No, the answer is on the other side. As consumers, we have continually been taking it up the ass for the past 30 years. We have refused to take a stand and say we are simply not going to allow this to continue. Until that occurs, corporations will continue to infringe more and more upon the rights of the consumer.
The RX-8 did not live up to its spec horsepower (or it did, after some modifications, I can't recall the details). Mazda offered everyone who bought one a chance to return it, no questions, or a $4,000 rebate (iirc). Most people ended up taking the rebate, but it was a huge issue in the community. To say there's 'no harm done' by such obviously deceptive practices is wrong. Why must it always be the person against the corporation? Can't the corporations just play nice for once? Not with your mentality. Why is the burden of proof always on the consumer? Because some people, like you, refuse to say "I'VE HAD ENOUGH!"
The solution, mentioned in a few threads above, is simple. Manufacturers rebate the cost of products for reviewers, instead of directly supplying the product. Reviewers buy their products from a local store. That avoids the cash problem, and the quality/cherry-picking problem. The only reason this wouldn't work is that the manufacturers wouldn't agree to it, because they want to continue their deceptive practices.
If you're talking about overall score, OK. But a TV that has poor sound, but good picture, will have that noted in the review. Furthermore, if CR took the time to note every specialty of every product, they would never be able to get the issues out in time. They don't do the most in depth reviews, and can miss some details, but generally their reviews are accurate and fair.
Reviewers almost never write reviews on advance copies. You don't see a review of the Matrix out 3 months before the film. The reviews are generally released the day the film is released, and preview screenings are held a few days before this to accomodate writing times.
Screeners are not for reviewers. They are generally used for in-house production reviews or awards voters.
Ahh car analogies (or moto in this case)... but if you reverse applied your analogy to this case, it would be like the reviewer not noticing it was a 21" instead of a 17". That's a little disingenuous. While the contrast ratio is important for an LCD monitor, it is possible to not notice a difference, unlike if it were a different size.
Unfortunately, it's rather hard to avoid, since even the obvious solution, buying products off the shelf, can resultin a product that could be better or worse than normal.
Yeah, but it least it's random then, much like the actual consumer. When you get it directly from the manufacturer, there is little reason to believe they picked a random unit. Furthermore, we're talking a difference in specifications here (wrt Samsung). It's pretty hard to get, say, 2 HDs off the assembly line and one 'randomly' only has 2 MB of cache while the other magically got 8 MB. What we're talking about here is deliberate deception, and it's just plain unacceptable.
Okay. You should present opinions as opinions, then, and not as facts. Example follows:
There will be minor kernel perf tweaks, but if you still launch > 200 processes you still see random failures from CreateProcess. (Never tried it, have you?)
I'm sure they will tweak the kernel a bit, but I doubt they'll fix the CreateProcess random failure bug that occurs if you attempt to start >200 processes. (And then you leave out the smartass bits)
Is it that hard? Now you can be present baseless opinions instead of blatantly incorrect facts.
And I'll say it to you too: XUL looks to me an awful lot like a knockoff of Sonique's skinning system (which I don't believe has a fancy acronym). Your point?
I know I know, but it's not right for me to kill my planet.
Close, but wrong. It's not right for you to kill our planet. And oddly enough, for all your raving about your lexus suv (even though this is probably a troll), you don't even mention going off-road with it.
Now, instead of a dedicated secretarial pool, everyone just hacks up their own documents in MS Word. I guess it's an improvement.
No it isn't. With a staff such as a typing pool, you know that your documents will all be formatted the same, and can easily be held to a much higher standard. When everyone does it themselves in Word, not only do you have bad formatting when people don't know how to use it, you also have everything coming out of your office looking completely different. Also, having another pair of eyes on a document can be most beneficial, as sometimes people do not realize that what they wrote only makes sense to themselves.
The fact that the US has secretly supported regimes whose values it espouses against is well known. My use of the present tense may be at fault, but the historical facts are unarguable. The rest of your rant is just you putting words in my mouth, and as such, I will not respond to it.
That's because totalitarian regimes base their survival on conjuring a threat from democracies.
There's no logic here. For what reason would tolitarian regimes want to threaten democracies? Don't give me "they are afraid of our way of life" because most people want to be left alone just as much as we do, and tolitarian regimes are not terrorists.
Counterexample: Cuba, with the exception of the missle crisis, or at least, Cuba: The last 20 years.
Interesting, except that the US likes to hold itself up as some sort of moral leader in the world. It's hard to look genuinely like a moral leader while you're secretly supporting all the things you say you're against.
Good for Panther. I was pointing out an inaccuracy in the grandparent post, but your post made me want to go buy an overpriced computer so that I can subscribe to OS X at $130 per year.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the answer is on the other side. As consumers, we have continually been taking it up the ass for the past 30 years. We have refused to take a stand and say we are simply not going to allow this to continue. Until that occurs, corporations will continue to infringe more and more upon the rights of the consumer.
