The story stays Zavvi says "We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself)."

So let's use some common sense here. Assuming they were telling the truth... if a company called me and explained the error, apologized, issued no threats, but ASKED me to send it back, offered to send me a prepaid return sticker, and offered to schedule a pickup if I didn't want to take it to a dropbox, I wouldn't fuss. To me, it would all be about the amount of work I'd have to do to return it. Make it easy for me to do, sure I'd do it.

The legal threats are stupid. Their percentage of returns acting nice will be as large or larger as the results of acting nasty. And if they take legal action they'll not only occur expenses, they'll turn every one of those customers into enthusiastic broadcasters of ill-will.

Investment in space investment in Africa (which is a big place) is also investment in infrastructure in Africa, because you can't achieve it otherwise.

Let me assure you, my question was sarcastic. I was saying that unless they invested all their money at Bitcoin when it was worth $0.10 and are now "ZOMGS we have so much $$MONEYS$$$" like typical early bitcoin adopters, I don't see how they could possibly have secured enough financing for their project.

Sure, that's what I was talking about when the story came up the first time. At least, I think it was the first time, you never really know around here. However, that's not really necessary, at least not in the first generation. Amazon can cover a significant percentage of the customers who would use a service like this simply by placing centers intelligently. Safeway still offers grocery delivery in counties where they only cover a tiny postage stamp of the total area if it will be profitable given the location of the store, and by the same token, Amazon may reasonably offer drone delivery only in subsets of certain regions.

False. According to that article, it is probably a publicity stunt, and some people have said that they think so, but there is no actual proof. They in fact do not unequivocally state that it is such in the article (though quoted sources say that they are sure that it is such) which I presume is why you didn't copy and paste anything where that actually happens, instead choosing to employ prevarication by calling attention to Amazon's odious business practices. I agree that they are odious, but that does not reflect upon the validity of the drone delivery model, nor Amazon's intent (or lack thereof) to employ it.

I think you're likely correct, but the linked article does not prove that you are, and it is therefore bullshit to continue pounding on it as if it contained the facts you're looking for. It doesn't. It contains speculation.

I'm pretty sure I do understand the logistics. Quadcopters are already capable of doing this job right now, the infrastructure needed is simply not there. The infrastructure required is broad in extent, but a straightforward and simple extension of existing systems already in place at Amazon, such as robots now performing picking jobs in some of their distribution centers.

Congratulations, you're an asshole! Your prize is getting to live with yourself!

I still just can't believe it's not butter.

I have ads turned off on /. and I very much like that they offer the option - and that they offer it to a limited set of readers, those with high karma or post mods or whatever the factor is. Because it shows that /. understands an important thing: Without the comments, they wouldn't exist.

Days.

If I read correctly, this is per ad, not per page. So on your average online magazine, that's 5-10 per page. So that's 1000 page views. Your average article is split up over 2-3 pages these days, in order to generate more ad impressions. It also includes every article you click on, load the page, realize it's not interesting to you and leave again with a second or two.

Not sure how much you read, but for me, that would last me maybe a week, and if it includes sites I frequent a lot, less.

It's come to the point where I honestly believe we need to outlaw all advertisement. Yes, I mean that. Make it illegal, absolutely all of it. Posters, mailings, newsletters, TV and radio, web, banners - the whole lot.

Make all of it illegal and then apply the same principle to it that we know works whenever something is dangerous and easily abused: Whitelisting. After pulling the plug, have a serious conversation about where, what kind and how much advertisement we as a society are willing to accept, and then make limited excemptions.

We know for a fact that blacklisting doesn't work. Nobody sane configures a firewall with allow-all and then block lists. You always start with deny-all and then open up services selectively.

Same approach. Outlaw it all, and then decide what is acceptable.

Advertisement poisons everything. It's time to put a stop to it and this is the only way we can do it without fighting over the topic for the next century.

They do? Do you have sources? Because all I can find in their list of contributors are a bunch of small businesses that I've never heard of.
http://www.mars-one.com/en/partners/contributors
I bet most of their revenue comes from applicants fees and selling T-shirts.

Perhaps those trees are overwatered, and some others could use a little love.

Your link doesn't even prove that it was a publicity stunt, and here's why: its conclusions are based on false premises and it's full of fud. It's also clear why you didn't bother to link to the full article; it doesn't say what you want it to say either.

First FUD: "The practical issues are manifold". Yes, welcome to the real world. FUD, not a specific objection. The specific objections are then made, and they are stupid. "[...]how does it [the drone] then find the package's intended recipient?" Probably it homes in on the mobile device used to make the order, and you'll probably have to use one. How is the transfer of the package enacted? Depicted in the video. It knows where it's being delivered. What stops someone else stealing the package along the way? You mean, by shooting it down? Ah yes, this line item was expanded into two, for filler purposes. And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle? The same thing as when next door's kid (the house has a child?) shoots anything else that doesn't belong to them. Except in this case, it's recorded by high-resolution camera.

Then we have an outright lie: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates this area, intends to make commercial drones legally viable and workable by 2015, but this deadline is all-but impossible No, no it isn't. It probably won't happen anyway due to lobbying from entrenched interests. But there's no reason why existing regulations can't be applied to commercial drones. The area below 500 feet is already available due to existing restrictions on civilian air traffic.

Meanwhile, Wired claims that Amazon's delivery model makes the drones unworkable, but that is just fucking stupid. It's stupid because Amazon has already changed their model partially to add more services, and there's no particular reason they can't do it again. Sort of like how Wired changed their magazine from having purple text on black backgrounds to having black text on neon green backgrounds to having black text on white backgrounds. Two changes, see? The drones won't be able to deliver everything in Amazon's catalog. It'll be small, high-value items often ordered by themselves by people willing to pay extra for rapid delivery.

In short, while it might well have been a hoax, nothing you have presented (nor any other evidence) proves it to be so.

Because otherwise I am still struggling to understand how Mars One would ever be financially viable.

You don't need permanent magnets for that at all. You do need brushes or something else to let coils do the same job. Those go at the hub, where they can benefit from the reduced speeds.

A kid growing up in Detroit in the 90s would have had the opportunity to get a domestic car cheaply, since the auto workers could buy a car at cost every year back in the day. Growing up in California in the 90s, the supply of four bangers was more plentiful.