6 posts • joined 2 Sep 2011
The sale of goods act clearly states that as I have bought from you my contract is with you.
I don't have to do all the work for you and work with the manufacturer to prove it is faulty. Warranty is extra protection above the sale of good act and you cannot force me to deal with the manufacturer or use the fact of a manufacturers warranty to overide my rights.
"If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, or as described when it sold them."
Just becuase it "does not seems unreasonable" to you doesn't make you correct. This is typical of the attitude and traing in online companies and why we get such poor customer service.
Re: Phineas Gage....
Thank you, this was my immediate thought when I read it. Ripley's Believe it or not will have to buy his skull when he dies.
Not sure about this
To pretend this opinion piece is an objective journalistic analysis is a bit rich, here are just two emotive misrepresentations I'd like to highlight.
The Milly Dowler accusation wasn't false, it contained inaccuracies. The News of the World did use the fact that Millie Dowler hadn't changed her pin to listen to her voice mails. That is accepted and illegal. They didn't delete her voice mails which was part of but not the whole claim. Personally I'm still disgusted by that behaviour.
OFCom are not Sir Humphreys (Civil Servants responsible to ministers). They are a QUANGO (QA stands for Quasi Autonomous) which means they are not servants of the Government. They are set up to be independant of ministers to avoid exactly what some people think might have happened, that the decision was rubber stamped by a ministerial team enamoured of Mr Murdoch. You might be right, although I disagree, OFCom had overstressed the plurality point; but to present their designed independance as disobedience is simply incorrect.
It would be good if it made developers behave better
I'm tired of buying bait apps that are not obviously such. If it is free fine but I have a couple where I have paid for the app and it turns out not really to be playable without purchases. You have to check on the reviews and top in app purchases to get an idea.
While I'm not entirely happy that a parent can delegate their responsibility to Apple I do hope something makes them label the apps properly.
e.g. Labels are
No in app purchases available.
In app purchases enhance app experience but usable without.
Unplayable without in app purchases.
Not convinced these are the worst
I blame myself for not nominating Bicentennial Man.
I agree with Paul Smith above, there should have been a debate on what makes a bad film. I didn't particularly enjoy Titanic and I know people that didn't enjoy Terminator which is one of my favourites, I think an inability to recognise the difference between a bad film and one that you just don't like is a major failing here as shown by there being two chick flicks in the list.
Having said that, I've only seen 8 of the 20 for various reasons. I've studiously avoided Hitchhikers simply on the grounds that having been brought up on the radio series I have the voices in my head and I knew I'd have hated it even if it had been good.
I remeber this from about 20 years ago.
I remember this from a few years back.
In 1990 or 1991 I had to give a talk on "anything" as part of a presentation skills course. Not having a clue I picked up the most recent issue of Analog and used an article from that. What to do about space debris before we end up trapped on the planet.
I can't see anyone taking any action until we actually lose a couple of satellites. You'd think New International would be starting to lobby for NASA to go and do something given how much they rely on the technlogy.