Don't kid yourself - Kirin is about 30% rice (since that's the maximum allowed to still be called "beer") and in fact if you have had one in the US it was made by Anheuser Busch anyway.
I admit I wasn't precise there... if the item is defective when sold or misrepresented the seller is responsible (I thought that was obvious), but otherwise it's the manufacturer's responsibility. You could try to argue in (any US state) court that a year after you bought it when it broke it was defective when purchased and the seller should take it back, but you'd lose.
And in any case, this whole thread is mostly silly debating anyway. The vast majority of returns to stores like Best Buy are just because someone "didn't like the purchase" where they are using the store's normal return policy. I guarantee you no state in the USA requires a seller to take back a good because the buyer just changed their mind. In fact, even in TFA the guy affected admitted he returned a bunch of stuff after the holidays, etc that he didn't want; as far as I can tell the BD he returned defective was the only item that would actually apply in any state law.
Wrong again! Those may look a lot like branches but they are actually dinosaur bones. Little known fact, Mercurock is also the primary supplier of brontosaurus burgers to the greater Bedrock metropolitan area.
Actually, the fable is the reverse - for some reason people seem to think it's a law in most places. But at least in the US, I have not found a single case of this other than the case where it was defective when sold.
See my other post above, where the CA Attorney General's office states: "consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective." And California has one of the better consumer protection laws in the US...
Consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective. However, California law requires that retailers who have a policy of not providing a cash refund, credit or exchange when an item is returned with proof of purchase within 7 days of purchase must inform consumers about their refund policies by conspicuously placing a written notice about their policies, in language that consumers can understand, so that it can be easily seen and read.
As I said in the other comment, it doesn't have to be as-is (which is a separate statue) - as long as it's not defective when purchased they don't have to take it back...
Sure, but *only* if it is defective when sold or you were clearly misled in the purchase. That's a pretty tiny subset of the returns made to places like Best Buy. They are not required to accept a return just because you didn't like it, or you changed your mind.
I'm not saying it's a good policy of course - I wouldn't shop somewhere with a "no returns" policy. But it isn't against the law anywhere I could find in the US (which is where this Best Buy store is located).
Yes, it is true in California. It doesn't have to be "as-is" for the store to refuse returns. But they do have to state their policy clearly (I believe even visibly near the store entrance).
That statute you quoted only mentions a 30 day implied warranty for return for *assisted devices*, ie. wheelchairs, etc - not general merchandise. Of course, if it was sold to you defective or they specifically told you something that made you buy the wrong item (like "yes, this defnitely has so-and-so feature") the retailer is liable for a return. But that's about it. Go look it up, I just did to confirm what I just said.
I really doubt that, no matter where you are from. If you buy a TV and it fails 2 years into a 3 year *manufacturer* warranty, good luck getting any retail store to help you (unless you specifically bought an extended warranty from the store).
Actually, stores aren't required to take returns - if an item is defective it's the manufacturer's responsibility to honor the warranty. Stores take the returns because if some do and some don't, unless there are other significant reasons to prefer the ones that don't no one will bother shopping there (which hopefully happens to Best Buy after this crap).
What they don't have the right to do is state a return policy and then change the policy on you after you buy something. It's not very clear if that's what happened or not, though...
So based on your engine it's a late-90's 540/740i? Plenty of websites list 1/4 times for those and none break 14s. And BMW quotes the mpg as 14/21. It does carry 5 comfortably, though.
But regardless of the questionable numbers, you are comparing a rebuild of an existing car in 1970 getting the same (better, really) stats as a relatively modern BMW 25 years newer? Yeah, sure, not impressive at all...
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ on a Popsicle Stick. I just tried to install Battlefield 3 from a download and after a 2 hour ordeal I can only describe as an intentional mindfuck I still can't play it. I retract my previous comments, sigh.
Yeah, they rule against some random person with no money or political influence, but not the mega-corporations that are doing the REAL damage. So brave of them...
Yes! And they could keep the nuclear-powered mothership floating in the ocean instead of the air so that it could hold a lot more cargo and have a larger landing surface.
The employees don't make any decisions that the company can be judged by outsiders for; they're just along for the ride.
