LEAKED: Dell/H-P/Lenovo/Vendor Recommends Windows is Fake!
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
Microsoft pays for it <
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/ >.
_____
Hi [company name omitted]
Your company can get [amount omitted] in vouchers if you utilize [proportion
omitted] by [date omitted] on a preapproved offer and post the final claim by
[another date omitted]. I have enclosed details of the promotion with this
email, and am including information on how to utilise coop as well.
It would be fantastic to see you qualify for the vouchers! Given the end of
life with Windows XP and the steady sales of Vista (GFK tracks that over 89%
of managed retailers are selling Vista PCs to consumers), it would be great to
put this towards a Vista sales incentive for your staff or channel partners.
Included/Attached
· Terms and Conditions
· Quick Guide to running a COOP Customer Offer
Any questions, let me know.
Regards
[name of Microsoft employee omitted]
OEM Cooperative Marketing Execution Promotion
If you are defined as a System Builder or a Named Account in the OEM
Cooperative marketing program and have an active enrolment status, you could
be eligible for vouchers which you may choose to use to support a Windows
Vista PC sales incentive with your sales team.
[…]
Terms and Conditions:
1.Timing of promotion. In order to be eligible for an incentive, you must
comply with the specified deadlines. Microsoft reserves the right in its sole
discretion to cancel, terminate, modify, recommence or suspend either or both
parts of the promotion at any time.
2.Tax. Microsoft accepts no responsibility for any tax implications that may
arise from this promotion. Microsoft will not remit any taxes on your behalf,
nor will it provide any tax-related documentation to you. You are solely
responsible for ensuring that any taxes arising from participation in the
promotion are reported and paid to the appropriate tax authority. All amounts
payable by Microsoft are inclusive of GST (if any). You should seek
independent tax and financial advice.
3.Microsoft’s decision final. Microsoft’s decision in relation to all aspects
of this promotion is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
4.Limitation and exclusion of liability. Subject to any applicable law which
cannot be excluded, Microsoft and its related bodies corporate shall not be
liable for any loss, damage or injury suffered or sustained (including but not
limited to direct, indirect or consequential loss or loss arising from
negligence) arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the
promotion or any incentive.
5.Microsoft’s verification right. Microsoft may choose to verify any
information provided by you in connection with this promotion (including, if
Microsoft chooses to do so, by contacting your end-user customers), and if
Microsoft reasonably believes that you have fabricated or altered any
information, then Microsoft may determine that you are ineligible for either
or both incentives. You must, if requested by Microsoft, promptly provide any
requested information related to the promotion or your eligibility to receive
an incentive.
6.Supply of incentives. If Microsoft is unable to supply the nominated
incentive, Microsoft reserves the right, subject to the written direction of
any competent legal authority, to supply another incentive of greater or equal
value. For incentives that have a specified validity period, Microsoft and its
associated agencies and companies accept no responsibility for your failure to
take advantage of the incentive prior to it becoming invalid.
7.Information submitted by you. Information submitted by you will be used to
determine eligibility for one or both parts of the promotion, provide
fulfilment of the promotion, and for other Microsoft internal business
purposes. Except as otherwise described in these terms and conditions,
information provided by you will not be shared outside of Microsoft and its
subsidiaries and affiliates without your permission.
8.Your participation. You may only participate once in the promotion, and any
costs associated with your participation in the promotion is your
responsibility. Microsoft may terminate your involvement in the promotion
and/or withhold any incentives owing to you under this promotion if it
believes, on reasonable grounds, that you have:
a.breached any of these terms and conditions;
b.not complied with the Microsoft Code of Ethics or
c.otherwise infringed Microsoft’s copyright or trade marks.
9.Acceptance of these terms and conditions. Your submission of such “proof of
execution” as required for Promotion means that you accept and agree to comply
with these terms and conditions.
HOW TO Utilize Coop*
1.Decide on an offer.
2.Create the graphics (for e-DM or fliers or both) adhering to COOP guidelines
which are:
a.Relevant Tag line such as “We recommend genuine Microsoft Office 2007
SBE.”
b.Company’s branding (logo) and contact details (this can just be an email
or URL or phone#).
c.30% of content supporting the sale of a fully assembled system
preinstalled with genuine MS OEM product(s).
3.Send to your account manager for pre-approval.
4.Your account manager sends to US CORP for official pre-approval # (up to 3
working days)
5.Receive official pre-approval # from CORP.
6.Enter plan in the online tool https://www.microsoftcoop.com/default.aspx
7.Wait for online plan to be approved.
8.Buy give-aways and save your receipts for documentation.
9.Start offer (this date must be AFTER the dates the plan and advert were
pre-approved officially by corp).
10.End offer (this date must be AFTER the start date).
11.Enter final claim for activity in online tool (this date must be AFTER the
end date of the planned activity where you WILL NEED the following in digital
file format to upload:
a.Advert with pre-approval number from Microsoft corporate.
b.Invoice for specific give-aways (the invoice date must be AFTER the dates
the plan and advert were pre-approved officially by corporate but before the
planned start date.)
c.Digital pictures of the give-away item in your possession.
EXAMPLE FOR CURRENT INCENTIVE OFFER:
- Start Date: 10th Nov 2008
- End Date: 5th Dec 2008
- Offer: “Buy any Vista Home Premium or Ultimate PC with Office 2007 before
5th Dec AND get a free <give-away-item>
* For complete information on how to utilize coop, please reference the Co-Op
Partner Guidebook available here:
https://www.microsoftcoop.com/aspx/additionalResources_SB.aspx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk1LlYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4phgCePWO/pnXPi+88l5DXmvwB3L8E
8FoAnjRp7SMFT0EhvaejwWsNyf9F/2/U
=B+h0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Microsoft pays for it <
> http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/ >.
> _____
> Hi [company name omitted]
>
> Your company can get [amount omitted] in vouchers if you utilize [proportion
> omitted] by [date omitted] on a preapproved offer and post the final claim by
> [another date omitted]. I have enclosed details of the promotion with this
> email, and am including information on how to utilise coop as well.
>
> It would be fantastic to see you qualify for the vouchers! Given the end of
> life with Windows XP and the steady sales of Vista (GFK tracks that over 89%
> of managed retailers are selling Vista PCs to consumers), it would be great to
> put this towards a Vista sales incentive for your staff or channel partners.
>
> Included/Attached
> · Terms and Conditions
> · Quick Guide to running a COOP Customer Offer
This is "News", Roy?
Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
--
When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
amicus_curious
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:9vaZk.2753$M01....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
>
Silly idea! Microsoft has always used incentives offered to its industry
partners to make it easy and profitable to do business with Microsoft. They
continued to do that even when they had amassed a huge market share and that
is what got them into trouble with the DOJ in the 1990's. They offered huge
price concessions to OEMs in exchange for exclusivity. It is fashionable
for the anti-MS crowd to claim that Microsoft is abusive and irritating to
its customers, but that is just plain nonsense. They did not build their
business that way, and they could not keep their business if they did such
things. Microsoft's competitors think them abusive, and perhaps they are,
but that is just the whining of the perennial losers.
Johan Lindquist
Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>> Microsoft pays for it
[..]
> This is "News", Roy?
>
> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
It's not even "Noteworthy", I'd have thought. Maybe there's some
clause there that I missed in all the legal and pr mumbo-jumbo, but is
it really that strange that a company provides an incentive to their
distributors to recommend the third party product?
Also, "leaked"? It's not quite up there with the receipe for original
Coca-Cola, is it? More of a "well, duh?" moment to me.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
14:31:42 up 40 days, 3:19, 5 users, load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.09
Linux 2.6.27.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Johan Lindquist on Tuesday 02 December 2008 13:35 : \____
>
>
> So anyway, it was like, 14:16 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Microsoft pays for it
>
> [..]
>
>> This is "News", Roy?
>>
>> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
>
> It's not even "Noteworthy", I'd have thought. Maybe there's some
> clause there that I missed in all the legal and pr mumbo-jumbo, but is
> it really that strange that a company provides an incentive to their
> distributors to recommend the third party product?
>
> Also, "leaked"? It's not quite up there with the receipe for original
> Coca-Cola, is it? More of a "well, duh?" moment to me.
Was there hard evidence before (to be presented, say... before a judge for
misleading advertising or to tell a friend that "recommends Vista" is fake)?
The post is not news. The evidence probably is.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk1VOwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6pUACgm3a0STVGF9wWH0oJV5lFG3b4
uR4An1DknYHXcSFyEOdktYcm8vXus+9w
=KwB4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Johan Lindquist
Roy Schestowitz was all like, "Dude,
> ____/ Johan Lindquist on Tuesday 02 December 2008 13:35 : \____
>> So anyway, it was like, 14:16 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>> Microsoft pays for it
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> This is "News", Roy?
>>>
>>> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
>>
>> It's not even "Noteworthy", I'd have thought. Maybe there's some
>> clause there that I missed in all the legal and pr mumbo-jumbo, but
>> is it really that strange that a company provides an incentive to
>> their distributors to recommend the third party product?
>>
>> Also, "leaked"? It's not quite up there with the receipe for
>> original Coca-Cola, is it? More of a "well, duh?" moment to me.
>
> Was there hard evidence before (to be presented, say... before
> a judge for misleading advertising or to tell a friend that
> "recommends Vista" is fake)?
I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
17:10:25 up 40 days, 5:58, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.18, 0.11
Ezekiel
"Johan Lindquist" <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote in message
news:ma3g06-...@news.smilfinken.net...
> So anyway, it was like, 16:31 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Roy Schestowitz was all like, "Dude,
>> ____/ Johan Lindquist on Tuesday 02 December 2008 13:35 : \____
>>> So anyway, it was like, 14:16 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>>> Microsoft pays for it
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> This is "News", Roy?
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
>>>
>>> It's not even "Noteworthy", I'd have thought. Maybe there's some
>>> clause there that I missed in all the legal and pr mumbo-jumbo, but
>>> is it really that strange that a company provides an incentive to
>>> their distributors to recommend the third party product?
>>>
>>> Also, "leaked"? It's not quite up there with the receipe for
>>> original Coca-Cola, is it? More of a "well, duh?" moment to me.
>>
>> Was there hard evidence before (to be presented, say... before
>> a judge for misleading advertising or to tell a friend that
>> "recommends Vista" is fake)?
>
> I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
Of course it's not illegal. This 'XYZ recommends MS-Windows" is right there
in plain view of the public. It's on television commercials, magazines,
newspapers, websites and basically everywhere else. You have some of the
biggest companies in the world (Microsoft, IBM, HP, Lenovo, etc) all making
these deals and advertising it in plain view. It's insane to think that not
a single lawyer in at any of these companies would have noticed if this was
legal or not.
It is /these/ types of ridiculous arguments that makes the pro-Linux folks
look nutty - for lack of a better word. Because nobody in their right mind
is going to believe for one second that advertising something like this is
illegal. What sort of fool would believe that all of the legal departments
in each of these large companies is making 'illegal deals' because some
under-employed dorm dweller claims so.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Johan Lindquist on Tuesday 02 December 2008 16:11 : \____
>
>
> So anyway, it was like, 16:31 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Roy Schestowitz was all like, "Dude,
>> ____/ Johan Lindquist on Tuesday 02 December 2008 13:35 : \____
>>> So anyway, it was like, 14:16 CET Dec 02 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>>> Microsoft pays for it
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> This is "News", Roy?
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft had to trade the stick for the carrot.
>>>
>>> It's not even "Noteworthy", I'd have thought. Maybe there's some
>>> clause there that I missed in all the legal and pr mumbo-jumbo, but
>>> is it really that strange that a company provides an incentive to
>>> their distributors to recommend the third party product?
>>>
>>> Also, "leaked"? It's not quite up there with the receipe for
>>> original Coca-Cola, is it? More of a "well, duh?" moment to me.
>>
>> Was there hard evidence before (to be presented, say... before
>> a judge for misleading advertising or to tell a friend that
>> "recommends Vista" is fake)?
>
> I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
Fair point.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL'd 3-D Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 4088500k total, 417880k used, 3670620k free, 264040k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk1bKoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4kwgCgpkZhS/J/C8nwUeq3hJ2r8Coa
brUAnRtAXbUkGg/99w1wX/HtqjUEedmZ
=bLvs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:47:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft pays for it <
>> http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/o1/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incenteives/ >.
>
> You are such a fool Schestowitz.
> Get your slimy self out of academia and into the real world.
>
> Hint:
>
> 1. Car manufacturers offer dealers incentives to sell certain cars.
> 2. Blockbuster/Barnes and noble/Borders etc gets paid extra money and
> incentives to put certain books on the end caps.
> 3. Circuit City gets incentives, like advertising, to sell certain
> products.
> 4. Your local Deli gets a free freezer from Snapple to sell their products.
> 5. IBM offers all kinds of incentives for upgrading or installing their
> software.
>
> and so forth.
>
> For some reason you think you've discovered the Holy Grail.
>
> You haven't.
>
> This one ranks right up there with a bogus Terry Porter post.
Not really. Microsoft is presumably still under the microscope due to their
still-pervasive influence on consumer computing purchaes.
--
We are each only one drop in a great ocean -- but some of the drops sparkle!
Homer
> I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
Misleading advertising is a crime under:
. The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (UK)
. The European Council Directive 84/450/EEC
. Section 5 of the FTC Act (US)
Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact they'vr been
bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading advertising.
How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC instead
of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or Mac, because a
vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products) claims to "recommend"
whatever the Vole bribes them to?
Those people have been misled.
An /honest/ slogan would read "Microsoft pays us to claim that we
recommend [x]", but then that wouldn't have quite the deceptive effect
the Vole hopes for, would it?
But a more important point is that this is the first time this underhand
practice has been exposed as deception with hard evidence. Up to now
it's just been speculation ... now there's poof.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
02:41:36 up 27 days, 10:24, 4 users, load average: 0.09, 0.11, 0.09
Johan Lindquist
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
>
> Misleading advertising is a crime under:
>
> . The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (UK)
> . The European Council Directive 84/450/EEC
> . Section 5 of the FTC Act (US)
>
> Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact they'vr
> been bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading advertising.
All those TV celebs who promote products (in return for money) will
need to be appraised of this then, I take it, so they won't be sued
along with MS when the revolution comes.
