Ah, just found out how the glitch worked. It was supposed to be a buy one get one of equal or lesser value free offer. But what happened is that if there was a price difference between the two items, the price of the lesser item was credited twice, effectively only charging you only the difference between the two.
So, for example, if you put two DVDs in your cart, one that cost $19.99 and one that cost $20.99, you would only be charged $1.00. The guy I referred to above apparently exploited this to get over $1,600 in DVDs for probably less than $100.
So yeah, I think Amazon was definitely in the right here, and I have zero sympathy for the scumbags. They were trying to steal, plain and simple. If they disputed the charges and had them reversed, Amazon was well within their rights to freeze their accounts, effectively refusing to provide service to a known thief. If I owned a business, I'd lock 'em out of the store, too.
The second downside is more insidious - since you've paid up front, Amazon can hold your money hostage. I saw one case a few years ago where Amazon had a dispute with a bunch of fatwallet types - Amazon shipped out 20-30 different products to a couple of hundred customers at a very low price and then changed their mind about the price after the orders were delivered. They told the buyers that they could either return the products for a refund or pay the difference in a second charge to their credit cards. Amazon even went so far as to process those second charges without getting permission.
The people who disputed the charge with their credit cards got the charges cancelled as they were never authorised in the first place. BUT Amazon then "froze" their accounts on their website. The people who had paid for Prime were SOL - sure they had the privilege of expedited shipping on any order for another ~10 months, they just couldn't place any orders. As far as I know, none of those people ever saw a penny of that Prime fee refunded.
I read the link you provided in your reply and then some. The "deal" the OP is referring to was a "buy one, get one of equal or lesser value free" offer, and was presented as such by Amazon. However, due to a glitch in their order processing system, it gave you credit multiple times for the lesser-priced of the items. The glitch was posted on a forum, and some people thought it would be clever to exploit the glitch. Reading the thread, apparently one guy ordered over $1,600 of DVDs for something like $25.
Amazon didn't "change their mind about the price." The terms were posted on the site, and any reasonable person would have known that the deal did not entail getting $1,600's worth of DVDs for $25 because of a billing glitch. Amazon simply corrected a billing error after giving people who exploited the error a very reasonable time to return the DVDs (with shipping pre-paid) if they didn't want to be charged. Some of the exploiters chose not to, Amazon billed them per the text of the offer, and a bunch of them complained that they weren't able to bilk Amazon out of thousands of dollars.
Those people were effectively trying to steal those DVDs as surely as if you knew a credit card processor at you local Best Buy is on the glitch and you thought you could get a new flat screen television for free. Personally, I'm glad Amazon didn't let them get away with it.
I doubt it was because of "Big Brother" that Amazon didn't want to be associated with Wikileaks. They probably just didn't want to be associated with a site that many consider treasonous. Not that I consider them treasonous, but I do understand the business decision.
Amazon denied that it had caved in to "a government inquiry" but declared that it had kicked WikiLeaks out because it was not adhering to the company's terms and conditions — which require that "you warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content" and "that use of the content you supply... will not cause injury to any person or entity".
"It's clear," pontificated Amazon, "that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
Are you saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to make these kinds of business decisions? If Amazon wanted to fight this battle, I would have cheered for them. If they don't, though, that's their choice, and frankly, given how hot-button and expensive it would have been, I don't blame them for letting someone else fighting it.
Or put another way, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean that I have to provide you the forum for it, especially if I feel like it would cost me a lot of money and possibly even damage my reputation for being associated with you. (And like I said, I support Wikileaks.)
This is the same Amazon that caved to big brother. Why do business with them?
What specifically are you referring to? (With some kind of citation, please. If you present some tinfoil hat kind of story, I'm going to need more than just "some random anonymous web site posted it, so it must be true!" link to believe you.)
I'd like to see a link to this because it sounds to me like the OP made it up out of his ass. Or maybe it was something that a "friend of a friend" told him about, like that time Bill Gates was giving out $1,000 to everyone who forwarded his e-mail. It's something that sounds barely plausible (like all good urban legends) so I'm not going to outright insist that it's false just now, but I sure as hell am not going to stop buying stuff from Amazon until I see some kind of evidence to back up his second anecdote.
Amazon's distribution center in Reno can hit 90% of the population of Northern California overnight with *regular* UPS shipping. If you order for regular 5-7 day delivery, they pick, pack and label your parcel, and then let it age on a warehouse shelf for a few days. If you pay for overnight or Prime, they don't age it. Amazon Prime is a racket, a profit center, not free shipping.
And you base this on... what exactly? Sounds pretty hokey and anecdotal to me. I've never used Amazon Prime before, and when I order stuff from them, it almost always gets to me within two days, three at the most. I live in Atlanta, Georgia, which is a pretty major delivery hub for the southeast, so typically packages take a day to get from point A to a delivery hub close to point A and sometimes to the Atlanta regional hub, then a day to get either to me on the truck or to my local delivery center to be delivered the next day.
I honestly can't remember the last time a package, sent via any slow-mule-to-China method on either UPS or FedEx and by anyone here in the continental U.S. taking more than three days. I think once it took four, but I might just be mistaken. I can also say with certainty that I have never had a tracked package sit on a shelf at any location for more than a day.
Have you considered the possibility that your local delivery people just don't like you?
As someone who has worked in a corporate environment for a number of years, I would say bringing someone's boss into a spat is childish enough. Bringing someone's boss in via bcc is downright shitty.
You should meet some of the people I work with. I don't disagree, but unfortunately, it's a necessary evil sometimes.
The crux of his point isn't that people don't know how to use BCC, although that's part of the problem. His point is that even for those who do know how to use BCC, recipients don't know what BCC means.
