I agree, both sides are asshats. The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Maybe local business owners in your area can start maintaining a shared database or exchanged registry of problem customers especially the deadbeats who don't pay their bills. One business puts a customer on that list, you all refuse to do business with that person. What you would find is that the same individuals cause problems wherever they go. I'm tired of the way asshats never have any consequences. Aren't you?
Hmm, boycotting individual customers. I shall be glad to see how you hope to avoid having to sell everything you own to make a futile attempt to fight off the inevitable enormous compensation payment. Seriously, maintaining a sh*tlist (especially one which you distribute to someone else) is never a good idea, no matter how smart an idea it seems when you start.
I remember, during a brief stint at Best Buy, taking up the cause of a customer who was being bait-and-switched like this... I pointed out that it said "equal or better specifications" and that we included size and weight on our specification tags. The customer made it out of the store with an open-box unit that was this year's model of the same line of Sony laptop, since it was the only thing to match or beat those specs.
Would that be why it was a 'brief stint'?
(not that I'm complaining, good on you for standing up for what's right)
Maybe he's actually got a conscience, and this is his way of forcing his shareholders hand(s) into letting him start throwing Redhat's weight around in the general direction of patent trolls. If he becomes an 'easy target' he'll have to start fighting every case. Also, it's really hard for shareholders to actually go after the board for not making them maximum money.
Finally, who are Redhat's main shareholders? maybe they're people who would rather see their investment not do so well in exchange for beating the trolls up a bit.
If I ever got in the business of making, let's say, engine components (I know, famous car analogy) and a car manufacturer made a car using my components which turned out to be defective, why would *I* need to replace the whole frikken car?!
How about if you sold bricks? And it only became apparent that they were faulty after they'd been used to build a house. Who should pay for knocking down and rebuilding the house then?
*shrug* it's in nVidia's interest for the consumers to claim against nVidia. If they wanted to force the consumers to sue HP, and then have HP sue nVidia, they would have done it right back at the beginning of the case. Seems nVidia are happy to settle their liabilities directly.
In any case, the question of whether the plaintiffs are technically attacking the right defendants is entirely irrelevant to the issue of the settlement being a joke.
ok. So you send your broken laptop-with-non-replaceable-nVidia-parts back to HP. HP replace it with a fully functional laptop. HP then sends the entire bill to nVidia. Explain how this is better for anyone?
1) nVidia likely knew that the parts would be fitted in a non-replaceable manner 2) HP paid nVidia for working parts.
If I build a wall, and then discover that a single brick incorporated into the wall is faulty and making the wall unsafe, would it be at all reasonable for the brick manufacturer to only replace the faulty brick, and leave me to swallow the cost of knocking down the re-building the rest of it? Or should they only have to pay for the replacement bricks (because they make those) and leave me to pay for the replacement mortar (because that's made by someone else). What if I'm a builder, and I built that wall for someone else? And they only discover that the brick was faulty 3 years after I've finished building it?
ok, let's just let the cash be an underlying thing to help us discuss value. Take my analogy as it was, but at the last step, the manufacturer offers you a 7-year-old second hand car of the same model, with a market value of $5k.
continue your car analogy. You buy a $20k car. You drive it for one week. It breaks irreparably due to a latent manufacturing fault. The manufacturer takes 7 years to accept that the fault was actually theirs. They then proceed to offer you $5k, what the car would now be worth after 7 years use, if it were not broken. You've paid $15k for 0 years utility.
but that assumes that you have a working phone for 3 years, then one day it breaks, and a week or so later, a replacement shows up which is the same (if there are still stocks) or the next closest thing which is available. So you pootle on your merry way with your phone's relative capability degrading as it was before it broke.
It sounds like we're talking about someone who bought a $300 phone, it never really worked, and after 3 years of not being able to use a fancy phone, they're finally offered a replacement which isn't fancy anymore. It's like if someone had your warranty, the phone broke within a week of buying it, and it then took 3 years for a replacement to be sent, which was then identical to the original phone which broke 3 years ago.