> How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC
> instead of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or
> Mac, because a vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products)
> claims to "recommend" whatever the Vole bribes them to?
You keep using that word, "bribe". I do not think it means what you
think it means.
> Those people have been misled.
Sure, advertising is almost always misleading. It's the whole point of
the trade, as I understand it, because most products wouldn't survive
an objective comparison to their competitors, and also why consumers
need to be more critical of what the commercials claim.
> An /honest/ slogan would read "Microsoft pays us to claim that we
> recommend [x]", but then that wouldn't have quite the deceptive
> effect the Vole hopes for, would it?
>
> But a more important point is that this is the first time this
> underhand practice has been exposed as deception with hard evidence.
> Up to now it's just been speculation ... now there's poof.
Seems to me you're overstating the whole scoop alittle.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:24:06 up 40 days, 22:12, 2 users, load average: 0.23, 0.17, 0.10
Homer
> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>> Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact they've
>> been bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading advertising.
>
> All those TV celebs who promote products (in return for money) will
> need to be appraised of this then, I take it, so they won't be sued
> along with MS when the revolution comes.
An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious they
are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial recommendation.
OTOH when one sees "[Vendor] recommends Vista" next to a PC on a Website
or in a store, it is /not/ obvious, to those other than cynics like me,
that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and should be
viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is basically false).
Indeed I would go as far as to suggest that the word "recommend" (in
this context) should be banned by advertising standards authorities,
since this word implies an impartial statement of preference, and in
such cases it clearly is not. "Buy Vista!" is one thing, but "I
recommend Vista" is quite another, and if the latter statement is
motivated only by money then it is clearly a lie, and as such - false
and misleading advertising, particularly when it isn't even clear that
this "recommendation" is an advert at all.
Example:
[quote]
Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the Beijing Olympics
committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games, had deliberately
chosen to run XP operating system on the games' PC because they didn't
trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have trusted XP either, but they
should have known that.
Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had chosen not
to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some problems."
So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see that
line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium," just
remember: They're lying.
[quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could have
some problems," and yet:
[quote]
Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Business for Business Computing.
Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Home Premium for Personal Computing.
[/quote]
http://shop.lenovo.co.uk/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=LENYA0611O
This is not a recommendation; it's an advertisement, but it is not
clearly labelled as such, and is presented in such a way as to mislead
customers into thinking that Lenovo sincerely believes Vista is actually
the best choice for the displayed hardware. Lenovo's own chairman
disagrees, and yet his opinion is notably absent from that product
description.
This is entirely different to Chuck Norris saying "Buy Vista!", and
giving the thumbs-up whilst bearing a cheesy grin. This is a hardware
OEM selling a PC, then falsely stating that they genuinely believe Vista
is the best OS for that hardware. This is a lie; it's misleading; and
AFAICT it's illegal.
>> How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC
>> instead of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or
>> Mac, because a vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products)
>> claims to "recommend" whatever the Vole bribes them to?
>
> You keep using that word, "bribe". I do not think it means what you
> think it means.
A bribe is a (usually financial) inducement to do something against
one's wishes; beliefs or principles. Lenovo obviously do /not/ (in
reality) recommend Vista, and yet they claim that they do, only because
they have been paid to do so. That is clearly and unambiguously a bribe.
>> Those people have been misled.
>
> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
misleading; the fact that the promoter is also blatantly lying (not just
exaggerating - as is usual in advertising, but actually lying) merely
compounds the issue.
"[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled as a paid
advertisement, or removed by advertising standards authorities.
>> But a more important point is that this is the first time this
>> underhand practice has been exposed as deception with hard
>> evidence. Up to now it's just been speculation ... now there's
>> proof.
>
> Seems to me you're overstating the whole scoop alittle.
I think it's you who's understating it.
For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to Microsoft
maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz® for the racketeering
operation that it is.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
19:00:39 up 28 days, 2:43, 5 users, load average: 0.18, 0.09, 0.02
Homer
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Gary M. Stewart belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:47:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Microsoft pays for it
>>> <http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/o1/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incenteives/>.
>>
>> You are such a fool Schestowitz. Get your slimy self out of
>> academia and into the real world.
Roy opposes corruption, whereas you positively endorse it, so I fail to
see how you can think it's /Roy/ who's "slimy", when it's actually /you/
and your kind who are the living embodiment of slime.
>> Hint:
>>
>> 1. Car manufacturers offer dealers incentives to sell certain cars.
>> 2. Blockbuster/Barnes and noble/Borders etc gets paid extra money
>> and incentives to put certain books on the end caps.
>> 3. Circuit City gets incentives, like advertising, to sell certain
>> products.
>> 4. Your local Deli gets a free freezer from Snapple to sell their
>> products.
>> 5. IBM offers all kinds of incentives for upgrading or installing
>> their software.
>>
>> and so forth.
>>
>> For some reason you think you've discovered the Holy Grail.
>>
>> You haven't. This one ranks right up there with a bogus Terry
>> Porter post.
>
> Not really. Microsoft is presumably still under the microscope due
> to their still-pervasive influence on consumer computing purchaes.
Or IOW neither your local car dealer; BlockBusters; Barnes and Noble;
Circuit City; Snapple; nor even IBM have global monopolies in their
respective markets.
Microsoft does, and they abuse that monopoly to exclude all competition.
A free freezer from Dr Pepper is one thing, since Dr Pepper has very
healthy competition in the form of Coca-Cola, but "incentives" to
further inhibit what little competition they have, from a company like
Microsoft that already has a near-total dominance of the market, is
quite another.
And it's not like Microsoft has even earned the right to this "success"
either, since they attained that monopoly position mostly by stealing
others' products and ideas; sabotaging the competition with FUD spread
by shills and fake "analysts"; and using clandestine MoUs with OEMs to
lock-out any and all competition, whilst locking-*in* those OEMs'
customers to Microsoft's stolen technology.
Now that they /have/ this monopoly, they certainly shouldn't be allowed
to keep it, much less abuse that power to inflict even further damage on
the rest if the industry or (more to the point) /us/, the users.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
19:40:22 up 28 days, 3:23, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
Hadron
Nice reply. You made Homer look like the paranoid jackanapes he is.
--
"His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
tank, too."
-- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> [quote]
> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see that
> line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium," just
> remember: They're lying.
> [quote]
Hadronic marketing!
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
>
> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could have
> some problems," and yet:
>
> [quote]
> Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Business for Business Computing.
> Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Home Premium for Personal Computing.
> [/quote]
>
> http://shop.lenovo.co.uk/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=LENYA0611O
Here's what's funny about it: DELL doesn't sell Mac systems. Until
recently, it didn't really sell Linux systems, and, even today, the "market
share" of Linux is pretty small. So, on DELL systems, Microsoft has
precious little competition.
And yet they still pay for that additional endorsement.
It's like Hadron paying DFS to say "DFS recommends believing Hadron's
posts."
--
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Gary M. Stewart belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:47:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>>> Microsoft pays for it
>>>> <http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/o1/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incenteives/>.
>>>
>>> You are such a fool Schestowitz. Get your slimy self out of
>>> academia and into the real world.
>
> Roy opposes corruption, whereas you positively endorse it, so I fail to
> see how you can think it's /Roy/ who's "slimy", when it's actually /you/
> and your kind who are the living embodiment of slime.
Dude, you might make the quoting levels a little more obvious! <grin>
> And it's not like Microsoft has even earned the right to this "success"
> either, since they attained that monopoly position mostly by stealing
> others' products and ideas; sabotaging the competition with FUD spread
> by shills and fake "analysts"; and using clandestine MoUs with OEMs to
> lock-out any and all competition, whilst locking-*in* those OEMs'
> customers to Microsoft's stolen technology.
--
Someone did a study of the three most-often-heard phrases in New York
City. One is "Hey, taxi." Two is, "What train do I take to get to
Bloomingdale's?" And three is, "Don't worry. It's just a flesh wound."
-- David Letterman
Homer
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> Roy opposes corruption, whereas you positively endorse it, so I
>> fail to see how you can think it's /Roy/ who's "slimy", when it's
>> actually /you/ and your kind who are the living embodiment of
>> slime.
>
> Dude, you might make the quoting levels a little more obvious!
> <grin>
With friendly-fire that accurate, I nearly qualify to join the US Army
Artillery Core.
Well that's what I get for piggy-backing someone else's reply to an
(otherwise) invisible Troll, I guess. Thanks for the decloak BTW :/
Oh and it's not flatty, it's that idiot and all-round k00k Rick Mather
(a.k.a. Clogwog) who likes to impersonate infamous trolls like the Fish
and K-bitch, for some juvenile and/or sociopathic reason.
Talking of Jean-Francois Mezei (a.k.a. the /real/ Kadaitcha man;
French-Canadian fuckwit extraordinaire) I see it's decided to bless us
with another round of Olde English filth again. He definitely needs some
new material. It's such a pity he didn't stick to comparing Vista to a
three-legged Bactrian camel named Humphrey. Now /that/ was funny.
Unfortunately, Monsieur Mezei must've been reigned-in by Sweaty the
Impaler and a particularly large canister of grease, because his
withering criticism of the Vole's pet lemon rapidly disappeared from his
site, only to be replaced by the Microsoft-approved version, which was
full of platitudes; u-turns; and generally very very lame indeed (much
like Humphrey, in fact).
Not to worry though, thanks to the magic of infinite digital data
retention, may I present an archived copy of the original and unabridged
work, for your personal perusal and viewing pleasure:
http://static.slated.org/kadaitcha/index.html
Hopefully the joys of reading this hilarious coup de grâce will distract
you from the fact that, for a split second, you thought I'd condemned
you as the living embodiment of slime. If not, then just tell me where
to send the cheque.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
01:36:46 up 28 days, 9:19, 5 users, load average: 0.14, 0.15, 0.07
Johan Lindquist
Hadron was all like, "Dude,
> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> writes:
[..]
>> Seems to me you're overstating the whole scoop alittle.
>
> Nice reply.
I thought so, until two guys called "Hadron" and "Gary M. Stewart"
replied and said they liked it. Now I'll have to rethink my whole
position on the subject.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:47:20 up 41 days, 22:35, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.15, 0.10
Johan Lindquist
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact
>>> they've been bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading
>>> advertising.
>>
>> All those TV celebs who promote products (in return for money) will
>> need to be appraised of this then, I take it, so they won't be sued
>> along with MS when the revolution comes.
>
> An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
> regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious
> they are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial
> recommendation.
I think neither is more obvious than the other. TV chefs who say they
recommend (yes, "recommend", not just grin and stick their thumbs up)
certain brands of spices or kitchenware, are they any less misleading
than the computer makers? Do you really think all those professionals
privately and professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing
else?
I seem to recall some pop star who was endorsing a certain brand of
caffeinated carbonated beverage got caught drinking another brand. If
I recall correctly, the pop star lost the contract but wasn't actually
dragged into court for misleading the consumers or lying.
> OTOH when one sees "[Vendor] recommends Vista" next to a PC on a
> Website or in a store, it is /not/ obvious, to those other than
> cynics like me,
I think you put too little faith in the intellect of consumers in
general (okay, maybe that's not actually possible, but still). It's
not like most people actually choose a microsoft product over another
on their brand new laptop because the sticker says it's recommended
- rather there's no other choice being offered up at that particular
store at that particular time.
Those of us who build our own computers, or have the inclination to
switch out the os on a laptop for something we prefer, either already
know about the options and go with what works best for us, or choose
microsoft for some other reason than it being promoted on a sticker or
website.
> that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and should
> be viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is basically
> false).
You're of course as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so I'll
just have to conclude that we put different meanings into the word
"recommends" in this case. If you think it's sufficiently misleading
to warrant a lawsuit, then I presume someone else will too, and
something will be done about it. Unless you or mr. Schestowitz is
going to take action yourselves, that is.
I still view it the same as any other (paid) advertising, if you're
willing to believe anything people, stickers or web sites tell you,
then you're going to be fooled most of the time. I also don't see
it as illegal to promote your own product over another.
> Example:
>
> [quote] Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the
> Beijing Olympics committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games,
> had deliberately chosen to run XP operating system on the games'
> PC because they didn't trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have
> trusted XP either, but they should have known that.
>
> Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had chosen
> not to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some
> problems."
>
> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see that
> line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium," just
> remember: They're lying. [quote]
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
>
> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could
> have some problems," and yet:
Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't stable, the
quote above is rather more conditional than you make it out to be. It
doesn't really help your side of the argument that you misinterpret
(I won't say "misquote", although it was rather changing the meaning
to cut out some of it) the people you use as an example of false
advertising.
> [quote] Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Business for Business
> Computing. Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Home Premium for
> Personal Computing. [/quote]
Perhaps the official opinion of Lenovo is that it's stable enough to
recommend to the public at large, but it was not proven stable enough
to use for their own mission-critical tasks (or whatever the "games'
PC" did).
>>> How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC
>>> instead of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or
>>> Mac, because a vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products)
>>> claims to "recommend" whatever the Vole bribes them to?
>>
>> You keep using that word, "bribe". I do not think it means what you
>> think it means.
>
> A bribe is a (usually financial) inducement to do something against
> one's wishes; beliefs or principles. Lenovo obviously do /not/
> (in reality) recommend Vista, and yet they claim that they do,
> only because they have been paid to do so. That is clearly and
> unambiguously a bribe.
Apparently they did not consider it sufficiently proven to be
stable enough for whatever use they were going to put it to during
the olympic games. Unless you've talked to someone at Lenovo to
confirm this is still the case, I don't see how you can "clearly and
unambiguously" call it a lie as it stands now.
[..]
>> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
>
> It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
> misleading;
Oh, come on. How many adverts are *really* presented as advertising?
> the fact that the promoter is also blatantly lying (not just
> exaggerating - as is usual in advertising, but actually lying)
> merely compounds the issue.
You mean like those hair products that's been "tested at an
independant swiss hair institute"? If any of those bottles have been
even used at a swiss barber school I'll eat my hat.
> "[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled as a
> paid advertisement, or removed by advertising standards authorities.
Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour, I guess
we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as consumers
and/or human beings and not believe everything we read.
[..]
> For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to
> Microsoft maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz® for the
> racketeering operation that it is.
