I'm kinda surprised to see this article on AI. While I expect this kind of headline over at the xxxNN mac news site, I have gotten use to AI filtering these kinds of fluff pieces.
5. Could not Use Hack She complained she could not use an illegal hack to unlock the phone so she did not have to sign an agreement with AT&T. Not only is she looking to make a profit on the product she bought and used, she now wants to hack the phone so she can void her warranty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amerist
ROFL
I totally agree. I'm sick of hearing whiny people bitching about how they got a raw deal. Here's why you whiners all got a raw deal..
1. You bought an iPhone. This thing does not even do half the stuff a Palm-based treo can do. (sure it has its own limited subset of features that make it pretty and work well with macs, but you have to admit that if you were a former smartphone user, this is the dumbest smartphone on the market right now.) For that alone you should feel buyer's remorse.
2. You bought it in the first two months! Most people know that when apple releases a product, something better is just around the corner waiting to obsolete it. I'm actually an apple fan but this is one thing that simultaneously awes and dismays me.
3. You accepted sub-standard terms and conditions. 2 year contract??? WTF? You agreed to use At&t for your wireless service provider. For that, you should be electro-shocked back into sanity.
4. You felt that the 8GB iPhone was worth $599 at the time and so that's why you paid that much. For that, you got the privilege of being the first early adopter on the block to show off your shiny new iPhone. Don't whine and bitch because Apple decided to make them more affordable for the rest of us who still haven't bought one.
I'll Tell you how you end these kind of lawsuits, when these things finally get thrown out, the news should cover it and embarrass the hell out of these people, they should be publicly ridiculed they should be made to explain what they were thinks and aren't they embarrassed that what they did.
This is like all those people from the Y2K issue who stocked their basements with stuff because the world was going to come to a stand still. I want the news to go back to these people the day after and asked them what happen and aren't they embarrassed for being idiots
To me over here it is really funny seeing (some? lots?) of Americans whine about the sides of a free market they do not like and (some? lots?) critizing European "socialism" (haha).
BTW I do think Apple handled this price cut clumsily. But in a fair way.
GH
What a stupid thing to say. Do you really think that the people mocking socialist Europe are the same as the ones bitching about open market factors they don't like? You do realize that all Americans are individuals, eh?
i have read the same statement in other locations, especially that some coffee is served at sub-optimal temperatures, simply because businesses fear lawwsuits.
The problem is that coffee served at temperatures considered by some to be optimal are also temperatures that would cause rapid and severe burning if it gets onto skin. To be honest, I don't know who those people are or if that temperature was determined by a reasonably scientific study or just made up. And I don't "get" coffee either. To me, it's about as attractive as the idea of drinking Drain-o.
I wondered if the original poster that mentioned hot coffee meant the game or not.
What a stupid thing to say. Do you really think that the people mocking socialist Europe are the same as the ones bitching about open market factors they don't like? You do realize that all Americans are individuals, eh?
I'm not sure I consider what is basically an oligopoly to be an open market. I'm not sure if there's even spectrum available for anyone else to come in and make an independent network. That's why the US 700MHz spectrum auction is so important.
But, we live in a country where others do have some level of responsibility for your safety.
I agree and disagree with you.
"Actually it would have" I disagree, there would have been nothing stopping her from filing a suit. Winning her suit might have been a different situation.
"we live in a country where others do have some level of responsibility for your safety." I agree but that "person" should start with YOU.
There is no merit in idiotic actions nor should it be financially awarded.
From Wikipedia... "On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap."
way to selectively cut/paste:
from wikipedia (the next paragraph):
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
also, she asked them to cover her medical costs of about 11K, and they countered with $800. also, the judge lowered the award to a little under $500K.
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
also, she asked them to cover her medical costs of about 11K, and they countered with $800. also, the judge lowered the award to a little under $500K.
Not selective, just not wanting to paste the whole case history... Had I also included that in my quote, this is what I would have said...
