You also run the risk of making people fear that they'll get classified (unless you give out the scoring rules).
When I buy certain things like CDs, DVDs, computer bits etc, I deal with certain companies, and a massive factor is their attitude to returns. If I walk in and say "I'm have a problem with this button", I expect one of two responses. Either a) the retailer apologizes and offers me a refund or exchange (my choice) OR b) asks to have a look in case I've done something wrong or out of curiousity. Generally tone of voice tells me if someone's basically in "please the customer" mode or not.
If a retailer expects me to prove it, or starts arguing about it (like "well, sir, it said quite clearly on the box that it was for the xyz machine"), they can kiss my business goodbye. I'll prove it, get a refund and then I'll shop somewhere that doesn't treat me like a liar or cares about my satisfaction. If I think I'm being profiled for exchanges, I'll go elsewhere. I don't want to have to jump through the hoops of writing to head office when the profiling system gets a glitch.
There's a bigger reason - people have learnt that refusing exchanges is really bad for business.
I hardly ever do exchanges or even returns for faults, but I avoid certain electrical stores because they refuse to do exchanges, where someone like Argos gives me that option. Like I say, I don't use it very often (if at all).
You take away "no-quibble" and turn it into "maybe-quibble" and you'll lose far more than the odd person who's a bit of a git, because a lot of people will fear that they will be in the risk group. They'll simply shop elsewhere.
OK, so a guy comes in and asks for a return, and you are using some customer profiling system. Behind some kid is me, a guy with quite a decent spending power.
I see this kid get refused a refund based on the whim of the system. There's one thing I'm going to do - put the goods back and leave the store right away. Why? Because I don't want to be in his position. Because I know full well that your software is going to screw up, and I don't have the time and energy to go pushing my issue to the top of your company.
There's a large computer firm I know in the UK, and they really hate doing exchanges. Software doesn't work on your laptop? They'll put it on one of theirs, prove it works and then refuse an exchange or refund. It's your laptop that's the problem. Technically, maybe true. But, what's the customer's experience now? That's right, they'll go to the company that exchanges things quite happily. So, you pissed off a £2,000/annum customer for a £20 game.
Actually, a lot of shops don't get into that kind of thing. They accept that some people will behave badly on returns, but that they are in the extreme minority.
If you go covering your ass, you'll probably spend a ton of money doing the software to do it, and you'll piss off the wrong people.
The trouble with selective exchange and return policies is that they are both inaccurate (so piss off good customers who will never shop with you again AND tell their buddies what jerks you are) and that it's quite simply bad. Bad as in "look for the bad rather than the good in customers".
That last point sounds a bit weird, but many of the best stores I know for knowledge, warmth of service and general helpfulness are also those who will return things without even checking the fault. The "bad" stores are those full of guys on commission trying to simply push a sale on the customer and if you try and return will do everything to avoid doing the refund.
I know a major shop in the UK that sells clothes and normally has a no-quiblle return on clothing put in an exemption on hats because people were basically borrowing them for weddings and social occassions.
That's the thing... there's always going to be some fuckers who are going to abuse the returns system.
I saw it first hand in a record shop - people coming in with scratched vinyl that had obviously been done with a knife after they'd taped it.
However, taking returns unquestionably is good policy. There's a major store I know that won't take returns without there being a fault, basically, they stick to UK law. And you know what? I don't shop there because of it. If I happen to buy a computer part, and it's the wrong one, I want to be able to return it, almost without a quibble and get it either exchanged or refunded. The weird thing is, I've never actually had to do it, but knowing I can is what's important.
I used to like to play Worms 2. There were various comedy skits between the levels, but once I'd seen each a couple of times, the ESC button got used a lot more.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact modern movie costs are overblown. If an actor gets paid several mil. dollars for half a year of half-assed work, and you have several of those actors to pay, then add to that a million other overblown expense issues... Holywood really needs some budget lessons.