Here's a typical example of things I've had happen. Someone sends me a misguided nastygram at work over something that I have no control over. I reply to them basically saying, "I can't do anything about this, you need to contact x." Also, because I know they've been dog-cussing me over it to their boss, who is good buddies with my boss, I BCC his boss so that I can 1) let him know that the stuff he's hearing is unjustified, while simultaneously 2) trying not to agitate someone who's already bothered by looking like I'm needlessly escalating something to his boss.
Unfortunately, his boss is also a dipweed, and next thing I know, he's done a "Reply All" and said something like, "Hey, make sure you call x today, because we need this up and working for close of business."
Now, not only does the person know I sent the e-mail to his boss, but he knows that I did it surreptitiously, and he's even more pissed off than if I'd just CCed his boss on it so that he would know.
Having said that, I do wish that people would learn how to use BCC. Here's another typical scenario we have happen now and then:
Someone sends out some dumb little, "Hey everyone, we're having a party in the marketing group tomorrow, so bring in some food!" Unfortunately, they make two mistakes: 1) They accidentally send it to the entire company, including offices in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., and 2) they address it in the To: or Cc: field instead of Bcc:. Next thing I know, I'm being inundated with, "PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR DISTRIBUTION LIST!!!11!11!!" e-mails. And then after that come the inevitable deluge of, "PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ALL!!!11!11!!" e-mails. The first one isn't so bad, but then there's this global e-mail flame war that breaks out between the people saying they want to stop getting e-mails and the people who are fussing about the people who want to stop getting e-mails. Sometimes it even descends down to a third, people fussing about people fussing about people who don't want to get e-mails, level.
I never cease to be amazed by how dumb people can be.
I agree that there needs to be reform, but I disagree that video compression algorithms shouldn't be patentable.
(Emphasis mine.) I'm really glad you stated what you said using these exact words, because algorithms are specifically not patentable. That's why all of these so-called "software patents" don't mention "algorithm" in their titles, but instead use the wording "system and method."
The problem is that the way these patents are worded, the implementation is required for any implementation of the underlying algorithm. Why do you think that there has been no effort to simply create a patent-free clean-room reverse-engineered H.264 encoder, for example? Because the patents that cover H.264 have completely pre-empted the underlying algorithm; it's not possible to implement it without those patents. This is deliberate; most patent clerks who grant the patents don't understand that. If they did, they wouldn't grant the patent. Most judges and juries don't understand it either, or else they would regularly invalidate the patents. Nevertheless, most "software patents" are simply not valid, yet these companies still get away with it. I've seen references to people at MPEG believing that it is not possible to stream video over the Internet without breaking at least some of their patents. The way they've constantly threatened Theora and now VP8 without offering up any proof whatsoever indicates to me that this is indeed what they honestly believe.
To me, this is a painfully obvious indicator that the patent system is being abused on a large scale and needs to be either seriously reformed, or better yet, so-called "software patents" ruled invalid.
I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?
Two big differences.
First, algorithms are not patentable in the United States, and a lot of these so-called "software patents" are actually effectively patenting the underlying algorithm, since there's no other reasonable way to implement the algorithm. Yet they still get away with it because patent clerks don't understand that the patent application someone is filing is effectively pre-empting all implementations of the algorithm, so they approve the patent. Related to this is the issue of obviousness. Patent clerks are not able to determine with software what is and what isn't obvious. Using your analogy, it's not like you patented a better mousetrap, it's more like you patented the entire concept of rodent control. Now, if someone else builds a better mousetrap, you haul them to court.
Think about it, this is the issue with Amazon's notorious "one-click" patent. What they came up with wasn't particularly novel or clever, and because of their patent, the entire concept of "press a button to order something" is now locked away by one company.
Second, you have to bear in mind what the whole point of patents is in the first place--to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The deal is that if you're willing to write down your stuff on paper and make it public, then the power of government will protect your invention for a limited period of time so that you can make money off of it. This encourages you to do research and development and make stuff. Today, though, patent holders aren't upholding their end of the bargain. They're not using patents to promote progress of science and useful arts. No, they're using them to extort people into paying them large sums of money. They're using them to engage in extremely anticompetitive practices.
I mean, look at what is going on with the VP8 codec. MPEG-LA is essentially trying to claim patent on all streaming video technologies. It's not good enough that they have H.264, a decent codec. No, they want to make sure that no one ever comes up with a competing codec of decent quality. For years, they've been threatening that Theora infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. Now, they're threatening that VP8 infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. I can't find the quote right now, but I think I remember someone at MPEG saying at one point that they believe that any streaming video technology will likely infringe on at least some of MPEG's patents. This is most definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up patents to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Indeed, it is significantly hindering those ideals.
I wish there were some way to meaningfully reform the system, but I just don't see anything on the horizon. In 2010, patents increased by 30%, and I'll bet a wad of money that a very large proportion of those were software patents.
Software patents are evil, plain and simple. They need to go. Most of them are patenting obvious things, many of them are patenting algorithms (which are not supposed to be patentable). It flies in the face of what the purpose of patents are and are significantly hindering the progress of technology and competition.
Since when did article postings come with gratuitous flamebait in addition to the link/info? Oh wait, this is slashdot..
Since day one. Where have you been?
Also, one man's "flamebait" is another man's witty repartee. There are plenty of other news aggregator sites out there, and as you so keenly pointed out, this is Slashdot. If you don't like it, feel free to find another that you do like. Personally, I think that's a hell of a lot more practical suggestion than to try to change the nature of what Slashdot is and has been for years with what I consider a pretty gratuitous flamebaitional comment itself.
Yeah, let's give "the Government" LESS power instead. That way, instead of him being able to fight back and likely eventually get the traffic signals he is asking for like he's doing now, there will be no tax revenue for traffic signals to begin with. That way, instead of his chances being pretty good if he's willing to deal with the nuisance of this Lacy guy, they will be mathematically zero.