You'll excuse me if I don't put on my tinfoil hat just yet, I hope.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:49:51 up 41 days, 22:37, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.18, 0.11
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> So anyway, it was like, 21:06 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Hadron was all like, "Dude,
>> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> writes:
>
> [..]
>
>>> Seems to me you're overstating the whole scoop alittle.
>>
>> Nice reply.
>
> I thought so, until two guys called "Hadron" and "Gary M. Stewart"
> replied and said they liked it. Now I'll have to rethink my whole
> position on the subject.
Those two are crazier than they say we are.
--
Well, Jim, I'm not much of an actor either.
chrisv
>> Nice reply.
>
>I thought so, until two guys called "Hadron" and "Gary M. Stewart"
>replied and said they liked it. Now I'll have to rethink my whole
>position on the subject.
No, I think the more moderate position is correct. The "we recommend"
is not particularly misleading. There's nothing wrong with forming
business alliances, and selling Windwoes is not a bad thing, from the
OEM's perspective. Also, note that they don't say "we think Windows
is the best OS for you", merely that they "recommend" it.
As you say, it's nothing more than advertising, and should be taken as
such. It's no worse than a car dealer "recommending" a certain
high-profit vehicle.
Homer
> So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>> An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
>> regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious
>> they are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial
>> recommendation.
>
> I think neither is more obvious than the other.
Eh?
Do you even watch television?
When a show host says "and now a word from our sponsors" that's a pretty
big clue that what follows is an advert. When a programme is interrupted
and the next 30 seconds comprises a shot of a man drinking Guinness, and
a voiceover actor describes how great it's supposed to be, do you really
think you're still watching the programme?
Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state that a
feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
[quote]
23.2 Marketers and publishers should make clear that advertisement
features are advertisements, for example by heading them "advertisement
feature".
[/quote]
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_id=1564
Given that we now know for a fact that "[Vendor] Recommends Vista" is a
paid advertisement, but that none of these vendors sites label them as
such, then they are clearly in violation of the CAP Code.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
> TV chefs who say they recommend (yes, "recommend", not just grin and
> stick their thumbs up) certain brands of spices or kitchenware, are
> they any less misleading than the computer makers?
If they make that "recommendation" in a context that is not clearly an
advertising feature (e.g. a commercial break or a printed feature with
the label "Advertisement" ... *and* they are being paid by the product
maker to give that "recommendation", they yes it /is/ misleading.
> Do you really think all those professionals privately and
> professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing else?
Irrelevant. The point is about transparency in advertising, not brand
loyalty. When someone is /paid/ to endorse a product, then it should be
made /clear/ that endorsement is actually a paid advertisement, and not
an impartial recommendation.
> I seem to recall some pop star who was endorsing a certain brand of
> caffeinated carbonated beverage got caught drinking another brand. If
> I recall correctly, the pop star lost the contract but wasn't
> actually dragged into court for misleading the consumers or lying.
See above.
>> OTOH when one sees "[Vendor] recommends Vista" next to a PC on a
>> Website or in a store, it is /not/ obvious, to those other than
>> cynics like me,
>
> I think you put too little faith in the intellect of consumers in
> general
The onus of responsibility for truthfulness and transparency in
advertising lies with the /advertiser/, /not/ the viewer/reader.
It may well be that a certain proportion of viewers/readers are
astute enough to tell when a "recommendation" is not impartial,
and is in fact a paid advertisement, but their ability to avoid
being manipulated does not somehow make manipulation acceptable
or even legal.
> Those of us who build our own computers, or have the inclination to
> switch out the os on a laptop for something we prefer, either already
> know about the options and go with what works best for us, or choose
> microsoft for some other reason than it being promoted on a sticker
> or website.
So basically you're saying that it's OK to manipulate people if they're
gullible enough to be manipulated, and that the law should not protect
such people by enforcing certain advertising standards?
Does that include children too?
Just curious.
>> that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and should
>> be viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is basically
>> false).
>
> You're of course as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so I'll
> just have to conclude that we put different meanings into the word
> "recommends" in this case.
The meaning of the word is not in dispute, it's the context in which
that word is used which is misleading.
> If you think it's sufficiently misleading to warrant a lawsuit, then
> I presume someone else will too, and something will be done about it.
> Unless you or mr. Schestowitz is going to take action yourselves,
> that is.
The correct procedure is to make a formal complaint to the advertising
standards authorities, who then investigate that complaint and take
remedial action if required. It's highly unlikely that a civil court
case instigated by the complainant would be necessary.
> I still view it the same as any other (paid) advertising, if you're
> willing to believe anything people, stickers or web sites tell you,
> then you're going to be fooled most of the time. I also don't see it
> as illegal to promote your own product over another.
But again you miss the point that this is not about the mere act of
advertising, it's about the fact that this particular advert disguised
itself as an impartial recommendation, and did not (and still /does/
not) even declare that it is a paid advertisement at /all/. /That/ is
why it's misleading, and /that/ is why it is in violation of advertising
standards (the CAP Code for a start).
And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their victims.
If a man doesn't look where he's going, and steps out to his death in
front of a car, then certainly there is no one to blame but that man. He
was stupid and careless, and therefore his death was entirely his own
fault. But this is quite different to some trusting pensioner being
robbed by a fake door-to-door salesman. In such a case it may well still
be true that the victim was stupid and careless, but (unlike the hapless
car driver) the fake salesman was /not/ conducting himself legitimately.
Society has a responsibility to protect the weak from such predators, by
ensuring that these predators are not allowed to conduct their
illegitimate business with complete impunity. If we /don't/, then /we/
are equally culpable, since we chose to ignore the threat presented by
that predator. This is, after all, why we have laws in the first place.
Without those laws, society would descend into a corrupt cesspool of
thugs exploiting the weak ... victimising our children and grandparents.
Maybe you don't give a damn about them, but I do.
>> Example:
>>
>> [quote] Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the
>> Beijing Olympics committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games,
>> had deliberately chosen to run XP operating system on the games'
>> PC because they didn't trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have
>> trusted XP either, but they should have known that.
>>
>> Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had chosen
>> not to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some
>> problems."
>>
>> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see
>> that line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium,"
>> just remember: They're lying. [quote]
>>
>> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
Malformed URL restored:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
Original article:
>> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could
>> have some problems," and yet:
>
> Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't stable,
> the quote above is rather more conditional than you make it out to
> be.
Irrelevant. The chairman of Lenovo lacks confidence in a product that
his company nonetheless "recommends" ... because they're /paid/ to.
IOW when Lenovo makes this recommendation they're /lying/ to fulfil the
obligation of a /bribe/.
> It doesn't really help your side of the argument that you
> misinterpret (I won't say "misquote", although it was rather changing
> the meaning to cut out some of it) the people you use as an example
> of false advertising.
Nitpicking doesn't help your case either, which AFAICT is a case of
chronic apathy in the face of something that /should/ illicit at least
/some/ sense of injustice, if not actual outrage.
>> [quote] Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Business for Business
>> Computing. Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Home Premium for
>> Personal Computing. [/quote]
>
> Perhaps the official opinion of Lenovo is that it's stable enough to
> recommend to the public at large, but it was not proven stable enough
> to use for their own mission-critical tasks (or whatever the "games'
> PC" did).
Why are you making excuses for them?
And moreover, what does this have to do with the fact that they present
a paid advertisement as though it were actually an impartial
recommendation, without clearly stating that it is in fact a paid
advert? Their true opinion of Vista, one way or another, doesn't alter
that fact.
>>> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
>>
>> It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
>> misleading;
>
> Oh, come on. How many adverts are *really* presented as advertising?
The legal ones, presumably ... according to UK law, at least.
>> the fact that the promoter is also blatantly lying (not just
>> exaggerating - as is usual in advertising, but actually lying)
>> merely compounds the issue.
>
> You mean like those hair products that's been "tested at an
> independant swiss hair institute"? If any of those bottles have been
> even used at a swiss barber school I'll eat my hat.
You should save your hat for a more useful purpose, and just contact the
ASA instead, since it's their job to investigate false advertising claims.
You seem to have taken the rather odd position that if there are any
advertisers violating advertising standards, then it must be acceptable
for them to do so, or IOW "that's just the way it is". Do you think
/all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones you don't care about?
>> "[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled as a
>> paid advertisement, or removed by advertising standards
>> authorities.
>
> Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour
They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
> I guess we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as
> consumers and/or human beings and not believe everything we read.
That's all very well for those who actually have that capacity. Others
aren't so lucky. Of course advertisers /depend/ on that fact, which is
why we have regulatory bodies to ensure they don't overstep their
bounds. Of course for those bodies to be effective, they do actually
require some help in the form of complaints.
Now that the facts of this case have been made clear, presumably there
will now /be/ some complaints, although apparently yours will not be one
of them.
Mine will.
> [..]
>
>> For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to
>> Microsoft maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz® for
>> the racketeering operation that it is.
>
> You'll excuse me if I don't put on my tinfoil hat just yet, I hope.
It may well be a /conspiracy/, but as the evidence now shows quite
conclusively ... it's certainly more than mere /theory/. Neither your
sarcasm nor your apathy will change that.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
03:45:53 up 29 days, 11:28, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02
Homer
> As you say, it's nothing more than advertising
It's "advertising" that isn't declared as such, and is thus misleading.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
03:47:43 up 29 days, 11:30, 4 users, load average: 0.10, 0.08, 0.02
Johan Lindquist
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>>>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
>>> regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious
>>> they are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial
>>> recommendation.
>>
>> I think neither is more obvious than the other.
>
> Eh?
>
> Do you even watch television?
Not in your country so much, but in this one I've seen enough sitcoms
and televsion series to know that they usually aren't hosted and that
there's no voice-over that warns the viewer that the next five minutes
are completely made up messages to peddle products they neither want
nor need.
> When a show host says "and now a word from our sponsors" that's a
Did you know, on some shows they just say "We'll be right back
after this!" and then they start the commercials? The humanity!
> pretty big clue that what follows is an advert. When a programme
> is interrupted and the next 30 seconds comprises a shot of a man
> drinking Guinness, and a voiceover actor describes how great it's
> supposed to be, do you really think you're still watching the
> programme?
No, I don't, but then I'm not fooled by the stickers that says
"[computer maker] recommends [operating system]" enough to blindly use
that and only that on their hardware either.
> Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state
> that a feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
[..]
That's some strict laws you have there. I'm not aware of such a law
in this country, but from the lack of labels in magazines that point
out that the advertisments are indeed advertisments, I strongly doubt
there's such a requirement here.
> Given that we now know for a fact that "[Vendor] Recommends Vista"
> is a paid advertisement, but that none of these vendors sites label
> them as such, then they are clearly in violation of the CAP Code.
>
> What is so difficult to understand about that?
Maybe UK is not the world and you falsely assume I'm either aware
of where you live and your local laws, or you believe it's the same
in the entire world? (I'm sorry if I missed the part which said this
applied to brits alone.)
>> TV chefs who say they recommend (yes, "recommend", not just grin
>> and stick their thumbs up) certain brands of spices or kitchenware,
>> are they any less misleading than the computer makers?
>
> If they make that "recommendation" in a context that is not clearly
> an advertising feature (e.g. a commercial break or a printed feature
> with the label "Advertisement" ... *and* they are being paid by
> the product maker to give that "recommendation", they yes it /is/
> misleading.
So do you think they and their sponsors need to be indicted along with
microsoft and the computer companies then?
>> Do you really think all those professionals privately and
>> professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing else?
>
> Irrelevant. The point is about transparency in advertising, not
> brand loyalty.
You were all up in arms about Lenovo not using the prodcuts they
recommend just before, though.
> When someone is /paid/ to endorse a product, then it should be made
> /clear/ that endorsement is actually a paid advertisement, and not
> an impartial recommendation.
Apparently we're in disagreement on this part. I'd rather consumers
learned to take advertising for what it is, it would make for a more
aware general public who doesn't depend on the authorities as much.
[..]
>> Those of us who build our own computers, or have the inclination
>> to switch out the os on a laptop for something we prefer, either
>> already know about the options and go with what works best for us,
>> or choose microsoft for some other reason than it being promoted on
>> a sticker or website.
>
> So basically you're saying that it's OK to manipulate people if
> they're gullible enough to be manipulated, and that the law should
> not protect such people by enforcing certain advertising standards?
If there's a law that says "advertising should be clearly marked as
such", then it should obviously be followed. I wasn't aware of any
such law until you pointed out the existance of one in your country.
I don't quite see the need for such a law, though, to expressly point
out that anything a vendor "recommends" is *not* to be taken as the
honest-to-bob truth. Especially when people are (hopefully) already
aware that other things are indeed regularly being advertised and not
necessarily in the most objective of presentations.
> Does that include children too?
>
> Just curious.
Ooh, nice "who will protect the children?" card you managed to play
there.
Since you're curious, I can tell you I haven't really considered
how many children buy computers and get tricked by the type of
recommendation we're discussing.
However, if the children are old enough to have their own money to
buy things with, unsupervised, then I think they should have received
some sort of teaching from their parents or legal guardians on how to
interpret "messages from our sponsors", regardless of being clearly
labeled as such or not.
In fact, I think the type of television advertising that is usually
aired during children's shows is far less obvious in its manner of
trying to trick the children into persuading their parents to buy the
latest cool stuff than a "Lenovo recommends Vista" sticker could ever
be to the parents themselves.
Since you apparently have these laws in your country, in what manner
does the TV commercials that sell "Transformer" toys there point out
to the children who are just watching the "Transformer" animated show
that they're no longer watching the show and should be aware that the
following messages should not be taken at face value?
>>> that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and
>>> should be viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is
>>> basically false).
>>
>> You're of course as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so
>> I'll just have to conclude that we put different meanings into the
>> word "recommends" in this case.
>
> The meaning of the word is not in dispute, it's the context in which
> that word is used which is misleading.
Yes, and that is the part we're disagreeing on - whether the context
is sufficiently misleading to warrant legal action against the third
party who apparently paid for the recommendation, especially in the
light of all the other forms of paid advertising that's out there.
>> If you think it's sufficiently misleading to warrant a lawsuit,
>> then I presume someone else will too, and something will be done
>> about it. Unless you or mr. Schestowitz is going to take action
>> yourselves, that is.