I'm amazed that movies with budgets of hundreds of millions get made.
Think about it... a seat to go and see a blockbuster costs the same as a comedy or small drama. But comedies cost a heck of a lot less money than blockbusters. I've just taken a quick look at returns on Farrelly brothers and Adam Sandler comedies or small films like Lost in Translation, and then blockbusters, and from a pure cold cash investment viewpoint, you'd keep off the expensive sets and special effects, and cinema from a "film it in the here and now, and keep the number of stars down".
Never blame the lawyers is my rule. It's like blaming the soldiers in Iraq for starting the war there.
As for companies who are avoiding Linux... more fool them. Plenty of other people are doing business as usual. Those other companies will be the ones who get to market first and reap the rewards.
To be honest, there's not much in it. A theocracy can at least justify it's actions based on some twisted version of what god told it to do, and often do things out of conviction rather than whim (so are more likely to pursue them more effectively).
I've seen companies lay off departments, often with good, well-trained people in and at the same time, be hiring a whole new department completely unproven people to do something else.
Like errr... how about seeing if some of those good people could be retrained?
I think it has a lot to do with corporate stockholders. If they see "restructure" they assume the guy in charge is doing the right thing.
This is the biggest reason why I would, if made prime minister privatise the NHS. Most people in government have no clue about the real cost of things. How some software and hardware can even cost 1/10th of that is beyond me.
Make hospitals independent, each responsible for their own technology decisions. Those that spent like assholes would not do as well as those who were bright and frugal with budgets. Result? Well run hospitals would survive.
BTW I'd also make sure that everyone had access to healthcare through an insurance scheme. You'd then give spending power to the public, not some top-heavy bureaucracy.
Why can't doctors use Star Office? You saying that something like that can't be used for writing patient letters?
As for a practice management solution, write one! Question: how much do you think it would cost you to build one. Be conservative, add in some decent profit margin. Now, is that figure £500 million?
OK, how about the canonicalization issue in ASP.NET, then? Try "canonicalization" and "ASP.NET" in Google.
Sure, it's fixed now, but the fact that it even got out of an alpha doesn't give me confidence that there aren't plenty of other holes to be exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
When I buy certain things like CDs, DVDs, computer bits etc, I deal with certain companies, and a massive factor is their attitude to returns. If I walk in and say "I'm have a problem with this button", I expect one of two responses. Either a) the retailer apologizes and offers me a refund or exchange (my choice) OR b) asks to have a look in case I've done something wrong or out of curiousity. Generally tone of voice tells me if someone's basically in "please the customer" mode or not.
If a retailer expects me to prove it, or starts arguing about it (like "well, sir, it said quite clearly on the box that it was for the xyz machine"), they can kiss my business goodbye. I'll prove it, get a refund and then I'll shop somewhere that doesn't treat me like a liar or cares about my satisfaction. If I think I'm being profiled for exchanges, I'll go elsewhere. I don't want to have to jump through the hoops of writing to head office when the profiling system gets a glitch.
Better for businesses to spend time and money learning how to please their good customers and not worry too much about the deadbeats.
I hardly ever do exchanges or even returns for faults, but I avoid certain electrical stores because they refuse to do exchanges, where someone like Argos gives me that option. Like I say, I don't use it very often (if at all).
You take away "no-quibble" and turn it into "maybe-quibble" and you'll lose far more than the odd person who's a bit of a git, because a lot of people will fear that they will be in the risk group. They'll simply shop elsewhere.
I see this kid get refused a refund based on the whim of the system. There's one thing I'm going to do - put the goods back and leave the store right away. Why? Because I don't want to be in his position. Because I know full well that your software is going to screw up, and I don't have the time and energy to go pushing my issue to the top of your company.
