at their expense, as they do not up the price of subscriptions to offset the cost. The consumer gets something not in their contract, thus, as far as consumers should be concerned it is free.
If you think that $15 a month is too much, then you're a fool to pay it. Blizzard doesn't owe you anything more than they agreed to.
While I'd love to jump on the bandwagon, these stats aren't new- they're corrected. I don't expect you to read the article, but read at least the title, if not the summary.
They even admitted a mistake and didn't release a follow-up on a new survey, as this comment implies. They can't claim any causation between the two numbers.
What kind of idiots modded this stupidity? Funny, I'd understand, but Insightful?
If you have experienced God you cen no longer deny Him. Once you have been to the zoo, you can't not believe in Eliphants, no matter who argues their nonexistance. I've seen Penn cut up Teller. Do I believe it? No, because I don't accept things I see or read on blind faith.
I do accept the existence of elephants though, so long as no contradictory evidence shows up.
First, you attribute a mistake to me, then you spend six times as much time repeating ad hocs. You evidently have less of an idea of what critical thinking is than I do.
I didn't say all. You did. Now go away- you're starting to piss me off.
Didn't stop me from eating there permanently, only for a little while. Taco Bell has no competition due to its size, so where else could I go for a taco? The free market does nothing for me, as it doesn't influence monopolies.
It sounds as if you were abused by an example when you grew up, and now have an aversion to them to the point where you lose your self control and break down into a cursing pile of self loathing.
Show me a poor example of reasoning on my part and you'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please leave my posts alone and go curse your fate somewhere else.
The fact that you still knowingly buy food that is bad for you is your problem. Your parents raised an ignorant kid. In stead of just saying "no you can't have that", they could have tried "no, there's too much sugar in that cereal".
To use a religious analogy: When kids are raised to constantly be scared of God, they have opportunity to rebel and go totally secular or perhaps turn into homicidal sociopaths. When they're taught about their religion, they're likely to retain it and pass it on.
In most cases, a cognizant human responds far better to the carrot than the stick.
Slashdot Mirror
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/2038217
Now go away.
If you release a crappy widget with bugs and someone else releases a good widget in which those bugs were repaired, they will eat up your market share. Given the availability of competition in providing/supporting Linux, your suggestion is crazy. The reason the question comes up is because there is no competition for the Windows product (Linux is a different kind of widget in this aspect). While you are correct that Microsoft are not the only commercial vendor, they are the only vendor which can sell Windows. Oracle may have a proprietary database, but it does have to compete with other (now even Open Source) database products. There is nothing keeping other databases from competing, whereas Microsoft can and does effectively stifle operating system competition by being so proprietary. This issue can be applied towards any company that acts like them. Imagine Oracle using some old patent to control SQL and not allow other vendors to incorporate it into their database.
Since Red-Hat as an Open Source vendor do not have control over their code after releasing it (which Microsoft retains), customers are free to find another company to fix those problems. They are also free to move to a competing distribution (an equivalent widget). In the broken window, the vandal is assumed to have a high likelihood of gaining the victim's business, which is clearly not the case with Linux. In addition, the placement of intentional bugs is likely to be noticed and/or otherwise publicized in the community, akin perhaps to the glazier not wearing gloves when he throws rocks at windows (fingerprints). The reward is not worth this risk, since nothing forces customers to stay with Red Hat should this kind of activity be made public.
Thus, Red-Hat has a huge incentive to provide good products and actual support, and also an incentive not to risk its reputation.
Sure, engineers have skills useful to terrorists. But on the other hand, those skills are useful at fighting the same engineers that terrorists employ. For example, many US engineers are trying to protect our troops against IEDs, the most well known being the good folks at iRobot. As for planes, you forget that the same kind of brainstorming session is required by those in the FAA, to prevent planes going down. Who's going to do that- bureaucrats?
I'd argue that Engineers make less effective terrorists than say political science or theology students, since they seek real proof. Given the lack of scientific evidence that I'd get 72 virgins, it'd be difficult to convince me that there's something good about blowing myself up or enabling another to do so. This is especially true given my ability to create a good life for myself with a normal job. I've got too much to lose hanging out with that Bin Laden nut- screw living in some smelly cave on rice with goat milk! I want my pizza, Mountain Dew, and time to waste reading Slashdot.