I'll remind you yet again that we're talking specifically about college freshmen. "Boning up" does not mean to them what you think it means.
Regardless, even in the context of what you're saying, you're just plain wrong. "Boning up" would mean, "I know how a computer works, and I'm going to take some course about programming," not learning the ins and outs of Linux or its command-line tools. Again, you make this painful assumption that people should already know the subject they're paying a lot of money to learn about.
Yes, part of it is that I genuinely didn't want the first post to be a troll saying, "Good, maybe this will finally doom Apple!"
But part of it is because both of my parents died of cancer. It was a hideous degenerative process that involved a lot of pain and anguish. As a result, whenever I hear of someone who has cancer, whether it's a really famous star or business mogul or a homeless person the street, friend, neighbor, or total stranger, my first thought is, "Oh wow, I hope they recover quickly, and if not, that they don't suffer a lot."
Also, it's basic empathy. I'm going to be undergoing surgery on Wednesday. It's nothing too terribly life-threatening, but it is on my spine, which always has an "oh my god!" risk factor associated with it of being paralyzed. Not ever having has so much as an incision or a stitch or a broken bone or anything, it's a little freaky. I run some gaming web sites that have a lot of visitors, and some of them know that I'm having the surgery. As a result, I've had random people wishing me well. And yeah, call it corny or silly or whatever, but I know it makes me feel better.
Now, I'm fairly certain that Steve Jobs will probably not see my post. Still, on the offhand chance that he does, or for other people who are having similar problems, who are you to say that it doesn't help them, knowing that random strangers out there care enough to post that?
I do agree, though, with one thing: There's definitely smugness and self-promotion going on. But in my opinion, it's coming from the "I don't have to be part of the social norm by displaying any empathy" trolls.
I hope that no matter what operating system or computer manufacturer you love or hate, everyone can come together and wish him well. Whether you love or hate what he's done in the industry, he's a fellow human being first, and I hope he has a speedy recovery.
Nice straw man. Here's a news flash for you. In your OP, you didn't say a damn thing about reading or writing. You also didn't say a damn thing about teaching methods. Both of those are completely separate conversations, some of which I might actually agree with you on.
No, you specifically referred to "looking at Linux" as the measurement of whether or not a person deserves a chance to learn more about computer science, which is, as I said, an arrogant and asinine point of view. By the way, if you think that one's proficiency with Linux directly corresponds with their ability as a computer scientist, you're sadly mistaken. I know several brilliant people who have had little or no exposure to Unix-based operating systems. Obviously, I encourage anyone who wants to go into the field to learn about Linux, but I sure as hell wouldn't classify knowing how to use vi and/or ssh as a prerequisite.
If they haven't already looked at linux, it's because they lack the innate curiosity to find out more about their chosen profession.
These are the types who will mostly not graduate beyond "I can admin a server because I know where to point and click" anyways.
Even the simplest of tools, like vi or ssh, are pretty much beyond them.
Wow, what an arrogant, asinine point of view. These are college freshmen that we're talking about here. Yes, there's a good chance that many of them have had no exposure to Linux, since statistically speaking, most college freshmen probably come from households which have only used Windows or Apple PCs. They're majoring in computer science because they want to learn about computers, not because they already know about them, duh.
I'm glad that I didn't have teachers, parents, or friends with this attitude. When I started out as a computer science major, I knew my Commodore 64 in and out, but I had maybe touched an Intel-based PC a handful of times. I was dumb as dirt too, and I didn't know a damn thing about various Unix- or PC-based editors. I was motivated, though, so I came up to speed. Believe it or not, you were dumb as dirt at one point, too. Back when vi and ssh were beyond you (and I'm 100% sure that at one point, they were), how would you have liked it had someone told you that those simple tools were pretty much beyond you, and that you probably would never graduate beyond "I can admin a server because I know where to point and click"? Such comments are completely non-productive, and irrelevant to the submitter's question.
Maybe some of them will drop out of CS. Maybe some of them really don't understand what they're in for and will leave. But then again, I'll bet that there are quite a few who are going to college to learn about stuff they want to know, not more about stuff they already knew. Some will undoubtedly be part of the next generation of people who will make fun of you someday as one of those old fogies who can't keep up with the stuff they're working on.
Hello from your fellow Ophiuchus! I was a little depressed about losing the macho points associated with having the only zodiacal symbol that was armed with a weapon until I looked up what "Ophiuchus" is. The serpent bearer, represented by a guy clutching his snake. (No, that's not a euphamism; but even if it were, it'd still be a hell of a cool sign.)
According to the definitive authority on the matter (Wikipedia):
According to Roman era mythography, the figure represents the healer Asclepius, who learned the secrets of keeping death at bay after observing one serpent bringing another healing herbs. To prevent the entire human race from becoming immortal under Asclepius' care, Zeus killed him with a bolt of lightning, but later placed his image in the heavens to honor his good works.
That's the same Asclepius whose staff (with the serpents) is the modern symbol of medicine.
I'll let others argue over whether the new Zodiac is valid (well, as "valid" as the zodiac can be...). As for me, I don't mind being an Ophiuchus. Maybe we should insist that we be referred to by its old name, Serpentarius.
its not so private as you think. if you are at work, your employer has the right (so they say and so they act) to look at your emails (live or on disk) all they want. they can tap your phone, too, at work.
If you're referring to accessing your private e-mail from a work computer, you are not correct. At least, depending on where you are, you are probably not correct. There will probably be more battles fought over this, but there's a sensible precedent to draw upon.
I'm also pretty sure that unless you sign something agreeing to have your phone calls monitored, or you are otherwise told beforehand, standard wiretapping would apply in listening in on your personal phone calls, even if placed from a work telephone. They can certainly tell who you called and when, but not what you're saying, without agreement beforehand or a subpoena.
