You're telling me that you can take the time to browse their selection, wait in line to check out and sit on the movie anywhere from 14 to 44 days, but you can't find 5 seconds in that time to slip it back in their drop box?
No, I'm telling you no such thing.
I'm distressed by the apparent lack of communication between Blockbuster marketing and Blockbuster sales executives. The giant banners say "no more late fees" - they don't explain this huge escalation in short-term late fees (rental videos cost significantly more than consumer videos - I wonder which price you get to pay?)
You seem to have wanted to read something I didn't write.
I'm really confused, what's your problem? People like you are gonna ruin this great deal for the rest of us.
I don't have a problem with their business strategy. (Well, their 'block busting' practice that drives neighborhood stores out of business is mildly distasteful, but let's not stray.)
Contrary to what you seem to want to imply, I've never returned a Blockbuster movie late. I think it's great that they've structured their fees so that a one week rental actually means two weeks, wink wink, nudge nudge.
Nevertheless it bothers me that if you keep a movie late for a week (suppose you forgot about it? hm) Blockbuster asserts itself the right to charge the full price of the movie. I may be wrong, but I suspect this is on the order of $100 now - buying a rental movie gives you the right to rent the movie, which is somehow different from buying a DVD at Best Buy.
Consequently the one-week late fee for those who forgot or whatever else has risen from whatever one week's lateness gets you (again, having never done this, I can't say with certainty) to ~$100, the price of the movie, which is refunded to your credit card if you ask nicely in person and otherwise applied as a credit to your Blockbuster account (read: useless).
When the advertisements say "no more late fees", do you seriously expect consumers to equate that with "late fee schedule escalated to an absurdly high flat rate"? It doesn't take much thought to construct a scenario where someone's credit or debit card gets overcharged because they thought they could put that movie-returning chore off to another day; but, hey, maybe they deserve it. After all, they're lazy and uninformed.
How you got +(x) informative for saying yuck to a deal that charges you signifigantly less money with no catches is beyond me.
Don't worry - my statement of fact (intrigue, actually - I was genuinely interested to discover the lies behind the marketing) is now +0 flamebait.
Judging by the flames it's accumulated, this seems peculiarly appropriate.
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame sued a dude who sold pictures of their museum. If I read the decision right, the museum lost and the guy won.
It's amusing that I found this case referenced through these IP lawyers/scumbags, who say "This is one of those cases where the dissent got it right...On the other hand, the dissent by Judge Martin is 'right on' and 'righteous.'" Yeah - they totally get it, dude.
<kritical> matts: bikes go faster than cars...a bike at 60 mph is a lot faster than a car at 60 mph <matts> kritical: um no... <kritical> matts: um yes <kritical> my sisters sport car at 60 mph goes faster than my dads explorer at 60 mph <kritical> a bike at 60 mph will blow by a car at 60 mph
(We pay attorneys' rates to our counsel, and you will reimburse us for that:)
. ..
We don't price-gouge folks on these things. It's important for people to realise that FOI requests cost agencies money, and we will pass on whatever charges we incur to the requester.
Well, when public agencies use neat tricks like hiring an attorney to examine documents so they can claim attorney-client privilege on files they don't want to reveal (or for various and sundry other reasons not salutary to public interest) can you really complain about the informed public's paranoia?
You are absolutely right, if by "your country" you mean "a place that's not a signatory to the Berne Convention or a similar international copyright treaty of its ilk".
Wikipedia has a good and concise summary of some of the history of the Berne Convention (though not its mechanics).
If you're looking for places to obtain fansubs essentially in compliance with the law, you might try this handy table.
The first factoid on the page you almost linked is the oft-repeated statistic that over half the world lives on less than $2 a day.
If I had to guess, I'd say that $2 a day works out to (assuming best case) $732 a year. Which "beyond" did you mean when you said that "the average third-world citizen's salary is beyond $750 a year"?
If you check out the footnote for the first factoid on that page, there are some interesting concerns raised about the $2-a-day poverty level - for instance, the poverty level in the US is $11/day, and there's information on arguments that the degree of world poverty is even more understated.
(That said, the microloan solution raised elsewhere shows great promise.)
Let me check - let's see, Tuesday, 31 days in this month... okay, yes, they're evil today. And evil tomorrow, too, but they're off schedule for Thursday and Friday if you'd like to have a chat then.
I'd be interested to see what peer-reviewed, repeatable research there exists on actual gender differences.
I remember hearing in a developmental psych class that only 5-10% of the 'standard' gender differences have any biological basis; and the NY Times article on this topic quotes a woman who was angry because, if I remember right, the entire morning of the symposium had been spent dispelling those same myths.
The trouble with this kind of research seems to be that there's too much political intrigue - every scientist is going to be accused of (or possess) some kind of bias in American gender-polarized society, and that is difficult to filter out even if you're aware of it.
