I've said this before in other "a la carte" threads, but: Who says which channels are crap? I may not watch the 10 golf channels, but I suppose someone else does.
The problem with a la carte pricing is that cable providers will start making deals with the content providers (or the other way around) where the cable provider has to guarantee X number of subscribers or they won't carry the channel. After all, if no one watches ESPN Golf 3, why should the cable company pay ESPN to carry it? The bigger problem comes when you're the only one watching a channel and the cable company removes it. Everyone will then get upset that their favorite channel was taken away... and you know that the people who complain will be the ones who don't know about Hulu or other Internet-based services.
1) If the buyer has ANY doubt at all, especially when paying $500 for a box or picture or whatever, why didn't he contact the seller first? Like the example posted by theangryetailer: is it really fraud if a person list a videotape for sale, the customer orders it, and then complains he wanted a DVD? Why didn't the customer ask if the seller had a DVD before ordering?
So, yes, I think buyers need to take on some responsibility, again, especially when they're paying $500 for something.
2) In my years on the Internet, I've found the PayPal is quick to offer a refund to a customer, especially when that customer calls his credit card company and says the PayPal transaction is fraud. At that point, the credit card company takes the money from PayPal, so PayPal has to take the money from the seller. There's no discussion about how the seller was selling something correcting, nor is there any appeal: PayPal lost their money, so the seller will lose the money also.
And, yes, this is how buyers can scam sellers.
Some people are claiming that this is a scam because this seller intentionally put the item in the wrong category to confuse people. In my opinion, the seller put the photo in the Video Game section because he was selling to that market. How many people would have seen it in the Photo section? For example, if you're selling a comic book from the 1940's, do you put it in Comic Books, Collectibles, or Rare Items? (Sorry, I don't know the exact category names.) You choose the category where you think will get the best results.
It's a test to see how far they can push civil liberties
The real "apology" should be: "We're sorry everyone is irritated, but every few years we need to push the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure and people's civil liberties to see who would push back against this policy. The test was a success: we found that people don't like to be passively searched. We'll adjust our technique and try again in a few more years. Again, thank you for your voluntary, but coerced, participation."
And as is always the case in situations like this, people are well within their rights to leave, but who's going to argue with someone with a gun and power of arrest? As soon as you leave, the cop could decide to charge you with speeding away, reckless driving, endangering people, or anything else. Or he might be having a bad day (or resent that he's been assigned to this duty) and he's going to liven up his day by handing out tickets to anyone who doesn't listen to him.
Look at it from supply and demand: if you were downloading a movie on The Pirate Bay, which would you rather have: a crappy camcorded movie with horrible audio and people coughing in the background or the HD 1080i, Dolby 7.2 version burned from a screener's Blue-Ray? And as uploaders quickly get "downvoted" because of their crappy camcorded copy, they'll stop uploading. And if there's no market for camcorded movies, why do it at all? There we go- the "problem" of camcording movies has solved itself.
Until the MPAA cracks down on the leaks from their screeners (or leaks of the studio's own master copy), then I don't want to hear about the "evils" of camcording.
I think it was only a matter of time until we saw something like this. After all, if the US government can influence other countries' use of the Internet (based on policy from the MPAA and RIAA), then why shouldn't other countries do the same?
I'm just waiting for the day when a US official says China or North Korea or Iran is being "outrageous" about trying to control the internet when it's the US who puts pressure on other countries to enforce copyrights.
Pick a name that has something to do with Washington
I think at this point, the owner is being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.
No matter what people might think of the word "Redskins", the fact of the matter is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Washington DC. Why not use a name like "Senators" (baseball) or "Capitals" (hockey)? Technically "Wizards" (basketball) doesn't fit either, but it's better than "Bullets".
And why doesn't someone fight the name-changing battle from this angle (and maybe appeal to the owner's vanity of picking his own Washington-related name) instead of beating him up over a racially-charged word. Like I said, he's stubborn and more people who fight him, the more he'll stand his ground and defend his position.
