Slashdot Mirror


Buckyballs Throws In the Towel

RenderSeven writes "As previously reported the immensely popular Buckyballs office toys have been targeted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Last week Maxfield and Oberton, the maker of Buckyballs gave up the battle and announced they would discontinue sales and close. However, being driven out of business is not enough for R Buckminster Fuller's estate, who has filed yet another lawsuit that they own all rights to the name "buckyballs" despite widespread use of the term. If you still haven't bought your own yet, a few thousand sets in stock are still available."

383 comments

  1. I have buckyballs! by biojayc · · Score: 5, Funny

    The company I work for bought everyone on our team a set. Probably worst investment ever. Productivity has definitely suffered. But look at my cool artistic design!

    1. Re:I have buckyballs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how that could ever be counted as an "investment"... This sounds more like "employee compensation"... Was this reported as taxable income by all your employees?

      I think we're going to have to subject your company to a rigorous audit, sir. Expect a note in the mail in about 3-6 weeks.

      Love,
      The United States Internal Revenue Service
      www.irs.gov

    2. Re:I have buckyballs! by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      I finally bought a whole bunch for myself a month or two ago when they were on a fire sale for $5 a pack. They're really quite wonderful, esp. for chemistry buffs... they naturally form 90deg or 60deg bonds, so you can can arrange them in body-centered-cubic and face-centered-cubic crystalline formations. It's fun and actually challenging bending them into various regular structures, since a single stray magnet can disrupt the field enough to turn them into a jumble again.

      Never looked at them twice at their normal boutique prices of $40 a pack, though. :/

    3. Re:I have buckyballs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, cocksucker.

      Come and try to take my money, leave in a body bag.

      BRING IT ON.

  2. Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... on eBay, and you will find multiple vendors selling exactly the same thing, but not called buckyballs. They still exist - just not under that stupid name.

    1. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until eBay shuts them down.

    2. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is what they are, seriously?

      Having never heard of Buckyballs, I had to check the site out. Turns out that $30-$40 per set won't exactly break the budget, but you can assemble a similar kit from eBay for a LOT less (including shipping).

    3. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      zero results. Did you try this before posting? I believe they are shutting them down.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    4. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fuzzybunny · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.magnet-shop.net/

      German outfit, huge range of Neodymium magnets, spherical, cylindrical, banana-shaped, what-have-you.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    5. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 2

      Nice site, but the magnets seem to be even more expensive. Maybe I didn't find the right thing, but to buy 216 3.0mm neodymium spheres (equivalent to one package of "buckyballs") would cost EUR 50 vs USD 35 for the "buckyballs"

    6. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fnj · · Score: 2

      Use just a tiny bit of intelligence. Do you seriously think no one can sell spherical magnets? It's the NAME that is protected; that's all.

      I will readily admit that ebay's search function sucks donkey balls. Generally you do get better results just using google to search ebay for stuff. Or another good search engine, but google was the first one that worked and I still like them. IMO google search was the most innovative and critically useful tool to be invented for the web since the latter's creation.

    7. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      Yes but you wont get the free "Save Our Balls" t-shirt.

    8. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by firex726 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I think it's the coating.
      the magnets are rather brittle and wont hold up well to being banged together from it's own magnetic field, so they are coated.

      Cheap ones use cheap coatings that flake off easily, and expose the magnet underneath and it ends up breaking.

    9. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by matrim99 · · Score: 1
      Captain Literal strikes again!

      My Turn:
      You can shut down a company, but I don't see how one can shut down a magnet.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    10. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Or maybe someplace liek Dealextreme?

      http://dx.com/s/magnets

      I'm sure there's no lead in them! ;-) I have a few sets form these guys in the office - lots of fun!

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    11. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Artraze · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/09/04/2012-21608/safety-standard-for-magnet-sets
      "Under the proposal, if a magnet set contains a magnet that fits within the CPSC's small parts cylinder, magnets from that set would be required to have a flux index of 50 or less, or they would be prohibited."

      So, yes, I do think that no one can sell spherical magnets. (Or won't be allowed to, once this has passed.)

      Technically, the proposal as is only applies to sets marketed by the manufacturer primarily as a manipulative or construction desk toy for general entertainment, and they are seeking comment on what to do about magnets included in science/craft/hobby kits or sold individually. So as it stands this technically wouldn't prohibit them from being sold as industrial parts or maybe even science kits. However, mind that government 'suggestion' is all powerful... See how amazon delisted them, and ebay said they would, before this policy is even finalized. You may technically be allowed to sell these in some context, but you'll need a lot of luck to actually do so.

    12. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Petron · · Score: 2

      The ban isn't on buckyballs specifically, it is on all similar products. Zen Magnets (a competitor) also under the ban, their last update:
      "CPSC Selects nuclear option. Magnet spheres may soon be harder to acquire than ammunition in the US.
      [Update 11/2] The magnet fight is not looking good."

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    13. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      eBay has recently fucked their search engine up beyond all recognition. It was always dysfunctional (to put it politely) but now they've removed wildcards altogether. So if you searched on buck* magnet* or something similar, you might not have received the results you should have.

      I can't imagine what eBay's CEO actually does for a living these days, much less their CTO. I guess those hookers and blow aren't going to consume themselves.

    14. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fnj · · Score: 1

      So in other words, anybody can sell them. I mean we were talking about the present.

      Sheesh.

    15. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with bans. Whether it's fun little magnets or kinder eggs, the people that really want them are still going to get them smuggled in. At that point, things go from some oversight to no oversight. For example, expect black market magnets to have cheaper coatings with more heavy metals that would require more washing hands after playing with them, imported kinder eggs may not have allergen info printed on the label as required by US law, etc.

      In a lot of ways, it's just like the drug market.

    16. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You may technically be allowed to sell these in some context, but you'll need a lot of luck to actually do so.

      Enter The Dragon of all things nobody wants you to have. The don't have full bucky-sized sets, but you can buy the pieces for both buckyballs and buckycubes.

      If I had a spare $22,000 I'd love to have a buckyball set made of these.

    17. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by macraig · · Score: 2

      I seem to recall similar regulatory stupidities regarding chemistry science kits in the last decade? Both are examples of think-of-the-children regulation stretched beyond reasonable into the realm of authoritarianism for the sake of itself.

    18. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fm6 · · Score: 0

      You know, I thought the Bear Patrol episode of the Simpsons was funny too. But enough with that cliche already. When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it.

    19. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      Really? I guess your searching skills might need a little help.

      After doing this search, I even purchased a set to see what all the hoopla was about.

    20. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by macraig · · Score: 2

      Congratulations on having YAKJR (yet another knee-jerk reaction). Yes, it IS mindless regulation to ban it outright. What wouldn't be mindless is to place reasonable restrictions on its sale and use such that it can still be obtained by people for use in environments where children cannot be endangered by it.

    21. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually kills kids?
      So how many kids were actually killed?
      Actually ZERO.

    22. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it.

      What's next? Kitchen knives have killed enough kids over the years...guess we need to ban those.

      Seriously, a few accidents happen....parents that don't keep things dangerous out of the reach of kids, or stupid kids putting anything in their mouth and swallowing it?

      I think that is more Darwin's Law at work....should ban things like that that MOST adults can safely enjoy....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by uncqual · · Score: 2

      Cars, buses, trains, bicycles, and airplanes all kill kids. Ban them all. Won't someone think of the children?

      The number of reported serious injuries/deaths from these magnets is tiny compared to the above sources of serious injury and death..

      One of the injuries was to a pre-teen or teenage kid who was playing with them and swallowed them. Now, wouldn't you think a kid should go to their parent and say "hey, I accidentally swallowed a couple magnets" and that the parent would say "hmm... probably should take you in to the doctor". If the doctor then says "oh, nothing to worry about", then we have a problem (and the doctor should be sued/banned/sanctioned, not the seller/manufacturer of the magnets).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    24. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My nephew, when he was small, pulled a pot of boiling water off the stove, causing it to spill all over him, and he suffered third-degree burns over a large portion of his body. He didn't die from it, but should we ban boiling water because kids can be injured by it? Or should we encourage parents to pay more attention to their kids?

    25. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by triffid_98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it

      Um...yes it freaking is. I can think of a great many things it could be fatal to swallow. Even dihydrogen monoxide is fatal in sufficient quantities.

      "Think of the children" has caused so much stupid regulation it should be an automatic fail ala Godwin's law.

    26. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      That right there is a parental problem.
      A friend of the family, about a decade ago, had the same thing happen to their 2yr old daughter.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    27. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I love that site. I always get a chuckle out of their "Looking for some URANIUM?" animated gif.

    28. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it

      Sorry, but that perspective is horribly unrealistic statement. If warnings come with them, age is checked before purchase, why not allow the sale? Should we outlaw Nails because a kid can swallow them? Hell, kitchen knives hurt more kids every year than this product so I guess we need to outlaw kitchen knives as well right? Instead of being a tool, how about taking the correct approach and punishing parents that allow their kids access to "adult" items, or fail to provide proper supervision for said items?

      Look, instead of blaming producers, why not put blame where it really belongs? I know, it's a hell of a thing to ask since people push their morality in to laws all the time (and we see how well all of the other prohibitions work right?). Enough of the blaming people that make things already, blame the assholes that misuse or misappropriate what gets made.

    29. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fm6 · · Score: 0

      So, by your logic, anything can kill you, so all regulation is stupid.

      Hey, wanna buy a flamethrower?

    30. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fm6 · · Score: 0

      Kitchen knife have serious applications. This is a fucking toy.

      And the "Darwin" meme is getting really old, especially since the people who use it tend not to be credit to the species.

    31. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fm6 · · Score: 0

      I've already covered the "everything is dangerous" fallacy. Speaking of mindless....

    32. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by macraig · · Score: 1

      You don't have facts on your side. You think you have "facts" because, what, you can site verifiable news reports that children have died after swallowing powerful magnets? What about ALL THE OTHER small neodymium magnets that have been sold for many years? Would you make all of them illegal to sell as well? And what of, say, vehicles, which I can prove have killed far more children than any magnets ever, yet there are still tens of millions of them hurtling around?

      No, you don't have facts.

    33. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drain cleaner, gasoline, bug poison, pool chlorine, electricity, small parts, water, and height differences all have been known to kill children. When can we get them banned, good sir?

    34. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by macraig · · Score: 1

      The record here also clearly shows everyone that I never said anything even remotely like "fuck you asswipe" to you. You can't justify ad hominem by simply claiming "well he said it first!" when he actually didn't.

    35. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that buckyball magnets didn't have rich lobbies to keep them legal like ammo, autos, and knives do. But then when I read your post I couldn't think of who might be part of the boiling water lobby. Maybe the boiler insurance companies?

    36. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And by your logic, anything can kill you, so ban it all!

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    37. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by triffid_98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not particularly, but I'd like to (for instance) buy a real chemistry set or halfway decent fireworks. Except that I can't. Because...of...this...very... same...argument.

      Also I'm fairly sure flamethrowers are legal. They even have practical applications that don't involve setting people on fire. People use them for weed control in rocky soil.

    38. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it.

      Here's a list of some products that I have within reach of my desk right now that have actually killed kids:

      • button batteries
      • plastic bags
      • bottled water
      • chairs
      • phone cord

      The fact of the matter is that these magnets really aren't any more dangerous than any number of common household items. If you're that frightened of them, keep them out of your own house. Banning them is utterly ridiculous.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    39. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at the Buckyballs packaging?
      Read the included instructions?
      Looked at the magnet container?

      There are warnings on the outside of the box, along with a declaration that they're "adult fun":
      http://www.pranksterhouse.com/buckyballs/

      There is a warning on the magnet container:
      http://www.onefoottsunami.com/2010/09/17/the-sign-of-a-good-toy/

      There is at least one warning in the manual:
      https://www.getbuckyballs.com/images/safety-info.jpg

      And here's a history of the organization's interactions with the CPSC:
      https://www.getbuckyballs.com/letter-from-ceo/

    40. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      Hey, wanna buy a flamethrower?