The NPR coverage of this story said "sexually explicit images in the first page". I wondered briefly whether there was a legal standard "page" (Outlook Express on unpatched Windows 98 machine with English fonts and characters?) then realized the law was intentionally vague. Lovely.
Data aggregation in the State Department ran into some serious problems with that report. The article you cite is dated in late April 2004; by June Per CNN was carrying the story that they had grossly underestimated the issue:
The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.
Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."
Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.
I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.
The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.
Original:
There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.
Revised:
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
*As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205. [huh?!]
Original:
A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.
Revised:
A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.
Original:
In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia. There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001. Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003
Revised:
Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003 [the other paragraphs disappeared - no mention of whether the number of anti-US attacks changed]
The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve
You keep using that word. I do not think you've RTFA'd what you think you've RTFA'd.
CHRIS W. ANDERSON Editor-In-Chief, Wired
The Intelligent Design movement has opened my eyes. I realize that although I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way it is, I can't actually prove it. At least not to the satisfaction of the ID folk, who seem to require that every example of extraordinary complexity and clever plumbing in nature be fully traced back (not just traceable back) along an evolutionary tree to prove that it wasn't directed by an invisible hand. If the scientific community won't do that, then the arguments goes that they must accept a large red "theory" stamp placed on the evolution textbooks and that alternative theories, such as "guided" evolution and creationism, be taught alongside.
So, by this standard, virtually everything I believe in must now fall under the shadow of unproveability. Most importantly, this includes the belief that democracy, capitalism and other market-driven systems (including evolution!) are better than their alternatives. Indeed, I suppose I should now refer to them as the "theory of democracy" and the "theory of capitalism", to join the theory of evolution, and accept the teaching of living Marxism and fascism as alternatives in high schools.
Gosh - I looked everywhere on Google News and practically every mainstream source said just about nothing about this story! Why could that be?
(and, even weirder, the ones that -do- mention it are dated days ago and talk abut an "actually miniscule probability". can't they read?!)
I guess I'll just have to turn to Slashdot for all my eschatological news.
EA, NBC: No matter who wins, word usage loses
on
NBA Rejects EA Deal
·
· Score: 3, Funny
From article summary: "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold..."
Main Entry: strong-hold Pronunciation: 'stro[ng]-"hOld Function: noun 1 : a fortified place 2 a : a place of security or survival <one of the last strongholds of the ancient Gaelic language -- George Holmes> b : a place dominated by a particular group or marked by a particular characteristic <a Republican stronghold> <strongholds of snobbery -- Lionel Trilling>
EA won the match by camping! Losers!
(Later in the article summary the word 'stranglehold' is correctly quoted. Was submitter going for variety with the use of nonsynonyms?)
More seriously: I'm still most impressed by the eight new parts in the six-month-old. It's like a flawless victory in a game of Operation, without the annoying buzzer sound!
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm telling you no such thing.
I'm distressed by the apparent lack of communication between Blockbuster marketing and Blockbuster sales executives. The giant banners say "no more late fees" - they don't explain this huge escalation in short-term late fees (rental videos cost significantly more than consumer videos - I wonder which price you get to pay?)
I don't have a problem with their business strategy. (Well, their 'block busting' practice that drives neighborhood stores out of business is mildly distasteful, but let's not stray.)
Contrary to what you seem to want to imply, I've never returned a Blockbuster movie late. I think it's great that they've structured their fees so that a one week rental actually means two weeks, wink wink, nudge nudge.
Nevertheless it bothers me that if you keep a movie late for a week (suppose you forgot about it? hm) Blockbuster asserts itself the right to charge the full price of the movie. I may be wrong, but I suspect this is on the order of $100 now - buying a rental movie gives you the right to rent the movie, which is somehow different from buying a DVD at Best Buy.
Consequently the one-week late fee for those who forgot or whatever else has risen from whatever one week's lateness gets you (again, having never done this, I can't say with certainty) to ~$100, the price of the movie, which is refunded to your credit card if you ask nicely in person and otherwise applied as a credit to your Blockbuster account (read: useless).
When the advertisements say "no more late fees", do you seriously expect consumers to equate that with "late fee schedule escalated to an absurdly high flat rate"? It doesn't take much thought to construct a scenario where someone's credit or debit card gets overcharged because they thought they could put that movie-returning chore off to another day; but, hey, maybe they deserve it. After all, they're lazy and uninformed.
Don't worry - my statement of fact (intrigue, actually - I was genuinely interested to discover the lies behind the marketing) is now +0 flamebait.
Judging by the flames it's accumulated, this seems peculiarly appropriate.
Apparently seven days after the due date, they charge you the full sale price of the rented item.
You then have 30 days to return the item for a full refund - minus restocking fees (and tax?).
Yuck!
And all of a sudden I'm black, too!
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame sued a dude who sold pictures of their museum. If I read the decision right, the museum lost and the guy won.
It's amusing that I found this case referenced through these IP lawyers/scumbags, who say "This is one of those cases where the dissent got it right...On the other hand, the dissent by Judge Martin is 'right on' and 'righteous.'" Yeah - they totally get it, dude.
