So your iTunes Library includes media you may have purschased from Amazon or some other source then? Just wasnted to make sure I understood correctly. Not sure why you also feel the need to toss a personal insult in there too. There's been a couple of times I've corrected you quite politely when you've erred, refraining from treating you as tho you were a fool.
I suppose it does make some people feel better to belittle others.
This isn't about some minor error. This is about the fundamental definition of a digital library and the iTunes app which has been in use for a decade.
I don't believe for a second that you are just now finding out that you can take content from outside the iTS (e.g.: Amazon, CDs) and store them in iTunes so you can sync them to your devices or play directly from within the app. The argument you could make was that iTunes only came on your radar after the iTS was established and even then you'd have to defend your position about not knowing about drag-and -drop importing, the menus that show importing, or ripping a CD to various formats and storing in iTunes.
This isn't about some minor error. This is about the fundamental definition of a digital library and the iTunes app which has been in use for a decade.
I don't believe for a second that you are just now finding out that you can take content from outside the iTS (e.g.: Amazon, CDs) and store them in iTunes so you can sync them to your devices or play directly from within the app. The argument you could make was that iTunes only came on your radar after the iTS was established and even then you'd have to defend your position about not knowing about drag-and -drop importing, the menus that show importing, or ripping a CD to various formats and storing in iTunes.
Which has what to do with personal insults? It simply isn't necessary and doesn't reflect well on you. I've done perfectly well with avoiding them, as have many forum members. Trying to make others look lesser than you isn't admirable.
Which has what to do with personal insults? It simply isn't necessary and doesn't reflect well on you. I've done perfectly well with avoiding them, as have many others. Trying to make others look lesser than you isn't admirable.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
In this particular case you're completely mistaken on what I understood about iTunes. I don't buy music and I don't use iTunes. In fact I uninstalled it on my primary computer several weeks ago due to bloat. My son does use it, which is why I asked him about the library. Use that as your excuse for belittling others if you wish, and that's all I think it was. . . an excuse. I still won't respond in kind when you or others make a mistake or claim something that isn't true, yet still able communicate my point. No ad-homs, profanity or insults necessary.
It does require more thought and effort to answer rather than insult but makes the forums much more pleasant. It's worth a try.
Rubbish. Tort reform is about limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation. In most cases it would be to something reasonable under the circumstances. In the first, place I would not leave it to a jury to calculate damages. There is a way to calculate the quantum of damage, and if policy supports it, exemplary damages. It is a stupid idea to give 12 people the opportunity to pull a number out of their arses and send a plaintiff on their way.
Whenever you reduce something to a monetary value these calculations become inevitable. The alternative is incarceration. You would have to turn civil law into something which would have criminal consequences. In a lot of cases criminal code has provision for the same things which could result in a civil action. It would be unnecessary to contort developed law to involve incarceration for tortfeasors if there were a corresponding criminal provision, and the standard of proof would be more in line with what is required to invoke incarceration as a penalty.
EDIT: where a corporation is involved perhaps injunction could be used to prohibit them selling products or services for a period of time.
Indeed. But you can also accept that the current system is not quite right when you got mind boggling sums awarded as damages as is the current case. Remember the principal point about compensation is to put things right, not to find a gravy train.
I'd be all for throwing many of these malefactors in jail, but that's simply never going to happen, and there is not a single proposal for tort reform made, or ever likely to be made, on the floor of the U.S. Congress that includes such a provision. So, basically, what "tort reform" boils down to is simply stripping the risk out of causing injury.
The current system would be perfect for deterrence value if you actually did get mind boggling damages awarded and paid, even on rare occasions. But the simple fact is that doesn't really happen, despite all the propaganda* to the contrary to make you believe it does. Huge damage awards are actually quite rare, often reduced by judges, and even more frequently negotiated down to much smaller numbers that we never even hear about to settle, and/or paid over many, many years.
Juries don't, "pull a number out of their arses." The numbers are put before them and argued over, and then "12 people" decide, given the total circumstances of the case, what's just. People arguing for tort reform don't usually seem to have a problem with 12 people deciding capital murder cases, where a person's life is at stake. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they are unfit to decide a question of whether an injury occurred and what just damages ought to be. Surely a life is more important that a few million dollars, and most tort cases involve much smaller sums.
"Limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation," is nothing more than telling unscrupulous business people in advance exactly what the maximum cost of injuries from unsafe products, or unlawful acts will be, and basically, in most cases, giving them a free ride. It's the very unpredictability of the current system which is in fact its greatest strength.
* Yes, propaganda. A favorite whipping boy of tort reform advocates is medical malpractice lawsuits. These suits, which amount to, "untold millions in awards each year," so they argue, quite loosely with the facts, are driving health care costs through the roof and driving doctors out of practice. The truth is that it's the greed, bad decisions and business practices of the insurance companies themselves, entirely apart from malpractice awards, that are driving up health care costs. Malpractice insurance rates are not significantly affected by damage awards and never have been. Those costs were already factored into the premiums. The most significant factor affecting insurance rates has been, for the last 40 years, bad investments made by insurance companies in financial markets and a desire to recover those losses from those they insure, who in most cases are required by law to pay whatever premiums are dictated. There is a direct correlation between investment losses and rate increases, and there is no correlation between damage awards and rate increases. So, yes, the entire story about how "excessive" damage awards are driving up malpractice insurance rates and thus health care costs is nothing more than a brazen lie concocted to further increase the profits of the insurance industry and promulgated by well paid lobbyists and assorted other PR hacks. The entire case for "tort reform" is built on lies and misrepresentations exactly like the Medical Malpractice Lie.
I'd be all for throwing many of these malefactors in jail, but that's simply never going to happen, and there is not a single proposal for tort reform made, or ever likely to be made, on the floor of the U.S. Congress that includes such a provision. So, basically, what "tort reform" boils down to is simply stripping the risk out of causing injury.
More accurately, I would say it allows one to quantify the risk.
In my perfect world, tort reform would primarily provide a restorative function for loss.
Quote:
Juries don't, "pull a number out of their arses." The numbers are put before them and argued over, and then "12 people" decide, given the total circumstances of the case, what's just. People arguing for tort reform don't usually seem to have a problem with 12 people deciding capital murder cases, where a person's life is at stake. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they are unfit to decide a question of whether an injury occurred and what just damages ought to be. Surely a life is more important that a few million dollars, and most tort cases involve much smaller sums.
The difference in a murder case is that the jury are being asked to evaluate and decide the facts. The facts then produce the verdict.
In the tort case, the jury is also more than adequately equipped to decide whether a negligent act occurred.
However, this is completely different from evaluating the quantum of damages which more akin to applying the law to the facts. In common-law systems, this is the typically role of the judge.
Quote:
"Limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation," is nothing more than telling unscrupulous business people in advance exactly what the maximum cost of injuries from unsafe products, or unlawful acts will be, and basically, in most cases, giving them a free ride. It's the very unpredictability of the current system which is in fact its greatest strength.
If you take my comments in context I have no issue with restorative damages.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.."
Not quite as comfortable with that one. My friends may not appreciate it.
So, if you are sending a gift, how would you suggest Apple deliver it without a name and address to deliver it to?
... The difference in a murder case is that the jury are being asked to evaluate and decide the facts. The facts then produce the verdict.
...
If you take my comments in context I have no issue with restorative damages.
Jury's do exactly the same thing in criminal and civil trials. There is absolutely no coherent argument that can legitimately be made as to why a Jury is fit to decide decisions of life and death but not financial ones. You're also overlooking the fact that judges usually have the discretion to modify awards they deem excessive. (Just as they usually have the discretion to set aside what they deem horribly wrong criminal verdicts.)
Restorative damages? That must be some sort of code for "very low damage award caps", right?
How exactly does any amount restore your privacy, your health, you leg, or a loved one's life? It can't. Torts are only partly about compensating the victim, there are also, and ought to be about, deterring bad behavior. Without a punitive and a deterrent component, without a degree of unpredictability, without the possibility of an extremely harsh punishment, the tort system serves no real purpose at all.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
Yeah, he always get's all self-righteous and pulls the old, "I don't see why you have to tell me I'm lying my ass off when I'm being so very polite about it," when he gets called on his bullshit, then goes right ahead and tosses some more at you.
To Gatorguy's employers: hey, he's not even good at what you are paying him for.
So, if you are sending a gift, how would you suggest Apple deliver it without a name and address to deliver it to?
