Should Addictive Tech Come With a Health Warning?

holy_calamity writes "Academics researching how technology addiction affects businesses and employees say 'habit-forming' gadgets like Blackberries should be dispensed along with warnings about the effect they can have on your life. 'We don't want to be in a situation in a few years similar to that with fast food or tobacco today. We need to pay attention to how people react to potentially habit-forming technologies.'"

Comments

Absolutely Not

[milsoRgen]

Any behavior comes with a risk of psychological addiction. To stipulate a health warning on devices is absolutely ludacris.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Midnight Thunder]

Any behavior comes with a risk of psychological addiction. To stipulate a health warning on devices is absolutely ludacris.

Exactly. Just imagine someone getting addicted to reading warning labels and the having to write a warning label that reads:

    "This device can be considered addictive, get a life*.

      *Reading warning labels is considered addictive, don't read.

Re:Absolutely Not

[milsoRgen]

I actually had to RTA, and it just got worse...

Another question is whether the costs of addiction are felt directly enough by companies for economic factors to make them act. If they are only felt by employees, pressure from outside agencies like governments could be the only way to save us from an addiction epidemic. Sometimes it just isn't worth logging on...

Re:Absolutely Not

[t33jster]

No kidding! What would such a warning label look like?

Surgeon General's Warning: The likelihood of a psychological addiction to this device is approximately equal to your own tendency to become psychologically addicted to stuff.

I work in a place where they hand out blackberries like they're candy on Halloween. IMHO, people don't get 'addicted' to their blackberries, they become addicted to making it look like they're doing something important. Either way it's pathetic, and no warning label will fix it.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

> ludacris.

...is the stage name of a rapper. You meant ludicrous, "so absurd as to cause laughter".

(I'm psychologically addicted to hanging out at the local peeve ranch; that's one of my pet peeves.)

Re:Absolutely Not

[cuantar]

Oh no! Help us, Nanny State! We need you to save us from our pathetic lack of willpower, responsibility, and maturity!

Re:Absolutely Not

[KublaiKhan]

There's already government-mandated 'correct' usage of spraypaint. Read a can of any aerosol sometime: it's a federal offense to use it in a manner other than indicated on the packaging.

It's to give 'em something to prosecute 'huffers' on, o'course, but it's still a government-mandated 'approved' use, meaning that, yes, your canned-air-flamethrower made from a lighter strapped to a canned air or hairspray can that you've been using to toast mosquitoes is illegal.

Re:Absolutely Not

[lgw]

I know! How about we let adults choos for themselves whether to indulge in self-destructive behavior if it makes them happy. We could just decide that freedom was more important than safety. It's a revolutionary idea.

Or, I dunno, we could arrest and imprison someone for their own safety if they decide not to wear a seatbelt, or a not to wear a motorcycle helmet, or eat to much fast food, or whatever else someone doesn't like today. Think of the children! Freedom is scary, and we'll save a couple bucks on health insurace -- its win-win!

Re:Absolutely Not

[Rakishi]

Why? If you don't care enough about your own life to protect it then why should the government care and why should the rest of us pay for it?

There are of course economic arguments for certain laws (be it cost to society indirectly or directly) however even those are arsine. Unless people themselves decide to not act stupid you will just need to pile on laws till it's beyond absurd.

I mean the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should all be brainwashed or have computer ships shoved into our heads to control 99.99% of our behavior, to prevent us from doing anything that might be considered as even possibly dangerous. don't forget to put that bubble wrap on before you leave the house or the voice in your head may compel you to.

Re:Absolutely Not

[khayman80]

You've uncovered a basic point of contention regarding the role of government. Some people believe that the role of the government is to protect citizens from themselves. This mindset results in alcohol and drug prohibition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be drinking or smoking pot, so we're not going to let you"). It also results in religious laws like Sharia and the Inquisition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be worshipping any god but Allah/Jesus/what-have-you, so we're not going to let you. Oh, and go to prayers/church every couple of hours/week or we'll stone you to death/burn you at the stake. Again, this is just for the good of your immortal soul.")