Here's a radical idea: legalize it, but tax it to death. How many people will shop at the Silk Road simply because it's illegal and the government tells them not to? How many people will shop at the Silk Road when they realize they have to pay a 60% sales tax? The vendors selling there can lower the prices all they want, but customers won't want to pay the high sales tax... and look what happens: the government kills the business without making anything illegal.
It's like the argument for legalizing marijuana: the government gets income from taxes, it doesn't have to spend money on arresting people and moving them through the criminal justice system, and it can regulate quality. This happened with Prohibition in the 1920's, so why can't the government learn from it?
This seems like it should be a story on computer security not a story on Snowden.
It goes back to the fact that sys admins are an authority figure in most companies, which means people will give them their login information without thinking about it. After all, it's the company's property and the company's computer, so why shouldn't the employees let the sys admin have their login information? Do employees have any right to privacy on their work computers while in the office? If not, then why is this even a story?
Because it's yet another non-story to distract from the larger issue. And if the NSA can discredit Snowden as a "password thief" then less people may believe what he has to say.
As tech-savvy people, we should get the word out that sharing passwords with the sys admin is very common.
[sarcasm] Well of course the TSA is correct. After all, this is a great approach for a terrorist: first, plant a bomb on a 3 year-old and claim it's a medical condition. Next, tell the TSA agent about the condition and that you're bringing "formula" (which is actually explosive) onto the plane. Then comes the masterful part of the plan: after you've been caught, you talk your way out of it. Remember, you get bonus points if the TSA supervisor and police have to be called in because of the "medical condition". No one would suspect a terrorist of doing all these things, which is why it's so stupid it could work. [end sarcasm] Oh, wait, there's never been anything close to a documented case of a terrorist using a child to bomb an airplane? And every child that claims to have a medical condition actually has that condition? So, what? The TSA has a country to protect. They can't let facts get in the way.
Although this situation is a wild over-reaction, there is a precedent for what the school is doing. When I was kid in school (years ago), we were told that "school grounds" included the school bus and the bus stop. This was to let kids know that if they saved their fighting until they got off the bus (instead of fighting at school), they would still be suspended.
But when did "school grounds" extend to 50 or 70 or 100 feet from the bus stop?
How can the estate claim they don't want "multiple personalities" of Holmes, when we already have (as of September 2013):
1) "Sherlock": the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.
2) "Elementary": the CBS series with (shock!) Asian lady as Watson.
3) The "Sherlock Holmes" movies with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.
I can understand the state licensing these versions and making money, but why let CBS turn Watson into an Asian lady? I'm not saying they shouldn't try some innovating, but why do it concurrently when the BBC series is very good?
Like it's been said many times on this site, people will watch commercials if they're relevant and contain good content. The best example is the "Greatest Commercials of the Year" show on TBS every year. If people hate commercials, why do they watch a show *about* commercials. The answer is something the networks can't figure out: people watch because those commercials are entertaining.
Another good example is when I watched "Caprica" on Hulu. (This show was a spin-off of "Battlestar Galactica".) Since it's an NBC/ Universal show, there were commercials for other shows, but then there was a commercial for "Battlestar Galactica" on Blu-Ray. I don't even have a Blu-Ray player, but this commercial almost convinced me to go get one. :)
Here's a hint for commercial makers: make commercials that are relevant to the show's content, but in a good way. If I'm watching a sci-fi show, show commercials for other sci-fi stuff. But if I'm watching a newshow about an unsolved robbery, don't show me commercials for alarm systems. ;)
But I think this kind of relevant programming may be too complex for networks and they'd rather run any commercial from any company that gives them money.
Like another poster pointed out, the networks bombard us with drug ads that spend the first 15 seconds saying how great the drug is and the next 60 seconds talking about the side effects. (Okay, the original poster said 45 seconds, but I could swear it's longer than that.)
And here's a hint to commercial-makers: if your commercial didn't sell me on the product when I saw the first commercial, beating me over the head with 20 more of the same commercials isn't going to convince me to buy. In fact, it might annoy me and I'll tell my friends how annoying you are.
Why do people keep suing the provider? Is this because they don't know better or because the provider has deeper pockets than the individual?