Or, let's put it another way. You spend $2500 on your laptop, you get something sooperdooper-whizz-bang-awesome, and then for the next 3 years, it steadily degrades in relative performance. Then you spend a further $2500 on a new one, and so you leap back to the top of the relative-performance stakes, and slide down the graph again. Net result: $5000 spent, two 3-year slides down the graph. Now, instead of this, you buy a machine for $2500, 3 years later it's replaced with a similar machine, and you let that slide down the graph. Net result: $2500 spent, one six-year slide down the graph. Simple. But hang on, that's not quite it. It's actually $2500 spent, one 3-year slide down the graph, consisting of the bottom-half of an overall 6-year slide.
If you're the sort of power user who spends $2500 on a laptop, you would probably have already replaced the faulty one by now even if it weren't faulty - you won't be taking a step back just because it's the settlement, so you're given a settlement which is essentially worthless, and what you actually get back for your original $2500 expenditure is nothing.
fair enough, but how should people be compensated for the last however many years of not having the stonking computer they paid for? 3 years ago (or whatever it was) these people forked over $2000 (or more) for what should have been an excellent (contemporary) laptop, and then didn't receive one. Shouldn't they now at least receive a machine occupying a similar place in the market as what they paid for? If you manage to claim back lost money from someone, it normally comes with interest at least to make up for inflation. In this case, not only is there financial inflation, but there's rapid deterioration in the relative capability of the goods.
The offered machine may be a bit better than the one it's replacing, but most software has got a lot heavier in the intervening time. In terms of what's being asked of it, the replacement is worse.
I can see the headline now: "Technology company working on next product - shock Sources say it may be better than last product. Or worse. Either, really."
Wrongfully overstepping its authority, only because it knows that it's immune to any consequences (gunboat diplomacy necessarily only works one way).
I think we're confusing what a country can, or is allowed to do by the traditions of diplomacy, international relations, restraint and generally not being asshats, and what it'll do just because it wants to and is physically able to achieve it. Unfortunately, any mechanism by which a country which will not self-restrain can be restrained rests on exactly the same faulty logic as that which the externally-imposed restraint is trying to stop.
A US court order can't control actions outside the US (in theory, of course). The judge has overstepped her authority.
Unfortunately, any law in country A which provided for harsh penalties for judges from country B who tried to make orders concerning happenings in country A would rest on the same faulty logic. The only real solution is for countries to pro-actively get a handle on their judges and stop them pulling crap like this.
actually, they more like orthogonal. To take some examples; Libya is a republic, but it's not a democracy. Sweden is a democracy, but it's not a republic. France is a republic and a democracy. Saudi Arabia is neither a republic nor a democracy.
Please tell that to my IT department who think that poor performance is my fault because I'm 'overtaxing' the machine with 2 instances each of Word & Excel, 2 Citrix windows and IE7 with (shock) 7 tabs open (2 of which were empty).
All GP did was claim that TEPCO tried every option which involved not writing the reactor off first, before pumping seawater in. At no point has the allegation be made that they risked catastrophic failure by doing that. If they were genuinely risking a catastrophic failure by not immediately pumping in seawater, then I agree that to not do so was unreasonable. But that is not the allegation WhiteTailKitten made.
All that was alleged was that they tried to avoid wrecking the reactor if they could help it, and when they couldn't avoid wrecking it, did. That does not strike me as unreasonable. Don't forget, Japan is now facing rolling blackouts across a large swath of the country for a year or more because there just won't be the power-generating capacity available. That calculation was surely known when they decided not to immediately flood the reactor vessel with seawater.
Reckless and stupid would be allowing the reactor to get too hot in the hope that it would do less damage than pumping in seawater. However, pumping in seawater, guaranteeing substantial loss of power-generating capacity, before it was necessary to do so would have been irresponsbile.
Allowing the situation to develop and shifting from one option to the other when the balance changed seems to me to have been the best thing they could have done.
If that what actually happened? Was that the point when TEPCO changed their response? I don't know. But what I do know is that GP didn't allege any facts which would lead someone to conclude that TEPCO acted unreasonably, but still expected the reader to imply that this proved TEPCO acted unreasonably.
When that didn't work out and it was clear that they had absolutely no other option, TEPCO began pumping seawater in. They did everything they could to avoid writing the reactors off.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, both sides are asshats. The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Maybe local business owners in your area can start maintaining a shared database or exchanged registry of problem customers especially the deadbeats who don't pay their bills. One business puts a customer on that list, you all refuse to do business with that person. What you would find is that the same individuals cause problems wherever they go. I'm tired of the way asshats never have any consequences. Aren't you?