(Note that you may disagree with the particular reasoning employed in these examples. In fact, I hope you do- I intentionally chose extreme examples. My point is that by accepting the fundamental premise that the government has the right to protect you from yourself, your position is only quantitatively different from these policy disasters.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this kind of reasoning. I think that governments should treat their citizens like adults, in the sense that we're capable of making decisions about our own lives/bodies and living with the consequences, be they good or bad. Maybe the decisions we make aren't the best possible ones, but they're our mistakes to make. I'm not an anarchist, though; I believe that the government has a very real and important role to play in the sense that they protect citizens from the actions of other people.

So, in a sense, I'm irked that people like Hillary Clinton (who apparently believes that health insurance should be forced on everyone "for their own good") are treating me and my fellow citizens like preschoolers. But it's deeper than that. You see, I think that the only real purpose the government serves- to protect us from deranged people by keeping a police force/armed forces- effectively means that they need to hold a monopoly on power in the country. While I think I have the right to defend myself against aggression in my own home or car, it would be madness to suggest that I should be able to chase down burglars vigilante-style into the night, firing my automatic weapon at their car with my left hand while driving with my right. This is a job that should be left to trained police who have the resources and backup to perform such a manhunt without endangering bystanders.

Unfortunately, this monopoly on power carries with it a strong predilection to abusing that authority (as anyone who's been on youtube lately can see for themselves.) So I'm loathe to give the government any powers over me and my fellow citizens that aren't absolutely necessary. The potential for abuse is just too great.

A common objection to this argument is that the alternative is simply tyranny via corporation rather than tyranny by government- "at least the government is elected". I completely disagree. However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room. I think this is a very important distinction, and that's why I will never agree with handing the government any more powers than are absolutely necessary to safeguard my rights to take action to preserve my life, liberty and property.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Kral_Blbec]

For most situations I would agree, however with seat belts there is a factor in which your decision effects others around you. If your own decision will kill you and only you (ie motorcycle helmet) then its your choice to take the risk. But if you are in a crash without a seatbelt then you may be thrown out of the car. This presents a danger to others by 1) having another obstacle in the road. You may be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause a secondary collision. 2)losing control of a vehicle that you may have been able to control had you remained in the seat, and thus cause a secondary collision.

Re:Absolutely Not

[StikyPad]

The problem isn't that people need to be protected from themselves, but rather that people don't think about the externalities of their actions. No man is an island, and all that..

Re:Absolutely Not

[Kpau]

I don't know... a LOT of people look pretty addicted to electricity and indoor plumbing. Won't someone think of the children! (in other news, "addiction" no longer means anything because it means everything....)

Re:Absolutely Not

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Exactly. A large number of people making bad decisions often affect more than just themselves. Just take a look at the sub prime scandal, those bad loans may just pull the entire nation into a recession. You may get laid off because some idiots signed mortgages they were never able to afford. Should the government have taken action, restricting their freedoms to prevent them from screwing you over? Its a tough question.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Mongoose Disciple]

Several posters have already argued that the seatbelt law makes sense because the hospital bill for people injured in this manner is paid for by The State. The problem is that this argument only makes sense if society already works under the presumption that The State is required to pay for people's bills when they can't afford them.

It's not a presumption so much as (to a large degree) the current reality. I'm not saying the solution should be that we make laws against everything dangerous, and I'm not saying the solution should be that if you get hurt in any case and don't have money on hand you're shit out of luck, but... if I get perfect freedom to endanger myself, other people also shouldn't have to pay for it.

Although I'm sure some people won't love the example, I think current smoking laws (in parts of America, anyway) are a reasonable compromise between allowing personal freedoms when they don't harm others, protecting others from said harm, and offering incentives for healthy behavior.

(I still don't see a warning label going on a Blackberry.)

Re:Absolutely Not

[AdamHaun]

Why should a government treat its citizens like adults when marketers, entertainers, and the citizens themselves don't? The idea that people are inherently rational and can't be swayed by clever psychology is one of the biggest delusions in the modern world.

However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room.

