Now that all phones are basically identical (flat, and run Android or iOS), this completely trivial and meaningless shit is all that's left to differentiate them. If whether a phone has 1 or 3 buttons is important to you, you should get out of the room in your mom's basement more often.
"Don't know enough about the salary aspect. She well might be underpaid becase"...
This could be as simple and common as the person she replaced had been in that job a while, advanced in it (including pay raises), and was now moving to an even more advanced job. She, OTOH, was new to that position, so might be expected to enter at the low end of the pay scale for it.
"Accident" isn't a legal term, and has a wide range of connotations. This incident was due to reckless behavior. If you're flying a 2 pound drone over a crowd, you're assuming much greater responsibility than if you're flying it in an empty field. Not only is reckless behavior itself punishable, in this case the behavior resulted in actual injury. 30 days is appropriate.
"Doesn't matter if it was a baseball bat, or a fist, or a drone."
If one is hit with a baseball bat or a fist, there's a reasonable presumption that it was an intentional action. This drone incident seems to have been a matter of recklessness, not intent. So, it does matter.
Still, 30 days seems reasonable, given his actions caused actual and substantial harm, so it was more than just simple endangerment.
If a belt breaks, they can require you get it repaired at a dealer if you want warranty coverage.
They cannot require it. But they don't have to pay for it if you use a 3rd-party vendor.
Which is exactly what I said. What do you suppose "if you want warranty coverage" means?
As for the rest, you're arguing a non-sequitur. I've already quoted to portion of the MMWA which covers tie-ins. Sure, a manufacturer can't require you to buy replacement parts from them which aren't provided free under the warranty. But, modifications or add-ons are completely different, the consumer is not fixing a broken item, they're changing it. Put another way, a manufacturer can't require use of branded parts, but they can prohibit use of modified or supplemental ones. A manufacturer can void a warranty if a consumer modifies the item, they only have to make that term clear in the warranty. As I said, if they wanted to void a warranty if a customer modifies the item, they can, even if that modification had no direct bearing on a failure which would have otherwise been covered under warranty.
Feel free to try again, because what you're referenced doesn't support your claim in any way. And, give proper legal citations next time (statute, regulation or case law),
Even if an automaker gets a new car purchaser to agree to an unconscionable contract of adhesion, what about someone who buys a used car and who was never even given a chance?
conditio[ing] his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty)
If warranty work is provided free (i.e. parts and labor warranty), there's no issue. In fact, the Act refers to the use of authorized agents:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any warrantor from designating representatives to perform duties under the written or implied warranty...
No, a car manufacturer can't require you to get oil changes from their dealer, unless they provide those changes free as part of the warranty. But if a belt breaks, they can require you get it repaired at a dealer if you want warranty coverage, since the warranty pays for both parts and labor.
You're probably also under the false impression that a warrantor has to somehow "prove" a user modification caused an otherwise warranted issue in order to deny coverage. Nope - if they want to say your engine warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can. They just have to state so clearly.
We have come a long way from the age of flip phones and nine-key texting. Even as if group messaging and instant messengers took over, the SMS has largely retained its core standard over the years.
And that's self-contradictory. We haven't come a long way, in practice. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous, what's the point of SMS? Everyone has fast, easy, mobile access to email, which has none of the limitations of SMS (message size, tied to a device and not a person, etc.). Email, you can access on your phone, your PC, your tablet, or even a public web terminal in many cases. It even lets you communicate to someone without a phone!
"they don't even give you the option to pay the shipping if you just wanted to receive that add on item."
There's often a "buy from other sellers" choice, where you pay more but it's not Prime shipping.
Myself, I try to keep some things in a "future purchases" list, stuff I will be buying, but don't need soon. Like, right now I've got some stuff to buy related to camping next summer. So, if something comes up as an add-on, there's usually something I'd be buying anyway which I can add to the cart to make it work.
It you want to try to listen to the radio broadcast mentioned, here's the info:
HAARP will transmit a sequence of tones and music using amplitude modulation (AM) on two different radio frequencies (2.7 MHz and 3.3 MHz) in a sort of reproduction of this so-called Luxembourg Effect. If conditions are sufficient and you tune-in to one frequency or the other, you will hear tones and music from both frequencies. The tones and music have been specifically composed to take advantage of the Luxembourg effect.
The Luxembourg broadcast will begin as early as 6 p.m. on 19 and 20 February Alaska Standard Time (AKST) and conclude by 6:40 p.m. In Coordinate Universal Time (UTC), the broadcasts will begin as early as 03:00 on 20 and 21 February and conclude by 03:40. Tune in to 2.7 MHz or 3.3 MHz (2700 KHz or 3300 KHz), or both! The program is approximately 10 minutes in duration and will repeat until 6:40 p.m. AKST or 03:40 UTC.
I think you're in violent agreement with the GP. He's right, reporting on a celebrity isn't news. And "mainstream media" isn't news either - most of the outlets which say they're news are 95% op-ed. I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs. They're not really lying, they're just going way beyond unbiased objective fact, with an intent to mislead in order to support their POV.
Where, oh where, are today's Edgar R Murrows? They all seem to be Hearsts these days.
