And you DO know that thanks to Android having a severe lack of fine grained controls that malware DOES NOT NEED to have root,yes? That they can have access to ALL of a users data, contacts, any CC data they've input, because thanks to the fucked up design that encourages the user to click yes no matter what because EVERYTHING asks for complete access.

Where you have such a design of asking for all sorts of permissions by default it dosn't really matter how "fine grained" any access controls are. MS Windows has had a complex security model for ages. But was pointless when common advice from vendors was "run this as an administrator user".

Sarcasm duly noted, but it isn't just Windows. OS X, Android, and GNU/Linux have the same "problem",* except that GNU/Linux distributions have a reputation for vetting applications distributed under free software licenses, and by its nature, anybody can hire someone to review the source code of a free application.

The other factor is if there is a strong demarkation between "user" and "sysadmin" or not.

OS X and Windows 8 have added their own app stores that imply some sort of vetting of the executable by the operating system publisher, but developers have still managed to sneak misbehaving applications into the store and trigger misbehavior before the operating system publisher has a chance to learn of the misbehavior and take the applications down.

Unless the publisher thinks the program is not misbehaving. e.g. state sponsored malware. In such cases they may actually block "safe" alternatives.

Good point. Makes me wonder why there are no studies concerning flying turtles. I mean they can conduct multi year million dollar studies to determine that people in sunnier climate are happier that people who live in climates where it is always cold, cloudy, and saturated with freezing rain.

If you were to add the word "change" there might be plenty of money available for such a study :)

Wow, botched grammar *and* completely contradicting itself in one setence! We got a winner here, folks.

Or a sign of bad (mechanical) language translation?

Imagine when parents do find out and attempt to ban potassium intake, with all the severe health problems such ban would cause.

So long as the "no K" advocates started with themselves there probably wouldn't be too much of a problem :)

Brazil nuts are also slightly radioactive. It is said that the complex root system of the plant generates the radioactivity.

It's unlikely that a plants root system, however complex, would be capable to nuclear reactions :) More likely the plant is concentrating naturally occuring radioactive elements. Biochemical systems can even be capable of selecting specific isotopes in some circumstances.

It surprises me that it wasn't here in the US, but I'm waiting for it after this!!!
By the way (sarcasm) does New Zealand practice witch craft and believe in evil spirits? Because I thought they were beyond this type of voodoo!!!

You can find such people anywhere. Probably fewer in NZ than the USA. But only because of the difference in total population.

In the early 1970's I worked in a machine shop. I was exposed to hand-soaking kerosene at one station, which was being used as a cheap cutting/ drilling oil. I developed small wart-like bumps. At a medical library I looked up if kerosene was carcinogenic. One book stated as a fact, that all petroleum distillates are. Another book stated as a fact that it was not, and that the whole issue of chemical carcinogenesis was 'iffy,' or unsettled. Guess which book was written by a chemical industry affiliated group?

Considering the range of different chemicals present in "petroleum distillates" (also that these can vary depending on both the original oil and the refining process) claims that they are "all X" are likely to be nonsense.

Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard.

It would be finding the cause of a specific cancer. Since that would be a combination of both how a cell malfunction and how it got missed by the immune system.

Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable.

Like many other things cancer is probably G by E. Involving the interaction of both genetic and environmental factors. So there is no single "cause" in the first place.
That's before even considering that some of the potential environmental factors might actually be common or even considered "healthy".

At least ATMs and airline check-in kiosks tend to speed up my transaction. I have yet to see a "self-serve" grocery checkout system that wasn't a complete disaster, constantly failing to scan items or recognize when they're placed in the bag. A lot of the time, you have to wait for a person to come over anyway and clear up computer errors.

On the other hand I've rarely found supermarket operators who won't put every heavy item in one bag. Maybe they just don't understand the concept of customers who walk...

It's my understanding that he *only* obligation that a retailer might ever have to a customer to honor a currently advertised price is when that advertisement was at least initiially and deliberately placed there by the retailer. Typographical, mathematical, and other computer errors on the price being advertised do not count in this respect.

There are two prices involved. The first is the advertised price. The second is that at the Point Of Sale. Since a web store is both a "catalogue" and "checkout" it is important not to confuse these.
In some jurisdictions the POS price must follow the advertised price. (Or cannot be higher.) In others only the POS price means anything at all. The advertised price simply being a suggested starting point for the customer and seller to negotiate/haggle.

And yes, if the price listed prior to clicking the big shiny "Complete Order" button had been higher than expected, that is what the customer should expect to be charged.

If the result is more that the customer wants to pay they can just leave. Unlike with a physical store this dosn't result in a pile of goods left at the checkout. In both cases there is generally the option of removing goods fromthe "basket" and requesting a new price total.

Most western countries have laws limiting what terms in contracts can be enforced. I suspect that Brick's ability to "correct" an order in Brick's favor would not get very far if challenged in court. But does Brick have the legal right to cancel an order and refund the customer in full?

Possibly. Though more likely if they took orders for goods they cannot supply. Though from the report it sounds like they are trying too ask for more money whilst holding onto that they have already been paid.

You can get some insane but legitimate deals this way. For example home insurance with a discount code, new customer bonus, no claims bonus, cash back website and cash back credit card was about 95% discounted one year (ã20). Occasionally Tesco pay you to take stuff away with their point card system. It happens.

Which means a potential customer cannot possibly know if a very good discount is a "mistake". Since retailers do have "loss leaders" or old stock they really want to shift.

Could you please explain why the customer should expect the store to not honor the $100 price? Because I would probably look at it and think "huh, I guess it was one of those 'add to cart to see the real price" items."

Or it's a "loss leader" where you might expect "sorry out of stock" should you attempt to actually buy one.