Libertarian types get really hung up on institutionalized violence, but I don't think they've made the case that physical oppression is really any worse than emotional oppression. There are many things that can fuck you up *much* worse than being locked in a small cement room. If you try, I bet you can think of many things that you would happily go to jail to prevent -- how about your little sister becoming anorexic? Or a dear friend becoming a junkie and spiraling down into suicide? Now here's the real question -- are those personal choices, or the result of the actions of other people? The reality is that it's mixed. Nobody decides in advance that they're going to have an eating disorder or get addicted to drugs or elevate their blood pressure by checking email all day and night. It takes one step at a time, and often those steps are encouraged by organized groups that take advantage of quirks of human behavior to make money. No individual has the resources to keep up with that all of the time. I agree that government regulation is far from ideal, but it does act as a counterweight to corporate abuse, and I think the claim that we don't need that is based on an unrealistic view of how people work.

So to answer your earlier statement, does the government know better than me? About some things, no, but about a whole hell of a lot of things, yes. I'm one person; it's made up of millions.

Re:Absolutely Not

[node 3]

I'm not talking about forcing people to *use* seat-belts. Although I am ambivalent on that particular topic.

My point about seat-belts was laws requiring car manufacturers to include them. Up until that point, car makers would rather save those few dollars per car (which amounts to an extremely small percentage of the overall car) and leave the seat-belts out. This is one example of the failure of the free market, where government intervention is extremely beneficial.

Re:Absolutely Not

[node 3]

I absolutely and fully agree that adults should have the right to engage in self-destructive behavior. This is not what we're talking about here (and fuck me, does no one know that seat-belts were not required on cars for half-a-century?). I'm talking about placing obstacles in the way so that if someone is going to harm themselves, it's because *they truly want to engage in that behavior* and not simply because they've been tricked or directed into such behavior by those who stand to make money of their self-destruction.

If you place no restriction on marketing and selling self-destruction to people, corporations are going to devise ways to most efficiently get people hooked on their product. This completely bypasses rational self-determination and it seems quite reasonable for the government to help protect people from being exploited, while still allowing them the freedom to willingly and knowingly walk into self-destruction, if they so desire.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Any accident is going to leave obstacles in the road. Unless you are also going to advocate that other items (e.g. cell phones, dogs, shopping bags) this is a pretty weak argument. I would love to see some data on seatbelts preventing secondary collisions.

2. If you were thrown from the car that means your car experienced a rapid slowdown and is likely no longer 'out of control'.

The people most affected by other people not wearing seatbelts. People in the back seats have a habit of smashing into the people in front of them. Yet, oddly, the back seat is the most likely place (depending on your state) wear seat belts do not have to be worn.

This is all a bunch of nonsense, though. Anyone getting in a car is accepting risk. Arguing that other people not wearing seatbelts substantially increases those risks is absurd.

Re:Absolutely Not

[notwrong]

There are potential costs to others if you don't wear a seatbelt, but I don't think that's the main reason they are compulsory in most Western jurisdictions.

The risk of death and severe injury is reduced when people wear seatbelts. Premature death and debilitating injuries carry real costs to society, such as lost productive capacity, medical services and long-term care, in addition to the personal and emotional costs to the victims and their families. It is prudent social policy to attempt to minimise these costs.

In my opinion, mandating seatbelt use when travelling on public roads is a reasonable component of the social contract you agree to when being granted your driver's license. If some people don't like this impingement on their freedom, that's fine - don't drive or be a passenger on public roads.

Re:Absolutely Not

[smittyoneeach]

won't someone think of the children

But not too much, especially if they are not your own...

Re:Absolutely Not

[Jasin Natael]

I think you forget the most important point to justify the social contract: If the driver at fault has to pay medical bills for the victim by law, then every potential victim has a legal and moral responsibility not to die or become maimed unnecessarily and thereby become an onerous burden for other parties.

Don't wear your seatbelt if that's your choice, but (win or lose) don't take me to court when you lose an arm or break your clavicle. And don't let your family harass me if you snap your stupid neck.