And we should all consider ourselves extremely lucky that people haven't taken this approach in the non-computer world. For example, (like another poster mentioned) why hasn't anyone sued Ford because a drunk driver used their car? You say Ford isn't responsible for how people use their cars? Then how is Cyberlocker, YouTube, Google, etc liable for the people who use their service?
Why shouldn't Ford know that some people will misuse their product?
And why stop at Cyberlocker? Obviously someone used an internet connection to transfer data, so why not sue the ISP? Why not sue the computer company for providing the hardware? Why not sue Microsoft, Apple, or Linux for providing the software that allows the files to be viewed and shared?
Personally, I think changing words to follow society's usage is a slippery slope. How long will it be until these words are changed:
* They're, there, and their will now mean "they are". Example as seen on Facebook: There going home to get there clothes.
* New word: "Would of", which means "would've" or "would have". See also: "could of" and "should of". Example: I should of worn a jacket.
* To, too, and two will now mean "also" or "2", depending how it's used in context. Example: We wanted two go on to rides, but we should of brought money.
Some people complain that spelling shouldn't matter as long as the point is coming across. This may be true (or it may not), but when did society become so lazy that we can't take 2 seconds to know the difference between "there" and "their"?
Is it safe to assume the deputy isn't going to represent himself? Then who's the lawyer who is going to take a case like this and why does he think he even has a case?
First, even filing the lawsuit has made the deputy a laughingstock. Next, suppose he wins the case. Does he really expect the victim to pay him $200,000, which they probably don't even have? And will the judge (or defense attorney) realize how this case will affect people who call 911?
I blame comic books for this. No, really, follow me for a minute:
I think it's safe to assume that most people have read comic books or seen comic book movies. And in these comic books, we get super-villains like the Riddler and Joker who try to outwit Batman by leaving clues. If Batman can figure out the clues in time, he can prevent the Riddler from carrying out his dastardly plan!
Now extend this to the real world and you have people in government agencies who think teenagers are super-villains plotting to shoot a school and can be stopped if their Facebook postings can be deciphered in time.
Why is it that no one stops to think that a majority of the stuff said on Facebook is harmless? But, like training kids to be ready for a school bus hijacking, we have to prepare for any eventuality, after all, we never know when the next terrorist will strike. And obviously, he'll put a cryptic (or not so cryptic) post on Facebook about it.
You know what else happened before? Asteroid strikes. One hit the Earth 65 million years ago and helped kill off the dinosaurs. Another one hit Siberia in 1902. Why aren't we training our kids for this eventuality? After all, an asteroid strike can do a lot more harm than a terrorist.
You know what else happened before? Someone won the lottery. Yes, someone usually wins the lottery (just like a bus *may* get hijacked), but the chances of it happening to you are beyond slim. Check out any lottery website for the official statistics. However, we live in a society where people believe it can happen to them and they'll beat the 100-million-to-one odds and become a millionaire. I suppose if people are planning on becoming millionaires, we might as well teach our kids to plan for things that will never happen also.
I just don't get the idea of planning for something that statistically won't happen.
First we had big-brother surveillance and now we have double-speak:
The government says: We didn't mean to break the law, so it's okay. But if you didn't mean to break the law, you still go to jail.
The government says: If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't mind if we search your e-mail and phone and stop & frisk you on the street. But you can't search our files because "Terrorism. National security. That's why".
Once again, the problem with the current DMCA procedure is that there's no punishment for wrong or bogus takedown claims. And even then, IP Arrow can simply say "that's what the client told us" and the client-company will say "We didn't tell IP Arrow to do that"... and no one's to blame!
I still like the idea of creating a six-strikes system against companies that file bogus takedown notices AND their "affiliates" that file claims on their behalf. I'd say to give them three strikes, but that's not needed when one takedown notice like this contains a lot more than six errors.
Why in the world would anyone click the "update app" button while in another country? How are you 100% positive you won't get the local version for that country? "Let's see, the IP address is in Singapore, the cell carrier/ wi-fi signal is through a Singapore company, okay then, download the apps and restrictions for use in Singapore."
I think a better title for this article would be "Man updates software while in Asia; loses all books, but gains Chinese apps".