You are absolutely right, if by "your country" you mean "a place that's not a signatory to the Berne Convention or a similar international copyright treaty of its ilk".
Wikipedia has a good and concise summary of some of the history of the Berne Convention (though not its mechanics).
If you're looking for places to obtain fansubs essentially in compliance with the law, you might try this handy table.
Why do you have a karma bonus?
The first factoid on the page you almost linked is the oft-repeated statistic that over half the world lives on less than $2 a day.
If I had to guess, I'd say that $2 a day works out to (assuming best case) $732 a year. Which "beyond" did you mean when you said that "the average third-world citizen's salary is beyond $750 a year"?
If you check out the footnote for the first factoid on that page, there are some interesting concerns raised about the $2-a-day poverty level - for instance, the poverty level in the US is $11/day, and there's information on arguments that the degree of world poverty is even more understated.
(That said, the microloan solution raised elsewhere shows great promise.)
Just a dedicated transsexual sociopath.
"It rubs the inkwell on its skin or else it gets the hose again!"
It's people like you that succumb to number three.
Wait, IBM is evil now?
Let me check - let's see, Tuesday, 31 days in this month... okay, yes, they're evil today. And evil tomorrow, too, but they're off schedule for Thursday and Friday if you'd like to have a chat then.
I'd be interested to see what peer-reviewed, repeatable research there exists on actual gender differences.
I remember hearing in a developmental psych class that only 5-10% of the 'standard' gender differences have any biological basis; and the NY Times article on this topic quotes a woman who was angry because, if I remember right, the entire morning of the symposium had been spent dispelling those same myths.
The trouble with this kind of research seems to be that there's too much political intrigue - every scientist is going to be accused of (or possess) some kind of bias in American gender-polarized society, and that is difficult to filter out even if you're aware of it.
Maybe we should just move to Sweden.
the Media Lab is obsolete!
:p
Talk about daring technology.
The NPR coverage of this story said "sexually explicit images in the first page". I wondered briefly whether there was a legal standard "page" (Outlook Express on unpatched Windows 98 machine with English fonts and characters?) then realized the law was intentionally vague. Lovely.
I also wrote 'youreslf'. There's a bilingual education policy joke here somewhere, but I'm just too unlucky with the typing tonight to try.
Oops - I screwed up the CNN link HTML. It's here.
Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.
I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.
The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.
Original:
Revised:
Original:
Revised:
Original:
Revised:
The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve
Thank you for pointing this out. I had no idea.
Ooh! Support will approach infinity and paid accounts will approach zero!
Truly these are the end times.
You keep using that word. I do not think you've RTFA'd what you think you've RTFA'd.
CHRIS W. ANDERSON
Editor-In-Chief, Wired
The Intelligent Design movement has opened my eyes. I realize that although I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way it is, I can't actually prove it. At least not to the satisfaction of the ID folk, who seem to require that every example of extraordinary complexity and clever plumbing in nature be fully traced back (not just traceable back) along an evolutionary tree to prove that it wasn't directed by an invisible hand. If the scientific community won't do that, then the arguments goes that they must accept a large red "theory" stamp placed on the evolution textbooks and that alternative theories, such as "guided" evolution and creationism, be taught alongside.
So, by this standard, virtually everything I believe in must now fall under the shadow of unproveability. Most importantly, this includes the belief that democracy, capitalism and other market-driven systems (including evolution!) are better than their alternatives. Indeed, I suppose I should now refer to them as the "theory of democracy" and the "theory of capitalism", to join the theory of evolution, and accept the teaching of living Marxism and fascism as alternatives in high schools.
When George Bush ran for a House seat in 1978, he said during the campaign that Social Security would die in ten years unless privatization happened.
Gosh - I looked everywhere on Google News and practically every mainstream source said just about nothing about this story! Why could that be?
(and, even weirder, the ones that -do- mention it are dated days ago and talk abut an "actually miniscule probability". can't they read?!)
I guess I'll just have to turn to Slashdot for all my eschatological news.
From article summary: "Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold..."
Main Entry: strong-hold
Pronunciation: 'stro[ng]-"hOld
Function: noun
1 : a fortified place
2 a : a place of security or survival <one of the last strongholds of the ancient Gaelic language -- George Holmes> b : a place dominated by a particular group or marked by a particular characteristic <a Republican stronghold> <strongholds of snobbery -- Lionel Trilling>
EA won the match by camping! Losers!
(Later in the article summary the word 'stranglehold' is correctly quoted. Was submitter going for variety with the use of nonsynonyms?)
the heartbreaking story of the boy with just a burlap sack for a body. It's a Christmas classic. (It is not to be confused with what is probably the saddest thing ever, which probably is.)
More seriously: I'm still most impressed by the eight new parts in the six-month-old. It's like a flawless victory in a game of Operation, without the annoying buzzer sound!