Re:Absolutely Not

[SL Baur]

a LOT of people look pretty addicted to electricity and indoor plumbing. This is modded funny, but it's not really funny, it's insightful. Most of the world's people live without one or the other or both. I've lived (very recently) in places with some electricity, but not always and no indoor plumbing and count me as one of the addicts.

Heh

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Oh please, big government, save us from ourselves by outlawing more things! We don't need to be personally accountable for our own actions!

Re:Heh

[Archangel Michael]

Exactly!

Next time someone wants a Nanny State to provide something to everyone, this should be the response from the crowd. I'd love to see someone say this very thing each and everytime Obama (or Hillary) or McCain mentions a new program to save us from ourselves.

Re:Heh

[aliloln]

My box of Kleenex has a warning (no joke): "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Use only as a facial tissue."

Makes me wonder what else I could be doing with my Kleenex...

Re:Heh

[adminstring]

That warning only appears on the special anti-viral Kleenex. The idea is that you should only use it to blow your nose, rather than eating the Kleenex in an attempt to fight off a viral infection, which wouldn't work and might be harmful.

If you look at the active ingredients (Citric Acid (7.51%) and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (2.02%)) you'll notice that the average bottle of shampoo contains the exact same active ingredients.

So basically they're telling you not to eat soap, and that there is a Federal law out there somewhere that says "don't eat soap!"

Hopefully there isn't a law that says "don't eat paste or crayons" otherwise a good percentage of preschoolers are in violation.

Mmm, paste!

The obiligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't someone warn me about slashdot?

What better way to advertise?

[davidwr]

Company's lawyerspeak on package: Warning: This product may lead to psychological addiction, not having a life, lack of sleep, and other ill effects.

Teenage or young adult customer: COOL! I gotta have one of those!

Everything fun has addictive properties....

[WGFCrafty]

As long as doing something (gaming, gambling, alcohol, drugs) potentiates the production of dopamine, then it has the potential to cause addiction.

Doing things you enjoy are fun, usually when you're having fun dopamine levels rise significantly in your brain.

Dopamine is commonly associated with the pleasure system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities.

Re:Everything fun has addictive properties....

[CSMatt]

Then the solution is clear: make life miserable for everyone, all the time.

Re:Everything fun has addictive properties....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence Microsoft.

Personal Responsibility

[Doomstalk]

Personally, if there's any addictive activity that I think should have a warning associated with it, it's foisting responsibility off on another person or object. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, it seems.

Re:Personal Responsibility

[popmaker]

We should put warning stickers on hot women!

Re:As if just looking...

[Yoooder]

...but on the rare occasions that they do they shine like a clean greased albino in a mud-wrestling contest

I'm worried about the Beaver

[zazenation]

June Cleaver: "Ward, I caught Beaver and Wally using a blackberry behind the garage --- What should We do about it?"
Ward Cleaver: "I'll talk to him about it"

Later that day

Ward: "Beaver, your mother said she say you and Wally behind the garage using a blackberry. What do you have to say about yourself?"
Beav: "Gee dad, Wally and I were just seeing what it was like. All the kids at school have tried blackberries --- Some even use it at school!"
Ward: "I don't care what the other boys at school are doing. If all the other kids were smoking giant ganja bud spleefs while wearing bellbottoms and tea-shades, would you follow them?"
Beve: "Nah, I guess not dad. I'm sorry. I'll go ask wally to flush that blackberry down the toilet before we get into more trouble with it. I learned my lesson. Thanks dad."
Ward:'OK son. Now get Wally over here so I can ask him what he and Eddie Haskell were doing with that gallon of Mazola and 15 boxes of golf balls in the basement ..."

WARNING

[Gat0r30y]

Useful tools may be useful. In fact you may find the need to incorporate them into your daily life. Electronic communication tools such as "e-mail" and 'the internets' (A.K.A. the tubes) may also be found to significantly improve productivity. Use with extreme caution.

Bender: Don't worry I don't have an addictive personality - chugs beer, puffs cigar, jacks on

obl. quote

[stormguard2099]

"with a warning label this big you know it's gotta be fun!"
Warning: this quote is for hardcore fans only. If you can only relate 60% or less of your daily life to a futurama quote then please disregard this post

WARNING Cape Does Not Enable Wearer to Fly!