Is there any reason to keep it? I can't think of any except for additional marketing opportunities. There's no mention anywhere in the privacy policy on how long Apple will retain PII after it's served it's purpose or when the user has opted out other than "for some period of time".
Yeah, he always get's all self-righteous and pulls the old, "I don't see why you have to tell me I'm lying my ass off when I'm being so very polite about it," when he gets called on his bullshit, then goes right ahead and tosses some more at you.
To Gatorguy's employers: hey, he's not even good at what you are paying him for.
Hmmm. . .
Wouldn't a lie be continuing to claim something is true after asking and finding out it was not? You've asked me directly whether I have any monetary connections to any tech company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc., and I told you I did not. Yet you continue the same old accusations. Is that a simple mistake on your part Anonymouse or a lie?
Wouldn't a lie be continuing to claim something is true after asking and finding out it was not? You've asked me directly whether I have any monetary connections to any tech company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc., and I told you I did not. Yet you continue the same old accusations. Is that a simple mistake on your part Anonymouse or a lie?
If I believed you weren't being paid to post here, then it would be a lie for me to say you are, however, I don't believe you aren't paid to post here, and you have no credibility. You just "admitted"* that you were posting bullshit in this thread, i.e., saying things that you didn't know anything about. You've been caught lying in any number of threads. Obviously, you'll say anything, true or not, you don't care, so nothing you say can be taken as true.
* Is your admission even true, or were you just covering your bullshit with another lie? How can we even tell anymore with you?
You just "admitted" that you were posting bullshit in this thread, i.e., saying things that you didn't know anything about. You've been caught lying in any number of threads..
I admitted what, that I misunderstood the EULA and didn't know how iTunes Library worked? Somehow you can stretch lack of knowledge to "bullsh**"
You have odd posts sometimes Anonymouse. Are you in the legal profession perchance?
One of us is lying. Unless you can link some "number" of these lies you've accused me of, that purveyor of untruths can be found in your bathroom mirror.
Lacking any links from you, I see no other reason to respond to any of your ad-homs. Balls in your court.
I admitted what, that I misunderstood the EULA and didn't know how iTunes Library worked? Somehow you can stretch lack of knowledge to "bullsh**"
You have odd posts sometimes Anonymouse. Are you in the legal profession perchance?
One of us is lying. Unless you can link some "number" of these lies you've accused me of, that purveyor of untruths can be found in your bathroom mirror.
Lacking any links from you, I see no other reason to respond to any of your ad-homs. Balls in your court.
Oh, please, you were lying in the last thread I responded to you in. Stop compounding lies with lies and pretending that no one knows what you are doing.
And, yes, posting crap about iTunes, when you later claim to have no idea how it works (really!? are we supposed to believe that?) is spewing bullshit.
The cost of the phone is built into the wireless contract. Your idea of "free" is actually getting a product up front that you pay for over the subsequent two years, under contract.
Yup, a fat 24 month contract demanding your firstborn to exit ain't no free or cheap phone.
Oh, please, you were lying in the last thread I responded to you in. Stop compounding lies with lies and pretending that no one knows what you are doing.
Jury's do exactly the same thing in criminal and civil trials. There is absolutely no coherent argument that can legitimately be made as to why a Jury is fit to decide decisions of life and death but not financial ones. You're also overlooking the fact that judges usually have the discretion to modify awards they deem excessive. (Just as they usually have the discretion to set aside what they deem horribly wrong criminal verdicts.)
Of course there is a coherent argument. Firstly, the jury should decide the matter or guilt or liability. The consequences should be left to judiciary.
Quote:
Restorative damages? That must be some sort of code for "very low damage award caps", right?
How exactly does any amount restore your privacy, your health, you leg, or a loved one's life? It can't. Torts are only partly about compensating the victim, there are also, and ought to be about, deterring bad behavior. Without a punitive and a deterrent component, without a degree of unpredictability, without the possibility of an extremely harsh punishment, the tort system serves no real purpose at all.
You can interpret what I wrote in any way you choose, I will only reiterate that damages should be just in the circumstances.
Comments
Media in your iTunes library. Not all media in your iTunes Library is purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
The EULA limits the search to only media you have stored into your iTunes library regardless of how you obtained the media.
Thank you sir. Appreciated.
So your iTunes Library includes media you may have purschased from Amazon or some other source then? Just wasnted to make sure I understood correctly. Not sure why you also feel the need to toss a personal insult in there too. There's been a couple of times I've corrected you quite politely when you've erred, refraining from treating you as tho you were a fool.