Can they monitor this stuff? Sure, just as you can go get your neighbor's snail mail out of their mailbox and pore through it. They can't can't do it legally.
That's a nice theory, but how is H.264 "a lot of trouble"? There is no trouble here. It's free or cheap to license, pretty much every computer and device user received an H.264 license with their computer/smartphone/tablet. Content distributers don't have to pay if they don't charge for the video, and if they do, the price is small enough as to be a small operating cost. Content producers can either use the built-in H.264 support they got with their OS for consumer-grade solutions, or receive their non-consumer licenses as a few cents portion of their many hundred, if not many thousand, dollar production software.
Of course, you're completely neglecting two huge segments out there: 1) open source developers, who cannot legally distribute software they develop that implements the patented H.264 specifications, and 2) hobbyists who don't have the money to go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on commercial software that includes these licenses.
Keep on believing the whole "but it's so inexpensive!" tripe, I'm sure the major corporations who don't want any competition or threats to their business models appreciate it.
There are people of other than white race who have the exact same racist tendencies. There are neighborhoods where people get shot for being white.
Congratulations, you found me out. That was exactly the point I so cleverly hid and was trying to convey in that anecdote, that there are no racist non-whites. Yes, you're obviously just too smart to fool with all that other distracting stuff I said about anything else.
I don't have a problem with the right to bear arms, as long as 1) some kind of training is required in order to get licensed to do so, and 2) said firearms are registered and licensed.
It seems pretty damn silly that you have to be licensed to drive and register your car--primarily intended as a means of transportation--with your proof of registration (your license plate) in clear view, yet the NRA and gun nuts out there think you should be able to own an arsenal of guns--primarily intended to kill things--with zero accountability.
Quick anecdote. My grandmother, I hate to say because it was quite embarrassing, was a raving racist. I remember once when there was a "scary black man" segment on the news, she said, "They should just line them all up against a wall and shoot them!" She owned a gun. She once recounted to me about how a black man once followed her out of the local mall to her car, and he meant to "do something" to her. Knowing how paranoid my grandmother is when it came to black people, I'm almost certain it was just some average Joe walking to his car, especially since she said he kept going past her when she got into the car. Nevertheless, she told us about how she got her gun out, because if he came too close to her or the car, she was going to shoot him.
She used to sleep with the gun under the pillow. Not her pillow, mind you, but the pillow on the other side of the bed. That's all fine and good, except that at the time, she was living with my aunt and uncle, and my four-year-old cousin frequently slept in that bed. Of course it was loaded with safety off, with a four-year-old's head resting on top of the pillow it was under.
Funny enough, I'm not so afraid of someone breaking into my house looking to do me harm. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever. It's not the big, bad boogeymen that I'm afraid of. It's people like my grandmother.
Want your guns? Then just like you have to with a car, you must prove that you can use them responsibly. Just like you have to with a car, you should register them. Not so that the government can invade your house (you really think them knowing how many guns you have will stop them?), but so that when your gun is used to murder someone, the police can track you down and find out what the hell happened.
You bring up limitations on the Fourth Amendment, and in spite of your facetiousness, there are limitations on it. Hell, there are even limitations on arguably the most cherished of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and all that.) Likewise, I think it's pretty damn stupid to expect there not to be reasonable limitations on the Second Amendment.
Okay, we'll watch WebM video now, you wait until 2023 and use H.264. Well, if you can find any H.264 video on the web then - 13 years ago MPEG-1 and RealVideo were state of the art in web video, I doubt H.264 will still be competitive in 13 more years.
Okay, meanwhile, you explain to companies why somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%--and growing!--of their customers can't watch their video content without downloading some type of plug-in in a "Just Works" world. While you're at it, ask them if they'd prefer to lose only Safari users instead (<5% market share and shrinking), especially when it would be trivially easy for Apple to join the rest of the free world. Let me know when you hear back from them.
Then Google picked the wrong codec to buy/push. WebM is likely to be just as patent-encumbered as h.264, since large parts of the VP8 spec were poorly ripped from h.264's spec, or are at least similar enough to be covered by many of the same patents.
FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Worse yet, it's the same damn FUD that Microsoft repeatedly trots out to try to turn people off of Linux. "Well, we could sue everyone any time we wanted to, so you'd better not use it!"
There have been repeated calls in the community for MPEG to sue the developers of these codecs, yet MPEG has remained tellingly silent. They're not doing so because their entire business model is built around the threat of a lawsuit. Once that threat is actually executed and proven meaningless, and people realized that there is indeed a totally free and patent-unencumbered solution, they would lose so much money that it makes the actual threat of a lawsuit an exercise in their own self-destruction.
So yeah, keep FUDding away, but there's a mathematically zero chance that MPEG will sue Theora, VP8, or anyone else that they keep making vague threats against.
as soon as webm gets any kind of market share whatsoever, MPEG-LA will make good on their statement (threat) that no video codec can be developed without infringing one of their patents.
As the other poster above pointed out, this is FUD in the worst kind of way. Personally, I would love it if MPEG LA sued Google. I'm extremely confident that Google would win, and once everyone found out that The Almighty MPEG LA is full of shit, their patent portfolio would take a huge hit as everyone has definitive proof that their FUD is exactly that--FUD.
So yeah, I'll be waiting on that lawsuit, and I expect it right around the time that hell freezes over. Bring it on, MPEG LA!
also, MPEG-LA have granted the world license to use their patents for h.264 for web video. we'll see what their move is now.
The MPEG LA has granted royalty-free license to view video. It most certainly has NOT granted royalty-free license to encode video. That's a huge deal, and such licenses are where MPEG LA makes the vast majority of its money.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, just found out how the glitch worked. It was supposed to be a buy one get one of equal or lesser value free offer. But what happened is that if there was a price difference between the two items, the price of the lesser item was credited twice, effectively only charging you only the difference between the two.