      As it happens, flamethrowers may be legally owned in most parts of the US.

      Obviously somebody missed the "if it would be possible for a child to injure themselves with something, then it must be banned!" memo.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    41. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      When you have a product that actually kills kids, it's not mindless regulation to ban it.

      Here's a list of some products that I have within reach of my desk right now that have actually killed kids:

      • button batteries
      • plastic bags
      • bottled water
      • chairs
      • phone cord

      Add balloons to the list. The brother of one of my neighbors died when he was a kid after accidentally ingesting a balloon.

    42. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you did. You called him a mindless knee-jerk reactionary. Just because you said it implicitly doesn't make it any less true.

      For the record, I generally agree that this is completely unneeded regulation.

    43. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I think you might have trouble selling it as a toy.

    44. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by harperska · · Score: 1

      To be honest, the coating on my genuine Buckeballs (tm) brand neodymium spherical magnets chips and flakes off as well. Not much can hold up to the force of those magnets clicking together. I haven't had any break myself, but I know people who have.

    45. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by harperska · · Score: 1

      As well as BALLOONS! Balloons are actually marketed and sold to children, whereas magnetic spheres were not. And there have been many more cases of children dying from choking on balloons than from swallowing magnets. It is the fact that buckyballs are banned and balloons are not that makes this asinine, not whether or not the magnets are hazardous at all.

    46. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by harperska · · Score: 1

      Wow, straw-man and ad-hominem in one shot! Impressive!

    47. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Captain Literal strikes again!

      You can shut down a company, but I don't see how one can shut down a magnet.

      Right now there is a guy at the CPSC asking "MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK!? How can we shut them down!!!"

    48. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      but I don't see how one can shut down a magnet.

      Heat it enough, and you can.

    49. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I think you might have trouble selling it as a toy.

      Outside of a war zone, flamethrowers designed as weapons are essentially never used for anything but the entertainment of the user. In other words -- a toy.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    50. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Accusing someone of having a knee-jerk episode isn't exactly calling someone mindless, though it does imply a deficiency in the balance between emotion and reason. I didn't call HIM mindless, I called the CPSC regulation mindless. You took different parts of two of my sentences and strung them together to make a new sentence I didn't write. Don't do that.

    51. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how many knee jerk reaction I'm getting accusing me of having a knee jerk reaction.

      I have facts on my side, you have "fuck you asswipe". Which of us is being mindless and kneejerky?

      You are ignoring the reality that parents who are stupid enough to allow
      strong magnets near their children probably should not have been permitted to
      breed in the first place.

      So it is YOU who are mistaken, you sanctimonious prick.

    52. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by isopropanol · · Score: 1

      Do not eat them. Lead is only a concern if you're putting them in your mouth, which you should not do with strong magnets anyways.

    53. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Isn't it also possible to have issues from handling lead? All in all it's not something I intend to play with like mercury when I was a kid. that stuff was a blast, thankfully I didn't play with it very much as I found out later it's plenty toxic via contact. Times, they seem to have changed a bit :-O

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    54. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by arsemonkey · · Score: 1

      Clearly you think too much. We should actually ban swimming pools; do you know how many small children are killed each year by those vile beasts? I bet more than balloons and Bumbos combined!

    55. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Yes, we are in such a position. Because, at some point, we have to be responsible for our actions. My god, dude, you can't really expect a government to protect us from ourselves. That would lead to every last one of us in a jail cell, just to keep us "safe." In nature, if you fuck up, you die. That's the way it's supposed to be. Kids swallowing these magnets, with no parents around to supervise, deserve to die. That's how our species weeds out the "too stupid to live." I'm sorry if that's harsh - actually, I'm not - but that's reality. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.

    56. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I almost drown as a child. We should start ban all water, not just the boiling variety.

    57. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by makomk · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, at least one kid has been killed by these in the US.

    58. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by makomk · · Score: 1

      button batteries

      Senate bill seeks regulation for button-cell batteries. (There are already regulations restricting the use of button batteries in children's toys.)

      plastic bags

      Generally designed with holes these days for safety reasons.

      bottled water

      That one mainly gets adults in trouble, kids usually know better.

      chairs

      Fairly tightly regulated

      phone cord

      Hasn't this been banned from kids playsets altogether because of the safety hazard?

    59. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by isopropanol · · Score: 1

      Possible, but not as likely.

    60. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Zen Magnets claims better quality, and I have played with both and couldn't tell a difference. Buy your Zens before those too are taken off the market.

    61. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.zenmagnets.com/

      Try these, they claim to be higher quality then buckyballs, and are still available.

    62. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about the whole thing. I saw a reference to someone pointing out that trampolines kill and send 100,000 kids to the hospital every year when Zen Magnets received a "stop sell" order, the first for a product without a single reported injury. But the trampoline makers are paying big bucks to the government to not change safety standards since ones like: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Springfree-12-Round-Trampoline-with-Safety-Enclosure/12323460 have become available. Note, if you fall oddly and land on the "frame" head first, you should, based on the safety measures, walk away from that 90+% of the time. It's below 10% for a regular trampoline and is more likely to kill you on a regular trampoline than give you any injury at all on the newer/safer ones.

      But magnets use "invisible" force (magic) to do stuff, so we can ban them, but trampolines have been killing and maiming for years, so we are used to them. It all comes back to the conservative nature of people (not political, but comfort). People would rather have the evil they know than good (not just the evil they don't know, but actual good). As for me, I bought a trampoline for the kids that has no metal contact points. I also bought Zen Magnets and play with them with the 2 and 5 year olds all the time, but with an eye for the possibility of death, however remote, just as we cross the street when appropriate, even with the possibility of death.

    63. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Next thing you know they're going to ban unprotected sex in pr0n. Oh, wait....

      http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Los_Angeles_Porn_Actors_Required_to_Wear_Condoms_Act,_Measure_B_(November_2012)

    64. Re:Search for spherical neodymium magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly boiling water should be banned. What kind of question is this????

  3. More mindless federal regulation by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dammit, freedom isn't free. And if the price of my freedom to be entertained by buckyballs is measured in the lives of toddlers, so be it. And now, I think I'll go outside for a nice game of Jarts. Who wants to be goalie?

    1. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not just toddlers, we also had natural selection at work in pre-teens. Now how are we going to thin the herd? Start handing out guns?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:More mindless federal regulation by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Just going to put this out there -- how is eating a dangerous man made object natural selection? We're engineered to avoid obvious dangers and to explore our world. Part of that is that humans DO have as a adaptive trait the willingness to eat almost anything. We learn what is poisons and our elders are supposed to keep our infants/ignorant from eating that stuff. I mean, nightshade berries are very pretty round red balls that would probably be fun to play with -- should I let my one year old play with them?

      Remember -- these are being sold AS toys. I am a bit of a magnetism geek, I have a small collection of neodymium magnets that I've used for the odd-ball home project or geek sculpture -- but I've also injured myself (skin crushed and torn) by those magnets. I do not want to imagine what would happen to my intestines if I swallowed a pair of them a few minutes apart -- guessing the answer would involved perforation.

    3. Re:More mindless federal regulation by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You being the adult need to protect your child from belladonna as well as magnets. You failing to protect your child is nature selecting against your genetic line.

      I am not a fan of that line of thinking, but we should charge these parents with neglect before blaming a company when people abuse their product.

    4. Re:More mindless federal regulation by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      Remember -- these are being sold AS toys.

      But not as children's toys: they have big warnings saying "keep away from children." You have to check-acknowledge reading the warning when you buy them from the site.

    5. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since the six sided package they sent me has "WANRING: Adults Only 18+. Not for children!" on 5 of the 6 sides (the 6th being the bottom and thus the side it was sitting on. And again in 5 more places in the little manual that came with it, and again as a sticker on the storage case. I don't remember much of what the package/materials said, but I do remember seeing more warning about it being not for children then anything else. So if you let a minor play with these then it was your fault. You wouldn't let children play with guns and knives (which by they way way fewer, if any, warning about not being for children), so why would you ignore the warnings on a product that went to an extreme length to inform you that it could harm you?

      Parents who let their children play with these should be fed them themselves.

    6. Re:More mindless federal regulation by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Just going to put this out there -- how is eating a dangerous man made object natural selection?

      It isn't. Parents' failure to protect their children from eating dangerous objects reduces their amount of surviving offspring, and is natural selection.

      We're engineered to avoid obvious dangers and to explore our world.

      Are you a creationist? Most people have realised that we're not engineered, but have eveloped.

      If avoiding dangers and exploring gives an advantage in the survival rate of fertile offspring, then genes facilitating that will be selected for.

      Remember -- these are being sold AS toys.

      No, they're not. You won't find them at Toys-R'-Us or KB Toys. Their packaging -- in several places -- states that it is NOT a toy, and MUST be kept away from children. You never checked, did you?

      Trikes and balloons, on the other hand, are sold as toys, and far more kids die (ab)using them.

      I do not want to imagine what would happen to my intestines if I swallowed a pair of them a few minutes apart -- guessing the answer would involved perforation.

      Then don't do that. Don't run the edge of envelopes against your eyeballs either, and don't put condoms over your head.

    7. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You may wish to look up the definition of the word "natural"... Certain kinds of idiocy and poor parenting are being selected out of the population. Kind of like a group of lambs with a quirk that gives them penchant for wandering into a pride of lions.

      Now obviously (to all but you) I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek about this, but realistically foam padding the world doesn't serve humanity's long term interest. Maxfield and Oberton (the folks that made Buckyballs) actually markets their products to adults. They also go above and beyond the call of duty to label their products as well as educate parents about the inherent dangers of their product in the hands of children. There are countless other products on the market that are far more dangerous, and just as, if not more tempting to children. Heck, some of which are even marketed to children. Warning labels and educational campaigns about their dangers are minimal if they even exist.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:More mindless federal regulation by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Are you a creationist? Most people have realised that we're not engineered, but have eveloped. [sic]

      Evolution is a method, not a result. The result is a complex system of physical structures that function in a particular way. Sarcasm (and spelling failures) aside, engineered is a perfectly acceptable term for explaining that the way humans respond to their environment is predictable given the design of our bodies. You can go ahead and insist that design requires a designer if you want, you're off topic and wasting your time -- but hey maybe you can "score a point" there somewhere.

      It isn't. Parents' failure to protect their children from eating dangerous objects reduces their amount of surviving offspring, and is natural selection.

      You're mixing your social darwinism with your evolutionary theory. Here, our society is stepping in to protect our young. That is, as a species we are promoting our own genetic survival and diversity. There are words in there that are part of the theory of natural selection -- but the two are distinct. Natural selection is just the tendency of useful traits to persist by giving their bearers an advantage in survival and procreation. The parents choice to protect or not protect their children is an aspect of social selection -- and unless you believe that inattentive parenting is tied to a genetic trait - it has nothing to do with evolution.

    9. Re:More mindless federal regulation by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Now obviously (to all but you) I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek about this, but realistically foam padding the world doesn't serve humanity's long term interest.

      To all but me and all the outraged posters above claiming that bad parenting is part of natural selection -- sure.

    10. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      disgruntled that the Democrats are leftist enough

      If they're leftist enough wouldn't people be satisfied?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:More mindless federal regulation by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Don't run the edge of envelopes against your eyeballs either

      Well, I just winced. Thanks for that.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    12. Re:More mindless federal regulation by khallow · · Score: 1

      how is eating a dangerous man made object natural selection?

      Is someone trying to cull the herd? If there's intent, then it's selective breeding. If there isn't, then it's natural selection. Eating a dangerous man made object is just as natural a selection event as doing something stupid in front of a 600 pound bear.

    13. Re:More mindless federal regulation by D'Sphitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      accidental deaths of children due to handguns in the US: ~500 per year
      accidental deaths of children choking on balloons: ~1000 per year
      accidental deaths of children by magnetic desk toys: 0
      Greatest Country on Earth!