[wsanders]

Why don't we just put a warning on everything!

Ground Up

[milsoRgen]

Either way it's pathetic, and no warning label will fix it. It occurs to me everyone goes after the symptoms, never the problem them selves. We need to focusing on raising well adjusted physically fit people, that would drastically reduce the likelihood of any form of addiction. But I'm sure blowing research money on warning labels is just as good...

Re:absolutely

[timmarhy]

so you want a warning on -everything- that says "If you lack will power please don't buy this product"? please give me a break. less blame shifting is not what the world needs.

Just like everything else...

[abc_los]

As with everything else in life, you should exercise moderation. Anything enjoyable can be addictive, whether it be a drug, sex, video games, or an electronic gadget. It's all in the responsibility of the user/consumer. I'm addicted to Call of Duty and accept full responsibility of a ruined social life.

Re:Yes...

[AxemRed]

I have never had a half-chicken, half-steak! I know what I'm eating for dinner now...

You have it all twisted

[Bane1998]

There's a lot of posts about why we shouldn't have warning labels if they don't protect the person, or if the person doesn't listen, etc. I think everyone is missing the point. Warning labels are not about protecting the reader. It's about protecting the person who made the product. I like to think we as a society aren't so stupid as to think warning labels make a difference. Everyone knows they don't. To keep pointing out the obvious that they won't stop anyone from doing something stupid and expecting the system to change is a complete failure to understand the system.

Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.

When you see a warning label, replace 'warning' with 'disclaimer' and suddenly the whole system makes a lot more sense. Warning labels are not indicative of a nanny state or anything like that, it's indicative of there being a huge risk of someone deciding to sue you, and actually winning.

Re:You have it all twisted

[neochubbz]

FYI, That woman was a 79 year old woman who suffered third degree burns, and was only originally suing to cover her medical costs. Keep it in perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

Re:You have it all twisted

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.

I see people post this same misinformation over and over. Frivolous lawsuits and stupid warning labels have been around much longer than the McDonald's coffee case.

To save you future embarrassment, I'd suggest reading into a little into it. Here are some starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

And more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mcdonalds+coffee+case&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

This case is not the poster child of frivolous lawsuits that many people think it is.

Re:You have it all twisted

[darkfire5252]

Sigh. I get tired of people using the McDonalds coffee lawsuit as an example. Yes, there are lots of frivolous law suits and suing these days, but this case wasn't one of them. A quick google for "mcdonalds coffee sue" turns up a page with the actual facts as the first result. From http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm :

• 79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn.
• There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. [Cases implying actual civil claims, not complaints]
• Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees.
• The jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million, but the judge cut it in half.
• McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

So, the woman sued because she suffered severe burns. The jury awarded damages based on the damage she suffered, and then awarded punitive damages because it was clear that McDonalds knewe there was a problem, had seen the consequences of this problem and been warned before, and still did not take the relatively simple corrective measure that would prevent severe burns from their product.

Company knowingly does potentially harmful act. Act harms woman. Woman sues company. Company is penalized and corrects their behavior. Isn't that exactly how the system is supposed to work?

Re:You have it all twisted

[merlinokos]

It's worse than that. The coffee was kept that hot by corporate order. They knew it would burn people, but the argument that it's for commuters was always put forward. That, of course, makes no sense, since the same coffee is brewed for people sitting down in the store.

From the parent's link:

Evidence presented to the jury

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 F (82-88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

WTF? You think that's reasonable?

Re:You have it all twisted

[Theaetetus]

Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.

You've probably heard about this stupid greedy woman who was driving in her sports car and decided to spill coffee all over herself, resulting in her eyes lighting up in dollar signs and suing for several million dollars, right?
Well, allow me to introduce you to facts. Facts, meet Bane.

McDonalds served their coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit, 50 degrees more than home coffee is served, and 40 degrees more than is recommended by the National Association of Coffee Manufacturers. McDonald's own expert witness testified at the trial that 190 degree coffee is undrinkable, that it would result in severe napalm-like burns to the throat, and that it could cause scalding on unprotected skin in 6 seconds.