Your argument suggests* that government build and maintain a complete wireless network for the uncommon event of emergency**. That and the government is trying to get emergency cash (these spectrum sales provide a one-time cash flow) in the face of a terrible deficit.
It also ignores how U.S. government works. We like our public officials to be technical nitwits who need a contractor to screw in a light bulb. This makes it easier for us to build companies that overcharge the Feds for shoddy work. Have you missed our favorite stories about the brilliant things done by employees of the US Patent Office?
But seriously- the only cost-effective way of building this "E911" network is to add requirements to an existing or commercially-built network. Not only that, but if government was to build a network it would not be online before 2012. These new commercial spectrum holders will likely go online the day they become available.
* (assuming "interesting" didn't miss what would be an interesting exercise in sarcasm)
** 911 calls are not of poor enough quality today to justify the cost of starting from scratch. Even if police and fire departments used this network for their normal communications (replacing landlines) any technology deployed today would be overkill for that purpose and the system would still not be in use enough of the time to excuse ongoing operating costs.
I wonder how the box itself would respond to observing sex. Would it find them some pr0n, advertise condoms and morning-after pills, or perhaps turn the volume way up? Could one program it to switch to an abstinence-preaching Christian network to get them to stop?
I agree- collaborative studying has its uses. My comp sci algorithms class was divided into study groups from the first lesson, since that kind of problem solving is extremely difficult. As for previous poster's suggestion that this invites slackers to enjoy a free ride, we quickly learned about an abuser in our group, and "forgot" to invite him to a study session. He missed credit on that work and straightened out.
In other classes the general rule I followed with friends was effective and simple to follow: don't write down the answers to homework questions. I think it was my Calc2 professor who made the suggestion. In her class that huge book let us use questions not assigned as homework to ensure we stayed clearly on the honest side of the line.
But this story differs on both accounts- the work was supposed to be independent, and everything discussed was stored online. I don't know if there's much of an argument to "this is how modern studying is done". While I'm all for using technology to improve our lives, all those students are in the same school and can meet easily. I don't think that's too much to ask to ensure academic honesty.
Read the article. It explains that the kid knows made some bad choices. He's just crying "not fair" and making excuses. I'd be far more supportive if he actually brought the issue up before the school's ethics body.
* It's possible for counterfeiters to change the Windows CD producing a non-identical copy. I can think of no good reason for this other than allowing them to add their own advertising, spyware or such nastiness to the junk Microsoft puts on there. I've never heard of this being done, but I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to accomplish.
Since you need parent's insight explained to you explicitly, here it is:
Tab-completion (Win, Linux) uses alphabetic sorting to order the results of your partial text.
Firefox 2.0's URL bar sorts in order of frequency of visiting a URL starting with your partial text.
Neither is 100% predictable, unless you assume that you have a good understanding of the files/commands on your system or the URLs you visit often. The later may sound less predictable, though in many cases isn't. For example, if I want Netflix.com rather than my more often visited News.Google.com, I'll type N-E-T and not N-E. Due to my browsing habits, it is 100% consistent.
You and GP have a problem with the selection of algorithm, not the fact that there is an algorithm. What I find funny and hypocritical is that the algorithm you say you prefer contains exactly the kind of "learning" you're bitching about. Software must become smarter to handle the current and future web, and Firefox 3.0 is an attempt (if perhaps a poor one) at that. If you insist on using unintelligent software, you'll lag behind the rest of us, even if we trip a few times along the way.
Did the Firefox developers screw up on 3.0? Perhaps the algorithm is buggy or flawed by design. Maybe they should provide a toggle button for people who can't adapt to the new algorithm. These are the questions that need to be asked.
Ignoring that apples-to-orange error, your question asks for the reason behind researching hydrogen powered cars, rather battery-powered.
Unless I'm mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there is still the problem where batteries can only hold so much charge per unit of weight. Since a car has to expend energy on a relatively heavy battery, this would mean that battery size increases at an increasing rate as you extend the range of the car. The dollar-to-mile ratio in this type of system would be far worse than using gasoline.
By carrying hydrogen or water (and being able to refuel them quickly, compared to slower electric recharge rates) you get a much longer range.
Careful there- you sound quite unscientific:
1) Religion is often used as a tool by which political power is wielded. Don't assume religion, even if related, is the cause for violence.