    14. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >we should charge these parents with neglect before blaming a company when people abuse their product.

      Hah. Either you don't have kids or you are a helicopter parent.

    15. Re:More mindless federal regulation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Remove all warning labels and wait for the problem to solve itself.

    16. Re:More mindless federal regulation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      accidental deaths of children by Jarts: 1

    17. Re:More mindless federal regulation by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And you are an irresponsible parent.

    18. Re:More mindless federal regulation by arth1 · · Score: 1

      unless you believe that inattentive parenting is tied to a genetic trait - it has nothing to do with evolution

      An individual's ability to reason is most certainly linked to genetic traits. Sure, there are other factors, but as long as there is any -- no matter how small -- correlation and advantage, evolution applies.

    19. Re:More mindless federal regulation by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      I don't think either of us have any studies to throw back and forth -- but generally -- I know plenty of stupid people with very intelligent parents, and vice versa.

    20. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having almost killed my brother-in-law during a game of Jarts I think it might be time to reconsider the institution of a ban on them... Wait - that was my FORMER (m-f-cheating) brother-in-law. I withdraw my appeal to reconsider a ban on them. I just need to improve my aim and finish my time machine.

    21. Re:More mindless federal regulation by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      Don't run the edge of envelopes against your eyeballs either

      Well, I just winced. Thanks for that.

      So it wasn't just me..?

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    22. Re:More mindless federal regulation by jep305 · · Score: 1

      You can argue all day long about how much supervision children should have, but I think its pretty clear that the company that makes and sells these magnets should NOT be held responsible when adults allow children to use them.

      --
      In Reason We Trust
    23. Re:More mindless federal regulation by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think either of us have any studies to throw back and forth -- but generally -- I know plenty of stupid people with very intelligent parents, and vice versa.

      That's not generally.

      As for studies, there are plenty of links here.

      Keep in mind that it does not have to be the most significant factor - as long as the heritability is above zero, evolution applies.

    24. Re:More mindless federal regulation by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

      Indeed, maybe I should walk into McDonalds and buy a kids meal with a 'big-kid' toy and hand it to a toddler and lets see how much I can get out of micky Ds...

      Based on how all of this is going that warning label means nothing.

    25. Re:More mindless federal regulation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My 2 year old and 5 year old have played with these, and only someone who has never met me could consider me an irresponsible parent. A trampoline is much more likely to kill or maim than these magnets. I judge risk from actual risk and don't assign more risk to something I can't see, like magnetism than the bone-crushing steel frame and springs of a trampoline that I am comfortable with because I used them as a kid and grew up in one piece.

    26. Re:More mindless federal regulation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You left out trampolines. 100,000+ reported injuries per year, and marketed to children.

    27. Re:More mindless federal regulation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You mistake "reasonable" action with any action. Not all actions are reasonable. I'd much more support making conventional trampolines illegal than magnets. The magnets are not marketed to children, and have a very low occurance of injury. Trampolines are marketed to children and send 100,000 to the hospital each year, with some deaths.

      The "Democrats" here are just as much against government stupidity as the next guy, and so they will be condemning this. A fact based approach is more Democratic. Fearing magnets because the evil invisible force (God's hand) is dangerous to mock, and we should ban magnets because messing with God's invisible force will cause the apocalypse. After all, fusion and supercolliders use magnets, and those are nothing but the tools of the devil. It's the Republicans that love this type of government interference.

    28. Re:More mindless federal regulation by pjfontillas · · Score: 1

      accidental deaths of children due to handguns in the US: ~500 per year

      accidental deaths of children choking on balloons: ~1000 per year

      Is anyone else concerned that the number of deaths from balloons doubles handguns? Where are you getting these numbers?

      --
      Life. Is. Good.
    29. Re:More mindless federal regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been at least one death and _hundreds_ of injuries from these magnetic toys. Besides, any kid with a stomach full of rare-earth magnets will likely attract any nearby Jarts, thereby dramatically increasing the risk involved.

  4. I'll need to stock up by skipkent · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am a baker and normal dragées just don't work the same.

    1. Re:I'll need to stock up by ddxexex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well I learn a couple of things today because of this post. 1) A dragée is the name for that metallic decorative ball thing they put on cakes. 2) never accept candy from skipkent.

    2. Re:I'll need to stock up by Revotron · · Score: 1, Informative

      The fact that this is modded "Insightful" instead of "Funny" is a hilarious indicator of Slashdot moderators' poor understanding of the finer points of confectionery.

    3. Re:I'll need to stock up by sharkey · · Score: 1

      If that IS his real name.....

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:I'll need to stock up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I didn't realize they actually contain silver and the FDA considers them non-edible. Fucking lovely.

  5. Hard to swallow by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't see how kids can swallow these, not with their guts full of washing machine gel packs.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. State gone Mad by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, look, the State destroying a business and free choice in the first part of the summary and then the State enabling people to harass other people over imaginary property in the second. Thank goodness they're around to keep things civil.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps it's time to pack up the ol' ultrasteel, fire up the magic engine, and leave all us greedy, mincing Takers behind.

      No, seriously--I'm happy to help pay your way to the Galtian Utopia of your choice. Who's with me?

    2. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's make government bigger - what could possibly go wrong?

    3. Re:State gone Mad by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      They do not market them to children. The products have extensive warnings on them.

    4. Re:State gone Mad by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem here is how they sell this product. The market this product as a toy for children.

      Actually, they don't.

      If they wrote on the package "MAY CAUSE DEATH" or listed a number of lives and surgeries the product has caused, I don't think anyone would care. Of course they'd go out of business.

      Actually, they do write this, and nobody cares. Unfortunately, rather than treating these injuries as the evidence of child neglect that they are, the feds have taken the approach of banning something that, when used appropriately, is perfectly safe.

    5. Re:State gone Mad by g0del · · Score: 2

      That's completely untrue. They don't market them to children, and have prominent warnings all over the packaging saying to keep them away from children and that swallowing them can cause death. I counted no less than 5 copies of that warning in the last package of them I opened. One of the warnings was on a sticker holding the package closed - you can't even open them without seeing a large warning that they can kill you. There's also a warning on the little plastic box they give you to store them in.

      The lawsuit is not about informing consumers because I honestly can't think of any more the company can do to warn people Cigarettes have fewer warning labels than buckyballs. The lawsuit is trying to prevent any sale of the product at all, which is stupid.

    6. Re:State gone Mad by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      If it takes a few hideous and painful deaths to get people to stop leaving potentially dangerous things around, and to teach their children not to eat random things, then it's a price well worth paying.

    7. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's completely untrue. They don't market them to children, and have prominent warnings all over the packaging saying to keep them away from children and that swallowing them can cause death. I counted no less than 5 copies of that warning in the last package of them I opened. One of the warnings was on a sticker holding the package closed - you can't even open them without seeing a large warning that they can kill you. There's also a warning on the little plastic box they give you to store them in.

      The lawsuit is not about informing consumers because I honestly can't think of any more the company can do to warn people Cigarettes have fewer warning labels than buckyballs. The lawsuit is trying to prevent any sale of the product at all, which is stupid.

      Your claims are cute but I'd like to see photos. I've picked up this package in stores and seen nothing about death, dead children, surgeries, killing, etc. Can you provide evidence? In that very picture I linked, there is nothing -- certainly not large enough for a kid to see.

    8. Re:State gone Mad by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They changed the packaging a long time ago. Look at their website and you will plainly see it.

      Taking your claim to the logical extreme and you will say 3 year olds can't read.

      Here is a better idea; if a child eats these magnets charge their parents with neglect.

    9. Re:State gone Mad by David+Chappell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, they do write this, and nobody cares. Unfortunately, rather than treating these injuries as the evidence of child neglect that they are, the feds have taken the approach of banning something that, when used appropriately, is perfectly safe.

      The problem is that they are a harmless-looking toy, but the only safe way to use them is to make sure no small children are present, take them out and play with them, then count them to make sure none have been lost, and lock them up. If someone loses two of them, then children are in grave danger.

      As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not. Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.

      This does not mean that everything sold has to be safe for children. Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things. The CPSC does not ban chainsaws because they cut or blowtorches because they burn. But it does ban toys when they tend to cause harm in totaly unexpected ways.

    10. Re:State gone Mad by RanCossack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is as bad as when Big Government sinisterly destroyed the hardworking Americans employed in the Asbestos industries. Damn that rascally "the State" and the institutions that strive to protect its citizens! The sooner we use these overzealous examples as an excuse to throw the whole thing out, the better we'll be.

      Unless history is any indication, I suppose, but hyperbole and false indignation is all that separates us from animals.

    11. Re:State gone Mad by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      The market this product as a toy for children.

      Wrong tense. They used to market this product as a toy for children. That recall you mentioned in your post? Guess what that was for: "The high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Ages 13+' and do not meet the mandatory toy standard ... which requires that such powerful magnets are not sold for children under 14." Oh, and the recall itself mentions that this was in the past: "Since March 2010, Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Keep Away From All Children' and are not being recalled."

    12. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these rules, and lawsuits, for Legos? Just as small. More prevelant. more pieces to "kill" the poor children.

    13. Re:State gone Mad by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      I've played with magnets since I was a small child and received a book at a book fair that contained one taped to the inside - in 1st grade. Over the years I collected quite a few of them and that includes a ton of these ball magnets that everyone is ranting about, I have about 100 of them hanging in my cube a foot from me now. Number of magnets ingested? ZERO

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    14. Re:State gone Mad by AttyBobDobalina · · Score: 1

      The point is that people kept doing stupid shit with the magnets despite having been extensively warned NOT to stupid shit. One quote states: "The warnings were not effective." So we should banning matches, because people still do stupid shit with matches. The legal question is whether these magnets are inherently dangerous. They clearly are not, imho. Dynamite, gasoline...these are examples of inherently dangerous products. But this company has small resources to fight the good fight, and more critically, no pro-magnet-toys lobby.

    15. Re:State gone Mad by Millennium · · Score: 2

      The problem is that they are a harmless-looking toy, but the only safe way to use them is to make sure no small children are present, take them out and play with them, then count them to make sure none have been lost, and lock them up. If someone loses two of them, then children are in grave danger.

      This is actually much easier than it sounds. Thanks to the design of the package, one need not even count them: just rebuild the standard 6x6x6 cube that the balls came packaged in. It's one of the simplest structures to make, takes no more than about thirty seconds, and will instantly tell you exactly how many are missing, if any are.

      As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not.

      No. However, whether or not there was a teenager with magnets, I would keep an eye on the kid, as is standard and reasonable parental responsibility.

      Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.

      And, as stated above, this wouldn't actually make a difference. When the kid starts to go for something, I'd look closer and, seeing an easily-ingested small shiny object, I'd take it away, not caring -or perhaps even knowing- that it was magnetic. Again, standard and reasonable parental responsibility.

    16. Re:State gone Mad by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where are these rules, and lawsuits, for Legos? Just as small. More prevelant. more pieces to "kill" the poor children.

      Your apparent (and probably typical) ignorance of the difference between a piece of plastic and a high-powered magnet demonstrates the exact reason that the government felt compelled to act in this case.

    17. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it takes a few hideous and painful deaths to get people to stop leaving potentially dangerous things around, and to teach their children not to eat random things, then it's a price well worth paying.

      Teach children not to eat random things? You can't teach a toddler that. Have you never seen one outside TV?

    18. Re:State gone Mad by SamuraiHoedown · · Score: 1

      Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things. The CPSC does not ban chainsaws because they cut or blowtorches because they burn. But it does ban toys when they tend to cause harm in totaly unexpected ways.

      Children do not immediately understand the capacity of these things to destroy. There are plenty of unfortunate accidents involving children and firearms. Responsible parents understand the capacity of these things to destroy and teach their children about them accordingly. The problem with rare earth magnets is some people fail to take heed to the hazard these can potentially cause despite multiple warnings on the packaging. If you can understand why a child shouldn't play with a firearm you should also be capable of understanding the warning label on that desk toy you just bought yourself. The warning label is there for a reason.