So, for example, if you put two DVDs in your cart, one that cost $19.99 and one that cost $20.99, you would only be charged $1.00. The guy I referred to above apparently exploited this to get over $1,600 in DVDs for probably less than $100.
So yeah, I think Amazon was definitely in the right here, and I have zero sympathy for the scumbags. They were trying to steal, plain and simple. If they disputed the charges and had them reversed, Amazon was well within their rights to freeze their accounts, effectively refusing to provide service to a known thief. If I owned a business, I'd lock 'em out of the store, too.
The second downside is more insidious - since you've paid up front, Amazon can hold your money hostage. I saw one case a few years ago where Amazon had a dispute with a bunch of fatwallet types - Amazon shipped out 20-30 different products to a couple of hundred customers at a very low price and then changed their mind about the price after the orders were delivered. They told the buyers that they could either return the products for a refund or pay the difference in a second charge to their credit cards. Amazon even went so far as to process those second charges without getting permission.
The people who disputed the charge with their credit cards got the charges cancelled as they were never authorised in the first place. BUT Amazon then "froze" their accounts on their website. The people who had paid for Prime were SOL - sure they had the privilege of expedited shipping on any order for another ~10 months, they just couldn't place any orders. As far as I know, none of those people ever saw a penny of that Prime fee refunded.
I read the link you provided in your reply and then some. The "deal" the OP is referring to was a "buy one, get one of equal or lesser value free" offer, and was presented as such by Amazon. However, due to a glitch in their order processing system, it gave you credit multiple times for the lesser-priced of the items. The glitch was posted on a forum, and some people thought it would be clever to exploit the glitch. Reading the thread, apparently one guy ordered over $1,600 of DVDs for something like $25.
Amazon didn't "change their mind about the price." The terms were posted on the site, and any reasonable person would have known that the deal did not entail getting $1,600's worth of DVDs for $25 because of a billing glitch. Amazon simply corrected a billing error after giving people who exploited the error a very reasonable time to return the DVDs (with shipping pre-paid) if they didn't want to be charged. Some of the exploiters chose not to, Amazon billed them per the text of the offer, and a bunch of them complained that they weren't able to bilk Amazon out of thousands of dollars.
Those people were effectively trying to steal those DVDs as surely as if you knew a credit card processor at you local Best Buy is on the glitch and you thought you could get a new flat screen television for free. Personally, I'm glad Amazon didn't let them get away with it.
*rolls eyes...
I doubt it was because of "Big Brother" that Amazon didn't want to be associated with Wikileaks. They probably just didn't want to be associated with a site that many consider treasonous. Not that I consider them treasonous, but I do understand the business decision.
Amazon denied that it had caved in to "a government inquiry" but declared that it had kicked WikiLeaks out because it was not adhering to the company's terms and conditions — which require that "you warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content" and "that use of the content you supply... will not cause injury to any person or entity".
"It's clear," pontificated Amazon, "that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
Are you saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to make these kinds of business decisions? If Amazon wanted to fight this battle, I would have cheered for them. If they don't, though, that's their choice, and frankly, given how hot-button and expensive it would have been, I don't blame them for letting someone else fighting it.
Or put another way, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean that I have to provide you the forum for it, especially if I feel like it would cost me a lot of money and possibly even damage my reputation for being associated with you. (And like I said, I support Wikileaks.)
This is the same Amazon that caved to big brother. Why do business with them?
What specifically are you referring to? (With some kind of citation, please. If you present some tinfoil hat kind of story, I'm going to need more than just "some random anonymous web site posted it, so it must be true!" link to believe you.)
I'd like to see a link to this because it sounds to me like the OP made it up out of his ass. Or maybe it was something that a "friend of a friend" told him about, like that time Bill Gates was giving out $1,000 to everyone who forwarded his e-mail. It's something that sounds barely plausible (like all good urban legends) so I'm not going to outright insist that it's false just now, but I sure as hell am not going to stop buying stuff from Amazon until I see some kind of evidence to back up his second anecdote.
Amazon's distribution center in Reno can hit 90% of the population of Northern California overnight with *regular* UPS shipping. If you order for regular 5-7 day delivery, they pick, pack and label your parcel, and then let it age on a warehouse shelf for a few days. If you pay for overnight or Prime, they don't age it. Amazon Prime is a racket, a profit center, not free shipping.
And you base this on... what exactly? Sounds pretty hokey and anecdotal to me. I've never used Amazon Prime before, and when I order stuff from them, it almost always gets to me within two days, three at the most. I live in Atlanta, Georgia, which is a pretty major delivery hub for the southeast, so typically packages take a day to get from point A to a delivery hub close to point A and sometimes to the Atlanta regional hub, then a day to get either to me on the truck or to my local delivery center to be delivered the next day.
I honestly can't remember the last time a package, sent via any slow-mule-to-China method on either UPS or FedEx and by anyone here in the continental U.S. taking more than three days. I think once it took four, but I might just be mistaken. I can also say with certainty that I have never had a tracked package sit on a shelf at any location for more than a day.
Have you considered the possibility that your local delivery people just don't like you?
As someone who has worked in a corporate environment for a number of years, I would say bringing someone's boss into a spat is childish enough. Bringing someone's boss in via bcc is downright shitty.
You should meet some of the people I work with. I don't disagree, but unfortunately, it's a necessary evil sometimes.
The crux of his point isn't that people don't know how to use BCC, although that's part of the problem. His point is that even for those who do know how to use BCC, recipients don't know what BCC means.