2) You're confusing "internal" sense with "natural" sense or some other term. Some* of the Christians you're trying to bash follow their "internal" morality, which they argue could only come from a supreme moral being. This point is actually one of "Intelligent Design"'s favorite arguments.
3) Internal (or "natural", or whatever you want to call them) senses of right and wrong aren't necessarily either. Certain tyrants (think Fidel Castro) actually believe they are doing the right thing for their citizens, regardless of how "wrong" we in the democratic world see it. One man's "right" is another's "wrong". Should we have opposing ideals, I'd argue that I'm the moral one, and you'd claim the same. Science requires that you provide a better method of determining this without resorting to fallacy (see #1), and refute contradicting arguments (see #2) in a logical manner.
* Other Christians actually believe they communicate with Jesus. My girlfriend often tells of her college roommate (an evangelical Christian), who prayed for the wisdom to know which pair of pants to wear each day. A magical tube of microscopic ladybugs stuck to a window provides guidance to me.
TFA states that four cellular providers actually met with the Taliban. They have already been noticed, and it reads that this happened before an ultimatum was delivered.
Their threat seems to me a little short-sighted. They depend on cellular technology for their asymmetric warfare operations. While taking out towers, and kidnapping engineers may sound like a good way to pressure the mobile providers, but any resulting downtime prohibits them from operating. What else are they going to do? Switch providers?
What happens depends on the companies' business ideals (whether they adhere to the American "we don't negotiate with terrorists") and resolve after stuff hits the fan. I have no idea what legal/political influence the American government has on Afghani business, but I'm sure they're already looking into providing some sort of "support".
What on Earth are you talking about?
Who mentioned fraud? I didn't, nor did I talk suggest it in my post.
Stop just posting random rants in favor of Best Buy. You're the only one who looks like a loon here.
We know you're a shill, but go back and actually read my post this time- you've ignored my main point.
In your compassionate crusade for Best Buy, you neglected to note that this is not a case of fraud.
Don't compare the two. They really screwed up here and free market theory says they deserve a punishment. A laptop is not a punishment, and as I explained to you, their gift card is even less such.
What they owe her *is* above and beyond that which should be given in (undeserved) good faith to one actually committing fraud.
Your post has already been torn apart by other posters. I'm only going to comment on the last bit.
>> $500 to me says "We know we screwed up and we're sorry. $54 million says "I'm a self-centered bitch..."
You're either biased against her or are not aware that she's not actually looking to win $54 million. She has stated that she doesn't consider it appropriate and has willingly provided evidence of this fact to Best Buy. This isn't a hot coffee at McDonald's suit- it's about demanding accountability.
You're also naive to accept Best Buy at their words, and their actions as genuine. She explains clearly how they are not, and I'll extend her point on the gift card issue.
$500 Gift Card does not equal $500.
Legally speaking, a gift card is not legal tender, so its worth is not equivalent. Nor can their sending her one unilaterally count as part of a legal dispute resolution. In fact, they card they sent is legally considered a gift,, no-strings attached. If they agree to settle by giving her $1000 and a $500 gift card, they have to give her another card. But you're not talking about the legal matter, you're talking about intentions and customer service.
A $500 gift card to me says "We're buying your life-time silence regarding this incidence of us screwing you over due to our terrible business practices, poor customer service and imbecilic staff at an actual cost to us of $400, at most, though more likely at $100". (Have you ever seen retail markups on CDRs, USB cables and printer ink? I have and it's quite shocking from a consumer's standpoint, regardless of how necessary it may be due to how these businesses are run.)
If she buys a new laptop, the goal is to make her use the $500 to buy a replacement at their store, rather than buy a crappier one at the competition. $500 doesn't buy many items that have low profit margins such as electronics, so it's really a perfect amount to give out as a "peace offering".
And if you don't like my take on it you, yourself state: "The appropriate remedy for a bad business experience in which you receive a full refund is to take your business elsewhere." Given this, how does giving a gift card amount to giving anything at all?
If they really meant to say they're sorry, they'd give her cold hard cash, or better yet, a gift card to Circuit City (well, that and actually fix the damn problem to ensure no other customers would suffer due to the same failure- the point you missed behind the $54M). That would actually constitute repentance by self-punishment. Their offer is closer to a drug dealer giving you a free hit.