    19. Re:State gone Mad by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The state is mirroring the idiotic people who vote for them and pay their wages. The "Think of the children" crowd is the source of crap like this.

      I'm not saying this to excuse the government, just saying voting out the offending politicians/government agents is a bandaid solution. To really solve the problem, you need to educate the voters, the "Oh mi gawd, the government isn't protecting our children from every conceivable danger!" people that it's parents who must protect children from things like magnets. Until that happens, nonsense like this will always happen again and again.

    20. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that they are a harmless-looking toy, but the only safe way to use them is to make sure no small children are present, take them out and play with them, then count them to make sure none have been lost, and lock them up. If someone loses two of them, then children are in grave danger.

      Since I (i) keep my Bucky Balls sitting on my office desk and (ii) don't have any kids, I disagree with your assessment.

    21. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, we need a constitutional amendment for our right to bear magnets?

    22. Re:State gone Mad by Applekid · · Score: 1

      The point is that people kept doing stupid shit with the magnets despite having been extensively warned NOT to stupid shit.
      One quote states: "The warnings were not effective."
      So we should banning matches, because people still do stupid shit with matches.

      The legal question is whether these magnets are inherently dangerous. They clearly are not, imho. Dynamite, gasoline...these are examples of inherently dangerous products.

      But this company has small resources to fight the good fight, and more critically, no pro-magnet-toys lobby.

      I'm not in favor of a ban, but the obvious counter to that argument is that matches, dynamite, and gasoline have great value to society, so is worth the risk. Magnet executive toys are just, well, toys. The premise behind the ban is that the benefit of mere amusement isn't worth the risk.

      I'd much rather see charges levied against parents ignoring the warnings and allowing those delicious delicious spheres to be eaten.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    23. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is how they sell this product. The market this product as a toy for children

      Wow you personally try to murder children?!? No wonder you posted anon.!

      What kind of deranged horrible non-human being are you to take what is clearly labeled as not a toy, rip off the multiple warning labels, and personally sell them back to children?

      I hope the cops find you, lock you up, and toss away the key!

      After all, the bucky ball company DOES put on labels as you claim they don't. It must be you personally who removes them and feeds these things to children.

    24. Re:State gone Mad by Draknor · · Score: 1

      Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things.

      Apparently not, considering this 6 year old brought a LOADED GUN to kindergarten.

      I think the CPSC is over the line, here -- the product is properly labeled & marketed to adults, and it is the adult's responsibility to keep it away from children. Same as kitchen knives, loaded guns, batteries, etc.

      I know every time I'm with a young children (not even my own, which I don't have yet), I'm constantly watching to make sure what goes in their mouth isn't [too] dangerous. If other adults aren't doing the same, that's negligence.

    25. Re:State gone Mad by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is as bad as when Big Government sinisterly destroyed the hardworking Americans employed in the Asbestos industries.

      Yeah! Who cares that in one case you could be harmed just by being in the same room with the microscopic deadly terror and wouldn't know it was happening, and the other you have to actually decide to deliberately eat more than one of the macroscopic fiendish killers? Yeah! That makes no difference.

    26. Re:State gone Mad by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That's why you learn not to leave hazardous things lying around.

    27. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is parents marketing them to THEIR CHILDREN as toys.

    28. Re:State gone Mad by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Your apparent (and probably typical) ignorance of the difference between a piece of plastic and a high-powered magnet demonstrates the exact reason that the government felt compelled to act in this case.

      The sharp edge on one "just a piece of plastic" can perforate the stomach or intestines causing life threatening sepsis more easily than one tiny spherical magnet can. It takes two magnets in just the right spot to cause injury. Whose ignorance are you talking about?

    29. Re:State gone Mad by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not. Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.

      No, I'd expect the person who owns the (adult) toys to recognize the risk and say, "One second, I have to put these away." Just the same as with a chainsaw or blowtorch.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    30. Re:State gone Mad by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Gee! How could these incompetent government pencil pushers have overlooked all those Lego mutilations for over 60 years?

    31. Re:State gone Mad by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      Children do not immediately understand the capacity of these things to destroy. There are plenty of unfortunate accidents involving children and firearms.

      The accidents occur not because children do not know that guns kill, but because they incorrectly believe that they are capable of handling them safely.

      The problem with rare earth magnets is some people fail to take heed to the hazard these can potentially cause despite multiple warnings on the packaging. If you can understand why a child shouldn't play with a firearm you should also be capable of understanding the warning label on that desk toy you just bought yourself.

      You are right, the problem is that the warnings are not heeded. I do not agree with your assertion that the dangerousness of a firearm and small powerful magnets is equaly apparent. In one case if you recognize the object at all, you know that it is an engine of destruction. In another you know that it sticks to things.

      The point that there are warnings on the package is interesting. In theory this ought to be enough. But the value of such warnings has been greatly reduced because so many products come with long lists of warnings on the package which speak of the obvious or at least well known dangers. This means that in cases like this where there is a need to warn of a non-obvious danger, the message does not get through.

    32. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never been murdered therefore it's not a problem.

    33. Re:State gone Mad by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a non-parent. It's impossible to watch them 100% of the time. Especially if there's more than one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:State gone Mad by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I see you want to take a comment showing your ignorance of the potential for injury from a single ingested Lego and turn it into some magical support for banning Lego. Nice try.

      I suspect that Lego doesn't suffer the same fate because most adults would automatically know that they need to keep their kids from eating Legos, and they don't know they need to keep them from eating magnets. Or maybe it's because 4 year olds don't try using Legos as faux-piercings like 12 year olds do with magnets?

    35. Re:State gone Mad by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's just because Lego blocks aren't actually all that sharp and dangerous, and kids who swallow them don't generally end up in the emergency room.

    36. Re:State gone Mad by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      Guns, knives, fireworks, blowtorches, and chainsaws are dangerous by the very nature of what they are intended to do. Even small children immediately understand their capacity to destroy things.

      Apparently not, considering this 6 year old brought a LOADED GUN to kindergarten.

      He thought he could handle it. I am sure he knew it was a gun and what it was for.

      I think the CPSC is over the line, here -- the product is properly labeled & marketed to adults, and it is the adult's responsibility to keep it away from children. Same as kitchen knives, loaded guns, batteries, etc.

      I know every time I'm with a young children (not even my own, which I don't have yet), I'm constantly watching to make sure what goes in their mouth isn't [too] dangerous. If other adults aren't doing the same, that's negligence.

      I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the argument that they are not for children. I see no reason to prevent parts suppliers from selling powerful magnets. But I believe if they are sold as toys (even as toys for adults) many parents will through carelessness or ignorance give them to their children anyway. I am concerned that my child could find them on the floor at someone else's house and swallow them before I even saw them. Even the most vigilent parents are not able to entirely prevent their children from picking things up and putting them in their mouths.

    37. Re:State gone Mad by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not. Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.

      No, I'd expect the person who owns the (adult) toys to recognize the risk and say, "One second, I have to put these away." Just the same as with a chainsaw or blowtorch.

      And if he doesn't, a child is exposed to a risk which a reasonable parent would not recognize and guard against. That is presumably the argument for a ban. In law such an object is described as "unreasonably dangerous". This means that it is significatly more dangerous than other goods of similiar form and function. These magnets are significantly more dangerous than other magnets and other desk toys. They are significantly more dangerous than other objects which a young child might swallow.

      Under the "unreasably dangerous" principle, guns are ok becuase they are _supposed_ to kill. Frying pans with handles that fall off and rocking horses covered with lead paint are not. The only difference here is that there is no way to make this toy anywhere near as safe as it looks. But the fact that it can't be fixed does not make it non-defective.

       

    38. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have an iron will not to be lead into the temptation to swallow magnets. Keep those out of sight, lest the brass see them and call a copper. Don't give in, steel your resolve.

    39. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh lovely.

    40. Re:State gone Mad by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That, and they're not made by an American company, nor is USA their original or primary market.

    41. Re:State gone Mad by westlake · · Score: 1

      Oh, look, the State destroying a business and free choice in the first part of the summary and then the State enabling people to harass other people over imaginary property in the second.

      The geek's entire working life is defined by his ability to produce, secure and distribute intangible property.

      The median household income in the states is $52,000. USA Quick Facts His own expectations will be higher even at entry level.

      He'll retire to a world of direct deposit, EMRs and one-click shopping. None of which are possible in a world where intangible property has no legal protection.

    42. Re:State gone Mad by Millennium · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't say 100% of the time, though we are talking about babies and toddlers here, and they do require considerably more supervision than older children. If the kid's in an environment with things he's not ready to handle -say, small shiny objects- then you watch, or else you don't bring him into that environment. This is what it means to have a kid.

    43. Re:State gone Mad by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      But I believe if they are sold as toys (even as toys for adults) many parents will through carelessness or ignorance give them to their children anyway.

      Then you prosecute the parents for child endangerment/neglect/etc, you don't try to child-proof the entire planet.

      I am concerned that my child could find them on the floor at someone else's house and swallow them before I even saw them.

      Then maybe you should get to know this "someone else" first, before you allow your child free rein to wander around in an environment controlled by somebody else that you don't know well enough to know whether their home is kept safe for children.

      Even the most vigilent parents are not able to entirely prevent their children from picking things up and putting them in their mouths.

      This is true. However, that does not mean trying to child-proof the world is a good or even effective strategy, unless of course your goal is a future like the one depicted in the movie "Idiocracy". I'm sorry, but not every child born is smart enough to survive long term and will self-select themselves for removal from the gene pool.

      Perhaps you'd be for the formation of official government-run creches to raise children, like the Clans from the BattleTech/Mechwarrior fictional universe? Then you wouldn't be burdened with worrying about the mouth-breathing fruit of your loins playing in traffic or swallowing razor blades while you play WoW and comment on /.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    44. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem like a well informed adult on how magnets work.

      Pity the parents of the affected child was not.

      Silly putty has been around forever, and there is high risk of children choking on and dying on this.

      If a child ingests baby oil (you know, something -made- for babies) they risk vomiting and choking and death.

      Parents, frankly, as a whole, don't spend the time needed to keep an eye on their children. Granted, exploring is needed for children, but so is direction from the parents on what is or is not good to be around.

      I lived on a farm. We had poisons... everywhere. We had sharp things... everywhere. We had electric guidelines and various dangerous 'this will shock you to death' outlits... everywhere.

      Funny enough, I am still alive, and I never got involved with any of that. Why? Because my parents spent the time to both allow me to explore and actually, you know, parented me on what is or isn't appropriate.

      If other parents actually tried parenting instead of pointing a finger and blaming their own lazy actions on someone else, imagine how better the world would be.

    45. Re:State gone Mad by PoopMonkey · · Score: 1

      I would hope that by age 13, parents would have instructed their children to have a bit more sense than that. That's fucking middle school.

    46. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had electric guidelines and various dangerous 'this will shock you to death' outlits... everywhere.

      And I still peed on the electric fence. Once.

    47. Re:State gone Mad by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      The problem with Lego an all similar construction toys with small kids is fixed by having a line of toys catering to young kids, with pieces with a size large enough that not even an adult could swallow.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    48. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's just because Lego blocks aren't actually all that sharp and dangerous, and kids who swallow them don't generally end up in the emergency room.

      You have obviously not stepped on one. Those corners are plenty sharp.

      That said this is a stupid banning. These are _adult_ toys and should be kept out of reach.

    49. Re:State gone Mad by makomk · · Score: 1

      More than that, it's impossible to come up with a warning that convinces people that these toys genuinely are dangerous. On every post about this on /. and Hacker News, there have been apparently-bright people who obviously don't seem to grasp how much more hazardous these are than other swallowed objecs, even after reading all the warning labels and the explanation of why they're particularly dangerous and knowing they resulted in a number of kids having to get surgery to remove them.

