You can sue anyone for anything. I can sue you for negligence or for bodily harm for the post your just made, were I so inclined. Whether I'd win or not would be another matter entirely (Obviously I would not win, and I'd be setting myself up for an anti-SLAPP lawsuit in return)
In the case of defamation, showing damages would be difficult -- Damages don't need to be monetary, damage to reputation is sufficient. A simple letter or collections call, with care taken to ensure that only the targeted individual is aware (privacy laws would dictate this is necessary anyway) wouldn't be defamation, standing in front of my house with a bullhorn or logging something on my credit file might be.
I've actually run into the same at The Bay (in Canada), items will be marked at 30% off on the shelf, at the till there will be an extra 70% off... So you end up paying $0.21 on the dollar... Plus tax on the original price, oddly enough.
Even so, I've always investigated (sometimes to make sure I was getting the right price, other times because I've gone back and bought more)
However, having gotten to the till (at physical stores) and discovered additional discounts/sales which were not clearly marked (and having asked if the price was right, and yes, the items I got were substantially discounted) many times in the past, I'm not sure I'd know for certain whether an item was priced correctly or not.
Now free (or next to free) would be a dead giveaway...
There are merchants I've dealt with that I would fight to my last breathe to make them eat their errors. Amazon isn't one of them.
I've had two Amazon fuck-ups in my life, one was a TV series I ordered which arrived with a missing disc. Amazon shipped another via express (2-3 day, vs the 5-10 day free shipping I used originally) and simply asked me to return the bad one (at their charge, although I did have to supply a sheet of paper and a bit of toner for the shipping label)
My usual experience when I receive a damaged (or DOA) product is to expect a fight with the merchant, and at a minimum, to be without the product until the damaged goods are returned, inspected, and then a replacement is sent via the slowest/cheapest method possible. While this isn't unreasonable in many cases, when a part is missing, what good does it do for me to ship the other parts back for inspection? Who is inspecting what? Why?
The second Amazon screwup was shortly after that, I received an extra magazine that I didn't order. When I contacted Amazon about it, they said to keep it (it wasn't worth the cost to return it) and thanked me for notifying them. A few days later, I received a duplicate of that order, but with only the items I ordered (not the extra item) -- Again, I contacted Amazon, this time they asked me to return it -- I did. I received an email shortly after it was received that they were refunding the entire order due to the number of mistakes they made (so I paid $0 for the items I ordered, plus an extra magazine that my mom enjoyed)
Now I was a pretty regular Amazon customer in those days, few of my friends had credit cards so I ordered a lot on behalf of them too (plus I always got free shipping since I tended to place large orders every month or so) -- I suspect if it wasn't profitable to keep me happy the experience might have been different.
This occurs because the merchant has no reasonable way to know if the buyer is drunk or not, so the merchant hasn't taken advantage of the drunk person's inability to enter into a contract.
There is a problem because the *only* place that Amazon shows you a final total is on the very last page of the checkout screen. Otherwise, the prices are up in the air and vary as promotions come and go, items get added or removed from the cart, the customer enters coupons, gift certificate codes, the moon phases change, and shipping methods are changed (or added or removed)
Moreover, Amazon's contracts state that they verify prices before orders ship, which indicates Amazon takes on responsibility for noticing and correcting for errors -- This is typical of online merchants as it allows them to kill an order placed by a customer if a pricing error is discovered.
At least one online store I shop at (I believe it's FutureShop, owned by Best Buy) doesn't even "sell" things on their website anymore, rather, the customer makes an offer (at a fixed price) to purchase an item, and the merchant can either accept the offer by shipping the item and charging the credit card, or refusing the offer. This gets around false advertising, "while supplies last" and other laws which might allow the customer to force a company to honour their promotions.
Actually that isn't correct either -- If a charge is disputed on a credit card, the company's ONLY resource is by collecting (via small claims court, a collection agency, or whatever other methods are appropriate in their respective jurisdictions) -- Assuming the chargeback is successful, anyway.
It is substantially difficult to fight a chargeback for an online purchase, it's usually far cheaper for the company to eat the loss and move on. All the anti-fraud identity verification in the world simply makes it harder for the initial fraud to happen, it rarely saves the merchant from eating the cost of the chargeback on any specific transaction (although it can affect their merchant account's status as a whole, or their insurance rates)
Chargebacks are essentially similar to an NSF, or a stop payment on a cheque, neither of which prevent the company from collecting the debt via other methods (if it's legitimate, obviously -- If it's not, it was fraudulent in the first place, and attempting to collect would likely be fraudulent as well)
A collection agency is one possibility if the charge is thought to be legitimate by the company, but getting rid of a collection agency isn't really all that tough if the customer believes the charge isn't legitimate.
In the end, one of two things will happen, either the two parties will settle (this includes the company deciding to not bother, the customer paying even though they think it's wrong, or something in the middle), or it will end up in front of an arbitrator or judge.
ATMs are a bit of a different situation, the ATM operator is simply the middle-man (or one of many, if it's not owned and operated by your own bank), in a transaction involving you and you.
