Slashdot Mirror

problems they raise are real.

No, they're not. Really. Only the fears they whip up.

I mean, this is a party that doesn't believe you can be black and Welsh. Who used their first major media interview after winning seats in the EU election to highlight the 'real problem' that the actor playing Friar Tuck in the current BBC TV series is black.

And I'm sorry, but the segment they represent is no bigger than the batshit insane fringe it always was - their vote numbers actually dropped from last time round. The only reason they got anywhere was because Labour voters all stayed at home. Hardly surprising as the Labour campaign was written on the back of a fag packet.

But now they're elected, you see, they have to play by the rules. Including allowing non-white people to join the party. So, here's what we should do: have a couple of hundred people from ethnic minorities join the party. And then the rest of us join, and elect them into all the leadership positions. And change the party name to "Bloated Navy Pterodactyls." Which would be particularly amusing as most BNP members wouldn't be able to work out that the last word starts with P.

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Right there is the whole case- she mis-handled the coffee. The spill was her fault.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

What this conveniently leaves out is that those 700 burns (of all types, only "some" were serious) were NATIONWIDE, over TEN YEARS. When you consider the number of cups that they sold in that time, only one in 24,000,000 burned anyone.

One burn for every 24 million cups.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.

That also matches the National Coffee Association's recommendations. And why would the NCA give bad directions for preparing their product??

    He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

That's simply not true. For example:

http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200 degrees ."

http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html
" We recommend a quick brew time, using a brewer that keeps water at 200 degrees Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature) and mixes the grounds for full flavor extraction. "

http://www.cuisinart.com/share/man/29_man.pdf
After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180 degrees -185 degrees F."

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

Also not true. "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 degrees C (176-194 degrees F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee."
As an example. see http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 from 2007.
"McDonald's says its black coffee should be served at 85C, plus or minus five degrees."

And you were saying we needed to find out the facts??

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I have noticed that another case was thrown out despite the temperature being 179 F and that the Cambridge News reports that McDonald's serves hot coffee today at 85 C (185 F) in the UK and other places in the US serve coffee at up to 195 ÂF. Surely if the temperature itself is too high, then these establishments should be forced to drop their temperatures or shut down. What is the point in litigating after something happens? Isn't it better to just shut them down before there is harm?

Perhaps I should have said, "That doesn't make it sound any less absurd." because it doesn't. It still sounds bizarre to punish someone for doing something and then let them and other people continue to do it.

Does slashdot not do the  (degree) symbol or something?

Obviously you can't tell anyone once you have found out but there you go.

This is a fucking advert. The creators, from Cambridge, heard about it, and got their mate at the local paper, in Cambridge to write about it as a favour. This is a local paper, and the event the article is supposed to be talking about happened in Kent, 100 miles away.

Sounds plausible, but no. The Cambridge News article is actually a word-for-word re-print of a story in The Independent, a national newspaper. The Indie published 2 days earlier, if you check the dates. And the Cambridge News didn't attribute the story. Naughty.

Unless these publishers of War on Terror have got some really cool pals in the UK national press, it looks like a sense of whimsy, local colour, and what looks a lot like a penchant for plagiarism are the real reasons behind the publication of this article.

Oh that's easy, here in the UK the police just stop people from dressing as ninjas.

And getting this back on topic, I remember the story of police stopping ninjas in Cambridge.

Still, that doesn't make it right though. I equally defend people being allowed to wear hijabs and ninja outfits.

Reminds me of here in Cambridge recently, when police told a group of people dressed as ninjas to remove their outfits.