    50. Re:State gone Mad by travisbean · · Score: 1

      Because my kid can eat two legos, have miserable time "passing" them, but most likely avoid surgery.

    51. Re:State gone Mad by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      That's a far better reason than what you gave before. I still don't agree with it, but I can see the point.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    52. Re:State gone Mad by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You sound like my wife. She "watches" the children by playing Sims 3 on the couch while the children are outside playing. I've stopped more than one case of harm by paying attention, usually while she was "watching" them and didn't even notice me step in and catch a falling child or stop one that was otherwise facing imminent harm.

    53. Re:State gone Mad by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Trampolines have killed many more than magnets, but people still dismiss the warnings on them as overstated because the dangers should be obvious and they had them growing up. The problems with warnings is that they don't have a probability. Yes, I know my pencil can put my eye out, but in the past 10 years, how many people have accidentally fallen with a pencil in their hands and put their eye out? Including malicious intent, how many pencil inguries were sustained in the past 10 years?

    54. Re:State gone Mad by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      However, that does not mean trying to child-proof the world is a good or even effective strategy, unless of course your goal is a future like the one depicted in the movie "Idiocracy".

      A common confectionary decoration are the little silver balls that look a lot like buckyballs. Even if your children know nothing goes in their mouthes but food, they may still not understand the difference between a toy and candy when they are designed (unintentionally I hope) to look the same.

    55. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what it means to have a kid.

      We should also ban all OTC meds. I mean think of the children. If they take too much acetaminophen (insert almost any OTC meds) they could die. Wait, what about prescription meds? Those are evil. Sometimes my oxy makes me hallucinate and it only has one warning on the bottle. Imagine if my two year old got hold of some of my oxy pills. Besides me being out of my "meds" (I need them damn it) he could die. We should ban those too. Think of the children.

      Or... I could just put them up high and out of reach; maybe even a child-proof bottle in a locked cabinet. If I read the warning label and understand that it could be deadly I would take steps to protect my own children. Maybe try being an actual parent. Actually THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A KID!

    56. Re:State gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your apparent (and probably typical) ignorance of the difference between a piece of plastic and a high-powered magnet demonstrates the exact reason that the government felt compelled to act in this case.

      What is the difference in this and most prescription pain meds? They can both be deadly if swallowed. The government decided (with rich pharma and their lobbyist) that a child-proof container with a warning or two would suffice.

      I don't buy the people don't understand what a high-powered magnet is argument. This is about not having enough money to "influence" the right people.

  7. Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by quietwalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So if you want rare earth magnets before they're officially banned, get them from zenmagnets.com. Cheaper and higher quality. Also, they're not jerks like the buckyballs guys are.

    Fun video here comparing the two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Tka4NUmUo

    I know it looks like an advertisement posting, but as someone who owns a crudload of rare earth magnets, zenmagnets seem to me to be the best. I keep a mandala set on my desk at work for downtimes, and I have a manager who keeps trying to make the perfect soccer ball when I'm not looking.

    - and if you get the colored ones, just beware - the color tends to come off very easily if you're rough at all with them. You've been warned.

    1. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder if China would also limit their export of rare earth magnets products like this too.

    2. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your manager and if she's female might be interested in marriage. Please forward my compliments.

    3. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they're not jerks like the buckyballs guys are.

      In what way are they jerks? They seem a little peeved at the CPSC but I would be too. Also note that the CPSC has targeted Zen Magnets as well: Zen Magnets was the first company to receive an administrative complaint from the Consumer Product Safety Commission without a record of injuries.

    4. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try watching the video.

    5. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen Zenmagnets cheaper then buckyballs.

    6. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      I agree that we need to have some more personal responsibility. Comparisons to Jarts isn't fair. Those are meant to be thrown into the air in a yard, with people in it. Not doing the action the Jart was designed for properly could cause serious harm. i.e. A mistake or poor form in the intended execution of a Jart throw could seriously injure someone. This isn't the same. I think making sure kids weren't buying them would probably be sufficient.

      Those disclaimers aside, if you have rare earths at home, please keep them away from young children. It's not something that's silly and passes in a few days. Many children have had severe damage to their stomachs and intestines as a result of eating these.

    7. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I (and many other from outside USA) made an order during while they were offering discounts, we got an email a few days after telling us the that they were out of stock, and could not fullfill the order.

      It was an obvious lie, as they were selling the same goods on the website, and USA customer got their order.

      Very unprofessional.

    8. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I played Jarts growing up. The hole in my arm doesn't cause me any problems at all.

    9. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I take it you didn't watch the video which included correspondence between zen magnets and buckyballs? The relevant part as to why they're jerks is in the first few minutes...

    10. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did I. I managed to swallow three before the government finally came to its senses and banned them.

    11. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Watch the video that GP linked to. The CEO sounds like a complete douche.

    12. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way are they jerks?

      Threatening lawsuits against Zen for having the temerity to also sell magnets that happen to be spherical.

    13. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point about them being jerks has more to do with their interactions with zenmagnets, as described in that video.

    14. Re:Zenmagnets has cheaper, better magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they seemed like jerks to me when they decided to post on their website that "Obama's hand-picked" administrator of the CPSC was shutting them down a while back. Implying that the president has it in for you is kind of a dick move (and totally self-aggrandizing to boot!).

  8. See by Entropy98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Regulations work! If it wasn't for these bureaucrats we'd all be dead from lead poisoning, asbestos, and big gulps. Thankfully these unnamed heroes from the government are here to save us from ourselves.

    1. Re:See by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Lead and Asbestos regulations were needed. Those are things that still threaten lives, since the Chinese seem to love to add lead to everything.

      These magnets should be regulated to be sold only to those over 18. Like many other potentially dangerous products.

    2. Re:See by RobinH · · Score: 1

      While I disagree with the ban, your logic doesn't make sense. Toddlers aren't running into Walmart and buying these, and I don't think anyone's worried about 12-year-olds ingesting them. Limiting it to 18 would do nothing.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:See by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually 12 year olds are a decent size group that is eating these. They use them to simulate tongue, cheek and labret piercings.

      Limiting it to 18 plus might stop some of those idiot preteens. It would also make it more clear that these products have some level of danger involved.
       

    4. Re:See by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      These magnets should be regulated to be sold only to those over 18. Like many other potentially dangerous products.

      Like candy bars, or batteries?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:See by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like spray paint, glues, industrial solvents, and heavy metals.

    6. Re:See by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

      If you're 12 and eating these, I consider that natural selection that's good for the gene pool.

    7. Re:See by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like spray paint, glues, industrial solvents, and heavy metals.

      You just HAD to include loud rock&roll bands there, eh?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    8. Re:See by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They use them to simulate piercings then accidentally swallow them.

      I blame the parents and the 12 year olds for misusing this product.

    9. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Actually 12 year olds are a decent size group that is eating these. They use them to simulate tongue, cheek and labret piercings.

      Or, you could just put the blame where it lies. Parents who don't teach their children the dangers of incredibly strong magnets before giving it to them as a toy.

      If you take your kid hunting, and don't teach them proper gun safety, it's not the fault of the guns when an accident happens. It's the same issue here. Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes? What's next? People blaming mcdonalds that their super-sized fries are making them fat? Oh, wait...

    10. Re:See by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how you are disagreeing with me.

      I merely stated like hunting and guns, don't let unsupervised kids do it.

    11. Re:See by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes?

      Because they don't.

      They never have, and they never will. No matter how much naive libertarians wish for it.

    12. Re:See by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Regs against lead in paint and gasoline and regs against asbestos aren't protecting us from ourselves, they're protecting us from sociopaths who don't care that their product is deadly. They're not saving us from ourselves, they're saving us from predatory capitalists.

    13. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes?

      Because they don't.

      They never have, and they never will. No matter how much naive libertarians wish for it.

      It's not naivete. We don't think they will. We just want them to pay the consequences for not doing so, instead of making the rest of us pay.

      If give a bunch of supermagnets to your kids, don't supervise them, don't teach them about the dangers, and then they swallow a couple and die...congratulations: You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?

    14. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how you are disagreeing with me.

      I merely stated like hunting and guns, don't let unsupervised kids do it.

      I guess I was really responding the the "limiting it to 18" part of your post. I don't see why we need to regulate the age at all. Just clearly label the dangers and let the parents figure it out.

    15. Re:See by tofubeer · · Score: 1

      I think that is called natural selection.

    16. Re:See by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      OK, I see.

      1. Kid injured or killed.

      2. Hopefully, parents feel bad.

      3. Problem solved.

    17. Re:See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually 12 year olds are a decent size group that is eating these. They use them to simulate tongue, cheek and labret piercings.

      Limiting it to 18 plus might stop some of those idiot preteens. It would also make it more clear that these products have some level of danger involved.

      And they simulate it because it's illegal for 12 year olds to get the piercings they want.

      Good intentions, meet unintentional side effects.

    18. Re:See by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They use them to simulate piercings then accidentally swallow them.

      Two actions, neither of which is particularly intelligent.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:See by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If the age limit is already 14 (which it is according to the signs I've seen), and the trouble cases are 12-year-olds, then the age limit is being ignored. Therefore setting it to 18 will make little difference.

      The warning signs already make it clear that these products have some level of danger.

      There's no reason for any action by anyone, this is the government interfering with honest trade.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:See by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      And I used to use rubbing alcohol to create interesting fires when I was 12.

      It was dangerous, stupid and I could have died.

      Should we ban rubbing alcohol next?

    21. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      OK, I see.

      1. Kid injured or killed.

      2. Hopefully, parents feel bad.

      3. Problem solved.

      The parent feeling bad or not is none of my concern. The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets. The problem was that the parents were irresponsible. You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.

      If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence. I personally think getting your kid hurt is enough of a punishment, but if you insist something more needs to be done, at least aim it in the right direction.

    22. Re:See by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets.

      No, this is exactly the problem. This is the outcome that needs to be avoided.

      You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.

      Irrelevant. Instead, the whole above stated problem is avoided by banning the magnets.

      If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence.

      But the parents aren't the only one responsible. The manufacturers of these dangerous toys share in the liability. They would need to be arrested, too. However, it's probably safe to assume that they'd rather just close that particular line of business than rot in prison.

    23. Re:See by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      As opposed to:

      1. Kid injured or killed
      2. Ban the product that did the killing
      3. Parent learns that its not their responsibility to look after their kids - that's what the government is for
      4. Kid #2 dies choking on a lego, which the parents lobby to get banned because, hey, it's not their job to look after their kids.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    24. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets.

      No, this is exactly the problem. This is the outcome that needs to be avoided.

      You're being short-sighted. There are hundreds of things that can kill a child. If the parents aren't willing to take responsibility for the safety of their children, even if I thought it was the government's job to try to do it for them (which I don't), it can't be done. If it's not magnetic balls the kids are swallowing, it'll be the drano the parents left opened after they used it under the sink where the kids could get to it.

      You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.

      Irrelevant. Instead, the whole above stated problem is avoided by banning the magnets.

      No, it is not, as I've stated above. Irresponsible parents will still allow their children to come to danger. We should not be trying to remove all danger from the world. It's not feasible, and it results in the erosion of the freedoms that responsible people deserve.

      If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence.

      But the parents aren't the only one responsible. The manufacturers of these dangerous toys share in the liability. They would need to be arrested, too. However, it's probably safe to assume that they'd rather just close that particular line of business than rot in prison.

      The parents are the only ones responsible. You can have the government request a warning about the dangers of the magnets be placed on the box. You can have the government force them to slap a 14+ label on it. That's the only burden that can be placed on the company. The products are not defective, nor are they dangerous when used responsibly. If the parents hand them to kids that are too young, or fail to talk to their kids about the dangers, there is not a single other person that is responsible. And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise, so if you don't see that, we have to just agree to disagree, because we have fundamentally different beliefs about the nature of personal freedom and accompanying responsibility, and we're not going to agree with one another.

