I think that the GP poster meant that older versions of Real Player were so invasive that people lost interest in using it and never came back. I did, but only after a long time and because I needed it to watch BBC news. Then, I had discovered that it wasn't as bad as it used to be (it didn't try to take over my desktop), but I bet a lot of people only remember what it used to be like and refuse to use it.
I hope that you have a terrific product with no competitors.
The problem I see is that some people will not switch to IE even if it's available (whether for politics, perceived security or whatever); others will be unable (Mac, Linux); others might not have the right version of IE installed...
Unless your product really is a killer, many of these will simply walk away and go somewhere else, quite possibly to a competitor. Being IE only doesn't help to increase your "market traction" (is that the phrase these days?) unless you are totally dominant in your market. For every complaint, many customers will just go away never to be heard of and never to be seen again.
If I was a shareholder, I would be concerned about your bosses attitude. If people wanted to give my company money and a business decision like that could be preventing them, I would be asking questions.
If a DVD is sold as a DVD (and this can be implied - like for example, being sold with other DVD's or not having obvious labels saying that it isn't a DVD. Consider: "would a reasonable person expect this to play in their DVD player?") then it should work in a DVD player. It is misrepresentation and a breach of contract law (the contract between the customer [I pay you £X.XX's] and the retailer {I provide you with this DVD which is of merchantable quality"] if it doesn't. It also fails the Sale of Goods Act which says that goods must be of merchantable quality, ie, a DVD should play in a DVD player - I think that's perfectly reasonable. I do not buy DVD's expecting them only to sit on the shelf while I admire the cover art-work. I expect to watch them in a DVD player. Call me radical if you want but most people would probably expect that.
If retail loses out, then they need to take it up with the manufacturer. A customers sale contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer (unless they bought direct), and it is the retailer who has to bear the brunt of the breached contract. Then the retailer has to sort matters out with the manufacturer because they have a contract with them.
If retailers do not like having to obey the laws of the land, then tough.
IIRC correctly (and IANAL but I studied it a number of years ago) the thing to mention is the "Sale of Goods Act". New goods which are sold should be of "merchantable quality" - they are meant to do the thing they are supposed to. The test case for this was someone advertising walking boots which let in lots of water - they were unfit for what they were supposed to do and the customer got a refund. If something that to all intents and purposes is a DVD does not play in a DVD player (and the DVD player is not at fault), then the DVD is not of "merchantable quality" and the customer is entitled to a full refund if they choose.
Mentioning the above act and saying (of the DVD) "it's not of merchantable quality" in England and Wales usually gets results very quickly.
Only three people have been killed because they didn't look to see if there was oncoming traffic? Man, we ought to make iPods compulsory to improve the gene pool.
Some publications might pay: although they stopped doing it last year, I've been paid by the British Medical Journal for a review (about £50.00 so it wasn't for the money - a surprising amount of time needs to be dedicated to a good review). Having said that, it's the only time I've ever come across the arrangement.
Perhaps it might be more instructive to first teach children what a good theory is (and is not). If 'Frosty' had been taught this small but essential piece of information, he might have developed some critical analysis skills instead of being a fundamentalist zombie.
I heard the civil service described as a "velvet-lined rut". Everyone is always talking of leaving, but very few make the break because the leave and other perks are just too good.
It's a very good point and one lost in the desire to present "balanced" items in the popular media. Journo's often don't realise that the consensus of opinion may have two opposing viewpoints and not just one. Of course, for their job, it's easier to simply seek out someone who disagrees ("this it totally wrong!") rather than the other extreme ("it doesn't go far enough!").
The result is that the public imagines that there are two consensuses (consensi?) battling it out with equal veracity, rather than seeing that there is one consensus and two sets of fringes. Without seeing the other extreme, it's difficult to assess the variance in the debate.
The further consequence is that the public then attributes equal worth to both sides (particularly if both are given equal air time), regardless of how nutty one or both sides are. To decide, they jump on their gut feeling rather than seeing where a strength of informed opinion lies.
You can see this in how scientists predicting negative environmental consequences for our lifestyles are labelled as part of a "conspiracy". If they could see both sides of nutjobs, they would realise that the middle really is the middle and not a fringe in itself.