Hmm, boycotting individual customers. I shall be glad to see how you hope to avoid having to sell everything you own to make a futile attempt to fight off the inevitable enormous compensation payment. Seriously, maintaining a sh*tlist (especially one which you distribute to someone else) is never a good idea, no matter how smart an idea it seems when you start.
if it's genuinely faulty, and he really did deliver it back to them; where's the deception necessary to make it fraud?
I remember, during a brief stint at Best Buy, taking up the cause of a customer who was being bait-and-switched like this... I pointed out that it said "equal or better specifications" and that we included size and weight on our specification tags. The customer made it out of the store with an open-box unit that was this year's model of the same line of Sony laptop, since it was the only thing to match or beat those specs.
Would that be why it was a 'brief stint'?
(not that I'm complaining, good on you for standing up for what's right)
Maybe he's actually got a conscience, and this is his way of forcing his shareholders hand(s) into letting him start throwing Redhat's weight around in the general direction of patent trolls. If he becomes an 'easy target' he'll have to start fighting every case.
Also, it's really hard for shareholders to actually go after the board for not making them maximum money.
Finally, who are Redhat's main shareholders? maybe they're people who would rather see their investment not do so well in exchange for beating the trolls up a bit.
If I ever got in the business of making, let's say, engine components (I know, famous car analogy) and a car manufacturer made a car using my components which turned out to be defective, why would *I* need to replace the whole frikken car?!
How about if you sold bricks? And it only became apparent that they were faulty after they'd been used to build a house. Who should pay for knocking down and rebuilding the house then?
*shrug* it's in nVidia's interest for the consumers to claim against nVidia. If they wanted to force the consumers to sue HP, and then have HP sue nVidia, they would have done it right back at the beginning of the case. Seems nVidia are happy to settle their liabilities directly.
In any case, the question of whether the plaintiffs are technically attacking the right defendants is entirely irrelevant to the issue of the settlement being a joke.
ok. So you send your broken laptop-with-non-replaceable-nVidia-parts back to HP. HP replace it with a fully functional laptop. HP then sends the entire bill to nVidia. Explain how this is better for anyone?
1) nVidia likely knew that the parts would be fitted in a non-replaceable manner 2) HP paid nVidia for working parts.
If I build a wall, and then discover that a single brick incorporated into the wall is faulty and making the wall unsafe, would it be at all reasonable for the brick manufacturer to only replace the faulty brick, and leave me to swallow the cost of knocking down the re-building the rest of it? Or should they only have to pay for the replacement bricks (because they make those) and leave me to pay for the replacement mortar (because that's made by someone else).
What if I'm a builder, and I built that wall for someone else? And they only discover that the brick was faulty 3 years after I've finished building it?
ok, let's just let the cash be an underlying thing to help us discuss value. Take my analogy as it was, but at the last step, the manufacturer offers you a 7-year-old second hand car of the same model, with a market value of $5k.
continue your car analogy. You buy a $20k car. You drive it for one week. It breaks irreparably due to a latent manufacturing fault. The manufacturer takes 7 years to accept that the fault was actually theirs. They then proceed to offer you $5k, what the car would now be worth after 7 years use, if it were not broken. You've paid $15k for 0 years utility.
Fair?
but that assumes that you have a working phone for 3 years, then one day it breaks, and a week or so later, a replacement shows up which is the same (if there are still stocks) or the next closest thing which is available. So you pootle on your merry way with your phone's relative capability degrading as it was before it broke.
It sounds like we're talking about someone who bought a $300 phone, it never really worked, and after 3 years of not being able to use a fancy phone, they're finally offered a replacement which isn't fancy anymore. It's like if someone had your warranty, the phone broke within a week of buying it, and it then took 3 years for a replacement to be sent, which was then identical to the original phone which broke 3 years ago.
Or, let's put it another way. You spend $2500 on your laptop, you get something sooperdooper-whizz-bang-awesome, and then for the next 3 years, it steadily degrades in relative performance. Then you spend a further $2500 on a new one, and so you leap back to the top of the relative-performance stakes, and slide down the graph again. Net result: $5000 spent, two 3-year slides down the graph.
Now, instead of this, you buy a machine for $2500, 3 years later it's replaced with a similar machine, and you let that slide down the graph. Net result: $2500 spent, one six-year slide down the graph. Simple.