I suppose it does make some people feel better to belittle others.
This isn't about some minor error. This is about the fundamental definition of a digital library and the iTunes app which has been in use for a decade.
I don't believe for a second that you are just now finding out that you can take content from outside the iTS (e.g.: Amazon, CDs) and store them in iTunes so you can sync them to your devices or play directly from within the app. The argument you could make was that iTunes only came on your radar after the iTS was established and even then you'd have to defend your position about not knowing about drag-and -drop importing, the menus that show importing, or ripping a CD to various formats and storing in iTunes.
This isn't about some minor error. This is about the fundamental definition of a digital library and the iTunes app which has been in use for a decade.
I don't believe for a second that you are just now finding out that you can take content from outside the iTS (e.g.: Amazon, CDs) and store them in iTunes so you can sync them to your devices or play directly from within the app. The argument you could make was that iTunes only came on your radar after the iTS was established and even then you'd have to defend your position about not knowing about drag-and -drop importing, the menus that show importing, or ripping a CD to various formats and storing in iTunes.
Which has what to do with personal insults? It simply isn't necessary and doesn't reflect well on you. I've done perfectly well with avoiding them, as have many forum members. Trying to make others look lesser than you isn't admirable.
Which has what to do with personal insults? It simply isn't necessary and doesn't reflect well on you. I've done perfectly well with avoiding them, as have many others. Trying to make others look lesser than you isn't admirable.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
In this particular case you're completely mistaken on what I understood about iTunes. I don't buy music and I don't use iTunes. In fact I uninstalled it on my primary computer several weeks ago due to bloat. My son does use it, which is why I asked him about the library. Use that as your excuse for belittling others if you wish, and that's all I think it was. . . an excuse. I still won't respond in kind when you or others make a mistake or claim something that isn't true, yet still able communicate my point. No ad-homs, profanity or insults necessary.
It does require more thought and effort to answer rather than insult but makes the forums much more pleasant. It's worth a try.
Rubbish. Tort reform is about limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation. In most cases it would be to something reasonable under the circumstances. In the first, place I would not leave it to a jury to calculate damages. There is a way to calculate the quantum of damage, and if policy supports it, exemplary damages. It is a stupid idea to give 12 people the opportunity to pull a number out of their arses and send a plaintiff on their way.
Whenever you reduce something to a monetary value these calculations become inevitable. The alternative is incarceration. You would have to turn civil law into something which would have criminal consequences. In a lot of cases criminal code has provision for the same things which could result in a civil action. It would be unnecessary to contort developed law to involve incarceration for tortfeasors if there were a corresponding criminal provision, and the standard of proof would be more in line with what is required to invoke incarceration as a penalty.
EDIT: where a corporation is involved perhaps injunction could be used to prohibit them selling products or services for a period of time.
Indeed. But you can also accept that the current system is not quite right when you got mind boggling sums awarded as damages as is the current case. Remember the principal point about compensation is to put things right, not to find a gravy train.
I'd be all for throwing many of these malefactors in jail, but that's simply never going to happen, and there is not a single proposal for tort reform made, or ever likely to be made, on the floor of the U.S. Congress that includes such a provision. So, basically, what "tort reform" boils down to is simply stripping the risk out of causing injury.
The current system would be perfect for deterrence value if you actually did get mind boggling damages awarded and paid, even on rare occasions. But the simple fact is that doesn't really happen, despite all the propaganda* to the contrary to make you believe it does. Huge damage awards are actually quite rare, often reduced by judges, and even more frequently negotiated down to much smaller numbers that we never even hear about to settle, and/or paid over many, many years.
Juries don't, "pull a number out of their arses." The numbers are put before them and argued over, and then "12 people" decide, given the total circumstances of the case, what's just. People arguing for tort reform don't usually seem to have a problem with 12 people deciding capital murder cases, where a person's life is at stake. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they are unfit to decide a question of whether an injury occurred and what just damages ought to be. Surely a life is more important that a few million dollars, and most tort cases involve much smaller sums.
"Limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation," is nothing more than telling unscrupulous business people in advance exactly what the maximum cost of injuries from unsafe products, or unlawful acts will be, and basically, in most cases, giving them a free ride. It's the very unpredictability of the current system which is in fact its greatest strength.