If the Indians have such a long history of being capitalists (which I do not disagree with), surely a zero-cost OS with completely unrestricted access to the internals will be seen as a good thing? If you consider the OS to be the environment rather than the product, you will see that it is far more efficient to develop on an open source operating system than a proprietary one. Think "commodity operating system". The rest of the world initially thought Linux to be unattractive: a communist thing that demanded people work for no pay, a joke system created by clueless crackers, or a worthless pile of unreliable and obscure junk. Since then, many companies around the world (yes, even the US which - believe it or not - is [generally] capitalist too) have begun taking Linux on. Why? Because it improves the bottom line. It's as simple as that. Capitalism in action.
In a busy boardroom of a company that, well, uses industrial tubes.
MD: "Ok folks! We need to buy 3 miles of indutrial tubing to complete this job, get paid, and then we can have our bonuses for working hard!" Lackey1: "Ok boss! I'll just go to U-Tube to buy the tubing." MD: "Good one lackey1. You make sure we place that order by 5.00pm tonight." Lackey1 goes off to his computer in his office. Lackey1: "Duh, ok! Let's type in youtube.com and order them tubes."
Watches screen.
Lackey1: "Hey! There's a video of some fat guy miming to Shakira!"
Later, in boardroom at 5.00pm.
MD: "So did you order those tubes we need to make money and get bonuses?" Lackey1: "Duh, no boss! All I could find was videos of people! They didn't sell no tubing!" MD: "What the f___?!?!" Lackey1: "S'true I tells yah! I typed in youtube.com and never realised that it was the wrong website. That honestly never occurred to me!" MD: "Gahh! We're going to go bust! If only we could have found u-tube's website, we'd have been rich! Wahhhhh! I want my mommy!"
Google: "We host blogs"
World: "Some are racist - you're evil!"
Google: "We won't remove them unless a court tells us"
World: "You're letting them stay? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll take them down."
World: "Infringing freedom of speech like in China, eh? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we won't take them down."
World: "But they're racist. You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll wait for a review by a court."
World: "So you're condoning racism? You're evil!"
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying Chavez is a fascist?
Wish I had mod points for you.
I think that the GP poster meant that older versions of Real Player were so invasive that people lost interest in using it and never came back. I did, but only after a long time and because I needed it to watch BBC news. Then, I had discovered that it wasn't as bad as it used to be (it didn't try to take over my desktop), but I bet a lot of people only remember what it used to be like and refuse to use it.
I hope that you have a terrific product with no competitors.
The problem I see is that some people will not switch to IE even if it's available (whether for politics, perceived security or whatever); others will be unable (Mac, Linux); others might not have the right version of IE installed...
Unless your product really is a killer, many of these will simply walk away and go somewhere else, quite possibly to a competitor. Being IE only doesn't help to increase your "market traction" (is that the phrase these days?) unless you are totally dominant in your market. For every complaint, many customers will just go away never to be heard of and never to be seen again.
If I was a shareholder, I would be concerned about your bosses attitude. If people wanted to give my company money and a business decision like that could be preventing them, I would be asking questions.
If a DVD is sold as a DVD (and this can be implied - like for example, being sold with other DVD's or not having obvious labels saying that it isn't a DVD. Consider: "would a reasonable person expect this to play in their DVD player?") then it should work in a DVD player. It is misrepresentation and a breach of contract law (the contract between the customer [I pay you £X.XX's] and the retailer {I provide you with this DVD which is of merchantable quality"] if it doesn't. It also fails the Sale of Goods Act which says that goods must be of merchantable quality, ie, a DVD should play in a DVD player - I think that's perfectly reasonable. I do not buy DVD's expecting them only to sit on the shelf while I admire the cover art-work. I expect to watch them in a DVD player. Call me radical if you want but most people would probably expect that.
If retail loses out, then they need to take it up with the manufacturer. A customers sale contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer (unless they bought direct), and it is the retailer who has to bear the brunt of the breached contract. Then the retailer has to sort matters out with the manufacturer because they have a contract with them.
If retailers do not like having to obey the laws of the land, then tough.
IIRC correctly (and IANAL but I studied it a number of years ago) the thing to mention is the "Sale of Goods Act". New goods which are sold should be of "merchantable quality" - they are meant to do the thing they are supposed to. The test case for this was someone advertising walking boots which let in lots of water - they were unfit for what they were supposed to do and the customer got a refund. If something that to all intents and purposes is a DVD does not play in a DVD player (and the DVD player is not at fault), then the DVD is not of "merchantable quality" and the customer is entitled to a full refund if they choose.