There's a large computer firm I know in the UK, and they really hate doing exchanges. Software doesn't work on your laptop? They'll put it on one of theirs, prove it works and then refuse an exchange or refund. It's your laptop that's the problem. Technically, maybe true. But, what's the customer's experience now? That's right, they'll go to the company that exchanges things quite happily. So, you pissed off a £2,000/annum customer for a £20 game.
If you go covering your ass, you'll probably spend a ton of money doing the software to do it, and you'll piss off the wrong people.
The trouble with selective exchange and return policies is that they are both inaccurate (so piss off good customers who will never shop with you again AND tell their buddies what jerks you are) and that it's quite simply bad. Bad as in "look for the bad rather than the good in customers".
That last point sounds a bit weird, but many of the best stores I know for knowledge, warmth of service and general helpfulness are also those who will return things without even checking the fault. The "bad" stores are those full of guys on commission trying to simply push a sale on the customer and if you try and return will do everything to avoid doing the refund.
I know a major shop in the UK that sells clothes and normally has a no-quiblle return on clothing put in an exemption on hats because people were basically borrowing them for weddings and social occassions.
I saw it first hand in a record shop - people coming in with scratched vinyl that had obviously been done with a knife after they'd taped it.
However, taking returns unquestionably is good policy. There's a major store I know that won't take returns without there being a fault, basically, they stick to UK law. And you know what? I don't shop there because of it. If I happen to buy a computer part, and it's the wrong one, I want to be able to return it, almost without a quibble and get it either exchanged or refunded. The weird thing is, I've never actually had to do it, but knowing I can is what's important.
Those 16000 are deaths accounted for (I presume things like names known, someone reporting it etc). The Lancet figure of 100,000 is based on sampling.
I used to like to play Worms 2. There were various comedy skits between the levels, but once I'd seen each a couple of times, the ESC button got used a lot more.
I'm amazed that movies with budgets of hundreds of millions get made.
Think about it... a seat to go and see a blockbuster costs the same as a comedy or small drama. But comedies cost a heck of a lot less money than blockbusters. I've just taken a quick look at returns on Farrelly brothers and Adam Sandler comedies or small films like Lost in Translation, and then blockbusters, and from a pure cold cash investment viewpoint, you'd keep off the expensive sets and special effects, and cinema from a "film it in the here and now, and keep the number of stars down".
Look at Pixar - they've pretty much stopped talking about famous voices, and instead just get the right voices.
As far as I know, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King were all on his watch.
Remember, before The Little Mermaid, they'd been making sucky movies for quite a while.
EPIII will probably have 99 channel sound, multi petapixel/inch resolution, with spacecraft modelled using an array of supercomputers...
As for companies who are avoiding Linux... more fool them. Plenty of other people are doing business as usual. Those other companies will be the ones who get to market first and reap the rewards.
And IIRC, IBM are unleashing their patent portfolio on SCO as well.
If a whole bunch of people who trade across the internet get nervous about this patent shiat, they might just start lobbying politicians to break it.
So, it's a bit of a fraud? Request more funds for software, but spend it elsewhere?
You tell me you are not pissing money away? Where's that £15-30 billion overspend on NHS IT going then?
Like errr... how about seeing if some of those good people could be retrained?
I think it has a lot to do with corporate stockholders. If they see "restructure" they assume the guy in charge is doing the right thing.
If you wanted to fight Islamofascism, Iraq was the last place to start - it was a secular state.
Make hospitals independent, each responsible for their own technology decisions. Those that spent like assholes would not do as well as those who were bright and frugal with budgets. Result? Well run hospitals would survive.
BTW I'd also make sure that everyone had access to healthcare through an insurance scheme. You'd then give spending power to the public, not some top-heavy bureaucracy.
As for a practice management solution, write one! Question: how much do you think it would cost you to build one. Be conservative, add in some decent profit margin. Now, is that figure £500 million?
Which means that it's a 3 year contract!
Sure, it's fixed now, but the fact that it even got out of an alpha doesn't give me confidence that there aren't plenty of other holes to be exploited.