    25. Re:See by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise,

      That's because you seem to be a good example of a naive libertarian. If only everybody could see the world in your same neat and tidy little way, all of our problems would be solved.

      Well, real life is more complicated than that. Most people realize this, and that's why libertarian politicians routinely receive at most low single-digit vote counts decade after decade.

    26. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise,

      That's because you seem to be a good example of a naive libertarian. If only everybody could see the world in your same neat and tidy little way, all of our problems would be solved.

      Well, real life is more complicated than that. Most people realize this, and that's why libertarian politicians routinely receive at most low single-digit vote counts decade after decade.

      My hat's off to you, sir. I didn't realize you were trolling right up until now, when, faced with my giving up on the conversation, you went back to the original statement that set me off, in an attempt to keep going.

      Good job.

    27. Re:See by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Not trolling. You just seemed to dumbfounded that anybody could possibly disagree with you, so I reiterated the reason why.

    28. Re:See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a parent - fuck you.

      If parents had any way to control the things their kids are exposed to - at preschool, at school, with their friends - then you'd have a point. But parents who try to do that are seen, understandably, as jerkoff paranoid control freaks.

      You want to play with your toys, fine. But they're dangerous. If they should happen to find their way into my kid's dead body, I want to know there's a way of tracking down the owner who criminally failed to safeguard them properly, and buggering him (or her) to death with a rusty saw.

      That means they need to be licensed, and if you can't account for all the magnets licensed to you at any given time, every parent in your neighborhood has the right to kick you in the balls once a day, each, until you produce it.

      Fair trade, mister libertarian?

    29. Re:See by spongman · · Score: 1

      yeah, otherwise we'd all be overweight and up to our ears in debt!

    30. Re:See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in many cases these are not being given to someone's kids. Instead they are just sitting on a desk because they are made to be displayed. That is the difference between this and the comparisons being made to "jarts" and a kitchen knife. These are made to sit out in a spot that is easily accessible to children, it is part of their purpose.
      Given how few have ever been sold and how many hospital visits they have caused this who thing seems justified to me.

    31. Re:See by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You're being short-sighted. There are hundreds of things that can kill a child.

      I guess I'm not getting it. The "liberal" fix is to ban the company from selling them. The libertarian "fix" is to blame the parents. But that doesn't address the dead kid, or the parents 11 other children. So what's the libertarian "fix". What would the libertarian do that would prevent dead children, or is this a eugenics thing?

    32. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      What would the libertarian do that would prevent dead children, or is this a eugenics thing?

      It's not an eugenics thing. Nobody wants the children to die. My position is that since it's completely unreasonable for us to take over the job of parents and to place all children inside a protective bubble. Children will die. It sucks, but it will happen. It will still happen if we ban the magnet balls, because you can't protect them from all risks. In fact, it will happen to children of responsible parents, because they can't watch them 100% of the time, and sometimes people just get unlucky. Either they have the magic combination of responsible parents and luck, or they don't.

      I'm not saying there should be no regulation of anything. If you have a toy that is dangerous for children, of course you shouldn't market it to children, and of course the government should enforce that. But the moment you have something that is not dangerous for the age it is intended and marketed to, you've done all you can.

    33. Re:See by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My position is that since it's completely unreasonable for us to take over the job of parents and to place all children inside a protective bubble.

      That's not an answer to "what do we do" but instead an apology without a position. You position is that children of bad parents get what they deserve, and we have no responsibility to look after those who can't look after themselves. Might as well start letting people sell themselves back into slavery and bring back the workhouses.

      I'd argue that even you think your position is unreasonable, otherwise you'd state it and stand by it, rather than dancing around what it is you'd "do" and apologize for your position without stating it.

    34. Re:See by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      That's not an answer to "what do we do" but instead an apology without a position.

      No, my position is very clearly a "we do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

      You position is that children of bad parents get what they deserve

      I'm not saying they get what they deserve. I'm saying the world isn't fair. People who don't deserve bad things happen to them will get fucked. Great people who deserve success don't achieve it. That's not something that NEEDS solving anymore than gravity needs solving. It's a fact of life. If you don't understand this, I feel sorry for you. You're not equipped to live in this world, and will end up suffering a whole lot as you witness bad things happen that you can't do anything about.

      I'd argue that even you think your position is unreasonable, otherwise you'd state it and stand by it, rather than dancing around what it is you'd "do" and apologize for your position without stating it.

      I don't apologize for my position. I state that trying to solve a problem without a solution doesn't solve the problem, and makes the situation worse. Banning magnetic marbles doesn't save children and takes freedom away. Learn to live with the fact that the world is imperfect, innocent people suffer and die, accept it, and move on. Don't add to the problems in a futile attempt to fix unsolvable issues and then proceed to ironically call those who have a realistic view about the world unreasonable and naive.

    35. Re:See by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I state that trying to solve a problem without a solution doesn't solve the problem, and makes the situation worse.

      What proof do you have that there is no solution? And how does the "problem" of dead children, fixed with regulation, make the "situation" worse? You have an opinion that you value your freedom more than the lives of strangers, but you are mixing fact with opinion, and passing your opinion as fact. The fact is that most people would not value your convenience over the lives of others.

  9. Protecting the children. by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    magnets.. bad.

    Guns, assault rifles, knives, mace spray, tazers, baseball bats, and realistic 3rd person shooters... good.

    Glad you guys have got your retail priorities straight and are protecting your kids so well.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    1. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      magnets.. bad.

      Guns, assault rifles, knives, mace spray, tazers, baseball bats, and realistic 3rd person shooters... good.

      Glad you guys have got your retail priorities straight and are protecting your kids so well.

      One actually is marketed as a toy, the others are not. But your apples to oranges comparisons really make for high discourse here on Government-is-bad-dot.

    2. Re:Protecting the children. by Enry · · Score: 1

      Magnets aren't in the constitution.

    3. Re:Protecting the children. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Kinder eggs. Maybe we can get Colorado and Washington to legalize these too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Protecting the children. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Foods with high-fructose corn syrup, too much sodium, too much fat and too many chemicals.... good.

    5. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both guns and buckyballs are marketed as "toys" in the sense that buckyballs are marketed as being fun to play with and XYZ Rifles are good for shooting (animals, targets, etc.) for fun.

      Neither buckyballs or guns are marketed to kids.

    6. Re:Protecting the children. by Baloroth · · Score: 0

      Guns, assault rifles, knives, mace spray, tazers, baseball bats, and realistic 3rd person shooters... good.

      I'm thinking one or two of these things are not quite like the others (hint: it's the last things on your list, seriously how is a wooden stick even close to the same as a gun?). However, there is a radical difference between a gun, which is not marketed as a toy, and a magnet set, which is. Like the difference between a toy oven and a real one: the former is subject to regulation about temperature and ability to touch the heating element, because it is likely to be used by a child, while the latter is not, because children are rarely bought full-size ovens for their 8th birthday.

      And the fact that you can't make that distinction is part of the problem in the first place.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both guns and buckyballs are marketed as "toys" in the sense that buckyballs are marketed as being fun to play with and XYZ Rifles are good for shooting (animals, targets, etc.) for fun.

      Neither buckyballs or guns are marketed to kids.

      Except for BB guns which is (not coincidentally) the last time this agency filed a suit.

    8. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet your kids are forced to eat with their hands. How do you keep them away from electricity? Your obituary writes itself: stabbed to death with crayolas.

    9. Re:Protecting the children. by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      Magnets aren't in the constitution.

      :grins:

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    10. Re:Protecting the children. by pla · · Score: 1

      One actually is marketed as a toy, the others are not.

      Let's see... Guns - Sporting equipment (so toy-like). Knives - Standard issue Boy Scout tool. Mace - Not toy. Tazers - Not toy. Baseball bats - Sporting equipment (so toy-like). FPS games - Definite toy.

      Buckballs - Have "Not a toy" / "Not for kids" printed in no fewer than four places on the packaging.

      But I do have one more for you: Dildos - Toy. Does that have any bearing on whether or not you'd give one to your apparently-retarded kids?


      So... Sorry, but can you explain the distinction again?


      Oh, and just to inject some actual facts into this discussion - Toddlers do not eat these. Tweens do, trying to look cool with a fake tongue piercing. And no one has actually died from them.

    11. Re:Protecting the children. by guspasho · · Score: 0

      Nobody markets guns to kids, you asshole. Did you get your 5-year-old a murder weapon for Christmas last year?

    12. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I do have one more for you: Dildos - Toy.

      And I'll bet they're a hell of a lot safer for kids than Buckyballs. Look it up.

      Does that have any bearing on whether or not you'd give one to your apparently-retarded kids?

      No, but using phrases like "your apparently-retarded kids" does tell me what level of discourse is available here.

    13. Re:Protecting the children. by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      However, there is a radical difference between a gun, which is not marketed as a toy, and a magnet set

      Weapons are not marketed to kids as toys? I guess you have not watched much TV aimed at small boys. Or does GI Joe battle his enemies with fluff and sweeties and puppies on your TV?

      The promotion of weapons and the use of force to impose your 'truth' on others is constantly marketed to young males, especially in America. The use of love, attraction and magnets less so.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    14. Re:Protecting the children. by pla · · Score: 1

      And I'll bet they're a hell of a lot safer for kids than Buckyballs. Look it up.

      Dildo related fatalities - Greater than zero.
      Buckyball fatalities - Zero.

      You lose that bet.


      No, but using phrases like "your apparently-retarded kids" does tell me what level of discourse is available here.

      Hmm, survey SAYS - A step up from "dead toddlers", when not a single toddler (or stupid tween, or even stupid adult) has died from them?

    15. Re:Protecting the children. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The Daisy red rider is not marketed to children?

      No one said anything about murder weapons, but BB guns and .22 caliber rifles are popular Christmas gifts for 6-12 year olds.

    16. Re:Protecting the children. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1
      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    17. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberal idiot. I can shoot magnets at my government when they want to abuse the constitution and unlawfully arrest me. Even slingshots are illegal in many states (typically liberal leaning idiotic ones - MA is one of them).

      Fortunately our constitution says that I can have a gun for protection. And even though many states make it painfully hard to get one, I can play along for now and buy one.

      Protecting myself is higher on my priority than magnets.

      And, BTW, giving kids a pocket knife so they can learn how to use it as a tool is a good thing, at least it used to be until liberals started taking over.

    18. Re:Protecting the children. by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      magnets.. bad.

      Guns, assault rifles, knives, mace spray, tazers, baseball bats, and realistic 3rd person shooters... good.

      Glad you guys have got your retail priorities straight and are protecting your kids so well.

      The difference is that most of the things you name are obviously dangerous. A coffee-table toy is not. They are also easy to lock up. A toy consisting of tens of tiny pieces (with any two sufficient to cause severe injury) is not.

    19. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you guys have got your retail priorities straight and are protecting your kids so well.

      If you love your kids, why are you subjecting them to *this* place. I mean, look at the mortality rate. The air pollution. There are terrorists, lions, cars and aspirated jelly beans.

      Honestly, anyone that brings a kid into this world needs to be duck-marched to the nearest super-max prison for aggravated child abuse.

    20. Re:Protecting the children. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      This toy is very easy to lock up and building the cube they come in is a simple way to clean them up.

    21. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then the solution is obviously to make a gun that uses buckyballs/neodymium magnets...

    22. Re:Protecting the children. by Azure+Flash · · Score: 0

      Well, they should be, along with lasers!

    23. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnets aren't in the constitution.

      Is my gauss gun included in my right to bear arms?

    24. Re:Protecting the children. by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      This toy is very easy to lock up and building the cube they come in is a simple way to clean them up.

      Interesting, didn't know that. I had incorrectly assumed that it was like with legos: you put them in a box when you are done with them.