Mentioning the above act and saying (of the DVD) "it's not of merchantable quality" in England and Wales usually gets results very quickly.
They would have been better just spanking it, surely?
btw - joke
I concur. I always give out false addresses whenever some website asks for mine.
On an unrelated note, has anyone noticed how slow Amazon are in delivering things?
Some publications might pay: although they stopped doing it last year, I've been paid by the British Medical Journal for a review (about £50.00 so it wasn't for the money - a surprising amount of time needs to be dedicated to a good review). Having said that, it's the only time I've ever come across the arrangement.
Perhaps it might be more instructive to first teach children what a good theory is (and is not). If 'Frosty' had been taught this small but essential piece of information, he might have developed some critical analysis skills instead of being a fundamentalist zombie.
Would I be right in thinking that multiple clicks from the same IP are evidence of click fraud? Would that cause them problems?
If so, remember everybody, don't click multiple times on the ad. That would be naughty.
Sigh - spoken like a true Brit. I feel homesick...
I thought you spelt it, "Howard"?
No, no, NO! It has to have "tux" in there - so everyone knows that the new Linux package manager is for Linux!
I heard the civil service described as a "velvet-lined rut". Everyone is always talking of leaving, but very few make the break because the leave and other perks are just too good.
Huh! Oberon always gets ignored... ;-)
The result is that the public imagines that there are two consensuses (consensi?) battling it out with equal veracity, rather than seeing that there is one consensus and two sets of fringes. Without seeing the other extreme, it's difficult to assess the variance in the debate.
The further consequence is that the public then attributes equal worth to both sides (particularly if both are given equal air time), regardless of how nutty one or both sides are. To decide, they jump on their gut feeling rather than seeing where a strength of informed opinion lies.
You can see this in how scientists predicting negative environmental consequences for our lifestyles are labelled as part of a "conspiracy". If they could see both sides of nutjobs, they would realise that the middle really is the middle and not a fringe in itself.
If the Indians have such a long history of being capitalists (which I do not disagree with), surely a zero-cost OS with completely unrestricted access to the internals will be seen as a good thing? If you consider the OS to be the environment rather than the product, you will see that it is far more efficient to develop on an open source operating system than a proprietary one. Think "commodity operating system". The rest of the world initially thought Linux to be unattractive: a communist thing that demanded people work for no pay, a joke system created by clueless crackers, or a worthless pile of unreliable and obscure junk. Since then, many companies around the world (yes, even the US which - believe it or not - is [generally] capitalist too) have begun taking Linux on. Why? Because it improves the bottom line. It's as simple as that. Capitalism in action.
Yeah! You tell him!
Freedom of speech has NO place in the USA! How dare the OP disgree with you!!
In a busy boardroom of a company that, well, uses industrial tubes.
MD: "Ok folks! We need to buy 3 miles of indutrial tubing to complete this job, get paid, and then we can have our bonuses for working hard!"
Lackey1: "Ok boss! I'll just go to U-Tube to buy the tubing."
MD: "Good one lackey1. You make sure we place that order by 5.00pm tonight."
Lackey1 goes off to his computer in his office.
Lackey1: "Duh, ok! Let's type in youtube.com and order them tubes."
Watches screen.
Lackey1: "Hey! There's a video of some fat guy miming to Shakira!"
Later, in boardroom at 5.00pm.
MD: "So did you order those tubes we need to make money and get bonuses?"
Lackey1: "Duh, no boss! All I could find was videos of people! They didn't sell no tubing!"
MD: "What the f___?!?!"
Lackey1: "S'true I tells yah! I typed in youtube.com and never realised that it was the wrong website. That honestly never occurred to me!"
MD: "Gahh! We're going to go bust! If only we could have found u-tube's website, we'd have been rich! Wahhhhh! I want my mommy!"
No it's okay. Instead of oral, our Tony prefers getting the reach-around from GW while getting XXXX up his XXX.
World: "Some are racist - you're evil!"
Google: "We won't remove them unless a court tells us"
World: "You're letting them stay? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll take them down."
World: "Infringing freedom of speech like in China, eh? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we won't take them down."
World: "But they're racist. You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll wait for a review by a court."
World: "So you're condoning racism? You're evil!"
Sometimes even I feel for corporations...
Maybe the poster needs rescueing? It sounds like he/she is imprisonsed in a cubicle of doom and guarded by a boss with +5 pointy hair.
Born, eat, shag, die.