Just Saying

MY BEST BUY

What is a "restocking fee"? Is it necessary? Ok,let me rephrase that: Is it honest? Now, the mustard-colored store, Best Buy, and the red-colored store, Staples--and I'm sure some other stores--have this ridiculous fee. Yes, I said it. It's ridiculous. Now, despite my adding more stores to the list, really, let's not kid ourselves, the "biggy" is the mustard-colored store: Best Buy. It wins the prize for most annoying, and is perhaps the most complained about "store of whatever comes with a screen or a plug." Anyway, the point is they win the prize for annoying. Now, it wouldn't be too bad if they were just annoying like those flies that swirl around your hand as you drink your tasty mocha, you could just swat them; but they're not just annoying, they can actually, literally, affect your life. It's like that oops-I-didn't-notice-the-parking-times-sign-hidden-behind-the-brush-of-leaves mistake, which matters little to the tow-truck hauling the ass of your car away, for which you have to pay a hundred or so dollars to get it out of hock: precisely the day you don't have the money, and precisely on the day before your job that requires you to have your own transportation begins.

Now, it's perhaps a harsh statement, but the fee (15% of a specific product's cost, normally a laptop and a camcorder) is something like a moral injustice, and a customer abuse. Sure, people flock to the store, which means that most do not buy computers or camcorders, or they'd know better. Now, of course, Best Buy does give those "irksome returners" a chance to avoid the 15% restocking fee by allowing them to take their wares to the store's expert "Geeks," who are experts at finding usually nothing wrong with a computer. It's almost a hypocritical act, this testing a computer with the "latest technological equipment that will magnificently triangulate to the cause of anything--they could, if added a sonar, perhaps find the source of that annoying sound at night in your basement!). Now, a laptop error is like that stuttering that only happens when you're in front of that beautiful person of your dreams, which doesn't happen when you're just talking to a friend. It's almost as if the computer hated you, too. On top of that, there's something suspicious of stores having the same "restocking fee of 15%" when you return your laptop or camcorder. Cooperatives exist, they're a reality. It does almost seem that they expect to be validated by charging the same percent.

Now, I won't seem like I'm just speaking for everybody else. I wasn't exactly born a man that feels all pains--it would be a strange form of genius. On the other hand...but never mind. The world's truth is: there would be no great advancement in the science to cure cancer, or any other of those A-List diseases, if someone beloved in one's life--oneself or somebody else--had not gone through that suffering, and sometimes lost the great war.

First and foremost, Best Buy and all other 15% restock fee enforcers, ought to fulfill their contract. And no, it is not at the back of the receipt, nor is it written in sun-glazed letters at the glass front door. To fulfill that contract you must believe your customer and not call him or her a liar: sending them to the Geek Squad is name-calling. The most important contract is signed by the customer nodding his head and understanding the salesperson. It's in the salesperson being clear about the risk of taking that computer or camcorder home for 14 days, that any issue will be tested at the Geek Squad, which will rarely find a problem (key words) and that returning the item simply because one found something better will be punished with a 15% restocking fee. You know you don't charge the 15% restock fee out of necessity, but out of greed, avarice--a deadly sin!-- the "I gots to get me sumpin' out of this" mentality. But I've gotten ahead of me. The first thing to do is to tell the customer.

Secondly and secondmost, be nice to the customer and believe what he says when he comes back balancing the ol' box in the ol' hand he used to take it out. Yeah, you recognize the box. It sat there for a while. And you recognize the face. It was the dude last week. "Nice chap. We gave him great service." Yup! Continue the process, and give him back his money right away. It's a moral obligation. Your geek squad is not, I repeat and emphasize, NOT going to find the problem the returner of the camcorder and computer has experienced. The customer is always right and always tells the truth--except when it is blatantly obvious he's lying, like, he's your friend or something, and you know him to a tee, or you managed to pull him out of a virgin dame, all by yourself. Otherwise you will get into something called "a debate with a customer," which will be followed, inevitably, with loud voices and an impetus to grab your throat and slam your head on the counter when the hand is around your neck. And you will have made a scene and lost a customer. And customers rarely give up talking about your service. Trust me, I'm writing this.

For all intents and purposes, the goal of Best Buy, and several other businesses, is not to please the customer, but simply to make money. Which is the reason why this viral reaction happens from the store when an item is seen walking back. Holding on to the customer's money as much as possible is the goal of Best Buy. That's why when the store has agreed to return the money it will take up to two weeks or more to return it by check--in the hopes of the customer changing his mind.

To end, I believe a customer ought to show his dissatisfaction any way he damn right pleases, short of spreading bullets or burning down the store, of course, or even getting physical. To cuss is okay. It's the only way to let you the store understand how pissed off we are, and how far your heel is going into our dignity, how deep your sense of "righteousness and correctness" has soured, and how we feel you're spitting in our face. An incredible, indescribable anger possesses the customer that sees the wheel of last week turned today. Last week was all laughs, last week the store was helpful, though little informative on store policies. Now you're insulting and calling names (utterance unnecessary).