All the more reason not to put hot liquid regardless of the temp between your legs while wearing cotton sweatpants that can absorb the coffee and hold it against one's skin for any length of time.
I don't mean to sound heartless but since when does actions of BOTH parties not take into account here? McDonald's selling overly hot coffee without fair warning or some lady putting a hot drink between her legs. Come on, where does her responsiblity for her injuries take account? Why are her actions totally negated here and the responsibility falls entirely on the defendant (in this case)?
I will take one quote from the article... Bork's fellow traveler in conservative circles, Ted Frank -- who's currently a fellow at AEI, where Bork used to be a fellow -- "sympathize[s] with Judge Bork's serious injuries." But even Frank deems Bork's claim for punitives a bit dubious.
If it were Nancy Pelosi, I doubt that Harry Reed would say I sympathize but your claim for punitives a bit dubious... MY OPINION folks.
It would be nice to see AAPL countersue for costs, including one hour of Jobs's time which is probably worth $300,000 or so. Time this class action rot was stopped. (Ooops, that would mean the end of the Democratic party - oh! well....)
People keep talking about how stupid the woman is, well how about the lawyer? Any 8 year old aspiring to be a lawyer would know that this simply will not work. But the lawyer is taking the case anyway!
"The lawsuit goes on to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees."
I'll never forget that terrifying night. I was just sitting at home, minding my own business, when Steve Jobs and a platoon of AT&T thugs burst through my front door.
"YOU are getting an iPhone right now, on launch day, and you're going to have to sign a contract indicating that you'll use it for TWO YEARS! BWA HA HA HA HA," said the Steve, wringing his hands in evil glee.
The AT&T thugs manhandled me into a waiting unmarked black van and took me down to the Apple Store at The Grove in West Hollywood. Hovering helicopters and troops with vicious, snarling dogs kept the damned in line as we waited, huddled in fear, knowing our only choices were to sign the two year contract or be put up against the back wall of the Apple Store and shot.
I survived that night. But I know a lot of people who didn't. I see their faces whenever I get a call on my iPhone, because I screwed up my contacts list and all the portraits are wrong.
Comments
5. Could not Use Hack She complained she could not use an illegal hack to unlock the phone so she did not have to sign an agreement with AT&T. Not only is she looking to make a profit on the product she bought and used, she now wants to hack the phone so she can void her warranty.
ROFL
I totally agree. I'm sick of hearing whiny people bitching about how they got a raw deal. Here's why you whiners all got a raw deal..
1. You bought an iPhone. This thing does not even do half the stuff a Palm-based treo can do. (sure it has its own limited subset of features that make it pretty and work well with macs, but you have to admit that if you were a former smartphone user, this is the dumbest smartphone on the market right now.) For that alone you should feel buyer's remorse.
2. You bought it in the first two months! Most people know that when apple releases a product, something better is just around the corner waiting to obsolete it. I'm actually an apple fan but this is one thing that simultaneously awes and dismays me.
3. You accepted sub-standard terms and conditions. 2 year contract??? WTF? You agreed to use At&t for your wireless service provider. For that, you should be electro-shocked back into sanity.
4. You felt that the 8GB iPhone was worth $599 at the time and so that's why you paid that much. For that, you got the privilege of being the first early adopter on the block to show off your shiny new iPhone. Don't whine and bitch because Apple decided to make them more affordable for the rest of us who still haven't bought one.
Skip
5. Could not Use Hack She complained she could not use an illegal hack to unlock the phone...
News Flash: Unlocking your phone is NOT ILLEGAL!
Regardless, unlocking is not Apple's concern.
-Clive
This is like all those people from the Y2K issue who stocked their basements with stuff because the world was going to come to a stand still. I want the news to go back to these people the day after and asked them what happen and aren't they embarrassed for being idiots
To me over here it is really funny seeing (some? lots?) of Americans whine about the sides of a free market they do not like and (some? lots?) critizing European "socialism" (haha).
BTW I do think Apple handled this price cut clumsily. But in a fair way.
