throwaway_USD

15 ms·

61.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
This is like a cruel joke...its like saying if you are not diagnosed with a disease you don't have it. All anyone need to look at is the incidences of people getting a chronic condition as soon become medicare eligible. Its like magic
62.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
I have a theory the soft drink industry is lobbying for this behind the scenes. Soft drink sales appear to be declining since 2010 or so. I think the writing is on the wall, but companies like coke aren't just selling sugary sludge wh
63.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Then I got my cholesterol checked during a routine blood work and it was through the roof. WTF? Anyone know better than me about this? Your LDL(bad), HDL (good) or both? And did your doctor do a coronary scan (checking for plaque build
64.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>The idea that there is a 'meeting of the minds' when I click through an installation dialog or website privacy policy This is a fantastic point with respect to these online agreements because of analytics. Just as you say, so
65.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Those articles are about expensive lawsuits fighting over the meaning of the contract Yes that is generally what breach of contract cases are about...do you think a breach of contract case for extremely complex agreements are any differ
66.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>IANAL, but I have never heard of a lawyer writing a contract on a napkin, or advising a client to do so Where did I or anyone say that is what lawyers advise. In fact I specifically said it is because of their army of lawyers tech compa
67.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
Pre-nups and wills are great examples of how simple agreements can be...prior to the internet you could pick up standard forms from stationary stores. Google "contract on a cocktail napkin", most of the top results will be for mil
68.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>because the courts require complexity. No the Courts do not require complexity. The famous example in law school being writing a agreement on a cocktail napkin being an enforceable contract. The legal system may be in need of reforms, b
69.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>...is the wrong reason.... is a better reason. I will suggest another reason, already built into contract law, these agreements/contracts are unconscionable . Generally where a contract would otherwise be enforceable, having met a
70.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA. Negligence is a cause of action based on elements of duty and breach of said duty. So the question becomes what was the duty of the man
71.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
As mentioned before that's how law works. Before the erosion of the federal law protecting manufacturers and sellers of firearms, cases with the very same set of fact would have been dismissed, because there was a law shielding them f
72.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sa
73.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much
74.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
Read the articles: >in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer...The gun was later used by an 18-year-old to shoot and critically wound two police officers, who were awarded
75.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
76.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies. Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are l
77.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Even if the bad acts are a "drop in the bucket," would that be acceptable? No, I believe injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Also, I agree with you the injustice is worse when committed by people in positions of autho
78.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>"the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence. Just to play devils advocate, can't I conclude there is a problem with
79.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years as the individuals in this cohort begin to settle down and marry and have children. Hint: they continue having a lot of sex with a lot of different partners outside the marriag
80.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>How is the electoral college perceived here? I don't know about perception, but in practice the electoral college has decided 2 elections in the past 20 years in favor of the Republican candidate when the Democratic candidate won t
81.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Couldn't one argue 9/11 was the 'start' of the 21st century? There was one major US political event in the 21st Century before 9/11 and arguably even lead to 9/11. People tend to forget the 2000 Presidentia
82.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Why don't grocery stores get in trouble then? Because a grocery store selling white-label products isn't an unfair use of market position to force competitors out of the market. How many times has a grocery white-label cereal
83.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>and Amazon's sole advantage is product placement, is it still problematic? Potentially, but stop focusing on the act and focus on the result. You brought up retailers and their shelf space. First no grocery store puts "Grocer
84.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Can you truly argue just because a firm is large ... 1. I am not arguing anything, I did not develop Anti-trust law nor did I argue for or against it. 2. I never mentioned the the size of the Firm, because that isn't the legal st
85.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
Under Anti-trust law Company A and Company B can do the same exact thing, but 1 Company may violate Anti-trust laws while the other doesn't. >You could argue that Amazon is unique in that it is large and potentially has a monopoly o
86.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
Gee...if only he had a middleman like you to save him all that money for a %, then he could cut out all those middlemen taking a % you are complaining about.
87.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
>You wouldn't say reading a book is "staring at paper" would you? Actually there is a colloquialism for that since the early 1900's: "Nose in a book" To your point no one actually has their nose in the book
88.
Tesla tells employees it has county approval to reopen plant(bloomberg.com)
1 points by throwaway_USD 6y ago|0 comments
89.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
At all times I said "federal government," someone else injected Trump into the thread, and the person I replied to replied directly to me saying my statement was wrong not the other poster, but clearly my statement references &quo
90.
by throwaway_USD 6y ago
To add on every year the text is usually reprinted/updated for the purposes of trying to kill the used book market and in many cases my professors were the authors of the required texts.

More ›