    25. Re:Protecting the children. by dissy · · Score: 1

      Nobody markets guns to kids, you asshole.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=toy+gun

      About 26,900,000 results (0.41 seconds)

    26. Re:Protecting the children. by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

      The promotion of weapons is not the promotion of weapons AS TOYS, though I'd see why they would fail to think and... think a gun is a toy. Unless you mean those silly toy guns that.. ARE TOYS and not machines designed to injure (often fatally).

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    27. Re:Protecting the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex bad, too. Really bad.

    28. Re:Protecting the children. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Guns, assault rifles, knives, mace spray, tazers, baseball bats, and realistic 3rd person shooters

      One of these things is not like the other. Unless wherever you are puts their games in heavily reinforced boxes.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    29. Re:Protecting the children. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So if they sold them as devices to cause a horrible murder (just administer two, 30 minutes to 2 hours apart and you have a near 100% chance of causing a horrible death, without medical intervention), then they would be fine? And you think that logic is more sound than the OP?

    30. Re:Protecting the children. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If I had a gun in the house and didn't lock it in a gun safe next to the bed, I'd likely keep it where I currently keep my Zen magnets. They are high enough up that the kids on a chair can't reach them, and they are high enough and far enough back as to not be a visible attraction.

    31. Re:Protecting the children. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I haven't been there in a while, but I recall the firearms section in the Midtown Wal-Mart in Anchorage is near the back, on the isle with bicycles and bordering the children's toy section. And the toy section is full of guns as well.

  10. Your Freedom and Rights don't matter when... by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we have to protect another child on behalf of the parents not capable of using good common sense.

    We need to stop making scissors of all kinds, stop the production of any toys that a small child might play with but not marketed to them, and even take kids balls away because someone might get hurt.

    Stupid people doing stupid things... being going on for millenia, and every effort to stop them has failed.

    1. Re:Your Freedom and Rights don't matter when... by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      Well said! You, sir, are welcome to play goalie in my Jarts tournament any day!

    2. Re:Your Freedom and Rights don't matter when... by marklark · · Score: 1

      Do you not believe that natural selection is a good thing? ;^)

    3. Re:Your Freedom and Rights don't matter when... by zaanan · · Score: 1

      take kids balls away because someone might get hurt

      Sterilizing them seems pretty extreme...

    4. Re:Your Freedom and Rights don't matter when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll, STFU, you already spent that nickel

  11. There's no hope for us...really none by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all in the article:

    ""CPSC stands behind the case at this time," commission spokesman Scott Wolfson said Friday. "We continue to allege and believe that Buckyballs and Buckycubes are dangerous and defective for young children as well as teenagers."

    Internet videos direct older children and teenagers how to use the toys to mimic tongue or cheek piercings, he said, and some have ended up ingesting them...

    At the time the suit was filed, Maxfield and Oberton spokesman Andrew Frank said the company would "fight this vigorously," noting that while "some people have misused the product," the toys were marketed to those aged 14 and up, and carried warning labels.

    Darwin award time, then. I cannot believe we pay taxes to pay people who then spend even more of our money on this kind of arrant waste and stupidity.

    1. Re:There's no hope for us...really none by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      There's videos directed at depressed children how to use a gun to blow their brains out.

      I don't see guns banned yet.

      GET ON IT CPSC! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Ban something that has actually resulted in child death and not just a few hospital visits country wide that can be counted on one hand.

      PS. No I am not serious about banning guns, but our priorities are all wrong if we allow guns to exist near children and not goddamn magnets.

  12. Zen Magnets by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Zen Magnets hasn't yet caved to the CPSC.

    1. Re:Zen Magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zen Magnets hasn't yet caved to the CPSC.

      They'll be next on the chopping block, though. Don't think they're safe.

    2. Re:Zen Magnets by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      That might have something to do with the fact that they haven't been targeted by the CPSC at all since they were a marginal player in the market compared to Buckyballs. Now that Buckyballs is going down, if Zen rises to fill that void, you can bet that the CPSC will go after them as well.

    3. Re:Zen Magnets by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      ANNNNNNND...I'm an idiot. Sometimes I wish there was a simple button you could press on your old posts to color them differently or somehow indicate that you no longer stand by what you said.

    4. Re:Zen Magnets by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes they have:

      Zen Magnets was the first company to receive an administrative complaint from the Consumer Product Safety Commission without a record of injuries, as the company has had no ingestions of its products, said founder Shihan Qu.

    5. Re:Zen Magnets by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yep, I know. I already retracted what I said. Unfortunately, it doesn't show up in the original comment. :-/

    6. Re:Zen Magnets by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's a really good idea. You should submit it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Zen Magnets by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      I think Zen Magnets (and most of the others) only have silver colored ones. Buckyballs come in many different colors.

      And, who doesn't want to have a nice set of blue balls to play with?

    8. Re:Zen Magnets by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Slashdot should simply allow editing but let anyone read the diff history, like a Wiki. Of course, that would require touching Slashcode, and nobody wants to do that.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    9. Re:Zen Magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy them in bulk from China:

      http://www.extramagnet.com/

    10. Re:Zen Magnets by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      I think Zen Magnets (and most of the others) only have silver colored ones. Buckyballs come in many different colors

      My understanding is that it's because the colored coatings are pretty much crap for longevity - the metal + dye combination leaves the coating brittle and it comes off too easily. (I own 6 different colors of BuckyBalls, and can totally believe these claims - the colored ones I have lost their coating faster than the plain ones.) Zen Magnets haven't wanted to sacrifice their quality just to put out more colors.

    11. Re:Zen Magnets by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://zenmagnets.com/index.php?p=1_18_CPSC_Press_Release

      Just because someone might want to find out why you changed your mind. I ordered my Zens when the first action started against buckyball so I wouldn't have to fight the rush later.

  13. R. Buckminster Fuller approves! by boneglorious · · Score: 1

    The estate's claim that the use of the name infringes on their rights (which is a patently ridiculous claim, in my view) is apparently quite consistent with R. Buckminster Fuller's views --- supposedly he would claim credit to his student's work but saw himself as simply protecting his own intellectual property by so doing.

    --
    Can I mod something +1 Scary if it's true but I wish it weren't?
    1. Re:R. Buckminster Fuller approves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell can he or his estate claim rights to "bucky" on anything? It's not even his name, fer chrissakes. That's "Buckminster"

      Not to mention that "buckyball" started as just a slang term for Buckminsterfullerene, which is a scientific name that by all rights belongs to the public along with Einsteinium etc. It was discovered, not invented - so the fact that C60 exists naturally in soot should serve as prior art that Buckminster Fuller had exactly zilch to do with its creation. His estate should be happy that they even bothered to name it after him.

      I swear, is there no end to greed in this world?

  14. Kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shoot ahh well I have nothing to do i going for a smoke outside at least that does not kill many people like buckyballs.

  15. SOSHALISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened because we have a Kenyan born soshalist in the White House. Don't blame me, I voted for Ronmey!

    1. Re:SOSHALISM by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) was signed into law by Nixon. Blame him.

    2. Re:SOSHALISM by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) was signed into law by Nixon. Blame him.

      So was the EPA. Nixon is the real filthy communist.

    3. Re:SOSHALISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for Ronmey!

      Ha ha! I voted for Gary Johnson. Guess what? (Romney voters + Johnson voters + Ron Paul write ins) > Obama voters. Your guy lost because of the pro-freedom people.

      And yes, Mr. Fake Conservative Republican, I DO feel good about that!

    4. Re:SOSHALISM by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He also opened trade with communist China.

  16. Info about zenmagnets fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Info about zenmagnets fight by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      http://www.zenmagnets.com/index.php?p=1_20_November_Update

      Great, extremely informative link, thank you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  17. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of things are dangerous for children for swallow. There are entire bottles of cleaners and chemicals under my sink and in my garage that are dangerous for children to swallow.

    Should we ban bottles of cleaning chemicals because mom or dad might leave them out somewhere kids can get a hold of them?

    Put a warning/hazard label on them, but leave parents to be the ones responsible for their children's environment.

    1. Re:I don't get it by RobinH · · Score: 1

      I agree, but the difference is that these are marketed as a toy. The gov't isn't going to allow the seller to label it as "age 12 and up" and let that be the end of it.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Should we ban bottles of cleaning chemicals because mom or dad might leave them out somewhere kids can get a hold of them?"

      There is a push to get rid of the stronger chemicals in things like drain cleaners. It is becoming harder to find ones that have the actual bits to do the work (lye or strong acid).

      And stupidity reins. This is how the Roman Empire fell.

    3. Re:I don't get it by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. They're not actually marketed as toys.

  18. Go for the Zen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ok, I use zen magnets. ...Well, that was until I read the article :(

    Eleven of 13 manufacturers agreed to stop making, importing and selling the toys. Maxfield and Oberton and a Colorado company called Zen Magnets did not, and the commission filed suit against them, Wolfson said. Both suits continue.

    Zen Magnets is the last standing company selling these things in the USA. Please help them: http://www.zenmagnets.com/index.php?p=1_20_November_Update

  19. Hey Entrepreneurs! by JWW · · Score: 5, Funny

    Still interested in starting a small business in the US?

    Didn't think so....

    Starting a small business in the US today is less like reaching for your dreams and more like Running Man where you get a 30 minute head start before the death lawyers start chasing you...

    1. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by BLKMGK · · Score: 2

      Wow I wish I hadn't posted so I could mod this - VERY good point!

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Taking a look around today, there seems to be an awful lot of businesses laying people off after the Obama victory. Well you get the government you deserve. So, enjoy the new America I guess. Even worse than the previous one.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Taking a look around today, there seems to be an awful lot of businesses laying people off after the Obama victory.

      Obama would be president today - and for the next two months - even if Mitt Romney had won. So anyone laying off people today is doing it just to make a political statement, not because anything has actually changed.

    4. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? Now that businesses know for sure what's happening they're reacting to it. I'm guessing that the serious losses from the stock market is just a "political statement" as well, and the dumping from the derivatives market too. Never mind that there was a mass filing of over 1300 of 50+ or more job layoffs last month alone, totaling 130k+

      Yep all political statements. Especially when team obama has come out saying we're gonna start taxing even more. Weak economy, and we're gonna raise taxes!

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, big business still ruins lives with impunity. Indeed, get laws passed making it easier to ruin lives.

    6. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      That could also be explained by the looming fiscal cliff. The gridlock due to a republican house, and a democrat senate and president may prevent it from being resolved. Things might be very different with a single party house, senate and president

    7. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The stock market was going to tank no matter who won. Everyone was waiting for the election so they knew *what* to sell, not *whether* they would sell.

      And when things pick back up - and rest assured they will - all those people who aren't irrationally afraid of Obama will be there to pick up those shares on the cheap.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    8. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The stock market was going to tank no matter who won? Really? That's why there was an exceptional late day rally when the exit polls showed that romney was winning? Nope, I'm guessing you're not either in finance, or involved in finance even at a casual level. This strongly reminds me of the NDP win here in Ontario, where the TSX(Canada's national exchange) dropped 250pts(about 3% of it's value at the time), and the provinces bond rating was cut two points. And people were saying "don't worry, it was going to happen anyway...it has nothing to do with the government elected..."

      Oh sure, they'll pick up. I'm guessing somewhere around about 2022. After all, you've got 7 trillion in tax hikes coming, plus another 2 odd trillion not tied to that to pay for obamacare. Yep, gonna make for businesses to hire people with that one. Enjoy the government you voted for, and don't run to Canada. Fix your own damn mess.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Hey Entrepreneurs! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Where I was following never showed Romney was winning, though I didn't keep a constant eye on it when the midwestern states closed, and the "reputible" reporting places have waited for results before indicating a leader, the news companies still remember "Dewey beats Truman".

      Oh sure, they'll pick up. I'm guessing somewhere around about 2022. After all, you've got 7 trillion in tax hikes coming, plus another 2 odd trillion not tied to that to pay for obamacare. Yep, gonna make for businesses to hire people with that one. Enjoy the government you voted for, and don't run to Canada. Fix your own damn mess.