The RX-8 did not live up to its spec horsepower (or it did, after some modifications, I can't recall the details). Mazda offered everyone who bought one a chance to return it, no questions, or a $4,000 rebate (iirc). Most people ended up taking the rebate, but it was a huge issue in the community. To say there's 'no harm done' by such obviously deceptive practices is wrong. Why must it always be the person against the corporation? Can't the corporations just play nice for once? Not with your mentality. Why is the burden of proof always on the consumer? Because some people, like you, refuse to say "I'VE HAD ENOUGH!"
If you think about it from an evil-businessman perspective, yeah, it is pretty smart.
If you think about it in terms of consumer backlash, and a general "this is just wrong" mentality, it's not that smart.
The solution, mentioned in a few threads above, is simple. Manufacturers rebate the cost of products for reviewers, instead of directly supplying the product. Reviewers buy their products from a local store. That avoids the cash problem, and the quality/cherry-picking problem. The only reason this wouldn't work is that the manufacturers wouldn't agree to it, because they want to continue their deceptive practices.
If you're talking about overall score, OK. But a TV that has poor sound, but good picture, will have that noted in the review. Furthermore, if CR took the time to note every specialty of every product, they would never be able to get the issues out in time. They don't do the most in depth reviews, and can miss some details, but generally their reviews are accurate and fair.
Reviewers almost never write reviews on advance copies. You don't see a review of the Matrix out 3 months before the film. The reviews are generally released the day the film is released, and preview screenings are held a few days before this to accomodate writing times.
Screeners are not for reviewers. They are generally used for in-house production reviews or awards voters.
Ahh car analogies (or moto in this case)... but if you reverse applied your analogy to this case, it would be like the reviewer not noticing it was a 21" instead of a 17". That's a little disingenuous. While the contrast ratio is important for an LCD monitor, it is possible to not notice a difference, unlike if it were a different size.
Simply, no. The real question now is, if I go to the store and buy one of these units, what will the ratio be?
Unfortunately, it's rather hard to avoid, since even the obvious solution, buying products off the shelf, can resultin a product that could be better or worse than normal.
Yeah, but it least it's random then, much like the actual consumer. When you get it directly from the manufacturer, there is little reason to believe they picked a random unit. Furthermore, we're talking a difference in specifications here (wrt Samsung). It's pretty hard to get, say, 2 HDs off the assembly line and one 'randomly' only has 2 MB of cache while the other magically got 8 MB. What we're talking about here is deliberate deception, and it's just plain unacceptable.
Maybe that's why you aren't a reviewer, thankfully.
Call bullshit on the OP please (or support the OP, i can't tell what the hell you're trying to say), I was merely correcting his style.
Okay. You should present opinions as opinions, then, and not as facts. Example follows:
There will be minor kernel perf tweaks, but if you still launch > 200 processes you still see random failures from CreateProcess. (Never tried it, have you?)
I'm sure they will tweak the kernel a bit, but I doubt they'll fix the CreateProcess random failure bug that occurs if you attempt to start >200 processes. (And then you leave out the smartass bits)
Is it that hard? Now you can be present baseless opinions instead of blatantly incorrect facts.
And I'll say it to you too: XUL looks to me an awful lot like a knockoff of Sonique's skinning system (which I don't believe has a fancy acronym). Your point?
So? Mozilla (more accurately, Mozilla users) marketed it as something new when it had also been used in programs such as Sonique. Do you have a point?
Since when did "n-times" mean DRM? Last time I checked, "n-times" meant "any number of times".
Sources for any of your wild statements?
I know I know, but it's not right for me to kill my planet.
Close, but wrong. It's not right for you to kill our planet. And oddly enough, for all your raving about your lexus suv (even though this is probably a troll), you don't even mention going off-road with it.
I hope you realize, in most states, that is also illegal.
Not all speedometers are created the same. Some measure the speed of the wheels, others measure the speed of the transmission.
Everyone in this thread keeps telling me ive 'forgotten' things. I haven't forgotten them, I just don't believe they are correct.
Now, instead of a dedicated secretarial pool, everyone just hacks up their own documents in MS Word. I guess it's an improvement.
No it isn't. With a staff such as a typing pool, you know that your documents will all be formatted the same, and can easily be held to a much higher standard. When everyone does it themselves in Word, not only do you have bad formatting when people don't know how to use it, you also have everything coming out of your office looking completely different. Also, having another pair of eyes on a document can be most beneficial, as sometimes people do not realize that what they wrote only makes sense to themselves.
The fact that the US has secretly supported regimes whose values it espouses against is well known. My use of the present tense may be at fault, but the historical facts are unarguable. The rest of your rant is just you putting words in my mouth, and as such, I will not respond to it.
That's because totalitarian regimes base their survival on conjuring a threat from democracies.
There's no logic here. For what reason would tolitarian regimes want to threaten democracies? Don't give me "they are afraid of our way of life" because most people want to be left alone just as much as we do, and tolitarian regimes are not terrorists.
Counterexample: Cuba, with the exception of the missle crisis, or at least, Cuba: The last 20 years.
Interesting, except that the US likes to hold itself up as some sort of moral leader in the world. It's hard to look genuinely like a moral leader while you're secretly supporting all the things you say you're against.
Good for Panther. I was pointing out an inaccuracy in the grandparent post, but your post made me want to go buy an overpriced computer so that I can subscribe to OS X at $130 per year.