To fix the problem, Best Buy, begin to change your policies, or finally begin to tell the truth. Yes, by word of mouth.

It is wrong to be Atheist, it is better to be Agnostic.

Against a religious opponent an Atheist and an Agnostic will be friends of one mind. When alone, they’ll be bitter antagonists, one accusing the other of a closed mind and the second the other of a mind too broad to be of any use. Obviously, the latter charge is against the Agnostic. But it is my sense that the Agnostic is the one that will answer all the questions. The Agnostic is armed to the teeth, for to him all is about knowledge and knowing, and nothing about believing. It has been the claim of a popular Atheist commentator that Agnosticism is “the pussy version of Atheism.” Well, it may certainly be viewed in that sense by those who do not understand the mind of the Agnostic, an ever rotating machinery grinding at questions, unsatisfied with both extreme positions of the Theist and the Atheist. The Agnostic in that sense is the true philosopher, the true thinker, and in short, the real scientist.

According to the same commentator mentioned above—name not worth mentioning—Agnostics stand in error. To him it is all about a question in your heart: “do you believe or don’t you believe?” Well, unfortunately, that is not what launched the Shuttle Discovery into orbit. Just believing does not answer the question of mechanics or questions of the universe. As much as Atheists would like and seek to separate themselves from what is worldly to what is religious mystery, they can’t logically do it, since we are dealing with Substance and Absolutes. Theirs is not a mind unequal to one that believes one opinion is as good as the other. “I believe this is how it is and therefore it is” does not answer the mysterious question of the dead cat in the box. To say one doesn’t believe a dead cat is in the box doesn’t make the cat disappear from it or make it nonexistent; one word is not enough to make the space flat or curved; it is like saying that the tree did not fall in the forest because we couldn’t hear it. To not believe in God does not make God disappear.

The question of a probable existence of a “mover” or any entity whatsoever, whether it had any hand in any visible creation or not, or has or has no influence therein, should be a matter of thought and study, not speculation. In this sense, the Atheist is like the Existentialist, without a reason to live but going to school, because somehow or other there’s a reason to live. This and other trends of the Atheist promulgate a speculative mind, set in a conviction like that of any religious pastor that stamps his foot on the floorboard of his stage to tell his audience that God is like those planks of wood, real and with motion, and that just like the planks of wood sustain him so will God sustain the believer. The mind that questions and studies all is a learner of mysteries. In this light the Agnostic is an active mind, closer to the Atheist in the refutal to the god of the Bible, but without disparaging the probability of the unknown. There is an existing Absolute to the Agnostic—the existence of the “it is” or “it isn’t.” To the Agnostic the middle ground is the Absolute, regardless of opinions. Opinions to the Agnostic are just that, opinions—some smarter than others, perhaps closer to the truth, but still only opinions. Whether an opinion approaches the truth is not the field of the Agnostic—the Agnostic wants to touch, and he or she will spend endless nights and days questioning the universe, the unknown, and God.

Economics, Freedom, Environment

When self-called “Real-Liberal” conservative economist Milton Friedman said in 1971 that national forests should be sold off, people were aghast (Perc.org. Friedman’s Legacy to Freedom and the Environment, par 4). Like he, many people believe that governments should stay away from the business of controlling and regulating, and leave all in the hands of the individual and private industries. No truer is the emphasis of the individualist as in the opposition to government control of the environment. Not long ago a man spoke of freedom and of its positive effect on a country’s economy. President Ronald Reagan would have opposed perhaps any extreme regulatory measure to control the apparent cause of global warming, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Not surprisingly, Friedman was Reagan’s economic adviser.

The opponents and proponents of global warming will have a great impact on our economic and political freedoms, depending on which side prevails. Global warming proponents have or say to have determined that CO2 has risen to too high a level to be ignored, and that its emission may only be curbed by high government regulation of businesses and of consumer practices. They claim that regulations are good for the planet and healthy for the people. Many scientists stand behind these claims, stating that Global Warming is a reality, since that is what all experiments show. These experiments are said to be based on the knowledge of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whose function is to trap heat and not release it. The use of cheap sources of energy, such as oil, coal and fossil fuel that are released into the atmosphere, increase the level of carbon dioxide, thus making the planet hotter.
Both sides—those in opposition and those in favor of global warming—can be easily contrasted by giving the argument of one side—in a manner of speaking, if one says yes, the other will likely say no, as predictable as the laws of physics. The opposition states that CO2 levels are normal, and that though they may have had a hand in warming the weather some, the effects of this warming are not of the catastrophic nature that those in favor enjoy painting. Yet others, noted scientists that used to believe in CO2 as the cause of global warming, go further, saying that CO2 levels are not the cause, but simply solar activity—as a matter of fact, that more carbon dioxide is needed to sustain a healthy planet, not less (UsNews.com. Washington Whispers, Paul Bedard).