>
> The correct procedure is to make a formal complaint to the
> advertising standards authorities, who then investigate that
> complaint and take remedial action if required. It's highly unlikely
> that a civil court case instigated by the complainant would be
> necessary.
Fair enough, let's call it "legal action" instead of "a lawsuit" then,
and you can tell me if you or anyone you know of are currently taking
such actions instead of teaching me how it should be done.
>> I still view it the same as any other (paid) advertising, if you're
>> willing to believe anything people, stickers or web sites tell you,
>> then you're going to be fooled most of the time. I also don't see
>> it as illegal to promote your own product over another.
>
> But again you miss the point that this is not about the mere act
> of advertising, it's about the fact that this particular advert
> disguised itself as an impartial recommendation, and did not (and
> still /does/ not) even declare that it is a paid advertisement at
> /all/. /That/ is why it's misleading, and /that/ is why it is in
> violation of advertising standards (the CAP Code for a start).
You mean "again we disagree on whether this is misleading or not".
> And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their
> victims.
"Violators" and "victims", now? Are you going to start comparing it to
some heinous crime soon, or what?
> If a man doesn't look where he's going, and steps out to his death
> in front of a car, then certainly there is no one to blame but
> that man. He was stupid and careless, and therefore his death was
> entirely his own fault. But this is quite different to some trusting
> pensioner being robbed by a fake door-to-door salesman. In such
> a case it may well still be true that the victim was stupid and
> careless, but (unlike the hapless car driver) the fake salesman was
> /not/ conducting himself legitimately.
>
> Society has a responsibility to protect the weak from such
> predators, by ensuring that these predators are not allowed to
> conduct their illegitimate business with complete impunity. If we
> /don't/, then /we/ are equally culpable, since we chose to ignore
> the threat presented by that predator. This is, after all, why we
> have laws in the first place.
Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
Unless you get back to the perspective of economics rather than,
subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to wipe out the
human race anytime soon, I don't think I'm all that interested in
discussing truth in advertising with you.
> Without those laws, society would descend into a corrupt cesspool
> of thugs exploiting the weak ... victimising our children and
> grandparents. Maybe you don't give a damn about them, but I do.
"Thugs"?!? Don't try to make this into some "you're an evil dude" who
don't care about the sick and elderly now.
"thugs [..] victimising our children and grandparents"? Seriously?
Is it so bad now that if grandma buys a computer with microsoft
windows on it because she read that it was recommended by the laptop
manufacturer she's a victim of a brutal crime?
Regardless of whether it does, actually, work as advertised or not?
[..]
>>> Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had
>>> chosen not to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could
>>> have some problems."
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
[..]
>>> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could
>>> have some problems," and yet:
>>
>> Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't stable,
>> the quote above is rather more conditional than you make it out to
>> be.
>
> Irrelevant.
Hardly. If you're going to quote someone, do it correctly and don't
change the meaning of their words.
> The chairman of Lenovo lacks confidence in a product that his
> company nonetheless "recommends" ... because they're /paid/ to. IOW
> when Lenovo makes this recommendation they're /lying/ to fulfil the
> obligation of a /bribe/.
Ok, so you are confident he's lying. Well, by all means, then you
should indeed work towards some sort of legal action to prevent this
sort of thing. I'm not convinced, though, and your willingness to
interpret statements like "if it's not stable" into something more
resembling "I really don't think it's stable" isn't helping either.
>> It doesn't really help your side of the argument that you
>> misinterpret (I won't say "misquote", although it was rather
>> changing the meaning to cut out some of it) the people you use as
>> an example of false advertising.
>
> Nitpicking doesn't help your case either, which AFAICT is a case of
> chronic apathy in the face of something that /should/ illicit at
> least /some/ sense of injustice, if not actual outrage.
Nitpicking? Let's try something out on your statement above:
> [y]our [..] face [..] /should/ illicit [..] outrage.
See how I did that? I totally changed the meaning of your words,
even though your words was all I used. (And for the record, I don't
appreciate the faked implication that I'm hideous!)
>>> [quote] Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Business for Business
>>> Computing. Lenovo recommends Windows Vista® Home Premium for
>>> Personal Computing. [/quote]
>>
>> Perhaps the official opinion of Lenovo is that it's stable enough
>> to recommend to the public at large, but it was not proven stable
>> enough to use for their own mission-critical tasks (or whatever the
>> "games' PC" did).
>
> Why are you making excuses for them?
I'm trying to provide a balanced view where you apparently just want
someone to blame. I suspect your calling it "making excuses" is meant
to make me out as a supporter of the organisations you've already
labeled as "predators". It sort of goes with the whole "you don't care
about the children" brush you're trying to paint me with too.
Do you have a career in politics at all?
> And moreover, what does this have to do with the fact that they
> present a paid advertisement as though it were actually an impartial
> recommendation, without clearly stating that it is in fact a paid
> advert?
You apparently don't get the whole "that's the thing we disagree on"
part.
> Their true opinion of Vista, one way or another, doesn't alter that
> fact.
To you it's fact, to me it's what we're discussing. If we can't even
agree on what we disagree on, maybe this is just not leading anywhere.
>>>> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
>>>
>>> It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
>>> misleading;
>>
>> Oh, come on. How many adverts are *really* presented as
>> advertising?
>
> The legal ones, presumably ... according to UK law, at least.
So apart from the talk shows, how are the commercial blocks in
broadcasted television indicated where you live?
[..]
> You should save your hat for a more useful purpose, and just
> contact the ASA instead, since it's their job to investigate false
> advertising claims.
Well, see, since I'm not as enraged as you are about the whole trying
to trick the unsuspecting public with obviously commercial messages
thing, it's not really my job to contact anyone.
> You seem to have taken the rather odd position that if there are
> any advertisers violating advertising standards, then it must be
> acceptable for them to do so, or IOW "that's just the way it is".
Well, around here that is the way it is. I'm at least not aware of any
local laws here that work like the one you mentioned in the UK, so my
position isn't really as odd as you make it out to be, since as far as
I can tell, the advertisers aren't actually violating standards.
> Do you think /all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones you
> don't care about?
See, now you're doing the whole "you're an evil dude" thing again, but
with the addition that I'm also somehow supporting criminal acitivies
in general. It's not a really nice way of trying to discuss a subject,
you know.
(Did you have a career in politics or not?)
>>> "[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled
>>> as a paid advertisement, or removed by advertising standards
>>> authorities.
>>
>> Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour
>
> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
>> I guess we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as
>> consumers and/or human beings and not believe everything we read.
>
> That's all very well for those who actually have that capacity.
> Others aren't so lucky.
This is a case where luck really has nothing to do with it.
> Of course advertisers /depend/ on that fact, which is why we have
> regulatory bodies to ensure they don't overstep their bounds. Of
> course for those bodies to be effective, they do actually require
> some help in the form of complaints.
I just don't see it as such a big deal as you do that a commercial
isn't clearly labeled as such, that's more or less what this whole
storm in a tea cup (and by that I'm referring to this discussion we're
having, which is really getting out of proportion by now) is all
about.
> Now that the facts of this case have been made clear, presumably
> there will now /be/ some complaints, although apparently yours will
> not be one of them.
I'm afraid it won't.
> Mine will.
Good for you. Will you also take action against any other advertisers
who are in violation of the code in question?
>> [..]
>>
>>> For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to
>>> Microsoft maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz® for
>>> the racketeering operation that it is.
>>
>> You'll excuse me if I don't put on my tinfoil hat just yet, I hope.
>
> It may well be a /conspiracy/, but as the evidence now shows quite
> conclusively ... it's certainly more than mere /theory/. Neither
> your sarcasm nor your apathy will change that.
Apathy, eh? Let's just say I have other things to worry about than
whether a message from the sponsors is clearly identifiable even to
the most gullible or not. (As far as sarcasm, guilty as charged,
m'lud.)
Don't get me wrong, it's great that someone does, though the goal
here would unfortunately seem rather to go on a crusade against a
particular software company than to generally make sure a particular
law is being enforced in all markets.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
08:58:50 up 42 days, 21:46, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.13, 0.25
Homer
> So anyway, it was like, 04:46 CET Dec 05 2008, you know? Oh, and,
> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>>>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh,
>>>>> and, yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
[snip stuff about television]
WRT television, I'm talking about what I am familiar with. For all I
know, Australian broadcasters might very well use subliminal adverts
during programmes (something that would /definitely/ be illegal here
in the UK) much less take any actual measures to ensure it was clear
a commercial break was in progress.
>> Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state
>> that a feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
>
> [..]
>
> That's some strict laws you have there.
I take it you mean that it's unwarranted?
Well this is another area where we obviously disagree. AFAIAC any law
designed purely to protect the public from predators (and yes,
advertisers /can/ be predatory if unregulated), and has no hidden agenda
or ulterior motives (e.g. so-called "terrorism" laws) is fully justified.
> I'm not aware of such a law in this country
If not then there should be.
>> Given that we now know for a fact that "[Vendor] Recommends Vista"
>> is a paid advertisement, but that none of these vendors sites label
>> them as such, then they are clearly in violation of the CAP Code.
>>
>> What is so difficult to understand about that?
>
> Maybe UK is not the world
Like I said, I'm talking about what I'm familiar with and/or what is
pertinent to me. I would also hope that other countries have similar
regulations, but for those that don't, I pity them.
And the lack of such laws elsewhere does not excuse e.g. Lenovo's
behaviour, since IMO their actions (and that of other "recommenders" is
morally wrong, regardless of what any particular country's laws
stipulate. Also, since most of these vendors have offices in the UK
(i.e. are VAT licensed and registered UK businesses), and advertise in
various media in the UK, then they are subject to UK law (in that
limited scope). Remedial action taken against these vendors in the UK
might not have a far-reaching effect beyond these shores, but it
certainly won't do any harm to the better interests of at least some
portion of the public.
> and you falsely assume I'm either aware of where you live and your
> local laws
The only wrong assumption I made was that you would be as outraged as I
am about this highly immoral practise, and that your initial lack of
concern was driven by misunderstanding or ignorance. But you've made it
perfectly clear that you /do/ understand ... it's just that you simply
don't care. Of course that then begs the question: Why would someone who
doesn't care about others being manipulated by misleading advertising,
continue to engage in a distended debate on the subject? This would
suggest that you /do/ care, but unfortunately what you "care" about
seems to be entirely antithetical to what /I/ care about. But in the end
only you can answer the question and explain your motives.
> So do you think they and their sponsors need to be indicted along
> with microsoft and the computer companies then?
I believe the ASA would pursue, at the very least, the company that
placed the advertisement. They might also pursue the publisher or
broadcaster (if there were a large enough number of infractions), but
you'd have to check with the ASA for details.
>>> Do you really think all those professionals privately and
>>> professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing else?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point is about transparency in advertising, not
>> brand loyalty.
>
> You were all up in arms about Lenovo not using the prodcuts they
> recommend just before, though.
Yes I was, and still am, but that is a separate issue which only
highlights the irony of Lenovo's position, and proves that their
"recommendation" is false. The newly exposed evidence now explains
Lenovo's contradictory behaviour - they were paid to lie, by making what
was ostensibly an impartial recommendation that was actually a paid
advert. The part where they were bribed to lie is certainly noteworthy,
but it is not the central issue.
>> When someone is /paid/ to endorse a product, then it should be made
>> /clear/ that endorsement is actually a paid advertisement, and not
>> an impartial recommendation.
>
> Apparently we're in disagreement on this part. I'd rather consumers
> learned to take advertising for what it is, it would make for a more
> aware general public who doesn't depend on the authorities as much.
Unacceptable. That is akin to the US Marines tolerating so-called "Code
Reds" because it "toughens them up". Why should innocent victims be the
ones who have to bend to fit the will of the criminals, when democratic
societies should have laws to protect the weak and punish the guilty?
You seem to be advocating anarchy and barbarism.
>> So basically you're saying that it's OK to manipulate people if
>> they're gullible enough to be manipulated, and that the law should
>> not protect such people by enforcing certain advertising standards?
>>
>
> If there's a law that says "advertising should be clearly marked as
> such", then it should obviously be followed. I wasn't aware of any
> such law until you pointed out the existance of one in your country.
Well that's an unenthusiastic answer, if I ever heard one, and a rather
institutionalised one. Your shoulders must hurt from all that shrugging.
> I don't quite see the need for such a law
Yes, I get it.
>> Does that include children too?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> Ooh, nice "who will protect the children?" card you managed to play
> there.
It's not a gambit at all, it's a perfectly legitimate question based on
your rather naive belief that "everybody understands" when they're being
manipulated, and that society doesn't have an obligation to protect
people from con-men.
> Since you're curious, I can tell you I haven't really considered how
> many children buy computers and get tricked by the type of
> recommendation we're discussing.
Obviously you don't have any children, or you'd understand that they are
very much influenced by such things, and that they "buy" by exerting
pressure on their parents for what they want. Ask yourself why certain
adverts directly and exclusively target children. How do these
"penniless" kids buy any of that stuff?
But the point WRT children or (as the other example I gave) the elderly,
is that not everyone in society is necessarily as astute as you think
they should be, and that certain people /need/ protecting from the
predatory advances of those who would manipulate them. In fact I was
being rather kind by limiting my remarks to just those two groups; there
are probably just as many people in between those age groups who are
easily manipulated. I merely used those two extremes to counter your
sweeping "people are smart" assertion.
> However, if the children are old enough to have their own money to
> buy things with, unsupervised, then I think they should have received
> some sort of teaching from their parents or legal guardians on how
> to interpret "messages from our sponsors", regardless of being
> clearly labeled as such or not.
Maybe the government should make self-defence classes mandatory too,
then they can just scrap the police and armed forces. Who needs 'em, eh?
> In fact, I think the type of television advertising that is usually
> aired during children's shows is far less obvious
In Australia? I'd have to check.
> in its manner of trying to trick the children into persuading their
> parents to buy the latest cool stuff than a "Lenovo recommends Vista"
> sticker could ever be to the parents themselves.
I see you just answered your own earlier question.
> Since you apparently have these laws in your country, in what manner
> does the TV commercials that sell "Transformer" toys there point out
> to the children who are just watching the "Transformer" animated show
> that they're no longer watching the show and should be aware that
> the following messages should not be taken at face value?