But hang on, that's not quite it. It's actually $2500 spent, one 3-year slide down the graph, consisting of the bottom-half of an overall 6-year slide.
If you're the sort of power user who spends $2500 on a laptop, you would probably have already replaced the faulty one by now even if it weren't faulty - you won't be taking a step back just because it's the settlement, so you're given a settlement which is essentially worthless, and what you actually get back for your original $2500 expenditure is nothing.
fair enough, but how should people be compensated for the last however many years of not having the stonking computer they paid for? 3 years ago (or whatever it was) these people forked over $2000 (or more) for what should have been an excellent (contemporary) laptop, and then didn't receive one. Shouldn't they now at least receive a machine occupying a similar place in the market as what they paid for? If you manage to claim back lost money from someone, it normally comes with interest at least to make up for inflation. In this case, not only is there financial inflation, but there's rapid deterioration in the relative capability of the goods.
The offered machine may be a bit better than the one it's replacing, but most software has got a lot heavier in the intervening time. In terms of what's being asked of it, the replacement is worse.
This is /. buddy, we're not interested in your "facts"...
Sony are either evil or grossly incompetent
I hope that's not an XOR...
I can see the headline now:
"Technology company working on next product - shock
Sources say it may be better than last product. Or worse. Either, really."
Wrongfully overstepping its authority, only because it knows that it's immune to any consequences (gunboat diplomacy necessarily only works one way).
I think we're confusing what a country can, or is allowed to do by the traditions of diplomacy, international relations, restraint and generally not being asshats, and what it'll do just because it wants to and is physically able to achieve it.
Unfortunately, any mechanism by which a country which will not self-restrain can be restrained rests on exactly the same faulty logic as that which the externally-imposed restraint is trying to stop.
It's quite depressing really.
um, there isn't a monarch.
Want a more blatant example? Burma.
A US court order can't control actions outside the US (in theory, of course). The judge has overstepped her authority.
Unfortunately, any law in country A which provided for harsh penalties for judges from country B who tried to make orders concerning happenings in country A would rest on the same faulty logic. The only real solution is for countries to pro-actively get a handle on their judges and stop them pulling crap like this.
I agree, they should require that a person be paid, but the only two holes are:
no
actually, they more like orthogonal. To take some examples; Libya is a republic, but it's not a democracy. Sweden is a democracy, but it's not a republic. France is a republic and a democracy. Saudi Arabia is neither a republic nor a democracy.
Please tell that to my IT department who think that poor performance is my fault because I'm 'overtaxing' the machine with 2 instances each of Word & Excel, 2 Citrix windows and IE7 with (shock) 7 tabs open (2 of which were empty).
no, no no. They expend 75% of the funding on legitimate business expenses - such and booze, drugs & hookers - and blow the rest.
All GP did was claim that TEPCO tried every option which involved not writing the reactor off first, before pumping seawater in. At no point has the allegation be made that they risked catastrophic failure by doing that.
If they were genuinely risking a catastrophic failure by not immediately pumping in seawater, then I agree that to not do so was unreasonable.
But that is not the allegation WhiteTailKitten made.
All that was alleged was that they tried to avoid wrecking the reactor if they could help it, and when they couldn't avoid wrecking it, did. That does not strike me as unreasonable. Don't forget, Japan is now facing rolling blackouts across a large swath of the country for a year or more because there just won't be the power-generating capacity available. That calculation was surely known when they decided not to immediately flood the reactor vessel with seawater.
Reckless and stupid would be allowing the reactor to get too hot in the hope that it would do less damage than pumping in seawater. However, pumping in seawater, guaranteeing substantial loss of power-generating capacity, before it was necessary to do so would have been irresponsbile.
Allowing the situation to develop and shifting from one option to the other when the balance changed seems to me to have been the best thing they could have done.
If that what actually happened? Was that the point when TEPCO changed their response? I don't know. But what I do know is that GP didn't allege any facts which would lead someone to conclude that TEPCO acted unreasonably, but still expected the reader to imply that this proved TEPCO acted unreasonably.
When that didn't work out and it was clear that they had absolutely no other option, TEPCO began pumping seawater in. They did everything they could to avoid writing the reactors off.
And that's unreasonable because...?