True -- Just pointing out that it's still a flickering fluorescent light, just not at an annoying-to-humans-frequency. There is no reason that compact-florescent bulbs couldn't do the same, price permitting.
Sure, but if your laptop AND your iPod was stolen, you're already paying a deductible... If you have less then £150 of music, curse at the thief and eat it, if not, make the claim.
A swing and a miss... "Windows cannot find 'del'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again..."
What you probably meant was "cmd/c del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx"
Of course, what you REALLY meant was "regsvr32 -u lunchapp.ocx" and then "cmd/c del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx" (or "cmd/c regsvr32 -u lunchapp.ocx&del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx")
Yeah... Poor collection agency. Maybe next time, they'll increase their margin when buying debts from that company, to make up for the fraudulent debt. If the collection agencies do that enough, the company generating the fraudulent charges won't be able to afford a collection agency anymore, so the problem will eventually solve itself.
No, but if a corporate account gets compromised, it's the corporation's responsiblity.
If some assclown on a Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo account gets their account compromised, it's a "what do you expect"
More importantly, if the employee leaves, their corporate account will get terminated or rerouted to an appropriate place, or even just get/dev/null'd... Vs my continuing correspondence with someone who may well now be working for a competitor...
.mac, Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, I put them all in the same category... Domains are cheap, learning to use one isn't tough, and it's easy enough to put a hosted solution on the domain.
It also more or less guarantees that I'm talking to an authorized representative of the company (or if I'm not, the company is at fault) -- If I'm using the sales guy's @gmail.com address and he leaves, want to make a bet whether he'll turn in his personal gmail address to the company, or keep using it (and potentially keep acting as a representative of that company?)
It's simply a matter of professionalism. I don't care if you want to outsource to Gmail, or Hotmail, or any private label, or run your own system colocated, leased, inhouse, or whatever else floats your boat.
And no, I'm not an Exchange admin or user (well, I do use CRM at one of my clients' sites, technically it uses Exchange, but happily I do not admin it)
Slashdot Mirror
You can sue anyone for anything. I can sue you for negligence or for bodily harm for the post your just made, were I so inclined. Whether I'd win or not would be another matter entirely (Obviously I would not win, and I'd be setting myself up for an anti-SLAPP lawsuit in return)
In the case of defamation, showing damages would be difficult -- Damages don't need to be monetary, damage to reputation is sufficient. A simple letter or collections call, with care taken to ensure that only the targeted individual is aware (privacy laws would dictate this is necessary anyway) wouldn't be defamation, standing in front of my house with a bullhorn or logging something on my credit file might be.
I've actually run into the same at The Bay (in Canada), items will be marked at 30% off on the shelf, at the till there will be an extra 70% off... So you end up paying $0.21 on the dollar... Plus tax on the original price, oddly enough.
Even so, I've always investigated (sometimes to make sure I was getting the right price, other times because I've gone back and bought more)
Yeah fair enough.
However, having gotten to the till (at physical stores) and discovered additional discounts/sales which were not clearly marked (and having asked if the price was right, and yes, the items I got were substantially discounted) many times in the past, I'm not sure I'd know for certain whether an item was priced correctly or not.
Now free (or next to free) would be a dead giveaway...
On that, we agree entirely.
There are merchants I've dealt with that I would fight to my last breathe to make them eat their errors. Amazon isn't one of them.
I've had two Amazon fuck-ups in my life, one was a TV series I ordered which arrived with a missing disc. Amazon shipped another via express (2-3 day, vs the 5-10 day free shipping I used originally) and simply asked me to return the bad one (at their charge, although I did have to supply a sheet of paper and a bit of toner for the shipping label)
My usual experience when I receive a damaged (or DOA) product is to expect a fight with the merchant, and at a minimum, to be without the product until the damaged goods are returned, inspected, and then a replacement is sent via the slowest/cheapest method possible. While this isn't unreasonable in many cases, when a part is missing, what good does it do for me to ship the other parts back for inspection? Who is inspecting what? Why?
The second Amazon screwup was shortly after that, I received an extra magazine that I didn't order. When I contacted Amazon about it, they said to keep it (it wasn't worth the cost to return it) and thanked me for notifying them. A few days later, I received a duplicate of that order, but with only the items I ordered (not the extra item) -- Again, I contacted Amazon, this time they asked me to return it -- I did. I received an email shortly after it was received that they were refunding the entire order due to the number of mistakes they made (so I paid $0 for the items I ordered, plus an extra magazine that my mom enjoyed)
Now I was a pretty regular Amazon customer in those days, few of my friends had credit cards so I ordered a lot on behalf of them too (plus I always got free shipping since I tended to place large orders every month or so) -- I suspect if it wasn't profitable to keep me happy the experience might have been different.
And if there was a way for Amazon to prove that their customers knew Amazon was drunk when they designed that promotions, that might even be relevant.
This occurs because the merchant has no reasonable way to know if the buyer is drunk or not, so the merchant hasn't taken advantage of the drunk person's inability to enter into a contract.
