Honestly, the failure rate difference between 1 year and 2 years cant be big enough to cost them anything. It's almost a Zero cost to them with gigantic gains in PR if they embraced it.
Plus it would give all their competitors gigantic headaches.
How can it be zero cost to Apple but a gigantic headache to everyone else?
That *is* what the law requires. A warranty is to cover defects of workmanship or materials of the product as shipped. That means that if the product goes wrong within the warranty period, and it hasn't been mistreated or suffered accidental damage then it's deemed to have not been of sufficient quality when manufactured and repaired or replaced.
Extended warranties sometimes go beyond that, such as Apple's own 1st year warranty or Applecare extended warranty. But they are not required by law.
If Congress tried to pass something like this, we would never hear the end of "socialist liberal government taking over the free market." Sigh.
Absolutely. Because the States is effectively rules by the corporations. Somehow certain consumers would complain about a law that only benefits them. How brainwashed are they?
Most people don't think about warranties unless and until the product stops working. At that point they'll dig out the paperwork and see if they're covered.
They probably don't know that 2 years is a mandatory warranty period. And wouldn't think about the warranty period at time of purchase unless the retailer brings the topic up.
The EU law is there to ensure that product vendors don't take advantage of this lack of foresight by consumers. And because it's a common market to ensure some consistency of treatment across the union.
There's plenty of proof. From forensic to the fact that he admits shooting him. What there is no evidence for is self-defense.
What you're claiming would mean that anyone could get away with shooting anyone else dead. Provided there was no eye witnesses. Everyone could just say "self-defense" and get off. And that's clearly not how it happens.
Each time you post, I add another one of these to my collection of crimes committed by Daniel Phillips. This one is burglary. I don't know if you'll see this one again, there's an awful lot of Daniel Phillips crimes out there.
If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
That's just plain wrong. The law allows only for "reasonable force" to be used in self defense not "any and all available force".
he should have called 911 instead of starting an altercation.
He should have? You're full of the rights of Zimmerman to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, however badly judged and however against the advice of the authorities.
But for Martin, you're saying what he should have done?
If you're a black kid in an area where cops have a reputation for racism, calling 911 is not the first option that comes to mind. Instead he rang his girlfriend to say there was someone following him. And the girlfriend advised him to run away. Which he did.
Rather than realising the kid was scared, Zimmerman seems to have taken this as as something else to be suspicious about.
Because lots of bad things might happen to either of them, including the innocent person Zimmerman was following being shot dead. And indeed that's what happened.
A concealed weapon license is no a license to act as if you're a cop.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
No, the dispatcher did it for the safety of both parties. Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's not in question.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
You're repeating the stuff you made up before. There is no evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman.
On the other hand, just asking someone who they are and why they're in your neighborhood does not, by itself, qualify as instigating a confrontation.
I believe it does. It's none of anyone else's business who you are and what you are doing when you're walking down a sidewalk. The only person you'd expect to do that is a cop, and in most places even a cop would be overstepping his bounds in doing so. The presumption of a civilian to act like a cop and ask these questions is certainly a confrontation.
No he wasn't. He was in the neighbourhood watch. In training he was told multiple times not to follow suspicious people. On the 9/11 call he was told not to follow.
In his own mind he was almost a cop. But that doesn't make it semi-official.
Slashdot Mirror
You should read this. It gives you a clue about what it's like to work for a living. In America.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
Honestly, the failure rate difference between 1 year and 2 years cant be big enough to cost them anything. It's almost a Zero cost to them with gigantic gains in PR if they embraced it.
Plus it would give all their competitors gigantic headaches.
How can it be zero cost to Apple but a gigantic headache to everyone else?
That *is* what the law requires. A warranty is to cover defects of workmanship or materials of the product as shipped. That means that if the product goes wrong within the warranty period, and it hasn't been mistreated or suffered accidental damage then it's deemed to have not been of sufficient quality when manufactured and repaired or replaced.
Extended warranties sometimes go beyond that, such as Apple's own 1st year warranty or Applecare extended warranty. But they are not required by law.
If Congress tried to pass something like this, we would never hear the end of "socialist liberal government taking over the free market." Sigh.