30 TWh? The discussion is about powering electric buses. And, if you think it's acreage, the obvious conclusion is that you only think in a single dimension. *plonk*
Slashdot Mirror
Turtles don't eat green cheese.
Now that all phones are basically identical (flat, and run Android or iOS), this completely trivial and meaningless shit is all that's left to differentiate them. If whether a phone has 1 or 3 buttons is important to you, you should get out of the room in your mom's basement more often.
"Don't know enough about the salary aspect. She well might be underpaid becase"...
This could be as simple and common as the person she replaced had been in that job a while, advanced in it (including pay raises), and was now moving to an even more advanced job. She, OTOH, was new to that position, so might be expected to enter at the low end of the pay scale for it.
"If it truly was an accident... "
"Accident" isn't a legal term, and has a wide range of connotations. This incident was due to reckless behavior. If you're flying a 2 pound drone over a crowd, you're assuming much greater responsibility than if you're flying it in an empty field. Not only is reckless behavior itself punishable, in this case the behavior resulted in actual injury. 30 days is appropriate.
"Doesn't matter if it was a baseball bat, or a fist, or a drone."
If one is hit with a baseball bat or a fist, there's a reasonable presumption that it was an intentional action. This drone incident seems to have been a matter of recklessness, not intent. So, it does matter.
Still, 30 days seems reasonable, given his actions caused actual and substantial harm, so it was more than just simple endangerment.
Noodles for nerds?
You're an idiot, plain and simple. In my OP, I provided a link to the MMWA, in addition to direct quotes.
"If you are confused about the four carriers' recent announcements, you are not alone. We have included related links below "
Now we're even more confused, since those included "links below" are non-existent.
He considers blow and hookers to be "utilities."
In a similar vein, if something is broadcast on radio or TV, how is it not being placed into the public domain?
Which is exactly what I said. What do you suppose "if you want warranty coverage" means?
As for the rest, you're arguing a non-sequitur. I've already quoted to portion of the MMWA which covers tie-ins. Sure, a manufacturer can't require you to buy replacement parts from them which aren't provided free under the warranty. But, modifications or add-ons are completely different, the consumer is not fixing a broken item, they're changing it. Put another way, a manufacturer can't require use of branded parts, but they can prohibit use of modified or supplemental ones. A manufacturer can void a warranty if a consumer modifies the item, they only have to make that term clear in the warranty. As I said, if they wanted to void a warranty if a customer modifies the item, they can, even if that modification had no direct bearing on a failure which would have otherwise been covered under warranty.
Feel free to try again, because what you're referenced doesn't support your claim in any way. And, give proper legal citations next time (statute, regulation or case law),
Even if an automaker gets a new car purchaser to agree to an unconscionable contract of adhesion, what about someone who buys a used car and who was never even given a chance?
"Too much hate out for Uber right now"
Naw. This just provides balance to the previous love fest.
Nope. You're wrong, provide a clear citation if you want to argue further.
Federal law says no such thing. You're presumably referencing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which prohibits
If warranty work is provided free (i.e. parts and labor warranty), there's no issue. In fact, the Act refers to the use of authorized agents:
No, a car manufacturer can't require you to get oil changes from their dealer, unless they provide those changes free as part of the warranty. But if a belt breaks, they can require you get it repaired at a dealer if you want warranty coverage, since the warranty pays for both parts and labor.
You're probably also under the false impression that a warrantor has to somehow "prove" a user modification caused an otherwise warranted issue in order to deny coverage. Nope - if they want to say your engine warranty is voided if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can. They just have to state so clearly.
Read the Act, it's short and not a hard read.
Now there's an enterprise class backup solution! I take it this "IT specialist" was promoted from the ranks of Yahoo.
And that's self-contradictory. We haven't come a long way, in practice. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous, what's the point of SMS? Everyone has fast, easy, mobile access to email, which has none of the limitations of SMS (message size, tied to a device and not a person, etc.). Email, you can access on your phone, your PC, your tablet, or even a public web terminal in many cases. It even lets you communicate to someone without a phone!
Uber doing something unethical? This isn't news, it's business as usual.
Sure, welcome to the science of 2012! Unfortunately, that means it's not news.
"they don't even give you the option to pay the shipping if you just wanted to receive that add on item."
There's often a "buy from other sellers" choice, where you pay more but it's not Prime shipping.
Myself, I try to keep some things in a "future purchases" list, stuff I will be buying, but don't need soon. Like, right now I've got some stuff to buy related to camping next summer. So, if something comes up as an add-on, there's usually something I'd be buying anyway which I can add to the cart to make it work.
U can't invent email without U.
I think you're in violent agreement with the GP. He's right, reporting on a celebrity isn't news. And "mainstream media" isn't news either - most of the outlets which say they're news are 95% op-ed. I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs. They're not really lying, they're just going way beyond unbiased objective fact, with an intent to mislead in order to support their POV.
Where, oh where, are today's Edgar R Murrows? They all seem to be Hearsts these days.
Kibo mentioned this years ago.
30 TWh? The discussion is about powering electric buses. And, if you think it's acreage, the obvious conclusion is that you only think in a single dimension.
*plonk*