WRT to all programmes, not just that one specifically: When a channel
breaks (in the UK) it does so quite obviously. The details vary from one
channel to another, but typically the programme will end; the sound will
mute; the screen will fade to black; the channel's logo will appear
(often subtitled by the name of the programme currently showing, and
sometimes accompanied by the channel's jingle); the screen will go black
again; followed by 6 x 30 second adverts for a total of 3 minutes (this
also varies depending on the time of day ... late night advertising
tends to be very brief).
Additionally, broadcasters (again, in the UK) deliberately increase the
sound volume during the commercial breaks. I once read somewhere (in a
newspaper I think) that the reason for this is advertisers were aware
that most viewers left the room (e.g. to go make a cup of tea) during
the adverts, and that by increasing the volume those viewers would at
least still be able to hear the adverts. This theory seems to be
supported by the fact that power companies report a surge in electrical
power use during the commercials, as presumably everyone simultaneously
switches on their kettle. You may also notice (again, in the UK at
least) that many channels synchronise their advertising slots so viewers
can't escape by simply channel hopping.
The lengths advertisers will go to brainwash us is quite astounding.
WRT programmes interspersed with adverts for products related to that
programme itself (i.e. merchandising) and invariably sold by the same
company that also makes the programme, it's not exactly misleading,
since obviously a company will endorse its /own/ products. Although I
think that in such cases it needs to be made clearer that these
"programmes" are, in and of themselves, basically just one big advert -
like watching The Shopping Channel.
>> The meaning of the word ["recommend"] is not in dispute, it's the
>> context in which that word is used which is misleading.
>
> Yes, and that is the part we're disagreeing on - whether the context
> is sufficiently misleading to warrant legal action against the third
> party who apparently paid for the recommendation, especially in the
> light of all the other forms of paid advertising that's out there.
You obviously don't make a distinction between an avert that is clearly
an advert, and one that is masked as impartial advice. The difference
can be described with the single word "deception".
>>> If you think it's sufficiently misleading to warrant a lawsuit,
[...]
>> The correct procedure is to make a formal complaint to the
>> advertising standards authorities, who then investigate that
>> complaint and take remedial action if required. It's highly
>> unlikely that a civil court case instigated by the complainant
>> would be necessary.
>
> Fair enough, let's call it "legal action" instead of "a lawsuit"
> then, and you can tell me if you or anyone you know of are currently
> taking such actions instead of teaching me how it should be done.
You've still missed it.
I (the complainant) do not take any legal action at all. Ever. The /ASA/
takes the action (if warranted), which (in the first instance) will most
likely not be legal action either, but (what I believe is called) a
notice of compliance. As the complainant, all /I/ have to do is
/complain/ ... to the ASA. For all I know there may well have already
been many such complaints made to the ASA on this matter. I have no way
of knowing, since AFAIK such complaints are taken in confidence, but if
you really; really want to know if any such complaints have already been
received by the ASA, then by all means ask them.
>> And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their
>> victims.
>
> "Violators" and "victims", now? Are you going to start comparing it
> to some heinous crime soon, or what?
Does a crime need to be "heinous" for it to still be a crime? Do
non-heinous crimes not really matter then? Are people who suffer the
consequences of non-heinous crimes not really victims? How much does
someone need to suffer (in the Personal Damages sense of the word) to be
entitled to describe himself as a "victim".
What objections do you have to those terms, I wonder? After all it's
perfectly correct to refer to someone who violates a code of practise as
a "violator", and to the people who suffer the consequences of that
violation as "victims".
Or maybe, as you've alluded to repeatedly in your diatribe, people need
to toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin like a man, ad nauseam.
After all, crime is perfectly acceptable, and should be tolerated. Right?
I find your attitude sickening.
[snip analogy]
> Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
I think you've already proved you don't give a damn about people's
rights; compounding your indefensible position with yet more sarcasm
isn't helpful.
> Unless you get back to the perspective of economics
Ah, and here we come to the root of your dissent.
Are you by any chance related to this (and I use the word reservedly)
gentleman:
http://static.slated.org/whydannycarltonisblocked.html
> rather than, subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to
> wipe out the human race anytime soon
Your hyperbole might be funny if it actually made any sense.
In what way does dishonest marketing threaten life?
Or perhaps you mean to suggest that such things are unimportant /unless/
they are life-threatening.
> I don't think I'm all that interested in discussing truth in
> advertising with you.
You certainly don't seem to be interested in discussing the truth behind
your motives for defending these marketing scum, but you've spent quite
a /bit/ of time discussing the rest, so clearly you have quite a bit of
interest in the matter.
>> Without those laws, society would descend into a corrupt cesspool
>> of thugs exploiting the weak ... victimising our children and
>> grandparents. Maybe you don't give a damn about them, but I do.
>
> "Thugs"?!?
Yes thugs. There's more to thuggery than bashing in heads with a
crowbar, you know. Just like there's more to crime than murder. You may
be shocked to discover that so-called "white collar" people commit
crimes every day, sometimes even whilst wearing a suit and tie. The kind
of people who would advertise so deceitfully have a thug mentality.
> Don't try to make this into some "you're an evil dude" who don't care
> about the sick and elderly now.
If you want to describe yourself as evil then go right ahead. Personally
I was just going to stick with "apathetic", but frankly I don't quite
know what to make of you. You're certainly not very charitable (and no,
I don't mean anything to do with money) that's for sure.
> "thugs [..] victimising our children and grandparents"? Seriously? Is
> it so bad now that if grandma buys a computer with microsoft windows
> on it because she read that it was recommended by the laptop
> manufacturer she's a victim of a brutal crime?
Again with the hyperbole.
Does a crime need to be "brutal" for it to still be a crime?
"Grandma" would be a /victim/ of (in a very literal sense) a confidence
trick. Does that make her any less of a victim?
> Regardless of whether it does, actually, work as advertised or not?
The misleading statement is not that "it works", but that it's
"recommended" ... when it isn't - it's commercially endorsed. You
apparently can't tell the difference, but I can, and the big clue that
gives the game away is the fact that there is no indication whatsoever,
anywhere on any of those vendors Websites, that Microsoft actually
/paid/ them to make that "recommendation". And just to be clear, this
isn't about the fact that they were paid, it's about the fact that they
/hid/ that subtle detail from their potential customers, because that
tiny detail changes /everything/ about the integrity of that
"recommendation".
>>>> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it
>>>> could have some problems," and yet:
>>>
>>> Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't
>>> stable, the quote above is rather more conditional than you make
>>> it out to be.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Hardly. If you're going to quote someone, do it correctly and don't
> change the meaning of their words.
No, it's irrelevant. The meaning hasn't changed at all, since the
chairman of Lenovo still lacks confidence in Vista, with or without the
presence of the word "if" in that sentence. Also, for someone who claims
to have such enhanced acuity, you seem to have missed the part where
Lenovo did in fact veto the use of Vista at the Olympic Games, thus
further supporting the probability that the chairman was merely offering
the polite and diplomatic version of the explanation.
>> The chairman of Lenovo lacks confidence in a product that his
>> company nonetheless "recommends" ... because they're /paid/ to. IOW
>> when Lenovo makes this recommendation they're /lying/ to fulfil
>> the obligation of a /bribe/.
>
> Ok, so you are confident he's lying. Well, by all means, then you
> should indeed work towards some sort of legal action
As I said, that's the ASA's job.
>> Why are you making excuses for them?
>
> I'm trying to provide a balanced view
What kind of "balanced view" is there of a company that is demonstrably
(and deliberately - i.e. by accepting a bribe) in violation of
advertising standards?
You'll be trying to present me with a "balanced view" of /Microsoft/ next.
> Do you have a career in politics at all?
Spot the irony in that question, coming from someone who justifies
supporting the indefensible with the "balanced view" gambit.
> So apart from the talk shows, how are the commercial blocks in
> broadcasted television indicated where you live?
See my answer to your "Transformers" question, above.
> Well, see, since I'm not as enraged as you are about the whole trying
> to trick the unsuspecting public with obviously commercial messages
It's not "obvious" according to the CAP Code.
> the advertisers aren't actually violating standards.
Perhaps you need to raise your standards then.
>> Do you think /all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones
>> you don't care about?
>
> See, now you're doing the whole "you're an evil dude" thing again,
> but with the addition that I'm also somehow supporting criminal
> acitivies in general. It's not a really nice way of trying to discuss
> a subject, you know.
I have a problem finding the line between apathy and malice, when others
express a general disinterest in injustice.
Perhaps you can help me find that line
>>> Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour
>>
>> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
>
> Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
More likely you're eager to see such a complaint fail, so you can gloat
over it, thus satisfying yourself that the world is once again safe for
predators to exploit the weak with complete impunity.
>>> I guess we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as
>>> consumers and/or human beings and not believe everything we
>>> read.
>>
>> That's all very well for those who actually have that capacity.
>> Others aren't so lucky.
>
> This is a case where luck really has nothing to do with it.
How else would you describe someone with a diminished intellectual
capacity, or is otherwise in a weak position, ripe for exploitation?
> I just don't see it as such a big deal
You've made that crystal clear.
What you haven't made clear is "why".
> Will you also take action against any other advertisers who are in
> violation of the code in question?
If any of them ever become as big a threat to society as Microsoft, then
yes.
> the goal here would unfortunately seem rather to go on a crusade
> against a particular software company
Why not, after all - /they/ are on a "crusade" against /us/, the Free
Software community. Personally I think that's a poor choice of word
though. I would have gone with "self-defence", but apparently you're
uncomfortable with people sticking up for their rights, which is why you
need to malign them.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
06:18:09 up 30 days, 14:01, 5 users, load average: 2.23, 1.40, 0.96
Johan Lindquist
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 04:46 CET Dec 05 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
[..]
> After all it's perfectly correct to refer to someone who violates a
> code of practise as a "violator", and to the people who suffer the
> consequences of that violation as "victims".
I read to about here, and I was still meaning to try to write a
sensible reply to some of your points, but then you started getting
really nasty.
> Or maybe, as you've alluded to repeatedly in your diatribe, people
> need to toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin like a man, ad
> nauseam.
Like this unfounded insinuation here regarding how I feel about crime:
> After all, crime is perfectly acceptable, and should be tolerated.
> Right?
And this totally uncalled for comment, based on your misconceptions on
what I write because you don't enjoy being disagreed with:
> I find your attitude sickening.
This little gem from way up was also rather unfriendly:
> You seem to be advocating anarchy and barbarism.
I don't know what I wrote that makes you so hostile. Honestly, I
really tried to be civil to you and I don't know exactly where I
offended you so deeply.
>> Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
>
> I think you've already proved you don't give a damn about people's
> rights; compounding your indefensible position with yet more sarcasm
> isn't helpful.
I realise you don't appreciate my sarcastic streak (not all do, and
that's fine), but I was really having a hard time replying with any
sort of serious comment to your sudden mentioning of fatal traffic
accidents. After all, we were discussing marketing schemes, not lethal
weapons.
[..]
>> rather than, subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to
>> wipe out the human race anytime soon
>
> Your hyperbole might be funny if it actually made any sense.
I was sort of trying to point out the travesty of your comparisons,
apparently you took it to mean /I/ was comparing dishonest marketing
to life-threatening situations.
If I may once again point out, I was you who brought fatal accidents
and words like thugs (in the context of victimising the elderly, not
forgetting!) into the discussion, apparently not realising it is abit
over the top in the context at hand.
> In what way does dishonest marketing threaten life?
It does not, it was you who brought it up. For no apparent reason, I
might add.
> Or perhaps you mean to suggest that such things are unimportant
> /unless/ they are life-threatening.
I didn't mean to suggest any such thing, I was only trying to alert
you to the ridiculousness of the comparsion /you/ made, but apparently
you misunderstood me. Probably that sarcasm thing again, sorry about
that.
>> I don't think I'm all that interested in discussing truth in
>> advertising with you.
>
> You certainly don't seem to be interested in discussing the truth
> behind your motives for defending these marketing scum, [..]
This is really the point where I gave up hope that you would ever
stop being abusive towards me. Since I'm really getting tired of your
trying to make me out as some bad guy, I'm done with this discussion.
Thanks for your time.
ps. As I was deleting the rest of the article, I noticed this too.
You're really stuck on seeing me as a bad person just because I
don't agree with you on the interpretation of a phrase as "someone
recommends something", aren't you?
>>> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
>>
>> Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
>
> More likely you're eager to see such a complaint fail, so you can
> gloat over it, thus satisfying yourself that the world is once again
> safe for predators to exploit the weak with complete impunity.
[..]
To me, the phrase in question is just another marketing ploy which I
don't believe people in general take as honest truth. To you, it's
apparent gospel to most people and intentionally misleading (and, may
I add, quite evil if not malicious).
That /really/ is how I would sum it up, and in many ways it's really
amusing that it sparked such a discussion when I just replied to a
post containing (alleged) evidence of someone being paid to advertise,
pointing out that is was hardly a revelation that this was going on.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:31:27 up 45 days, 23:19, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.10, 0.09
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Johan Lindquist on Monday 08 December 2008 10:00 : \____
> To me, the phrase in question is just another marketing ploy which I
> don't believe people in general take as honest truth.
They actually do. Don't underestimate naivety. :-)
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Lions are like hippie tigers"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 22.6%us, 5.0%sy, 0.1%ni, 70.6%id, 1.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.4%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk9HsAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo42GACffhU1GxFj3bzIzydVnKjyU2xT
FFsAn0ou0XQ5Ru6rRfMMTLnRqZI3BRda
=km1h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Johan Lindquist
Roy Schestowitz was all like, "Dude,
> ____/ Johan Lindquist on Monday 08 December 2008 10:00 : \____
>> To me, the phrase in question is just another marketing ploy which
>> I don't believe people in general take as honest truth.
>
> They actually do. Don't underestimate naivety. :-)
In all fairness, I've just had that discussion with someone else and
it really didn't end well. You'll pardon my reluctance to once again
voice my desire for heightening consumer awareness rather than using
increased legislation as an excuse for allowing general laziness.
(cue "Back in my day, we had to actually read the fine print or just
/watching/ a commercial would consummate the sale of our souls to the
devil!" Monty Python skit rip-off)
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
14:50:04 up 46 days, 3:38, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.11, 0.09
Homer
> yeah,
[snip complaints about my "nasty" comments]
This is a debate Johan ... you need to take some of your own (implied)
advice, and toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin like a man; ad
nauseam.