Absolutely. Because the States is effectively rules by the corporations. Somehow certain consumers would complain about a law that only benefits them. How brainwashed are they?
Most people don't think about warranties unless and until the product stops working. At that point they'll dig out the paperwork and see if they're covered.
They probably don't know that 2 years is a mandatory warranty period. And wouldn't think about the warranty period at time of purchase unless the retailer brings the topic up.
The EU law is there to ensure that product vendors don't take advantage of this lack of foresight by consumers. And because it's a common market to ensure some consistency of treatment across the union.
BTW, I notice I notice that Daniel Phillips is a very common name, but according to Wikipedia, not a single one of them ever did anything notable.
You're slowing down! I give you 3, you only have one?!
Oh I see that you, Daniel Phillips are listed on ripoff report for Plagerism, Theft, Scandalous Fraudulent Liar. You naughty boy.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/consumer-services/dan-phillips-d-p-mak/dan-phillips-d-p-makeup-studi-4b72a.htm
The rape is the worst though. Daniel Phillips is a pedophile.
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/man-flown-iraq-face-norfolk-charges
Daniel Phillips, you stabbed a 15 year old kid? That's not funny!
http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2008/08/27/Youth-stabbed-in-fight-outside-mall-is-identified.html
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Turns out your an iPhone developer. Stockholm syndrome?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/danieljamesphillips
But, Daniel Phillips, probably that time you raped a child was the worst.
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/Norfolk-police-find-rape-suspect-in-Iraq
Blimey Daniel Phillips, turns out you're an arsonist too. Have you no moral scruples whatsoever?
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/daniel_phillips.php
There's plenty of proof. From forensic to the fact that he admits shooting him. What there is no evidence for is self-defense.
What you're claiming would mean that anyone could get away with shooting anyone else dead. Provided there was no eye witnesses. Everyone could just say "self-defense" and get off. And that's clearly not how it happens.
You need to read beyond the first sentence of the post you respond to.
Thanks for your content free post.
Each time you post, I add another one of these to my collection of crimes committed by Daniel Phillips. This one is burglary. I don't know if you'll see this one again, there's an awful lot of Daniel Phillips crimes out there.
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-wanted-suspected-car-burglar-arrested-20111118,0,2823782.story
Too bad for you chose off-topic astroturfing route, rather then being a decent human being and following discussions. We can all play that game.
What exactly is it you are trying to say with your splurge of links to right wing blogs?
If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
That's just plain wrong. The law allows only for "reasonable force" to be used in self defense not "any and all available force".
he should have called 911 instead of starting an altercation.
He should have? You're full of the rights of Zimmerman to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, however badly judged and however against the advice of the authorities.
But for Martin, you're saying what he should have done?
If you're a black kid in an area where cops have a reputation for racism, calling 911 is not the first option that comes to mind. Instead he rang his girlfriend to say there was someone following him. And the girlfriend advised him to run away. Which he did.
Rather than realising the kid was scared, Zimmerman seems to have taken this as as something else to be suspicious about.
And why should he not?
Because lots of bad things might happen to either of them, including the innocent person Zimmerman was following being shot dead. And indeed that's what happened.
A concealed weapon license is no a license to act as if you're a cop.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
No, the dispatcher did it for the safety of both parties. Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's not in question.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
You're repeating the stuff you made up before. There is no evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman.
eyewtinesses said they saw Treyvon beating up Zimmerman
Citation?
Police confirm Zimmerman had a broken nose.
Citation?
These would be all over the news if true.
Where did you read and hear that?
The question was whether it was a confrontation, not whether it was a crime.
On the other hand, just asking someone who they are and why they're in your neighborhood does not, by itself, qualify as instigating a confrontation.
I believe it does. It's none of anyone else's business who you are and what you are doing when you're walking down a sidewalk. The only person you'd expect to do that is a cop, and in most places even a cop would be overstepping his bounds in doing so. The presumption of a civilian to act like a cop and ask these questions is certainly a confrontation.
No he wasn't. He was in the neighbourhood watch. In training he was told multiple times not to follow suspicious people. On the 9/11 call he was told not to follow.
In his own mind he was almost a cop. But that doesn't make it semi-official.