Opponents also rise to the occasion of a political move, asserting that Global Warming is more likely to undercut humanity’s liberties through cap and trade, through “rationing” of one’s CO2 consumption, to what food we’ll be allowed to eat in order to preserve Mother Earth. (Washingtonindependent.com, Cap and Trade Biggest Threat to Democracy and Freedom).

Regardless of argument, it is my belief that global warming is true, but that it is normal; it is true but exaggerated; that both arguments are too highly politicized to lay the foundation of accurate data. Pollution is a fact, and there’s no better reason to go green than by protecting ourselves from noxious fumes in the air; by doing that and until we are certain that the global warming issue has stopped being political, we will not only be protecting ourselves from heating up the atmosphere, if it’s true we are the cause of global warming, but we will also arrive at the real truth one way or another, eventually. I highly believe deforestation heats up a climate, at least for now, more than C02 high up in the air. But that’s just me.

Hypotheses & Educated Guesses

Hypothesis is an idea or a set of ideas, more succinctly a number of educated speculations on what “a something” is, and what its effect is on “something else.” A hypothesis is the beginning stage of a theory, after observation, based on educated guesses. An educated guess is a set of known information about a particular thing or scenario, gathered into a general prediction. Ex.: a car driving ten miles per hour hitting a stationary car would cause a 10 mph dent on the unmoving vehicle. It is yet untested in our scenario. 2^nd Ex: the stationary car, let’s say to protect itself from the hit, immediately takes off and accelerates from its position, in a straight line, to 9 miles per hour. The car behind will still hit it, but it will only cause a 1 mph dent. This one scenario has been confirmed through several car accidents (especially with malicious intent): but while in real life this perhaps would be a fact, in applied science, this would remain a mere hypothesis until proving more than once that speed alone is determinant in all cases. The reason is very simple, not all cars are the same and not all crashes are the same. The particular scenario has taken into account only two types of cars, the hitting car, and the impacted car, it doesn’t state the masses of each car; also, the impacted car was hit directly behind, not at an angle or from the front. If hit at an angle: would the 1 mph hit look like a 1 mph hit? An educated guess would tell us that, taking the mass of each car into consideration, different cars with different masses must look a bit different after one crashed on the other. The educated test would be then to keep both cars at their unique masses without changing them, and looking at what would happen if the two cars came in contact at other than a straight line, and/or the hitting car comes from a different place other than from behind. If the hitting car is moving at 10 mph, and will impact a car moving at 9 mph that is coming directly to it, will the hit look like a 1 mph hit? For the 1 mph hit (according to the speed of each car) to be true every time, there would have to be no difference between a car crashing the other from behind, or the front. We determine that this Speed-alone-hypothesis does not prove true, because the 1 mph hit is different in all cases. In fact we determine in the latter case: Let D = 0 (D being a car-crash dent at 0 mph) then (10mph + 9mph) = 19d, with both cars coming towards each other. While in the previous scenario: (10mph + [ -9mph]) = 1d, which would accord with the 1 mph hit. Thus, a 1 mph hypothesis would not be valid for a theory.

On the other hand we may, for the sake of argument, hypothesize that by adding a number to another, the sum of that number grows by one digit; and that by adding three numbers it grows by three digits. Thus: 4+1 = 5. This should be true in every case, so that if another 1 is added to 5, the sum should be 6. To prove this, we add: //// + / = ///// (+/) = //////. Going on eternally like this, this should be true in every case. This has been proven; though hardly a theory at all, this would reflect the example of a theory, wherein the prediction actually “predicts.”

How did Relativity become a Theory? Of course we’re referring to a scientific theory, dissimilar to mere every-day conjectures and speculations which rarely even qualify as hypotheses. The theory began by Einstein’s knowledge of Maxwell’s theory that light propagated through the universe in the form of a wave (this was during the time that tests were being done to test the presence of ether throughout the universe). This seems to be the verdict of scholars studying the beginnings of Special Relativity, since Einstein never let know how he came about his theory, and much is based on what he wrote. But this seems logical enough. From this knowledge, it was evident, in his manner, that he predicted that the light must be bent by something. Einstein envisioned much through inspiration, rather than experimentation. When confronted with the hypothesis by his colleague Sir Arthur Eddington that any bend of light must alter the stars position in the sky, he had to convince the scientific community. He did it by observing a solar eclipse with Eddington in the Western coast of Africa. The observational-experiment proved true—the light bends! After the fact, and subsequent other tests, Relativity was certified as a true theory, since it did what it predicted. It is up to someone else to dispute the findings. As true as the theory appears at first sight, even through the experiment by Einstein and Eddington, there is always room for perfection. One day it might be learned that space is not curved but that what bends the light is some “dark matter” prevalent throughout the universe.