You should know by now that I'm extremely passionate about my beliefs.
Deal with it.
>> In what way does dishonest marketing threaten life?
>
> It does not, it was you who brought it up. For no apparent reason, I
> might add.
You do know what an analogy is, right?
>> Or perhaps you mean to suggest that such things are unimportant
>> /unless/ they are life-threatening.
>
> I didn't mean to suggest any such thing, I was only trying to alert
> you to the ridiculousness of the comparsion /you/ made
It may be "ridiculous" to you, but I happen to take such matters very
seriously indeed. It's the difference between right and wrong. In fact
it's your lack of concern that makes my replies so abrasive.
AFAIAC Microsoft and their "partners'" behaviour is deeply malevolent,
but you refuse to acknowledge that fact, which means you either agree
with them (making you equally malevolent) or you just don't care.
If it's the former, then it seems your position is irrecoverably and
diametrically opposed to mine. If it's the latter, then by failing to
oppose their behaviour, you are still nonetheless part of the problem,
in fact I'd go as far as to say that apathy is just as reprehensible as
malice.
> To me, the phrase in question is just another marketing ploy
To me it's a deception instigated and perpetuated by corporate thugs,
seeking to further strengthen their monopoly.
But apparently you're unable to see that they are thugs, because they
wear suits and don't wield crowbars.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
18:11:52 up 33 days, 1:54, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.33, 0.29
chrisv
>ps. As I was deleting the rest of the article, I noticed this too.
>You're really stuck on seeing me as a bad person just because I
>don't agree with you on the interpretation of a phrase as "someone
>recommends something", aren't you?
One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a "recommendation",
or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any attempt would result
in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Monday 08 December 2008 18:12 : \____
> But apparently you're unable to see that they are thugs, because they
> wear suits and don't wield crowbars.
Apropos, the world's biggest terrorists wear suits too.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 4088500k total, 417880k used, 3670620k free, 264040k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk9jfwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7G9gCaAjJcb7q7NY4aFHDyuRCGsx5t
+jUAoI9J85ACN52X5GwtKfpjsY3aupx3
=2zL2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
chrisv
>One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
>these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a "recommendation",
>or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any attempt would result
>in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
Peter Köhlmann
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
>>these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a "recommendation",
>>or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any attempt would result
>>in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
>
> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
Well, there *is* a difference to be heard. If you connect a good amp to
very good loudspeakers, you can hear a (slight) difference between thin
cables and thick ones. And make them as *short* as possible
But you can get the thick ones at any electric shop of your lowest
mistrust. No need to go to the superexpensive HiFi shop
> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>
> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
Well, tarring and feathering would be a good start.
On the other hand, they exploit the same weaknesses Apple does with their
stuff. They tell a willing audience that they are a "special kind"
deserving "special gear"
--
Microsoft: which revised Eula do you want to accept today?
Sinister Midget
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
>>these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a "recommendation",
>>or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any attempt would result
>>in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
>
> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
The question comes up: Do they lie, or are they ignorant.
I'd bet it's some of the former, and a lot of the latter. Most people
haven't the foggiest notion of what's required for electricity
(including audio) to move along a wire, nor what characteristics of the
wire affect that movement.
> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>
> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
Maybe reeducation camps?
Education is definitely the best answer. But it has to be aimed at the
consumer. Teaching people who are on the front lines of the scams won't
eliminate the ones who are deliberately perpetrating fraud and deceit,
although it might help a few move along to more honest occupations.
--
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe.
-- Frank Zappa
Sinister Midget
>
> ____/ Homer on Monday 08 December 2008 18:12 : \____
>
>> But apparently you're unable to see that they are thugs, because they
>> wear suits and don't wield crowbars.
>
> Apropos, the world's biggest terrorists wear suits too.
>
> - --
> ~~ Best of wishes
>
> Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
> http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> Swap: 4088500k total, 417880k used, 3670620k free, 264040k cached
> http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid
yourselves." -- Frank Zappa
--
A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.
-- Captain Beefheart
High Plains Thumper
> chrisv wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate
>>> some of these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a
>>> "recommendation", or what is "obviously" a paid
>>> advertisement. Any attempt would result in vague and
>>> unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
>>
>> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam.
>> This is an organized scam that takes consumers for $millions
>> each year. People go to stores and have salesmen LIE to
>> their face about the "night and day" benefits of using
>> expensive cables for one's audio and video.
>
> Well, there *is* a difference to be heard. If you connect a
> good amp to very good loudspeakers, you can hear a (slight)
> difference between thin cables and thick ones. And make them
> as *short* as possible
>
> But you can get the thick ones at any electric shop of your
> lowest mistrust. No need to go to the superexpensive HiFi shop
I've used 16 gauge lamp cord wiring, available at a hardware
store. It has less impedance losses than the usual 22 gauge
stuff. Solder connectors from an electronics store. It may not
be a pretty as the so called gold plated connectors with clear
vinyl and tin coated wires. It is functional.
>> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and
>> shot? Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything
>> about it...
>
> Well, tarring and feathering would be a good start.
>
> On the other hand, they exploit the same weaknesses Apple does
> with their stuff. They tell a willing audience that they are a
> "special kind" deserving "special gear"
Sometimes innocent people are scammed, but then vigilance is a
necessity. It helps one to recognise a fallacious argument, when
it comes. One such is the UI argument so spouted here but a
certain self seeking troll.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Homer
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
>> these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a
>> "recommendation", or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any
>> attempt would result in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
I doubt if the CAP Code traps every violation, but at least that code of
practise exists, and can be enforced when consumers bring violations to
the ASA's attention. Better to have some measure of control over
deceptive advertisers than none at all, because if left unregulated you
can be sure such people would stoop to any depths to con money from you.
> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night
> and day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and
> video.
>
> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>
> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
Maybe if they were giving ostensibly impartial recommendations that were
actually paid endorsements, without revealing that fact, then people
might be inclined to complain.
Some people, anyway.
Like these people, for instance:
[quote]
Complaint
Objection to a national press ad, for a price comparison service, that
was headlined "Find the best gas, electricity and broadband deal in one
easy phone call". Text below stated "The Times has teamed up with
SimplySwitch, the leading price comparison service, to help our readers
save hundreds of pounds a year on gas, electricity and broadband charges
... We find you the best deal, including capped price offers Independent
- not owned by any supplier ... You can save over £200* by changing your
gas and electricity provider ..."
...
Complaint upheld
...
The ASA considered that the claim "Independent - not owned by any
supplier" suggested no commercial link between SimplySwitch and
suppliers and therefore that consumers would think that the "impartial
switching service" was available in respect of any supplier. We noted
that SimplySwitch could switch consumers only to those suppliers who
paid them commission. We concluded that, because their capacity to
switch consumers was dependent on which suppliers paid them commission,
the claims "Independent - not owned by any supplier" and "impartial
switching service", when read together in the same advertisment, were
misleading. We noted the ad was no longer appearing but told
SimplySwitch not to repeat the claim to be "independent" in future
advertising without making plain that the switching service was limited
to those suppliers with which they had a commercial agreement.
The claim breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).
[/quote]
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=41342
As for whether or not speaker cable salesmen are lying:
[quote]
Blind Test: Most Listeners Can Tell the Difference Between Speaker Cables
Skeptics (including me) love to laugh at people who claim they can hear
the difference between stereo components hooked up with one cable vs.
another. Can wires really be that important in the audio experience?
The Wall Street Journal put the question to the test at a recent audio
show, renting a booth, and hooking up two sets of identical components,
differing only by the speaker cable. One set used off-the-roll, 14-gauge
speaker cable from a hardware store. Another used a pair of Sigma Retro
Gold cables from Monster, $2,000 for 16 feet of cable total and "as
thick as your thumb." The writer couldn't tell the difference and
figured no one else could either.
Surprise: People who visited the booth and listened to both sets of
equipment (not in view) preferred the expensively cabled audio equipment
61 percent of the time.
[/quote]
http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/null/65929
Esoteric audio suffers from the law of diminishing returns, but the
differences at the lower end of the scale can be quite profound. If any
salesman is literally making a "Night & Day" comparison between two
highly expensive brands, for example, then I'd say that was an
exaggeration at best, and possibly outright deception, depending on the
circumstancs. But if he makes that claim WRT bell-wire compared to
carbon-shielded; Oxygen Free Copper (OFC) cable, then I think you'd find
he has a point.
Personally I recommend Van den Hull, but then I can make that
recommendation with a clear conscience, since I'm not being paid to
endorse their products, nor am I being paid to do so secretly, such that
I falsely appear to be impartial.
From the original article:
[quote]
The latter have a sense of humor and shrug that theirs is just one of
many hobbies -- like wine -- for people with money, expansive
vocabularies and the ability to discern differences lost on the rest of us.
[/quote]
Perhaps I'm just one of those people who can discern those subtle
differences more readily ... like the difference between honest
advertising and a blatant deception.
Fortunately I seem to be one of those whom the ASA /doesn't/ need to
protect, although the fact that I'm astute enough to avoid becoming a
victim of marketing deceptions, should not mean I just ignore such
violations, and leave others less fortunate to suffer at the hands of
conmen. Doing so would be like walking away from the scene of a mugging,
without even calling the police, much less actually trying to help the
victim more directly. There are some things I just can't do in good
conscience.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
02:25:13 up 33 days, 10:08, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
Ezekiel
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:lc7rj4h77qs87i8nh...@4ax.com...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>One problem is that it's likely not possible to legislate some of
>>these finer points of what is "fair", or what is a "recommendation",
>>or what is "obviously" a paid advertisement. Any attempt would result
>>in vague and unenforceable laws, I'm afraid.
>
> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
Here's an even better 'audio scam' that someone certainly fell for:
AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
Yep... that's one fancy ethernet cable they've got there.
> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>
> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
None of the above. Who's to decide what can or can't be sold. It's a free
market economy. Anyone smart enough to afford something like this 'ultra
premium link cable' should have the brains to know better. People pay
millions for diamonds which is nothing more than a polished rock. Should
this be banned too?
Hadron
It seems *Plonker* is now against "choice".
No surprise there then. You can have any OS so long as it's Linux ...
--
"I've heard "Linux is the future!" for, let me see now, must about 17 years. For how long do I need to listen to that clap trap?"
-- Ruby Murray <Vind...@curryhouse.co.uk> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Johan Lindquist
Homer was all like, "Dude,
[..]
> This is a debate Johan ... you need to take some of your own
> (implied) advice, and toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin
> like a man; ad nauseam.
What I have been "advising" all along is that people should learn
to take advertising for what it is, absolutely not that they should
accept to be tricked by it and move on, or to "toughen up" as you put
it.
To the best of my knowledge, I've not used anything resembling the
phrases above that you seem to think I have been implicitly using.
Your words "ad nauseam" also reveal that you feel it's the only thing
I've been repeating over and over, when it's not at all what I meant.
Apparently even this fundamental thing is something I've failed to
commnunicate to you, which is why it's probably a good thing for both
of us I've bowed out of this particular debate.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:10:31 up 46 days, 21:58, 1 user, load average: 0.31, 0.16, 0.11
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Here's an even better 'audio scam' that someone certainly fell for:
>
> AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable
> http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
>
> Yep... that's one fancy ethernet cable they've got there.
I'll bet Tarzan could swing from that cable!
>> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
>
> None of the above. Who's to decide what can or can't be sold. It's a free
> market economy. Anyone smart enough to afford something like this 'ultra
> premium link cable' should have the brains to know better. People pay
> millions for diamonds which is nothing more than a polished rock. Should
> this be banned too?
Have you heard the word? Johannesburg!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgxWk4BE8Y8
--
Minnie Mouse is a slow maze learner.
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
>> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
>> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
>> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
>
>Well, there *is* a difference to be heard. If you connect a good amp to
>very good loudspeakers, you can hear a (slight) difference between thin
>cables and thick ones. And make them as *short* as possible
>
>But you can get the thick ones at any electric shop of your lowest
>mistrust. No need to go to the superexpensive HiFi shop
Yes, speaker cables must be "thick enough", and interconnects must be
decently-shielded. But none of this is expensive. It's the "Monster"
brand cable that's the fscking rip-off. There's other rip-off brands
too, of course, but none is as pervasive as Monster.
chrisv
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> claimed:
>>
>> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
>> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
>> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
>> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
>
>The question comes up: Do they lie, or are they ignorant.
>
>I'd bet it's some of the former, and a lot of the latter. Most people
>haven't the foggiest notion of what's required for electricity
>(including audio) to move along a wire, nor what characteristics of the
>wire affect that movement.
So they should be allowed to lie to consumer, because they are
ignorant? I know that's not what you're saying, but they are selling
snake oil, pure and simple. Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
>> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>>
>> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
>
>Maybe reeducation camps?
>
>Education is definitely the best answer. But it has to be aimed at the
>consumer.
I'd like to aim it at the store manager. "Do you know that your
salespeople are lying to your customers, so that your store can rip
them off?"
It would do no help, of course. They are making a lot of money on
these cables. They are far more profitable than the electronics that
the cable plugs in to! Nothing short of a court-order would stop
them.
chrisv
>>
>> None of the above. Who's to decide what can or can't be sold. It's a free
>> market economy. Anyone smart enough to afford something like this 'ultra
>> premium link cable' should have the brains to know better.
Well hell, then they should be able to sell expensive pills that
promise to cure baldness and trim inches off your waistline! Buyer
beware! They should be able to lie about how good of gas milage that
cars get! Lie away!
By the way, fsckwit. We are not talking about "rich people" who are
"smart enough to afford 'ultra premium' cable", fsckwit.
*Every* common person that walks into a Best Buy store, if they ask
about cable, is lead over to the Monster cable aisle, and told *lies*
about how they don't want to "compromise their performance" with a
generic cable.
>> millions for diamonds which is nothing more than a polished rock. Should
>> this be banned too?
Dumbshit. No one is lying about what the diamond can do. They only
say it's a rock of a certain (verifiable) size and quality-level.
Gods, are you professionally stupid?
chrisv
>Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>
>> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
>> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
>> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night
>> and day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and
>> video.