* Yes, propaganda. A favorite whipping boy of tort reform advocates is medical malpractice lawsuits. These suits, which amount to, "untold millions in awards each year," so they argue, quite loosely with the facts, are driving health care costs through the roof and driving doctors out of practice. The truth is that it's the greed, bad decisions and business practices of the insurance companies themselves, entirely apart from malpractice awards, that are driving up health care costs. Malpractice insurance rates are not significantly affected by damage awards and never have been. Those costs were already factored into the premiums. The most significant factor affecting insurance rates has been, for the last 40 years, bad investments made by insurance companies in financial markets and a desire to recover those losses from those they insure, who in most cases are required by law to pay whatever premiums are dictated. There is a direct correlation between investment losses and rate increases, and there is no correlation between damage awards and rate increases. So, yes, the entire story about how "excessive" damage awards are driving up malpractice insurance rates and thus health care costs is nothing more than a brazen lie concocted to further increase the profits of the insurance industry and promulgated by well paid lobbyists and assorted other PR hacks. The entire case for "tort reform" is built on lies and misrepresentations exactly like the Medical Malpractice Lie.
I'd be all for throwing many of these malefactors in jail, but that's simply never going to happen, and there is not a single proposal for tort reform made, or ever likely to be made, on the floor of the U.S. Congress that includes such a provision. So, basically, what "tort reform" boils down to is simply stripping the risk out of causing injury.
More accurately, I would say it allows one to quantify the risk.
In my perfect world, tort reform would primarily provide a restorative function for loss.
Juries don't, "pull a number out of their arses." The numbers are put before them and argued over, and then "12 people" decide, given the total circumstances of the case, what's just. People arguing for tort reform don't usually seem to have a problem with 12 people deciding capital murder cases, where a person's life is at stake. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they are unfit to decide a question of whether an injury occurred and what just damages ought to be. Surely a life is more important that a few million dollars, and most tort cases involve much smaller sums.
The difference in a murder case is that the jury are being asked to evaluate and decide the facts. The facts then produce the verdict.
In the tort case, the jury is also more than adequately equipped to decide whether a negligent act occurred.
However, this is completely different from evaluating the quantum of damages which more akin to applying the law to the facts. In common-law systems, this is the typically role of the judge.
"Limiting the circumstances of liability and extent of compensation," is nothing more than telling unscrupulous business people in advance exactly what the maximum cost of injuries from unsafe products, or unlawful acts will be, and basically, in most cases, giving them a free ride. It's the very unpredictability of the current system which is in fact its greatest strength.
If you take my comments in context I have no issue with restorative damages.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.."
Not quite as comfortable with that one. My friends may not appreciate it.
So, if you are sending a gift, how would you suggest Apple deliver it without a name and address to deliver it to?
http://mashable.com/2011/12/03/carri...tood-not-evil/
... The difference in a murder case is that the jury are being asked to evaluate and decide the facts. The facts then produce the verdict.
...
If you take my comments in context I have no issue with restorative damages.
Jury's do exactly the same thing in criminal and civil trials. There is absolutely no coherent argument that can legitimately be made as to why a Jury is fit to decide decisions of life and death but not financial ones. You're also overlooking the fact that judges usually have the discretion to modify awards they deem excessive. (Just as they usually have the discretion to set aside what they deem horribly wrong criminal verdicts.)
Restorative damages? That must be some sort of code for "very low damage award caps", right?
How exactly does any amount restore your privacy, your health, you leg, or a loved one's life? It can't. Torts are only partly about compensating the victim, there are also, and ought to be about, deterring bad behavior. Without a punitive and a deterrent component, without a degree of unpredictability, without the possibility of an extremely harsh punishment, the tort system serves no real purpose at all.
So I'm suppose to pretend I enjoy people trolling? Fuck that! If you're going to like that way I'll call you out it, I won't pussyfoot around you. I'm neither passive nor passive-aggressive. I no interest in suffering fools though that can't be completely true as I've engaged myself in this conversation.
Yeah, he always get's all self-righteous and pulls the old, "I don't see why you have to tell me I'm lying my ass off when I'm being so very polite about it," when he gets called on his bullshit, then goes right ahead and tosses some more at you.
To Gatorguy's employers: hey, he's not even good at what you are paying him for.