Here's a typical example of things I've had happen. Someone sends me a misguided nastygram at work over something that I have no control over. I reply to them basically saying, "I can't do anything about this, you need to contact x." Also, because I know they've been dog-cussing me over it to their boss, who is good buddies with my boss, I BCC his boss so that I can 1) let him know that the stuff he's hearing is unjustified, while simultaneously 2) trying not to agitate someone who's already bothered by looking like I'm needlessly escalating something to his boss.
Unfortunately, his boss is also a dipweed, and next thing I know, he's done a "Reply All" and said something like, "Hey, make sure you call x today, because we need this up and working for close of business."
Now, not only does the person know I sent the e-mail to his boss, but he knows that I did it surreptitiously, and he's even more pissed off than if I'd just CCed his boss on it so that he would know.
Having said that, I do wish that people would learn how to use BCC. Here's another typical scenario we have happen now and then:
Someone sends out some dumb little, "Hey everyone, we're having a party in the marketing group tomorrow, so bring in some food!" Unfortunately, they make two mistakes: 1) They accidentally send it to the entire company, including offices in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., and 2) they address it in the To: or Cc: field instead of Bcc:. Next thing I know, I'm being inundated with, "PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR DISTRIBUTION LIST!!!11!11!!" e-mails. And then after that come the inevitable deluge of, "PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ALL!!!11!11!!" e-mails. The first one isn't so bad, but then there's this global e-mail flame war that breaks out between the people saying they want to stop getting e-mails and the people who are fussing about the people who want to stop getting e-mails. Sometimes it even descends down to a third, people fussing about people fussing about people who don't want to get e-mails, level.
I never cease to be amazed by how dumb people can be.
I agree that there needs to be reform, but I disagree that video compression algorithms shouldn't be patentable.
(Emphasis mine.) I'm really glad you stated what you said using these exact words, because algorithms are specifically not patentable. That's why all of these so-called "software patents" don't mention "algorithm" in their titles, but instead use the wording "system and method."
The problem is that the way these patents are worded, the implementation is required for any implementation of the underlying algorithm. Why do you think that there has been no effort to simply create a patent-free clean-room reverse-engineered H.264 encoder, for example? Because the patents that cover H.264 have completely pre-empted the underlying algorithm; it's not possible to implement it without those patents. This is deliberate; most patent clerks who grant the patents don't understand that. If they did, they wouldn't grant the patent. Most judges and juries don't understand it either, or else they would regularly invalidate the patents. Nevertheless, most "software patents" are simply not valid, yet these companies still get away with it. I've seen references to people at MPEG believing that it is not possible to stream video over the Internet without breaking at least some of their patents. The way they've constantly threatened Theora and now VP8 without offering up any proof whatsoever indicates to me that this is indeed what they honestly believe.
To me, this is a painfully obvious indicator that the patent system is being abused on a large scale and needs to be either seriously reformed, or better yet, so-called "software patents" ruled invalid.
I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?
Two big differences.
First, algorithms are not patentable in the United States, and a lot of these so-called "software patents" are actually effectively patenting the underlying algorithm, since there's no other reasonable way to implement the algorithm. Yet they still get away with it because patent clerks don't understand that the patent application someone is filing is effectively pre-empting all implementations of the algorithm, so they approve the patent. Related to this is the issue of obviousness. Patent clerks are not able to determine with software what is and what isn't obvious. Using your analogy, it's not like you patented a better mousetrap, it's more like you patented the entire concept of rodent control. Now, if someone else builds a better mousetrap, you haul them to court.
Think about it, this is the issue with Amazon's notorious "one-click" patent. What they came up with wasn't particularly novel or clever, and because of their patent, the entire concept of "press a button to order something" is now locked away by one company.
Second, you have to bear in mind what the whole point of patents is in the first place--to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The deal is that if you're willing to write down your stuff on paper and make it public, then the power of government will protect your invention for a limited period of time so that you can make money off of it. This encourages you to do research and development and make stuff. Today, though, patent holders aren't upholding their end of the bargain. They're not using patents to promote progress of science and useful arts. No, they're using them to extort people into paying them large sums of money. They're using them to engage in extremely anticompetitive practices.
I mean, look at what is going on with the VP8 codec. MPEG-LA is essentially trying to claim patent on all streaming video technologies. It's not good enough that they have H.264, a decent codec. No, they want to make sure that no one ever comes up with a competing codec of decent quality. For years, they've been threatening that Theora infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. Now, they're threatening that VP8 infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. I can't find the quote right now, but I think I remember someone at MPEG saying at one point that they believe that any streaming video technology will likely infringe on at least some of MPEG's patents. This is most definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up patents to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Indeed, it is significantly hindering those ideals.
I wish there were some way to meaningfully reform the system, but I just don't see anything on the horizon. In 2010, patents increased by 30%, and I'll bet a wad of money that a very large proportion of those were software patents.
Software patents are evil, plain and simple. They need to go. Most of them are patenting obvious things, many of them are patenting algorithms (which are not supposed to be patentable). It flies in the face of what the purpose of patents are and are significantly hindering the progress of technology and competition.
Since when did article postings come with gratuitous flamebait in addition to the link/info? Oh wait, this is slashdot..
Since day one. Where have you been?
Also, one man's "flamebait" is another man's witty repartee. There are plenty of other news aggregator sites out there, and as you so keenly pointed out, this is Slashdot. If you don't like it, feel free to find another that you do like. Personally, I think that's a hell of a lot more practical suggestion than to try to change the nature of what Slashdot is and has been for years with what I consider a pretty gratuitous flamebaitional comment itself.
What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, let's give "the Government" LESS power instead. That way, instead of him being able to fight back and likely eventually get the traffic signals he is asking for like he's doing now, there will be no tax revenue for traffic signals to begin with. That way, instead of his chances being pretty good if he's willing to deal with the nuisance of this Lacy guy, they will be mathematically zero.