Now, along comes this grandmother, who wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat of her nephew's car. She gets a cup of coffee and they pull over and park. I repeat, the car was at a complete stop. The car has no cup holders, so she holds it between her legs and pops the top off. The flimsy cup they were using back then collapsed, and the coffee spilled onto her sweatpants, which wicked the 190 degree coffee to her legs and held it there. She got 3rd-degree burns - those are the ones where the skin chars and dies, all the way to the bone - and spent weeks in the hospital while they pulled dead skin off with tweezers. Seriously.

Did she sue? No, not originally. She went to McDonalds and asked for help paying her $20,000 medical bills. They refused. That's when she sued. And she didn't sue for millions, she asked for medical bills and costs.

So, the jury heard the case and found that she was partly at fault. They awarded her medical bills and court costs and legal fees, about $200k, and then the judge reduced the award due to her contributory negligence.

So, where did the millions come in? The jury was so horrified at McDonalds own testimony, including their leaked internal memos where they said, "we'll have to pay about a hundred thousand a year in settlements to burned people, but we'll sell several million more in coffee, so keep it at 190 degrees, even though it's unsafe to drink." At the time of the trial, they had settled 200 prior burn cases, including one person who died, and knew about hundreds more. And yet, rather than reduce their coffee temperature, they figured they could just settle cheaply. So the jury awarded $2.3M in damages, two days' profits on coffee.

Know what else you haven't heard? The judge reduced the punitive damages to $600k, and McDonalds didn't even pay that: they threatened to appeal, and rather than go through another trial, the woman agreed to a lower settlement. No one knows how much, but odds are it was around the original $200k.

So, cut the bullshiat about this "greedy stupid woman". Slashdotters are supposed to be more shrewd and more cynical than to blindly listen to what a corporation tells them to believe.

Re:You have it all twisted

[Shotgun]

Sigh. I get tire of people trotting out the same old excuses for a stupid woman.

Get this straight, "You DON'T hold hot coffee between your legs to add sugar while driving a car." Intelligent people refer to such actions as STUPID, usually with an adjunct such as, "You'll spill hot coffee in your lap, knucklehead." Intelligent adults don't look to the court system to pamper them when they do something stupid, like playing with hot coffee in your lap while operating a motor vehicle, especially when you have the reduce physical reactions of an octogenarian.

McDonald's served thier coffee hot, because that is what customers wanted. That's called RUNNING A CUSTOMER FOCUSSED BUSINESS. My father would go out of his way to buy his coffee from McDonald's, just because they served it hot.

Sears knowingly sells tablesaws that have been known to cut off hands and fingers. Yet they continue to sell them just because people keep buying them. If you told Sears that people have been injured with the saws, I'm sure their response would be along the lines of, "Yeah. So?" So, should someone sue Sears for selling a known potentially harmful item?

Warning

[theeddie55]

Posting on slashdot can be addictive please do not over use. If you percieve signs of grammar nazi-ism or trolling, please consult a professional.

Re:Do warnings actually work?

[TopSpin]

first know whether that measure will actually fix the problem in question The problem in question isn't the real problem. Start by discovering the real problem. The real problem is liability. The question will be answered by the massive judgment handed down by some judge and/or jury, forming a precedent mandating a fix, regardless of whether it impacts 'injury' rates. Since almost anyone's life can be valuated into the millions (for the purpose of calculating legal commission or whatever Latin they wrap it in,) by any one of millions of lawyers, the preceding is inevitable.

It's not enough to look like you're doing something Actually it is, once you understand the real problem. Placing a barely legible sticker on the back corner of some dangerous machine with amps and spinning bits of metal is sufficient to preclude most liability. The appearance of doing something, while actually doing nothing at all is sufficient.

After that it's just you and Darwin, stuck together by a mass of warning labels. Enjoy!

Re:Do warnings actually work?

[Digi-John]

A priori, it seems reasonable that a warning label would discourage people, but people need to read them, think about them, and then decide to follow them. As we see with cigarettes, some people have trouble doing that.