If a company is "evil" and the employees know it and continue to support the company's goals, they are responsible for their decisions. Do you think the whole thing is so ridiculously simplistic that there is some EA tower with "management" looking down on "employees"? Like any similar company, of those 8000 people I'd imagine 1000+ are "management" in some form. And in any case, they are *all* employees.
Also patently untrue that "employees" (using your definition of "anyone but a few top execs") don't make decisions that can be judged (for bad *or* good). Do you think the board of directors at EA sat around in a design meeting saying, "hey, yeah, let's make sure we include some LGBT relationships in Mass Effect!" The game designers made those decisions, the artists decided how it would look, the copywriters decided what would be said, and once some intolerant outsiders judged their decisions fortunately the EA execs ignored them.
since most other companies are also evil to some extent
Most other companies have some business practices you disagree with, sure. Just like EA. And there are plenty of things they do that I have no problem with, hence the "not 100% evil" comment. Though I still think personifying a company (or giving them human rights) in any way is silly and just a cop out that absolves the *employees* (at any level) of their moral obligations. Companies don't exist without people.
Exactly. As soon as EA caves on this they are just going to start complaining about all of those blasphemous references to evolution sprinkled throughout Mass Effect, anyway.
Treating a company with 8000 employees as 100% evil just because you disagree with some of their crappy policies would be just as bad as what these intolerant religious people are doing...
The US is just playing the rather childish "it's my yard and my baseball, I set the rules or you can't play" card.
If the airlines really wanted they could make sure they plan their routes around US airspace. Though I'm sure the US could get more childish still and threaten to revoke landing privileges at US cities, which I doubt the airlines really care to test...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but that was before Hank Scorpio took over the operation and relocated to Cypress Creek...
it's home to every type of U.S. wildlife (except for bears, of course--the Bear Patrol keeps those out).
And sharks. All of that jumping exhausted the local shark population years ago.
Don't kid yourself - Kirin is about 30% rice (since that's the maximum allowed to still be called "beer") and in fact if you have had one in the US it was made by Anheuser Busch anyway.
I admit I wasn't precise there... if the item is defective when sold or misrepresented the seller is responsible (I thought that was obvious), but otherwise it's the manufacturer's responsibility. You could try to argue in (any US state) court that a year after you bought it when it broke it was defective when purchased and the seller should take it back, but you'd lose.
And in any case, this whole thread is mostly silly debating anyway. The vast majority of returns to stores like Best Buy are just because someone "didn't like the purchase" where they are using the store's normal return policy. I guarantee you no state in the USA requires a seller to take back a good because the buyer just changed their mind. In fact, even in TFA the guy affected admitted he returned a bunch of stuff after the holidays, etc that he didn't want; as far as I can tell the BD he returned defective was the only item that would actually apply in any state law.
Wrong again! Those may look a lot like branches but they are actually dinosaur bones. Little known fact, Mercurock is also the primary supplier of brontosaurus burgers to the greater Bedrock metropolitan area.
Actually, the fable is the reverse - for some reason people seem to think it's a law in most places. But at least in the US, I have not found a single case of this other than the case where it was defective when sold.
See my other post above, where the CA Attorney General's office states: "consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective." And California has one of the better consumer protection laws in the US...
I meant to post the link as well, doh. From the CA Attorney General's office (is that official enough? ;)
http://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/refund_policies
Consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective. However, California law requires that retailers who have a policy of not providing a cash refund, credit or exchange when an item is returned with proof of purchase within 7 days of purchase must inform consumers about their refund policies by conspicuously placing a written notice about their policies, in language that consumers can understand, so that it can be easily seen and read.
As I said in the other comment, it doesn't have to be as-is (which is a separate statue) - as long as it's not defective when purchased they don't have to take it back...
Sure, but *only* if it is defective when sold or you were clearly misled in the purchase. That's a pretty tiny subset of the returns made to places like Best Buy. They are not required to accept a return just because you didn't like it, or you changed your mind.
I'm not saying it's a good policy of course - I wouldn't shop somewhere with a "no returns" policy. But it isn't against the law anywhere I could find in the US (which is where this Best Buy store is located).