Yup, that's the answer.
I'll remind you yet again that we're talking specifically about college freshmen. "Boning up" does not mean to them what you think it means.
Regardless, even in the context of what you're saying, you're just plain wrong. "Boning up" would mean, "I know how a computer works, and I'm going to take some course about programming," not learning the ins and outs of Linux or its command-line tools. Again, you make this painful assumption that people should already know the subject they're paying a lot of money to learn about.
This is as good a place to respond as any.
Yes, part of it is that I genuinely didn't want the first post to be a troll saying, "Good, maybe this will finally doom Apple!"
But part of it is because both of my parents died of cancer. It was a hideous degenerative process that involved a lot of pain and anguish. As a result, whenever I hear of someone who has cancer, whether it's a really famous star or business mogul or a homeless person the street, friend, neighbor, or total stranger, my first thought is, "Oh wow, I hope they recover quickly, and if not, that they don't suffer a lot."
Also, it's basic empathy. I'm going to be undergoing surgery on Wednesday. It's nothing too terribly life-threatening, but it is on my spine, which always has an "oh my god!" risk factor associated with it of being paralyzed. Not ever having has so much as an incision or a stitch or a broken bone or anything, it's a little freaky. I run some gaming web sites that have a lot of visitors, and some of them know that I'm having the surgery. As a result, I've had random people wishing me well. And yeah, call it corny or silly or whatever, but I know it makes me feel better.
Now, I'm fairly certain that Steve Jobs will probably not see my post. Still, on the offhand chance that he does, or for other people who are having similar problems, who are you to say that it doesn't help them, knowing that random strangers out there care enough to post that?
I do agree, though, with one thing: There's definitely smugness and self-promotion going on. But in my opinion, it's coming from the "I don't have to be part of the social norm by displaying any empathy" trolls.
I hope that no matter what operating system or computer manufacturer you love or hate, everyone can come together and wish him well. Whether you love or hate what he's done in the industry, he's a fellow human being first, and I hope he has a speedy recovery.
Nice straw man. Here's a news flash for you. In your OP, you didn't say a damn thing about reading or writing. You also didn't say a damn thing about teaching methods. Both of those are completely separate conversations, some of which I might actually agree with you on.
No, you specifically referred to "looking at Linux" as the measurement of whether or not a person deserves a chance to learn more about computer science, which is, as I said, an arrogant and asinine point of view. By the way, if you think that one's proficiency with Linux directly corresponds with their ability as a computer scientist, you're sadly mistaken. I know several brilliant people who have had little or no exposure to Unix-based operating systems. Obviously, I encourage anyone who wants to go into the field to learn about Linux, but I sure as hell wouldn't classify knowing how to use vi and/or ssh as a prerequisite.
If they haven't already looked at linux, it's because they lack the innate curiosity to find out more about their chosen profession.
These are the types who will mostly not graduate beyond "I can admin a server because I know where to point and click" anyways.
Even the simplest of tools, like vi or ssh, are pretty much beyond them.
Wow, what an arrogant, asinine point of view. These are college freshmen that we're talking about here. Yes, there's a good chance that many of them have had no exposure to Linux, since statistically speaking, most college freshmen probably come from households which have only used Windows or Apple PCs. They're majoring in computer science because they want to learn about computers, not because they already know about them, duh.
I'm glad that I didn't have teachers, parents, or friends with this attitude. When I started out as a computer science major, I knew my Commodore 64 in and out, but I had maybe touched an Intel-based PC a handful of times. I was dumb as dirt too, and I didn't know a damn thing about various Unix- or PC-based editors. I was motivated, though, so I came up to speed. Believe it or not, you were dumb as dirt at one point, too. Back when vi and ssh were beyond you (and I'm 100% sure that at one point, they were), how would you have liked it had someone told you that those simple tools were pretty much beyond you, and that you probably would never graduate beyond "I can admin a server because I know where to point and click"? Such comments are completely non-productive, and irrelevant to the submitter's question.
Maybe some of them will drop out of CS. Maybe some of them really don't understand what they're in for and will leave. But then again, I'll bet that there are quite a few who are going to college to learn about stuff they want to know, not more about stuff they already knew. Some will undoubtedly be part of the next generation of people who will make fun of you someday as one of those old fogies who can't keep up with the stuff they're working on.
Hello from your fellow Ophiuchus! I was a little depressed about losing the macho points associated with having the only zodiacal symbol that was armed with a weapon until I looked up what "Ophiuchus" is. The serpent bearer, represented by a guy clutching his snake. (No, that's not a euphamism; but even if it were, it'd still be a hell of a cool sign.)
According to the definitive authority on the matter (Wikipedia):
According to Roman era mythography, the figure represents the healer Asclepius, who learned the secrets of keeping death at bay after observing one serpent bringing another healing herbs. To prevent the entire human race from becoming immortal under Asclepius' care, Zeus killed him with a bolt of lightning, but later placed his image in the heavens to honor his good works.
That's the same Asclepius whose staff (with the serpents) is the modern symbol of medicine.
I'll let others argue over whether the new Zodiac is valid (well, as "valid" as the zodiac can be...). As for me, I don't mind being an Ophiuchus. Maybe we should insist that we be referred to by its old name, Serpentarius.
its not so private as you think. if you are at work, your employer has the right (so they say and so they act) to look at your emails (live or on disk) all they want. they can tap your phone, too, at work.
If you're referring to accessing your private e-mail from a work computer, you are not correct. At least, depending on where you are, you are probably not correct. There will probably be more battles fought over this, but there's a sensible precedent to draw upon.
I'm also pretty sure that unless you sign something agreeing to have your phone calls monitored, or you are otherwise told beforehand, standard wiretapping would apply in listening in on your personal phone calls, even if placed from a work telephone. They can certainly tell who you called and when, but not what you're saying, without agreement beforehand or a subpoena.