>>
>> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>>
>> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
>
>Maybe if they were giving ostensibly impartial recommendations that were
>actually paid endorsements, without revealing that fact, then people
>might be inclined to complain.
Well, it get-into the fuzziness of what is a "paid endorsement". What
Monster does do is pay for "marketing retreats", which of course are
largely expenses-paid vacations for the retail representatives. There
they work-out their scam and how to "market" it to gullible consumers.
Then they simply execute their plan, a key feature of which is
extraordinary price mark-ups.
"Just lie to the consumer so that they buy the overpriced product, and
we'll all get rich."
Is that a "paid endorsement"? I think it is.
Ezekiel
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Facts would seem to indicate that it is *you* who is professionally stupid
because current advertising laws agree with *ME* and do not agree with
*YOU*. Clearly people with much more knowledge and experience in the facts
of this matter disagree with *your* ignorant viewpoint.
I suppose that if I was a retard like you then I would want a government
"Nanny State" to protect me from myself. But people with more than 7 brain
cells are able to make decisions for themselves.
If you're interested in *discussing* this rather than call people dumbshit,
fsckwit and all of your other little 8 year old insults then I'll do it.
Otherwise you can go fsck yourself dick breath.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:0wt%k.5866$UI2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Here's an even better 'audio scam' that someone certainly fell for:
>>
>> AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable
>> http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
>>
>> Yep... that's one fancy ethernet cable they've got there.
>
> I'll bet Tarzan could swing from that cable!
For that price he ought to be able to swing from the cable with Jane on his
back.
At 1/10th the price that internet patch cable is a complete rip-off. I was
in Staples (yeah, we've got that) the other day and walked past the
networking isle to get to what I needed. I glanced over at the internet
patch cords and they had one on sale for $9.99. The rest of the 3-6 foot
long ethernet cables were $15.
I refuse to pay those prices. The only reason they're this high is because
they sell them to people who for whatever reason - need one *now* as in
today. I buy my ethernet cables for about a 1/10th of what Staples charges.
So when I see Denon selling a ethernet cable for $499 I can't help but
wonder how many of these they sell a year.
Ezekiel
"Gary M. Stewart" <gmstew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghm625$73m$1...@nntp.motzarella.org...
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:04:39 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>
>> I refuse to pay those prices. The only reason they're this high is
>> because
>> they sell them to people who for whatever reason - need one *now* as in
>> today. I buy my ethernet cables for about a 1/10th of what Staples
>> charges.
>> So when I see Denon selling a ethernet cable for $499 I can't help but
>> wonder how many of these they sell a year.
>
> in college and you would be amazed at what the suckers would buy.
>
> It's like taking candy from a baby.
> To this day I still don't know how I did that job with a straight face.
>
> Think wine tasting and some of the buzz words the critics use.
>
> Every month Stereophile or some other high end magazine would have reviews
> on the latest piece of snake oil and the live ones would be lined up at
> the
> door wanting to trade in last month's model for the latest and greatest.
> Seriously.
Oh I definitely believe you. Before I got married I spent a fair amount of
my income on stereo equipment. I never bought the ultra high-end esoteric
stuff but I've been in enough of those types of stores to see what it's
about. (There used to be a ultra high-end store about 30 minutes away that
took trade-in's and they would sell the old equipment. I bought a few things
there that somebody traded in.)
Of course lots of these things are crap. But *I* want to be the one who
decides that it's crap and decides not to buy it rather than some beuracrat
in Washington. The last thing I want is some politician deciding what is
allowed to be sold and for what price. I find it amazing that these
*HYPOCRITES* who cry and whine "free choice" all day long suddenly want to
make it illegal to sell something like "Monster Cable" because /they/ think
that it's priced too high.
So did you ever sell one of these? The photo about 1/2 way down the page is
my favorite.
Hadron
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:40:53 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>
>> Of course lots of these things are crap. But *I* want to be the one who
>> decides that it's crap and decides not to buy it rather than some beuracrat
>> in Washington. The last thing I want is some politician deciding what is
>> allowed to be sold and for what price. I find it amazing that these
>> *HYPOCRITES* who cry and whine "free choice" all day long suddenly want to
>> make it illegal to sell something like "Monster Cable" because /they/ think
>> that it's priced too high.
>
> With the radical Linux/OSS zealot you are either 100 percent with them or
> you are the enemy.
>
> And as for choice, it's only choice when you choose what THEY want.
>
> BTW key words "priced too high".
>
> A 2 cent piece of bubble gum is priced too high for most of the Linux loons
> in COLA.
>
>
>>
>> So did you ever sell one of these? The photo about 1/2 way down the page is
>> my favorite.
>>
>> http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm
>
> OMG!
>
> It's worse than I thought.
The demagnetizer makes a lot of sense if dist fibers contain an material
attracted to a magnet.
What IS ridiculous is these "noiseless cables" for digital signals. Total
and utter baloney. Assuming error checking and packet re.transmission is
working the network and a mild amount of pre-buffering means it is
effectively noiseless.
>
> No, nothing like that however we did sell a concrete box which people used
> to encase their amplifiers in for better sound quality.
--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
geewhiz
Hanged. With Monster Cables. :-)
>
> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
There's hope:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/
AR2008120803513.html>
...Now the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees U.S. advertising
including celebrity and customer endorsements, is proposing to change
28-year-old guidelines so the industry would have to be more specific
about what consumers can expect from a product. Until now, it was enough
to offer broad disclaimers such as "results not typical."
"The advertiser would be required to say what is expected, what is
the ordinary result," said Mary Engle, the FTC associate director for
advertising practices. "If the average loss is 10 pounds, they should
say that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to make this on-topic for COLA: I wonder how that'll affect
Microsoft's advertising?
Ezekiel
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghma2k$hlj$2...@reader.motzarella.org...
But in this case they are demagnetizing audio CD's which have a aluminium
substrate. Even if CD's were made of cast iron it wouldn't make any
difference because they are /digital/ and as long as the laser can read the
data it's the digital to analog converter in the CD player that will
recreate the sound. The circuitry in the CD player and the D2A converters
have no idea if the CD is magnetized or not.
> What IS ridiculous is these "noiseless cables" for digital signals. Total
> and utter baloney. Assuming error checking and packet re.transmission is
> working the network and a mild amount of pre-buffering means it is
> effectively noiseless.
It's really no different than a demagnetized CD. It's a digital transmission
and either the 1's and 0's get there or they don't. I would really be
interested in knowing how many $500 ethernet cables Denon sells every year.
I actually like their audio equipment... it's somewhat of a shame that they
would resort to this sort of scam. You'd think that if someone lays down
$800 for some piece of audio equipment from them that the least they could
do is include a short ethernet cable for free - not charge $500.
Sinister Midget
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> claimed:
>>>
>>> One thing that comes to mind is the "Monster cable" scam. This is an
>>> organized scam that takes consumers for $millions each year. People
>>> go to stores and have salesmen LIE to their face about the "night and
>>> day" benefits of using expensive cables for one's audio and video.
>>
>>The question comes up: Do they lie, or are they ignorant.
>>
>>I'd bet it's some of the former, and a lot of the latter. Most people
>>haven't the foggiest notion of what's required for electricity
>>(including audio) to move along a wire, nor what characteristics of the
>>wire affect that movement.
>
> So they should be allowed to lie to consumer, because they are
> ignorant? I know that's not what you're saying, but they are selling
> snake oil, pure and simple. Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
How do you punish a salespuke who has zero idea about how things work?
If he's repeating what he's been told, or what he has been led to
believe by other clueless people, can you really hold him responsible?
>>> Should these asshole bes sued? Arrested? Taken-out and shot?
>>>
>>> Maybe all three, but I don't see anyone doing anything about it...
>>
>>Maybe reeducation camps?
>>
>>Education is definitely the best answer. But it has to be aimed at the
>>consumer.
>
> I'd like to aim it at the store manager. "Do you know that your
> salespeople are lying to your customers, so that your store can rip
> them off?"
>
> It would do no help, of course. They are making a lot of money on
> these cables. They are far more profitable than the electronics that
> the cable plugs in to! Nothing short of a court-order would stop
> them.
The companies making false claims should be made to either become
educated and get honest, or get out of the business. Once educated
they can be held responsible for their false claims.
But most retailers don't know they're selling deceit. They're either
taking the word of the manufacturer, of they've been fooled into
believing the old wives' tales they're telling.
--
The stars are matter, we're matter, but it doesn't matter.
-- Captain Beefheart
JEDIDIAH
> "Gary M. Stewart" <gmstew...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:40:53 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Of course lots of these things are crap. But *I* want to be the one who
>>> decides that it's crap and decides not to buy it rather than some beuracrat
>>> in Washington. The last thing I want is some politician deciding what is
>>> allowed to be sold and for what price. I find it amazing that these
>>> *HYPOCRITES* who cry and whine "free choice" all day long suddenly want to
>>> make it illegal to sell something like "Monster Cable" because /they/ think
>>> that it's priced too high.
>>
>> With the radical Linux/OSS zealot you are either 100 percent with them or
>> you are the enemy.
>>
>> And as for choice, it's only choice when you choose what THEY want.
Well, Bergdorf-Goodman type margins on simple commodity consumer
goods does seem a bit peculiar and is perhaps a situation worth a bit
of extra scrutiny.
>>
>> BTW key words "priced too high".
>>
>> A 2 cent piece of bubble gum is priced too high for most of the Linux loons
>> in COLA.
...except it's not 2 cent bubble gum we're talking about here.
[deletia]
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Homer
> What I have been "advising" all along is that people should learn to
> take advertising for what it is
But to repeat my earlier points:
1. This /particular/ example of advertising is masked as something else
(an impartial recommendation), and is thus deceptive. This is *not*
"just advertising".
If this /is/ typical of advertising practices outside the UK (e.g. in
the US or Australia) then I pity the consumers in those countries, and
sincerely hope the respective governments eventually adopt advertising
regulations as good as ours, to protect consumers from this form of abuse.
Perhaps this "apathy" I referred to is not uniquely yours, but is
endemic in a culture which has become institutionalised by the ideology
that business (or anything pertaining to money) has superior /rights/
over people themselves, perpetuating the twisted doctrines of the
"right" to force people to view adverts (ref: Tivo; Danny Carlton; and
others); the "right" to profit from business (the pro Intellectual
Monopoly lobby); and the "right" to use /any/ means, deceptive or
otherwise, to brainwash consumers into buying their products and services.
Business is an /opportunity/, not a "right".
Those who overstep the boundaries of moral acceptability in their
desperate and obsessive scramble for even higher profits, by exploiting
the weak and/or violating consumers' rights, need to be regulated and
punished.
If you don't see that need, then consider the possibility that you may
have succumbed to that marketing indoctrination, and are now part of
that institutionalised culture of consumers groomed to think and act
exactly as the advertisers planned. IOW you've been programmed to accept
abuse without question. A similar phenomenon occurs in cases of domestic
violence. And no, I'm not being facetious, you should really examine
this form of manipulation in more detail; you might be surprised what
you discover about yourself.
2. Even if (as is falsely implied by the vendor - due to a lack of any
explicit details marking this as a paid advertisement) this /were/ an
impartial recommendation (even coincidentally so), in at least one
case it has been shown to be a lie (Lenovo), and is thus not only a
deceptive use of advertising, but also a false claim.
You seem to have adopted the attitude that advertising is universally
understood to be a lie, and that this is therefore an acceptable
condition (par for the course). You've also apparently become
conditioned to accept that paid advertising may be an inherent part of
culture, built into its foundations in such a way as to blur the
distinction between impartiality and paid endorsement, and that
therefore everything you see and hear (from whatever source) is probably
a form of advertisement - and furthermore that this is /also/ an
acceptable condition. The conclusion is therefore that you've accepted
that everything in your culture is essentially a lie; synthetic and
false ... much like living in Hollywood.
Some of that may be true, to an extent - and depending on location, but
your resigned acceptance of it is a rather unhealthy condition.
3, It is not our responsibility as consumers to "take" deceptive and
false advertising ... at all ... ever ... period. It is (or /should/
be) the obligation of advertisers to act responsibly and ethically,
and when they fail to do so, the responsibility of advertising
standards regulators to take remedial action against such violators.
I'm not excusing stupidity or naivety (but then those who suffer those
conditions are not really in a position to do anything about it, are
they?), but it's totally unacceptable to pass the onus of responsibility
(for a crime or breach of other type of regulation) from the perpetrator
to the victim. Indeed it's selfish, uncharitable and malevolent to
expect /anyone/ to simple "deal" with crime, rather than instigate and
support laws and other regulations to /prevent/ that crime in the first
place, or punish the perpetrators after the fact.
Deceitful manipulation is /not/ acceptable; advertising /should/ be
conducted ethically; and we /need/ laws and regulatory bodies to enforce
good behaviour from the marketing industry. Microsoft and their
"partners" are a perfect example of exactly /why/ this is absolutely
necessary, because they act with gross immorality and malevolence; they
are deceitful and manipulative; they have the mentality of thugs, and
they should not be allowed to conduct themselves in such a fashion with
complete impunity.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
19:22:59 up 34 days, 3:05, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.09, 0.05
chrisv
>>>
>>> With the radical Linux/OSS zealot you are either 100 percent with them or
>>> you are the enemy.
Then there ain't many "zealots" in here, because the majority of the
advocates think nothing of the kind.
>>> And as for choice, it's only choice when you choose what THEY want.
Nope. You are lying. Obviously. As usual.
YOU trolling filth are the ones who want to banish choice. We have no
problem with you using *whatever* you want to use.
Homer
More than that, AFAIAC it's a bribe, and therefore highly unethical. The
fact that consumers are not made aware of this conflict of interests,
and the fact that any "recommendation" is therefore not impartial, but
has in fact been "bought", is also a gross deception.
The problem (re: your reference to enforceability) in dealing with this
issue, is that one would need to pursue individual salesmen on a
case-by-case basis, since it is they who are perpetrating the deception.
AFAIK merely /offering/ this kind of bribe is not, in and of itself,
either illegal or in violation of any code of practise. IMHO it /should/
be though. Again AFAIK it is the act of /accepting/ such a bribe, then
/acting/ on it, that may be (at the very least) in violation of the CAP
Code. Pursuing individual salesmen is a difficult proposition though.