Yes, it is true in California. It doesn't have to be "as-is" for the store to refuse returns. But they do have to state their policy clearly (I believe even visibly near the store entrance).
That statute you quoted only mentions a 30 day implied warranty for return for *assisted devices*, ie. wheelchairs, etc - not general merchandise. Of course, if it was sold to you defective or they specifically told you something that made you buy the wrong item (like "yes, this defnitely has so-and-so feature") the retailer is liable for a return. But that's about it. Go look it up, I just did to confirm what I just said.
I really doubt that, no matter where you are from. If you buy a TV and it fails 2 years into a 3 year *manufacturer* warranty, good luck getting any retail store to help you (unless you specifically bought an extended warranty from the store).
Actually, stores aren't required to take returns - if an item is defective it's the manufacturer's responsibility to honor the warranty. Stores take the returns because if some do and some don't, unless there are other significant reasons to prefer the ones that don't no one will bother shopping there (which hopefully happens to Best Buy after this crap).
What they don't have the right to do is state a return policy and then change the policy on you after you buy something. It's not very clear if that's what happened or not, though...
So based on your engine it's a late-90's 540/740i? Plenty of websites list 1/4 times for those and none break 14s. And BMW quotes the mpg as 14/21. It does carry 5 comfortably, though.
But regardless of the questionable numbers, you are comparing a rebuild of an existing car in 1970 getting the same (better, really) stats as a relatively modern BMW 25 years newer? Yeah, sure, not impressive at all...
carry a family of 6, get over 25 miles to the gallon and turn 13's in the quarter mile.
Pick one in that list at any particular time, of course ;)
Wrong. Check out my new 2012 Mercurock Sabletooth.
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ on a Popsicle Stick. I just tried to install Battlefield 3 from a download and after a 2 hour ordeal I can only describe as an intentional mindfuck I still can't play it. I retract my previous comments, sigh.
Yeah, they rule against some random person with no money or political influence, but not the mega-corporations that are doing the REAL damage. So brave of them...
No, you just don't get it. Most people don't. You see, Google's love is very different from that of a square.
Yes! And they could keep the nuclear-powered mothership floating in the ocean instead of the air so that it could hold a lot more cargo and have a larger landing surface.
The employees don't make any decisions that the company can be judged by outsiders for; they're just along for the ride.
If a company is "evil" and the employees know it and continue to support the company's goals, they are responsible for their decisions. Do you think the whole thing is so ridiculously simplistic that there is some EA tower with "management" looking down on "employees"? Like any similar company, of those 8000 people I'd imagine 1000+ are "management" in some form. And in any case, they are *all* employees.
Also patently untrue that "employees" (using your definition of "anyone but a few top execs") don't make decisions that can be judged (for bad *or* good). Do you think the board of directors at EA sat around in a design meeting saying, "hey, yeah, let's make sure we include some LGBT relationships in Mass Effect!" The game designers made those decisions, the artists decided how it would look, the copywriters decided what would be said, and once some intolerant outsiders judged their decisions fortunately the EA execs ignored them.
since most other companies are also evil to some extent
Most other companies have some business practices you disagree with, sure. Just like EA. And there are plenty of things they do that I have no problem with, hence the "not 100% evil" comment. Though I still think personifying a company (or giving them human rights) in any way is silly and just a cop out that absolves the *employees* (at any level) of their moral obligations. Companies don't exist without people.
Exactly. As soon as EA caves on this they are just going to start complaining about all of those blasphemous references to evolution sprinkled throughout Mass Effect, anyway.
Treating a company with 8000 employees as 100% evil just because you disagree with some of their crappy policies would be just as bad as what these intolerant religious people are doing...
The only thing more annoying than /. April Fool's articles is people complaining about them. Especially on real stories...
It doesn't seem to be stopping the TSA from attempting to bankrupt the airlines so far...
The US is just playing the rather childish "it's my yard and my baseball, I set the rules or you can't play" card.
If the airlines really wanted they could make sure they plan their routes around US airspace. Though I'm sure the US could get more childish still and threaten to revoke landing privileges at US cities, which I doubt the airlines really care to test...
Or maybe that's just New York charging you to enter...