Can they monitor this stuff? Sure, just as you can go get your neighbor's snail mail out of their mailbox and pore through it. They can't can't do it legally.
That's a nice theory, but how is H.264 "a lot of trouble"? There is no trouble here. It's free or cheap to license, pretty much every computer and device user received an H.264 license with their computer/smartphone/tablet. Content distributers don't have to pay if they don't charge for the video, and if they do, the price is small enough as to be a small operating cost. Content producers can either use the built-in H.264 support they got with their OS for consumer-grade solutions, or receive their non-consumer licenses as a few cents portion of their many hundred, if not many thousand, dollar production software.
Of course, you're completely neglecting two huge segments out there: 1) open source developers, who cannot legally distribute software they develop that implements the patented H.264 specifications, and 2) hobbyists who don't have the money to go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on commercial software that includes these licenses.
Keep on believing the whole "but it's so inexpensive!" tripe, I'm sure the major corporations who don't want any competition or threats to their business models appreciate it.
There are people of other than white race who have the exact same racist tendencies. There are neighborhoods where people get shot for being white.
Congratulations, you found me out. That was exactly the point I so cleverly hid and was trying to convey in that anecdote, that there are no racist non-whites. Yes, you're obviously just too smart to fool with all that other distracting stuff I said about anything else.
I don't have a problem with the right to bear arms, as long as 1) some kind of training is required in order to get licensed to do so, and 2) said firearms are registered and licensed.
It seems pretty damn silly that you have to be licensed to drive and register your car--primarily intended as a means of transportation--with your proof of registration (your license plate) in clear view, yet the NRA and gun nuts out there think you should be able to own an arsenal of guns--primarily intended to kill things--with zero accountability.
Quick anecdote. My grandmother, I hate to say because it was quite embarrassing, was a raving racist. I remember once when there was a "scary black man" segment on the news, she said, "They should just line them all up against a wall and shoot them!" She owned a gun. She once recounted to me about how a black man once followed her out of the local mall to her car, and he meant to "do something" to her. Knowing how paranoid my grandmother is when it came to black people, I'm almost certain it was just some average Joe walking to his car, especially since she said he kept going past her when she got into the car. Nevertheless, she told us about how she got her gun out, because if he came too close to her or the car, she was going to shoot him.
She used to sleep with the gun under the pillow. Not her pillow, mind you, but the pillow on the other side of the bed. That's all fine and good, except that at the time, she was living with my aunt and uncle, and my four-year-old cousin frequently slept in that bed. Of course it was loaded with safety off, with a four-year-old's head resting on top of the pillow it was under.
Funny enough, I'm not so afraid of someone breaking into my house looking to do me harm. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever. It's not the big, bad boogeymen that I'm afraid of. It's people like my grandmother.
Want your guns? Then just like you have to with a car, you must prove that you can use them responsibly. Just like you have to with a car, you should register them. Not so that the government can invade your house (you really think them knowing how many guns you have will stop them?), but so that when your gun is used to murder someone, the police can track you down and find out what the hell happened.
You bring up limitations on the Fourth Amendment, and in spite of your facetiousness, there are limitations on it. Hell, there are even limitations on arguably the most cherished of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech. (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and all that.) Likewise, I think it's pretty damn stupid to expect there not to be reasonable limitations on the Second Amendment.
Okay, we'll watch WebM video now, you wait until 2023 and use H.264. Well, if you can find any H.264 video on the web then - 13 years ago MPEG-1 and RealVideo were state of the art in web video, I doubt H.264 will still be competitive in 13 more years.
Okay, meanwhile, you explain to companies why somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%--and growing!--of their customers can't watch their video content without downloading some type of plug-in in a "Just Works" world. While you're at it, ask them if they'd prefer to lose only Safari users instead (<5% market share and shrinking), especially when it would be trivially easy for Apple to join the rest of the free world. Let me know when you hear back from them.
Then Google picked the wrong codec to buy/push. WebM is likely to be just as patent-encumbered as h.264, since large parts of the VP8 spec were poorly ripped from h.264's spec, or are at least similar enough to be covered by many of the same patents.
FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Worse yet, it's the same damn FUD that Microsoft repeatedly trots out to try to turn people off of Linux. "Well, we could sue everyone any time we wanted to, so you'd better not use it!"
There have been repeated calls in the community for MPEG to sue the developers of these codecs, yet MPEG has remained tellingly silent. They're not doing so because their entire business model is built around the threat of a lawsuit. Once that threat is actually executed and proven meaningless, and people realized that there is indeed a totally free and patent-unencumbered solution, they would lose so much money that it makes the actual threat of a lawsuit an exercise in their own self-destruction.
So yeah, keep FUDding away, but there's a mathematically zero chance that MPEG will sue Theora, VP8, or anyone else that they keep making vague threats against.
as soon as webm gets any kind of market share whatsoever, MPEG-LA will make good on their statement (threat) that no video codec can be developed without infringing one of their patents.
As the other poster above pointed out, this is FUD in the worst kind of way. Personally, I would love it if MPEG LA sued Google. I'm extremely confident that Google would win, and once everyone found out that The Almighty MPEG LA is full of shit, their patent portfolio would take a huge hit as everyone has definitive proof that their FUD is exactly that--FUD.
So yeah, I'll be waiting on that lawsuit, and I expect it right around the time that hell freezes over. Bring it on, MPEG LA!
also, MPEG-LA have granted the world license to use their patents for h.264 for web video. we'll see what their move is now.
The MPEG LA has granted royalty-free license to view video. It most certainly has NOT granted royalty-free license to encode video. That's a huge deal, and such licenses are where MPEG LA makes the vast majority of its money.