There is a problem because the *only* place that Amazon shows you a final total is on the very last page of the checkout screen. Otherwise, the prices are up in the air and vary as promotions come and go, items get added or removed from the cart, the customer enters coupons, gift certificate codes, the moon phases change, and shipping methods are changed (or added or removed)
Moreover, Amazon's contracts state that they verify prices before orders ship, which indicates Amazon takes on responsibility for noticing and correcting for errors -- This is typical of online merchants as it allows them to kill an order placed by a customer if a pricing error is discovered.
At least one online store I shop at (I believe it's FutureShop, owned by Best Buy) doesn't even "sell" things on their website anymore, rather, the customer makes an offer (at a fixed price) to purchase an item, and the merchant can either accept the offer by shipping the item and charging the credit card, or refusing the offer. This gets around false advertising, "while supplies last" and other laws which might allow the customer to force a company to honour their promotions.
Actually that isn't correct either -- If a charge is disputed on a credit card, the company's ONLY resource is by collecting (via small claims court, a collection agency, or whatever other methods are appropriate in their respective jurisdictions) -- Assuming the chargeback is successful, anyway.
It is substantially difficult to fight a chargeback for an online purchase, it's usually far cheaper for the company to eat the loss and move on. All the anti-fraud identity verification in the world simply makes it harder for the initial fraud to happen, it rarely saves the merchant from eating the cost of the chargeback on any specific transaction (although it can affect their merchant account's status as a whole, or their insurance rates)
Chargebacks are essentially similar to an NSF, or a stop payment on a cheque, neither of which prevent the company from collecting the debt via other methods (if it's legitimate, obviously -- If it's not, it was fraudulent in the first place, and attempting to collect would likely be fraudulent as well)
A collection agency is one possibility if the charge is thought to be legitimate by the company, but getting rid of a collection agency isn't really all that tough if the customer believes the charge isn't legitimate.
In the end, one of two things will happen, either the two parties will settle (this includes the company deciding to not bother, the customer paying even though they think it's wrong, or something in the middle), or it will end up in front of an arbitrator or judge.
ATMs are a bit of a different situation, the ATM operator is simply the middle-man (or one of many, if it's not owned and operated by your own bank), in a transaction involving you and you.
Not at all -- Rather, it's like taking candy from a bin labeled "free candy"
True -- Just pointing out that it's still a flickering fluorescent light, just not at an annoying-to-humans-frequency. There is no reason that compact-florescent bulbs couldn't do the same, price permitting.
You do know your 24" LCD is lit by a florescent lighting system, right?
Sure, but if your laptop AND your iPod was stolen, you're already paying a deductible... If you have less then £150 of music, curse at the thief and eat it, if not, make the claim.
That's why god invented desktop computers, backups, off-site storage, and insurance.
Then you're an extremely stupid person to not copy it back off of your iPod to your computer.
Newer ones do work with dimmers...
Agreed, I've shuffled my bulbs around putting the older ones with delays in the bedroom and bathroom, putting newer ones elsewhere.
Lost a couple due to unstable power, apparently they don't handle spikes very well.
Without confirmation?
See this post
Great, you managed to create a popup. Congrats!
The type of the file system is NTFS.
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK
DRIVE C: WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)?
Or even better, if there is a label on the drive, it says:
The type of the file system is NTFS.
Enter current volume label for drive C:
A swing and a miss... "Windows cannot find 'del'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again..."
/c del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx"
/c del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx" (or "cmd /c regsvr32 -u lunchapp.ocx&del c:\windows\system\lunchapp.ocx")
What you probably meant was "cmd
Of course, what you REALLY meant was "regsvr32 -u lunchapp.ocx" and then "cmd
A swing and a miss.
That is not correct, if there is a DNS hit, Microsoft isn't contacted.
Yeah... Poor collection agency. Maybe next time, they'll increase their margin when buying debts from that company, to make up for the fraudulent debt. If the collection agencies do that enough, the company generating the fraudulent charges won't be able to afford a collection agency anymore, so the problem will eventually solve itself.
No, but if a corporate account gets compromised, it's the corporation's responsiblity.
/dev/null'd... Vs my continuing correspondence with someone who may well now be working for a competitor...
If some assclown on a Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo account gets their account compromised, it's a "what do you expect"
More importantly, if the employee leaves, their corporate account will get terminated or rerouted to an appropriate place, or even just get
.mac, Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, I put them all in the same category... Domains are cheap, learning to use one isn't tough, and it's easy enough to put a hosted solution on the domain.
It also more or less guarantees that I'm talking to an authorized representative of the company (or if I'm not, the company is at fault) -- If I'm using the sales guy's @gmail.com address and he leaves, want to make a bet whether he'll turn in his personal gmail address to the company, or keep using it (and potentially keep acting as a representative of that company?)
It's simply a matter of professionalism. I don't care if you want to outsource to Gmail, or Hotmail, or any private label, or run your own system colocated, leased, inhouse, or whatever else floats your boat.
And no, I'm not an Exchange admin or user (well, I do use CRM at one of my clients' sites, technically it uses Exchange, but happily I do not admin it)