Once you link a physical or digital gift card or code to your Account, the balance becomes associated with your Associated Balance, and you will no longer be able to use the physical or digital card or code, including in Apple Retail Stores.Gift Cards purchased in the United States and content codes can only be linked to an Account in the United States and can only be used for purchases in the United States. The United States includes its territories and possessions. However, Products purchased online from Apple only ship within the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. No shipments can be made to P.O. Box addresses, United States territories, or addresses outside of the United States.
Return Gift 2 hindi watch online
Download File: https://quenewssemu.blogspot.com/?file=2vC4ua
With Auto Reload, you select the reload amount. You also select the timing: for example, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, or when your Associated Balance falls below a set amount.For example, if you set Auto Reload to add $10 to your Associated Balance "monthly" at the "End of Month", your payment method will be charged $10 and $10 will be added to your Account balance on the 28th, 29th, 30th, or 31st of the month, whichever is the last day in the then-current month. Alternatively, if you set Auto Reload to add $10 to your Associated Balance when it falls below $5, your payment method will be charged $10 and $10 will be added to your Associated Balance each time it falls below $5.The payment method charged is the default payment method you have on file with Apple Media Services. If your default payment method is updated, the updated payment method will be charged. If we cannot charge your payment method for any reason, another payment method on file may be charged or, if that is not available, it may result in your Associated Balance not being funded.We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to pause or disable Auto Reload. This may occur if there is fraud, misconduct, illegal behavior, inactivity, maintenance, a change in law, a need for verifying information, a problem with the payment method on file (such as expiration or insufficient funds), or if the functionality is no longer offered, your Associated Balance reaches a limit set by law or regulation, or for other reasons.5. Additional RestrictionsGift Cards are not redeemable for cash and cannot be returned for a cash refund (except as required by law); exchanged; resold; or used to purchase Gift Cards. Unused Associated Balances are not transferable. Issuer maintains information about the status of gift cards or codes. Contact Apple for information about the status of your Account and any Associated Balance. To check the available balance on a gift card, call 1-800-MY-APPLE or visit www.apple.com/go/gcb/us.
Products at Apple Online Store, Apple Store App, or By Calling 1-800-MY-APPLE. When you purchase from the Apple online store, Apple Store app, or through 1-800-MY-APPLE, the funds will be deducted first from the amount available on any gift cards or codes you enter at checkout, and second from the amount available in your Associated Balance (if you are logged in to your Account and choose to apply your Associated Balance). Any unused amount will remain on your gift cards or codes or Associated Balance, respectively. If a purchase exceeds the amount available in your gift cards or codes and Associated Balance, another payment method on file or credit card you enter may be charged. If that is not available, you will be asked to pay with another payment method or the transaction will be cancelled. Gift Cards cannot be used for purchases in combination with Apple Pay or PayPal, or with payments split across multiple credit cards.
The nature of gift economies is the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring[3] in the Trobriand Islands during World War I.[4] The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.[5][6]
Property is not a thing, but a relationship amongst people about things.[13] According to Chris Hann, property is a social relationship that governs the conduct of people with respect to the use and disposition of things. Anthropologists analyze these relationships in terms of a variety of actors' (individual or corporate) "bundle of rights" over objects.[12] An example is the current debates around intellectual property rights.[14][15][16][17][18] Hann and Strangelove both give the example of a purchased book (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a commodity, bought and sold, it has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it; the owner of the book is limited in what he can do with the book by the rights of the creator.[19][20] Weiner has argued that the ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity is a critical feature of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners after an incredible journey around the Trobriand islands. The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain, in some respects, the property of the giver.[6]
Malinowski's study of the Kula ring[21] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don", 1925).[5] Parry argued that Malinowski emphasized the exchange of goods between individuals, and their selfish motives for gifting: they expected a return of equal or greater value. Malinowski argued that reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting, and there is no "free gift" without expectation.[22]
In contrast, Mauss emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectives. These gifts were a "total prestation", a service provided out of obligation, like "community service".[23] They were not alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like crown jewels, embodied the reputation, history and identity of a "corporate kin group", such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift". Parry believes that much of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to maintain the relationship between givers; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.
Chris Gregory argued that reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory argued that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in order to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a relationship to persist, there must be a time lag between the gift and counter-gift; one or the other partner must always be in debt. Marshall Sahlins stated that birthday gifts are an example of this: they are separated in time so that one partner feels the obligation to make a return gift; and to forget the return gift may be enough to end the relationship. Gregory stated that without a relationship of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that this is what distinguishes a gift economy from a "true gift" given with no expectation of return (something Sahlins calls "generalized reciprocity": see below).[26]
Jonathan Parry argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" are most likely to arise only in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the non-market "prestations" discussed above.[10] Parry also underscored, using the example of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure gift" of alms given with no expectation of return could be "poisonous". That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins of the giver, when given to ritually pure priests, saddled these priests with impurities of which they could not cleanse themselves. "Pure gifts", given without a return, can place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent status: the poison of the gift.[28] David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if you make a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not give it back the next time you meet. More than likely, he will ask for more, to the detriment of his status.[29] Many who are forced by circumstances to accept charity feel stigmatized. In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "big men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish men".
The Moka is a highly ritualized system of exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of a "gift economy" and of a "big man" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts that raise the social status of the giver if the gift is larger than one that the giver received. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the gift.[41] The gifts are of a limited range of goods, primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from the coast. To return the same value as one has received in a moka is simply to repay a debt, strict reciprocity. Moka is the extra. To some, this represents interest on an investment. However, one is not bound to provide moka, only to repay the debt. One adds moka to the gift to increase one's prestige, and to place the receiver in debt. It is this constant renewal of the debt relationship which keeps the relationship alive; a debt fully paid off ends further interaction. Giving more than one receives establishes a reputation as a Big man, whereas the simple repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay, pushes one's reputation towards the other end of the scale, "rubbish man".[42] Gift exchange thus has a political effect; granting prestige or status to one, and a sense of debt in the other. A political system can be built out of these kinds of status relationships. Sahlins characterizes the difference between status and rank by highlighting that Big man is not a role; it is a status that is shared by many. The Big man is "not a prince of men", but a "prince among men". The "big man" system is based on the ability to persuade, rather than command.[43] 2ff7e9595c
Comments