I wouldn't say I'm worried about Yahoo's possible fizzling. I used them exclusively as a search engine and directory until I leaned about Google in 2001. Now I won't even send my junk-mail there. My sister even got my mom to shift over from her paid Yahoo mail account to Gmail.
I love Pipes, I just wish Google created it (not a big fan of GME just yet- too steep a learning curve for the general public), so it would do some hard work, rather than the trivial stuff it's currently capable of (Location Extractor just plain sucks). Yahoo isn't competitive anymore in my book- it may serve the unwashed masses well, but I'm unimpressed by their innovation.
Nowadays the word "Yahoo!" reminds me of sudoku and bingo. I think that if the servers are left alone, and with someone creative at Microsoft, they may be able to harness that customer base. But if they try to "upgrade" those games to promote Silverblight, IE8 and Vista we'll all be stepping lightly around a lot of pissed off old ladies.
I noticed that too and laughed. Then I read the article to learn that the summary is totally botched.
U2's agent actually mentioned Oracle, Intel and other major companies in a plea for a solution to "save the music industry". While I disagree with his plea, he's not as dumb as the summarizer to suggest Oracle profits from so-called "piracy".
I was talking of your apparent sense of entitlement. That means you feel you are entitled to more than you are legally. Since I actually explained your legal entitlement, your "go look up what it means" was out off topic.
About the cost, my point was stop complaining about legal contracts you freely enter into. Grow up.
Why are so many of you "hardcore" Slashdotters do defensive and offensive?
Your point wasn't as deep as you seem to think it is, and I understood it perfectly, thank you: You made a baseless, populist argument. I'd also like to mention that you did so using rather poor communication skills, so to blame one for not understanding you is simply pointing to your own faults.
Had you pointed to previous history of their manipulation of statistics and the media, that would be fine. But you didn't- you just made a rash smart-ass quip.
Regardless, no matter how they try to spin the number, anyone with half a brain can easily bring their credibility into question by reporting on their lack of ability to conduct a survey, providing evidence of their own admission of guilt. They can't use "X" because it points right back to this fact and thus can't use an X/Y relationship.
Blizzard have a contract with players to simply provide the existing content and access service in exchange for subscription fees. Not to correct bugs, not to provide excellent service, and certainly not to provide added value by giving you the new content you've demanded above. One could argue it's good business practice through advertising and/or good will, but that's all beside the point.
When Blizzard does these, they do provide added value, as you claim. The thing is that they do it at their expense, as they do not up the price of subscriptions to offset the cost. The consumer gets something not in their contract, thus, as far as consumers should be concerned it is free.
If you think that $15 a month is too much, then you're a fool to pay it. Blizzard doesn't owe you anything more than they agreed to.
While I'd love to jump on the bandwagon, these stats aren't new- they're corrected. I don't expect you to read the article, but read at least the title, if not the summary.
They even admitted a mistake and didn't release a follow-up on a new survey, as this comment implies. They can't claim any causation between the two numbers.
What kind of idiots modded this stupidity? Funny, I'd understand, but Insightful?
I do accept the existence of elephants though, so long as no contradictory evidence shows up.
First, you attribute a mistake to me, then you spend six times as much time repeating ad hocs. You evidently have less of an idea of what critical thinking is than I do.
I didn't say all. You did. Now go away- you're starting to piss me off.
You forgot the recent Taco Bell incident:
* http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/11/e.coli.outbreak/index.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_E._coli_outbreak
Didn't stop me from eating there permanently, only for a little while. Taco Bell has no competition due to its size, so where else could I go for a taco? The free market does nothing for me, as it doesn't influence monopolies.
It sounds as if you were abused by an example when you grew up, and now have an aversion to them to the point where you lose your self control and break down into a cursing pile of self loathing.
Show me a poor example of reasoning on my part and you'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please leave my posts alone and go curse your fate somewhere else.
The fact that you still knowingly buy food that is bad for you is your problem. Your parents raised an ignorant kid. In stead of just saying "no you can't have that", they could have tried "no, there's too much sugar in that cereal".
To use a religious analogy: When kids are raised to constantly be scared of God, they have opportunity to rebel and go totally secular or perhaps turn into homicidal sociopaths. When they're taught about their religion, they're likely to retain it and pass it on.
In most cases, a cognizant human responds far better to the carrot than the stick.