So you've just decided that all "normal" people would decide "Hmm, the Surgeon General warned me, better not smoke!", rather than weighing the risks and deciding that the pleasure obtained through smoking was worth it? Remember--a decision is only a smart, *informed* decision if it's the same one you approve of! Everyone who decides otherwise is just brainwashed.

Who wants to live to be 90?

Re:iPhone

[EmotionToilet]

My girlfriend gets mad that I ignore her all the time now that I have an iPhone. It actually bothers her a lot. They should make some sort of support group. Like iAnonymous.

Pop-tarts...

[Grog6]

Have a warning "pastry may be hot when removed from toaster"; I knew we were doomed, then...

We just need to instill the lemming instinct on the Morons...

Information

[ilikepi314]

Your post (which by the way, I agree with) reminds me of another issue though that I have contemplated for some time and not been able to figure out -- the matter of information on making decisions.

While adults should be left to their own decisions for the most part, is it safe to assume that *everyone* has read all of the medical papers, scientific journals, safety instructions on a particular object? I do not see how this is possible, as I can barely keep up with all of the papers related to my field of research, let alone all of the other things being done on the planet. It's not a matter of I'm lazy or not willing to find it on my own, but simply that I *do not have the time* to wade through all of this research on whether or not a particular thing is a good idea for me to do or buy.

Thus comes my dilemma: do we assume everyone will find out about the results of this research and therefore have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision, or do we push a bit harder for people to hear our message by forcing warning labels? I personally like the idea of a well-informed public (I know if chocolate pudding caused cancer, I would DEFINITELY want it reported immediately, which could potentially require government intervention as I imagine few pudding companies would want to put this on their box voluntarily), but I also realize this sort of thing has a huge potential for abuse (i.e., spreading misinformation and bias), and that perhaps some citizens will not care anyway or feel they are being picked on as a result.

You'd have to find a way of informing everyone in a clear unbiased manner (which removing bias from people is near impossible), while simultaneously not demonizing people for making what are ultimately personal decisions (which is also near impossible for many people). So yeah, I'm not sure how to balance that any better than the way we have right now -- which isn't always very balanced in itself.

Re:Information

[khayman80]

I've put some thought into this as well. I think warning labels may actually be counter-productive, in that they give Average Joe the impression that he doesn't have to think about how to safely use a product or do any research. All he has to do is read the warning labels and all danger magically evaporates. In addition, the fact that there is a government body devoted to forcing these warning labels gives the impression that all dangers have been rigorously examined and makes the government liable for any omissions or mistakes.

While I think that voluntary warning labels are a good idea, I don't think mandating them is a good idea. First of all, companies that are responsible will put intelligent warning labels on their products to warn against non-obvious dangers, just because there's no profit in killing off their customer base. Non-responsible companies are a different matter, and fifty years ago I might have agreed that government intervention was necessary to protect people against predatory companies. With the advent of the internet, though, it would be a relatively simple matter for a citizen to google the name of the product/company before buying/using the product. Any dangerous information would be revealed through a quick 30 second search.

PSA: Sanitation, Agriculture Habit Forming

[chkn0]

Public Service Announcement: Habit-Forming Technologies

It has come to the attention of this institution that certain technologies and innovations developed over the course of human history may, in retrospect, be habit-forming and could lead to addiction. Citizens are encouraged to exercise caution and restraint in their use of the following list of technologies and are further encouraged to be vigilant for the sake of their friends and family members, lest they become too deeply involved in these potentially dangerous activities.

Help is available. If you or a loved one, friend, or acquaintance finds himself or herself excessively attached to one or more of these technologies, contact your local branch office of the Ministry of Progress immediately.

List of recognized potentially habit-forming technologies:

• Tools
• Fire
• Language
• Clothing
• Artificial Shelter
• Domestication of Animals
• Agriculture
• Ships
• Writing
• Wheels
• Plumbing
• Sanitation
• Lenses
• Internal combustion engines
• Refrigeration
• Electrical distribution
• Radio
• Semiconductors