What needs to be done is to shut down racketeering-like operations like
these "marketing retreats" to get to the root of the problem. If this
scam is occurring within the UK, then I'm not sure the ASA has the
mandate to do anything about it - perhaps this is a job for the BERR:
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
19:46:26 up 34 days, 3:29, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01
Homer
> Here's an even better 'audio scam' that someone certainly fell for:
>
> AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable
> http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
>
> Yep... that's one fancy ethernet cable they've got there.
What a ridiculous product!
AFAICT the worst thing that can happen with a /data/ cable is packet
loss, and even that is usually compensated for using redundancy and
checksums. Spending 500 bucks on such a cable is monumentally stupid.
It's not like the signal can possibly irrecoverably degrade (like an
analogue signal) - over short distances at least.
Denon should be brought to book over this scam.
> Who's to decide what can or can't be sold.
Interesting question.
How about narcotics?
How about radioactive materials?
How about toxic or otherwise bio-hazardous materials?
How about human slaves?
How about stolen goods?
How about /faulty/ goods?
How about goods made in sweatshops by child slave labour?
How about /legitimate/ goods sold by gangsters or terrorists?
How about electronic goods that fail to pass FCC/BSI regulations?
How about falsely described or deceptively advertised goods?
Clearly there are a large number of bodies who "decide what can or can't
be sold".
The basis of Freedom is that people are Free to do anything /other/ than
compromise others' Freedom or other rights. This is why we have laws,
including the laws that restrict the sale of the aforementioned list of
goods.
>> It's a free market economy.
No, what you're advocating is an economy based on the brutal
exploitation and manipulation of others, in order to /guarantee/ profit
through dominance and control (or IOW Corporatism). This, if anything,
is actually the antithesis of a Free Market (or is IOW anti-capitalist).
A Free Market is one in which /any/ entrepreneur may /enter/ that
market, because conditions facilitate equal opportunity. This is in
contrast to your warped interpretation of "Free", meaning "Free" to
deceive; rip-off; manipulate and control. Free Markets need, and mostly
have, bodies to regulate them, without which those markets would become
cesspools of corruption.
>> Anyone smart enough to afford
"Smart enough to afford"?
Some of the world's most renowned geniuses are (or were when they were
alive) living in abject poverty.
[quote]
A Russian mathematician, Grigori ("Grisha") Perelman, who is credited
proving the Poincaré conjecture declined to accept the Fields Medal,
regarded as the highest honor in the field of mathematics.
The Fields Medal, often referred to as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics",
was awarded this year to Andrei Okounkov (Russia/US), Terence Tao
(Australia/US) and Wendelin Werner (France) in addition to Perelman. The
award was handed out by King Juan Carlos of Spain and is accompanied by
a C$15'000 (approximately US$13'400 or 10'400EUR) cash prize (less than
the one million Euros that come with the Nobel prize). Nominees have to
be under 40 years, because the founder of the award, Canadian
mathematician John Charles Fields wanted the medal to be a stimulus for
future endeavours.
Perelman submitted two papers in 2002 and 2003 outlining a proof for
Thurston's geometrization conjecture, which in turn, implies a proof for
the Poincaré conjecture. Other mathematicians filling in the details
have found no flaws in Perelman's approach yet. In 2003, Perelman made a
short tour in the United States to explain his proof of the conjecture.
When he went back to the St Petersburg department of the Staklov
Institute of Mathematics, he gave up his job, and is reported to be
unemployed and living with his mother ever since.
[/quote]
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Russian_mathematician_declines_Fields_Medal
What is your definition of "smart" I wonder?
Maybe you mean to imply that people who exploit others with wild
abandon; are selfish megalomaniacs; will stoop to any vile depths to
satisfy their frothing obsession with greed; and who generally have the
mentality of thugs; are somehow "smart" because their sick behaviour
results in the accumulation of vast hoards of cash.
Is that the kind of "smart" you meant?
>> People pay millions for diamonds which is nothing more than a
>> polished rock. Should this be banned too?
But nobody ever claimed that a diamond was ever anything but a cut and
polished rock, nor do they "recommend" one rock over another because
they've been paid to make that recommendation without declaring their
conflict of interest.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
20:40:24 up 34 days, 4:23, 2 users, load average: 0.29, 0.09, 0.03
AZ Nomad
>Verily I say unto thee, that Ezekiel spake thusly:
>> Here's an even better 'audio scam' that someone certainly fell for:
>>
>> AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable
>> http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
>>
>> Yep... that's one fancy ethernet cable they've got there.
>What a ridiculous product!
>AFAICT the worst thing that can happen with a /data/ cable is packet
>loss, and even that is usually compensated for using redundancy and
>checksums. Spending 500 bucks on such a cable is monumentally stupid.
>It's not like the signal can possibly irrecoverably degrade (like an
>analogue signal) - over short distances at least.
That as funny as the $500-1500 power cables being sold to audiofile
morons.
But, don't you know that expensive power cables are *magic*. Put them
between your file server and desktop and the data will become
*better*. Movies displayed will get higher resolution data and the
colors will of course improve. These magic cables can not only modify
the data to make everything better, but fix the checksums to match.
chrisv
>How do you punish a salespuke who has zero idea about how things work?
>If he's repeating what he's been told, or what he has been led to
>believe by other clueless people, can you really hold him responsible?
I'd rather checkmate the king, rather than go-after the pawns...
I admit it's a sticky issue. I think complaining to management would
not work, either. What then? I do not know. I just know that it
pisses me off that so many are getting ripped-off by this scam.
Even "cheap" stores like Target and Wal-Mart are getting-in on the
act. They figure that if a 'Monster' HDMI cable costs $70, they can
sell a generic (maybe cable for $40 and their customers will think
that they are getting a deal by shopping with them! They *smile* as
they they get fscked for $40 on a cable which should be $10!
cc
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>
> > What I have been "advising" all along is that people should learn to
> > take advertising for what it is
>
> But to repeat my earlier points:
>
> 1. This /particular/ example of advertising is masked as something else
> (an impartial recommendation), and is thus deceptive. This is *not*
> "just advertising".
>
> If this /is/ typical of advertising practices outside the UK (e.g. in
> the US or Australia) then I pity the consumers in those countries, and
> sincerely hope the respective governments eventually adopt advertising
> regulations as good as ours, to protect consumers from this form of abuse.
>
I pity the consumers in the UK who are apparently dumber than their
counterparts in the US and Australia and are unable to recognize paid
advertising when they see it. Instead of mischaracterizing people's
positions in COLA, why not take up your issue with the appropriate
authorities in the UK? If you're going to take a moral stance on the
"recommends Vista", then fine, but you'll have to take a moral stance
against all advertising which exists purely to get you to buy a
product whether or not you need it, and whether or not said product is
good.
Homer
> How do you punish a salespuke who has zero idea about how things
> work? If he's repeating what he's been told, or what he has been led
> to believe by other clueless people, can you really hold him
> responsible?
I believe that if what an employee is doing (wrong) can be proved to be
as a result of company policy, or lack of same (e.g. training) then the
company itself can be held accountable. The degree to which this is true
will vary from one industry; case; jurisdiction and circumstance to
another, but such industry regulations do exist. /Proving/ liability is
something else though, and invariably results in cover-ups and scapegoats.
> But most retailers don't know they're selling deceit. They're either
> taking the word of the manufacturer, of they've been fooled into
> believing the old wives' tales they're telling.
As the saying goes: Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, which
is why so many companies in various industries are so keen to implement
regulatory compliance training. In the long run, it's cheaper than
facing fines or other sanctions. I have no idea if any such regulations
exist WRT salesmen, but if not then it's about time they did.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
23:06:51 up 34 days, 6:49, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.08, 0.02
Sinister Midget
I prefer to tell people they're getting screwed and offer ideas about
where they can get a better deal. I've pissed off more than one sales
person like that, but the customers were mostly grateful.
Part of the problem is one of convenience (and laziness, too). People
sometimes know they can get better prices elsewhere, and they still
grab the item that's near at hand rather than go across the street to
pay 1/3 less. Grocery stores make a lot of money off of deodorants and
toothpaste like that. In cases like that, the retailer isn't lying
about quality. But they certainly know they're charging more than
others. But they also know that a number of people will grab the
convenient item.
Sure, you can get audio components one place, get TVs in another, get
cables elsewhere, and so on. You can do that and save money. But people
like to walk out with everything they need. And that puts them in a
position to believe whatever the sales people tell them, even when it
doesn't pass the logical smell test.
But a big part of the problem is that people believe that the person
telling them about the item know what they're talking about. So they
get talked into things that don't make sense. I've made corrections in
more than one situation and left the employee short on words when they
find that what they thought they knew was wrong. I've also had to do
battle with a few that were sure that what they were wrong about was
right.
--
The person who stands up and says, "This is stupid," either is asked to
`behave' or, worse, is greeted with a cheerful "Yes, we know! Isn't it
terrific!"
-- Frank Zappa
Homer
> But, don't you know that expensive power cables ... can not only
> modify the data to make everything better, but fix the checksums to
> match.
How might one justify this claim, I wonder?
In order for this to be true, the effect of /power/ would somehow have
to affect the integrity of /data/. The primary source of power problems
in a PC is the transformer, when one or more of the (usually) three
rails is not stable due to poor regulation.
So now we'd have to establish that:
a) ... A particular power cable has an enhanced ability to suppress
transformer voltage irregularities, and
b) ... Transformer voltage irregularities can cause soft errors on
datum.
Even then, we'd need to assume that the "fix checksums" claim is meant
to imply that it actually assists other components to prevent the
occurrence of such problems and/or implement an error correction
mechanism (such as ECC memory), rather than assuming that the cable
itself somehow directly alters datum.
Addressing point a) ... unless the cable is faulty (e.g. loose
connection) or not built to a specification rated for mains supply (IOW
as long as it actually works at all) then I fail to see how one power
cable can possibly be better than another, and therefore how it can
possibly affect the regulation of voltage in the transformer.
Addressing point b) ... this is a known problem (hence the need for ECC
memory), and is indeed the cause of many (initially) mysterious problems
with PCs which are often mis-attributed to software errors (random
lockups and crashes).
However, since (otherwise functional and properly rated) power cables
are unlikely to have any effect, one way or another, on the regulation
of voltage on a PSU transformer, then in this case a) does not lead to
b), and therefore the claim is very obviously false.
There is a special case WRT point a), which concerns RF interference on
poorly shielded cables and/or transformers lacking RF filters, which is
only relevant to analogue signals in (typically) HiFi systems, but that
has nothing to do with either voltages or purely digital transmission,
and is only usually a problem at the amplification stage (since they
further amplify the transmitted RF interference).
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
00:11:45 up 34 days, 7:54, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.73, 0.59
Hadron
> I hear they also eliminate the problem of millions of tmp files under
> Vista.
I don't use cables. I have a matchbox of Joseph Michael's nanobots. They
triple as information, carrier and medium. And then they make a nice cup
of tea before morphing into a space bird and gliding off to the outer
regions of Orion.
--
"Too bad they can't run your stupid ass out of here, flatfarb."
-- Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
AZ Nomad
>Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
>> But, don't you know that expensive power cables ... can not only
>> modify the data to make everything better, but fix the checksums to
>> match.
>How might one justify this claim, I wonder?
I was being sarcastic, dumbass.
How fucking stupid are you to even consider such a claim?
Sheesh.
Homer
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:12:00 +0000, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:
>>> But, don't you know that expensive power cables ... can not only
>>> modify the data to make everything better, but fix the checksums
>>> to match.
>
>> How might one justify this claim, I wonder?
>
> I was being sarcastic, dumbass.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was /your/ claim.
I was addressing the salesman's claim, fictional or otherwise, to
demonstrate how ridiculous it was.
> How fucking stupid are you to even consider such a claim?
Apology accepted.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:20:12 up 34 days, 12:03, 3 users, load average: 1.80, 1.15, 0.71
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:46 : \____
Someone called this a kickback. It's a form of bribe, an offence.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Microsoft loves competition.
"I’d be glad to help tilt lotus into into the death spiral. I could do it
Friday afternoon but not Saturday. I could do it pretty much any time the
following week."
--Brad Silverberg, Microsoft
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk/iIQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4vdQCZAYknBmgCXGM8+ForsRoY6ErO
K3QAoKDKdy3kH5emFDWG8YzrGaNULgmq
=IDGu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
chrisv
>I prefer to tell people they're getting screwed and offer ideas about
>where they can get a better deal. I've pissed off more than one sales
>person like that, but the customers were mostly grateful.
Of course, you can only "save" a handful of people, by that method.
>Sure, you can get audio components one place, get TVs in another, get
>cables elsewhere, and so on. You can do that and save money.
Well, for cables, it's the Internet to the rescue. There, at least,
one can still find real competition, and cables that are fairly
priced, unlike the colluding, scumbag retailers. I buy *all* my A/V
cables online.
>But a big part of the problem is that people believe that the person
>telling them about the item know what they're talking about.
That, and other lack of thought. I mean, just because HDMI is "new"
technology should not imply the cable should be expensive. It's
digital! It either works or it doesn't! And isn't it obvious that
something is amiss when one can buy the engineering marvel known as a
DVD player for $30, and the freaking WIRE used to connect it to the TV
costs MORE?
Oh well... I've had my rant.
Homer
> And isn't it obvious that something is amiss when one can buy the
> engineering marvel known as a DVD player for $30, and the freaking
> WIRE used to connect it to the TV costs MORE?
On a related point...
I made the mistake of spending a fortune on a DVD player (based on my
research of various reviews), only to discover that the bargain-basement
systems at my local supermarket were better, despite being an order of
magnitude cheaper.
For a start, the cheapies play everything from DVD-V/R/RW to MP3 and
XviD; they're not fussy about blank disc brands; they last just as long
as the expensive players (i.e. before reaching the point where they
can't recognise discs any more, and become hyper-sensitive to even the
slightest scratches); they're usually region-free out the box, or easily
modded using the remote; and when they ultimately break, it's no big
deal to spend another £15/$30 to replace it. In fact, even if the
cheapies broke sooner than the expensive machines, in the long run it'd
still be cheaper, whilst ironically being more functional.
It's another clear case of More Expensive != Better.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
02:15:31 up 35 days, 9:58, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00