by admin on March 11, 2010
A man recently filed suit against Canadian airline Air Transat because the flight attendants refused to give proper medical attention… to his scrotum. According to the suit, the plaintiff was flying from Montreal to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, when he went to the bathroom to check on a discomfort in his groin area, only to see spots of blood. The passenger asked two different flight attendants — first a female and then a male — to get a closer look at his business to determine the exact nature of the spotting. Not surprisingly, both attendants passed on the opportunity and offered him some sanitary towels instead. He then asked to see a doctor and the attendants told him they would contact a doctor if his condition worsened. The passenger made his way to the hospital in Mexico and was diagnosed as having ruptured a vein in the area near his scrotum. It took three stitches to stop the bleeding. In the suit filed against both the airline and the staff on that particular flight, the plaintiff charged that they failed to provide appropriate medical assistance and sought monetary damages. However, the judge in the case found no merit in the suit and not only dismissed it outright, but ordered the plaintiff to pay the airline’s court costs. “It was not incumbent upon a flight attendant to conduct the medical examination of a passenger, a measure reserved for the medical profession,” wrote the judge in her decision. “Nothing in the facts proves that that the situation was dangerous or worrisome to the point of requiring the immediate attention of a doctor.” Man sues airline for not looking at his scrotum [Toronto Sun via Jaunted ]
by admin on March 11, 2010
Have you noticed Netflix’s new movie information page? A lot of other people have. The new, cleaner layout rearranges the user interface a bit, and removes social features from movie pages–you can’t see which of your friends have watched, rated, or reviewed that particular movie. Is this a good move, or a terrible one? Users had their say on Netflix’s blog. The entry announcing the change currently has 449 comments, and commenters on that page claim that the first 150 comments were removed. Here’s the new layout, if you haven’t logged in to Netflix in the past week: This redesign is helping Netflix phase out community features, like friends’ ratings and lists. If you use Netflix, are these useful to you? Do you like the new changes hate them, or do you even care? Do you like the social features on Netflix? survey What Do You Think of the New Netflix Movie Information Pages? [Hacking Netflix] New Movie Details Page Rolled Out [Netflix Official Blog]
by admin on March 11, 2010
Michael really has no complaints against CDW. He’s just amused at the size of the box that they sent his serial adapter (that small metal thing at bottom right) in. He writes: The item, the serial adapter was inside the small box with the typical antistatic foam that electronics are usually cushioned in. That smaller box was then inside the larger CDW box with a few unpictured “air pillows”, some of which were deflated. No complaints against CDW, just showing the packaging.
by admin on March 11, 2010
Sometimes banner ads online promise a great price, but do not reflect current prices, or actual reality. That’s the sad lesson that reader Ricky writes that he learned recently after clicking on a banner ad for Overstock.com. See, the banner have advertised products for sale at Overstock.com and bore the company’s logo, but the company did not produce the ad, and the prices are not real. He wrote to the company: Hello, I was researching iPod docks to purchase this morning and came across several models I was interested in. One in particular was a Philips DCP851/37x (Overstock #11676281). I came across several websites which carried the product including your own with the cheapest being Geeks.com which has it listed for $79.99. Unfortunately, the item was sold out at Geeks.com and your website had it the next cheapest. The price was still over my price range so I stopped looking. This afternoon I had some free time at work so I decided to log into my hotmail account to check my email and the first thing I saw after logging in was a banner ad for overstock.com which had that very item I was researching. The price on the banner ad was $79.99 which matched Geeks.com website so I clicked on the banner ad and ended up on the product page on your website. The price unfortunately did not match the banner ad price and was the same price I had seen earlier, $107.49. I clicked on the chat icon to talk to a customer service agent to explain what had just happened. They asked for a link to the ad in question, but unfortunately the ad had already switched to a different vendor. I kept refreshing the hotmail.com website in hopes that it would come back up, which it did. However, this time that price was different ($91.74), but still did not match the price on your website. She asked me to give her the link to the banner ad, but since it was a flash banner ad there was no way I could give her a link. She advised me to take screenshots and email this email address. Attached you will find two screenshots, the first called hotmail.jpg shows my hotmail inbox with the banner add off to the right showing a different price from what’s listed on your website. Unfortunately, I have not been able to recreate the lower price of $79.99 that I initially saw however this screenshot still shows the price discrepancy. The second picture of overstock.com shows the location of where the link went to after clicking on the banner ad where you can clearly see the two prices don’t match