So, if you are sending a gift, how would you suggest Apple deliver it without a name and address to deliver it to?
Is there any reason to keep it? I can't think of any except for additional marketing opportunities. There's no mention anywhere in the privacy policy on how long Apple will retain PII after it's served it's purpose or when the user has opted out other than "for some period of time".
Yeah, he always get's all self-righteous and pulls the old, "I don't see why you have to tell me I'm lying my ass off when I'm being so very polite about it," when he gets called on his bullshit, then goes right ahead and tosses some more at you.
To Gatorguy's employers: hey, he's not even good at what you are paying him for.
Hmmm. . .
Wouldn't a lie be continuing to claim something is true after asking and finding out it was not? You've asked me directly whether I have any monetary connections to any tech company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc., and I told you I did not. Yet you continue the same old accusations. Is that a simple mistake on your part Anonymouse or a lie?
Hmmm. . .
Wouldn't a lie be continuing to claim something is true after asking and finding out it was not? You've asked me directly whether I have any monetary connections to any tech company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc., and I told you I did not. Yet you continue the same old accusations. Is that a simple mistake on your part Anonymouse or a lie?
If I believed you weren't being paid to post here, then it would be a lie for me to say you are, however, I don't believe you aren't paid to post here, and you have no credibility. You just "admitted"* that you were posting bullshit in this thread, i.e., saying things that you didn't know anything about. You've been caught lying in any number of threads. Obviously, you'll say anything, true or not, you don't care, so nothing you say can be taken as true.
* Is your admission even true, or were you just covering your bullshit with another lie? How can we even tell anymore with you?
You just "admitted" that you were posting bullshit in this thread, i.e., saying things that you didn't know anything about. You've been caught lying in any number of threads..
I admitted what, that I misunderstood the EULA and didn't know how iTunes Library worked? Somehow you can stretch lack of knowledge to "bullsh**"
You have odd posts sometimes Anonymouse. Are you in the legal profession perchance?
One of us is lying. Unless you can link some "number" of these lies you've accused me of, that purveyor of untruths can be found in your bathroom mirror.
Lacking any links from you, I see no other reason to respond to any of your ad-homs. Balls in your court.
I admitted what, that I misunderstood the EULA and didn't know how iTunes Library worked? Somehow you can stretch lack of knowledge to "bullsh**"
You have odd posts sometimes Anonymouse. Are you in the legal profession perchance?
One of us is lying. Unless you can link some "number" of these lies you've accused me of, that purveyor of untruths can be found in your bathroom mirror.
Lacking any links from you, I see no other reason to respond to any of your ad-homs. Balls in your court.
Oh, please, you were lying in the last thread I responded to you in. Stop compounding lies with lies and pretending that no one knows what you are doing.
And, yes, posting crap about iTunes, when you later claim to have no idea how it works (really!? are we supposed to believe that?) is spewing bullshit.
The cost of the phone is built into the wireless contract. Your idea of "free" is actually getting a product up front that you pay for over the subsequent two years, under contract.
Yup, a fat 24 month contract demanding your firstborn to exit ain't no free or cheap phone.
Oh, please, you were lying in the last thread I responded to you in. Stop compounding lies with lies and pretending that no one knows what you are doing.
Quote/link the lies please.
Quote/link the lies please.
Sure, anyone can go look at your numerous misrepresentations of fact in this thread, or this one: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=137224
Jury's do exactly the same thing in criminal and civil trials. There is absolutely no coherent argument that can legitimately be made as to why a Jury is fit to decide decisions of life and death but not financial ones. You're also overlooking the fact that judges usually have the discretion to modify awards they deem excessive. (Just as they usually have the discretion to set aside what they deem horribly wrong criminal verdicts.)
Of course there is a coherent argument. Firstly, the jury should decide the matter or guilt or liability. The consequences should be left to judiciary.
Restorative damages? That must be some sort of code for "very low damage award caps", right?
How exactly does any amount restore your privacy, your health, you leg, or a loved one's life? It can't. Torts are only partly about compensating the victim, there are also, and ought to be about, deterring bad behavior. Without a punitive and a deterrent component, without a degree of unpredictability, without the possibility of an extremely harsh punishment, the tort system serves no real purpose at all.
You can interpret what I wrote in any way you choose, I will only reiterate that damages should be just in the circumstances.