GH
What a stupid thing to say. Do you really think that the people mocking socialist Europe are the same as the ones bitching about open market factors they don't like? You do realize that all Americans are individuals, eh?
i have read the same statement in other locations, especially that some coffee is served at sub-optimal temperatures, simply because businesses fear lawwsuits.
The problem is that coffee served at temperatures considered by some to be optimal are also temperatures that would cause rapid and severe burning if it gets onto skin. To be honest, I don't know who those people are or if that temperature was determined by a reasonably scientific study or just made up. And I don't "get" coffee either. To me, it's about as attractive as the idea of drinking Drain-o.
I wondered if the original poster that mentioned hot coffee meant the game or not.
What a stupid thing to say. Do you really think that the people mocking socialist Europe are the same as the ones bitching about open market factors they don't like? You do realize that all Americans are individuals, eh?
I'm not sure I consider what is basically an oligopoly to be an open market. I'm not sure if there's even spectrum available for anyone else to come in and make an independent network. That's why the US 700MHz spectrum auction is so important.
Actually it would have,
But, we live in a country where others do have some level of responsibility for your safety.
I agree and disagree with you.
"Actually it would have" I disagree, there would have been nothing stopping her from filing a suit. Winning her suit might have been a different situation.
"we live in a country where others do have some level of responsibility for your safety." I agree but that "person" should start with YOU.
There is no merit in idiotic actions nor should it be financially awarded.
From Wikipedia... "On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap."
way to selectively cut/paste:
from wikipedia (the next paragraph):
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
also, she asked them to cover her medical costs of about 11K, and they countered with $800. also, the judge lowered the award to a little under $500K.
way to selectively cut/paste:
from wikipedia (the next paragraph):
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
also, she asked them to cover her medical costs of about 11K, and they countered with $800. also, the judge lowered the award to a little under $500K.
Not selective, just not wanting to paste the whole case history... Had I also included that in my quote, this is what I would have said...
All the more reason not to put hot liquid regardless of the temp between your legs while wearing cotton sweatpants that can absorb the coffee and hold it against one's skin for any length of time.
I don't mean to sound heartless but since when does actions of BOTH parties not take into account here? McDonald's selling overly hot coffee without fair warning or some lady putting a hot drink between her legs. Come on, where does her responsiblity for her injuries take account? Why are her actions totally negated here and the responsibility falls entirely on the defendant (in this case)?
That was actually a much more noted legal scholar, former Solicitor General Robert Bork. One link to a story is here: http://www.acsblog.org/economic-regu...e-damages.html .
I did a quick Google search too and found this link... no "Bud" Newt falling but, well here is the link... http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/06/l...obert_bork.php
I will take one quote from the article... Bork's fellow traveler in conservative circles, Ted Frank -- who's currently a fellow at AEI, where Bork used to be a fellow -- "sympathize[s] with Judge Bork's serious injuries." But even Frank deems Bork's claim for punitives a bit dubious.
If it were Nancy Pelosi, I doubt that Harry Reed would say I sympathize but your claim for punitives a bit dubious... MY OPINION folks.
Idiots, both of them
"The lawsuit goes on to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees."
I'll never forget that terrifying night. I was just sitting at home, minding my own business, when Steve Jobs and a platoon of AT&T thugs burst through my front door.
"YOU are getting an iPhone right now, on launch day, and you're going to have to sign a contract indicating that you'll use it for TWO YEARS! BWA HA HA HA HA," said the Steve, wringing his hands in evil glee.
The AT&T thugs manhandled me into a waiting unmarked black van and took me down to the Apple Store at The Grove in West Hollywood. Hovering helicopters and troops with vicious, snarling dogs kept the damned in line as we waited, huddled in fear, knowing our only choices were to sign the two year contract or be put up against the back wall of the Apple Store and shot.
I survived that night. But I know a lot of people who didn't. I see their faces whenever I get a call on my iPhone, because I screwed up my contacts list and all the portraits are wrong.
For the sake of the dead, I hope she wins.