up. Interestingly enough, you can also notice that on the item ‘Mustek MP80B’ the banner ad price is actually higher than the actual website. The purpose of this email is two point out the price differences of your ads and your website and to hopefully get you to honor the $79.99 price on the Philips DCP851/37x (Overstock #11676281) product. Any information on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Ricky An Overstock rep responded: Hello Ricky, I am writing in response to your letter regarding the Overstock.com ad banner. I will be happy to help answer your questions. To provide some clarification, the Overstock.com advertising on your Window’s Live Hotmail is not a paid endorsement by Overstock.com. The advertising was placed via our affiliate program, a program open to everyone and comprised of thousands of affiliate members who post our banners and sell our merchandise on their own websites. Affiliate programs are widely used in the Internet retailing business, and the task of connecting affiliates with online retailers is typically handled by an independent third-party organization. Overstock.com does not sponsor, support, or endorse the views and opinions of any political party, organization, personality, or issue. We simply provide a great selection of quality merchandise at deep discounts. As vigorous supporters of free speech, we firmly believe society as a whole benefits enormously by encouraging a diversity of ideas. After carefully reviewing the matter, we do not plan to change our policies with regard to our affiliate program at this time. We certainly appreciate your comments and value the viewpoints of all of our customers. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance on this or any other issue. I hope you will visit us soon for great savings on name-brand products. Sincerely, [redacted] Customer Care Overstock.com It sounds as if this is a form letter sent to people who find sites on which they see Overstock’s banner ads offensive, so it doesn’t really apply to Ricky’s situation. Still, it got the message across to him. Prices on banner ads are not the same as prices on ad circulars, and they are not always current. Or even real.
by admin on March 11, 2010
In a legal decision that could have a ripple effect on the digital download market, a British court has ruled that record label EMI can not sell songs from Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album as individual downloads or ringtones. The band’s attorneys had argued that the album, one of the biggest sellers in rock history, is only meant to be taken as a whole and that EMI’s selling of individual downloads violated a clause in their contract intended to “preserve the artistic integrity” of the album. Additionally, the judge ordered EMI to reimburse Pink Floyd approximately $90,000 in court costs. Pink Floyd wins court battle with label [EW]
by admin on March 11, 2010
Thinking about the controversy over asking for ID during credit card purchases, and the competing values of privacy and safety, Daniel had an interesting idea–though it isn’t a new idea. What if credit cards were photo IDs, and had our pictures on them? Logistical nightmare, or handy fraud-prevention tool? He writes: I don’t want to show anyone my license when I use my card but I’d have no problem using a card with my picture on it. Some companies do this, of course, but my question is what don’t they all require it? It seems like such a simple security measure that would cut down on much fraud. And it would be so easy to implement now—I can get any (acceptable) image I want on my Capital One card. Having your face plastered across the entire surface of a card, like Capital One offers, is a scary prospect. But–leaving logistics aside–would you welcome such a measure? Would you welcome photo IDs on credit cards? trends
by admin on March 11, 2010
Australian researchers have confirmed what any McDonald’s lover already knows instinctively: fat is a flavor. “We know that the human tongue can detect five tastes — sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (a savoury, protein-rich taste contained in foods such as soy sauce and chicken stock),” Russell Keast, from Deakin University, said Monday. “Through our study we can conclude that humans have a sixth taste — fat. ” Researchers tested 30 people’s ability to taste a range of fatty acids in otherwise plain solutions and found that all were able to determine the taste — though some required higher concentrations than others. Australian researchers say fat is ’sixth taste’ [AFP via BoingBoing ]
by admin on March 11, 2010
WHO : Specsavers WHAT : A little girl suffered blurred vision, headaches, and nausea for two years after opticians mixed up the prescriptions for her left and right eyes. When the mother took the glasses back, the staff told her it was a normal reaction to the new glasses and would soon pass. WHERE : Girl Is Left With Right Sickener [The Sun] (Thanks to Robert!) THE QUOTE : “Specsavers apologised – and offered Tayla a complimentary £3 bottle of lens cleaner. Store director Raj Shah said: “We take customer care extremely seriously. “” While the disconnect between “taking it extremely seriously” and the offer of a tiny bottle of lens cleaner is amusing, I think the onus here is on the mother. After maybe a week or so of the nausea and headaches and blurred vision, it’s time to get a second opinion. “Taking it seriously” is a phrase companies use over and over again in public statements whenever they have bad PR. Our series of posts on occurrences of the phrase is our attempt to question how seriously companies are really taking these matters if every time they trot out this phrase by rote.