      No, I got the debt my parents voted for. I never voted for Reagan or the other Republicans that laid the foundation of unsustainable debt. Oh, and I left the country under Bush. Any country that would re-elect Bush is worse than one that would re-elect Obama, so I left then. The getting was good in the middle of the housing crash.

  20. way to fix by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    They could follow precedent and just rename the product "Butthole Estate"

  21. Reminds me of the onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Reminds me of the onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a paradise this country would be if reporters actually wrote like that, when appropriate.

  22. There are other countries by kasperd · · Score: 1

    I'd assume the countries, which have not yet banned those magnets, make up a sufficiently large market for at least one or two manufacturers of them to still be in business. I can't say whether it would then be legal for individuals to import some for their own entertainment.

    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  23. If your #1 product kills children, you fail by kriston · · Score: 1

    If your #1 product kills children, you fail.
    One of my favorite toys growing up was Girder & Panel. It was suddenly removed from the house after about a year because it was recalled. The reason? Kids were eating the rubber rivets and killing themselves.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not the fault of the product when parents don't supervise their children and allow them to eat random household objects.

      And I realize its not easy. Parenting is hard. If you're not up for it, don't have kids.

      This is an adult product. It says it on the box. It shouldn't be required to meet child toy standards.

    2. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If you make claims without citations like that you fail.

      I do not believe anyone has died, some people did require medical care though.

      I bet S&Ws #1 product could kill kids. There are lots of common household items that could kill kids. You think eating a AAA battery would go well for a child?

    3. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Informative
      I will pass that epiphany on to General Motors for you. Buckyball fatalities: 0, auto fatalities: ~40,000 per year.

      Oh, wait, now you say 'I meant injuries not deaths'. OK lets play that one:

      There are approximately 2.2 million Buckyball magnet sets in circulation, and as each set has 216 magnets, there is a grand total of 475.2 million individual magnet pieces. This equals to approximately 1 injury per 100,000 Buckyball sets and less than 1 injury per 21.5 million individual magnet pieces.

      Dogs are statistically over 120 times more dangerous
      Tennis injuries are 1,228 times more dangerous
      Soccer, Cheerleading, poisoning through common household chemicals are all over 1,000 times more dangerous.
      Skateboarding is 890 times more dangerous.
      Pools, cars, kitchen knives, firearms, balloons, snowblowers are all statistically more dangerous than Buckyball magnets.

      That is a LOT of fails by your criteria. Yet where is the CPSC outrage on dogs, racquets, soccer balls, draino, skateboards, pool life jackets, ginsu knifes, and so on?

    4. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      I was a Girder and Panel freak... There were two eras for the sets... The first era saw the plastic panels made out of a fairly sturdy plastic... don't know the formula, but it was a more cardboard like plastic. These sets also had red girders, and most notably, small plastic "toppers" for lack of a better word... they were like a really really short girder, but had the nubs that held the panels on, and could also serve to hold down the roof pieces.

      The later sets that came out were basically the same, except the panels were made of a thicker, more flexible plastic, the girders were black instead of red, and there were no "toppers" as I'm calling them.

      I'm assuming the recall was over those little toppers, which a kid could conceivably choke on. They were not made out of rubber. I don't recall any "rivets" at all, other than the nubs that you attached side panels to.

      I used Girder and Panel with my model train sets and my race car sets. It allowed you to quickly and easily have multiple levels of train loops, and simulate a city with an elevated rail transit system. I also incorporated the old Aurora slot car sets for city traffic. Much of what I used was hand-me-down from my brother and sister who were 10 years older than me. But put it all on a 4'x8' plywood sheet and you had days and days of rainy weather activities. Those were halcyon days...

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    5. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      I'm l lookin' at you Smith and Wesson!

    6. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by kallisti · · Score: 1

      You are confusing two different toys (both of which I spent many. many hours with).

      Girder and Panel was mostly plastic girders that snapped together. I don't think it ever suffered a recall.

      The toy with rivets was Rivetron, and was basically an Erector set that used rubber rivets instead of screws. They were all recalled because some pre-teens were choking on the rivets.

      On a similar note, I had two Erector sets. One was new at the time, and consisted of a few plastic pieces held with screws and run by a small battery-operated motor. The other was decades old: almost entirely metal, had an AC motor and came in a box made out of sheet metal. This is one toy that we didn't put up in the closet because it could likely kill you if it fell.

    7. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by tofubeer · · Score: 1

      Balloons - 121 deaths in Canada and US between 1973 and 1988.
      Buckeyballs - 0 deaths.

    8. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by kriston · · Score: 1

      You're right, it wasn't Girder and Panel. It was Riviton by Parker Brothers.

      --

      Kriston

    9. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ain't it a terrible thing that General Motors doesn't have any safety regulations to operate under, that there's nobody watching over them, and that just anybody can get on the road with no consequence!

      Your strawman is as bad as their rebuttal to Bill Gates.

    10. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know anything about this situation at all.

      There have been zero deaths caused by these small ball magnets. In fact, there have only been about 2 dozen cases of ingestion in the 3 years they have been on the market.

    11. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      It's not the fault of the product when parents don't supervise their children and allow them to eat random household objects.

      Kids put everything in their mounth, that's simple the way it is. It is also not the fault of parents if their kids swallow something.

      What is the fault of the parents is they letting their kids play with dangerous stuff.

    12. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      We, humans, are funny.

      This equals to approximately 1 injury per 100,000 Buckyball sets

      Dogs are statistically over 120 times more dangerous
      Tennis injuries are 1,228 times more dangerous
      Soccer, Cheerleading, poisoning through common household chemicals are all over 1,000 times more dangerous.
      Skateboarding is 890 times more dangerous.

      And, yet, authorities expect airplanes to be at least 10 times safer (The US is roughly 30 times safer, my country, Brazil is right within the mark), and there is a public outcry everytime an acident happens.

      We can't calculate probabilities, we can't discern how dangerous something is, we can't make rational decisions most of the time. Evolution took a lot of shortcuts in our brain, and we act like if we were great on all those things.

    13. Re:If your #1 product kills children, you fail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Kids at age 2 should know nothing goes in their mouth but food. They put the number at 3 for the slow children. I've cleared my son's mouth when he was under 2 and put something in his mouth. I think he liked the taste of coins.

  24. Fucking magnets. by Chrutil · · Score: 1

    How do they work?

    1. Re:Fucking magnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, a North pole loves a South pole, and they spend a night sleeping with each other, then later the Stork Magnet comes along and reverses polarity at just the right moment to drop a new little bundle of joy.

      Please note that many states have legislated against homo-polar relationships. Marriage can never work between North-North and South-South poles.

  25. Bukkakeballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's for all these "rightsholders" making ridiculous claims; there should be hard jail time for that as an extortion scheme ('fines' etc. don't work in the business world - just another expense, maybe not upgrade the Ferrari. Not "martha stewart puppy farm" jail either.)

  26. How about instead of arbitrarily banning products by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    How about instead of arbitrarily banning products that some obsessed mothers think are somehow more dangerous for their toddlers, mostly because it is new, we just force all packaging to list the number of lives the contents have cost.

    Buckyballs (Killed 20 infants since 1995) For example (I have no idea how many, if any, have died of been seriously injured by BBs).
    Then we can make informed choices and be held responsible if we allow children to kill themselves will objects we know are dangerous. BB are not designed to be given to infants, just like a nail gun is not designed to be given to an infant; That does not mean they should be banned.

    Personally, I love dangerous things and would consider that as good advertising, for those of you with overprotected children well they do no have to buy one.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  27. Warning Label by screwzloos · · Score: 4, Informative

    WARNING
    Keep Away From All Children!
    Do not put in nose or mouth.
    Swallowed magnets can stick to
    intestines causing serious injury or death.
    Seek immediate medical attention if
    magnets are swallowed or inhaled.

    It says right on the little plastic container that this isn't for children. The cardboard retail box gets torn up and thrown away, so I can understand a label on that *possibly* not being enough. The inner plastic cube is pretty explicit too, though.

    There are a handful of stupid people somewhere out there, so bureaucrats close down a business that I like and decide that I can't have something that is of no risk to me or anyone around me. Gotta love this world we live in.

    1. Re:Warning Label by Petron · · Score: 1

      That waring is in 5 places.

      One on the plastic retail package, two places on the inner cardboard package that contains the instructions and storage case, one in the instructions, and finally on the storage case.

      Each one is not fine-print... they are very noticeable.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  28. CPSC is doing what theya re supposed to by geekoid · · Score: 0

    responding to many, many consumer complaints about a products. Many children requiring surgery.
    http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml12/12234.pdf

    Byuckyballs says:
    "Now, after more than two years, they're saying our extensive measures aren't enough and we should be put out of business.
    I can't find any doc the confirms that on cpsc.gov

    And the company keeps using the logical fallacy we sold lots, so protect us; which has nothing to do with the safety concern.
    "We are fighting the CPSC action because we believe responsible adults should have the right to choose to purchase adult products like ours."
    History shows you are wrong.

    "We are fighting the CPSC action because we have been betrayed by a government organization that switched overnight from being an ally, helpful in ensuring our products would be marketed correctly, to being an enemy trying to shut us down."
    Nice scared words. The steps you took did not work. You refused to take more, the CPSC took the next logical step.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:CPSC is doing what theya re supposed to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many deaths are cause by automobiles?

      When will the CPSC ban them?

    2. Re:CPSC is doing what theya re supposed to by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I can't find any doc the confirms that on cpsc.gov

      That's their whole business. Banning their sole line of products puts them out of business.

      History shows you are wrong.

      History shows they are wrong that responsible adults should have the right to purchase adult products? What?

      Nice scared words. The steps you took did not work. You refused to take more, the CPSC took the next logical step.

      Refused to take more? What steps could they take outside labeling (in 5 places on the package + product no less) that they haven't already taken?

      I seriously can't tell if you are trolling or if you really just know nothing about this situation.

    3. Re:CPSC is doing what theya re supposed to by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then why do they do less with trampolines that are marketed to kids and kill and maim many more than buckballs do?

  29. Lies, Lies and More Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They do not market them to children. The products have extensive warnings on them.

    Here's the package that was sold at my mall. I see no warnings. In fact if you can read that scribbling on the front in a playful font it says "The amazing magnetic toy you can't put down." Is that how you market to adults?

    Jesus Christ, who's lying to who here? This company seems to not want to properly label their product and just throw their hands up and rage quit when a consumer protection agency makes them!

    1. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      When was this?
      They have not used that packaging in a long time.
      Look at their current packaging on their website.

      I am an adult, I buy toys. So it seems like reasonable marketing to adults.

    2. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of pathetic adult doesn't play with toys?

    3. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by jythie · · Score: 1

      One that are very concerned with looking 'adult' and being noisy about how they eschew all those 'kiddy' things, being all grown up they are.

    4. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 4, Informative

      They added the warnings the agency asked them to. Do a bit of research before accusing people of lying. For more than two years, the packages have had strong warnings as required by the CPSC.

    5. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by Lazar+Dobrescu · · Score: 2

      Here is that same package from another angle:
      http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/cimg0101l.jpg/

      and from slightly above:
      http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/818/cimg0105s.jpg/

      That same warning is also on the carrying case for the buckyballs and on the manual.

      The full text of it is:
      WARNING
      Keep Away From All Children!
      Do not put in nose of mouth.
      Swallowed magnets can stick to intestines causing serious injury or death.
      Seek immediate medical attention if magnets are swallowed in inhaled.

    6. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Playing with toys is my day job then I play games in the evening.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    7. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that anything called a "toy" is for children? I guess thats why I keep finding all those dildo's and buttpluggs at toys R Us then hey?

    8. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try turning the package around...

      http://www.pranksterhouse.com/product_images/uploaded_images/bucky-plus-warning.png

      It's on the side of it. It's been there for many years.

    9. Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Well, some toys are marketed specifically for adults. Not only that, but they have proven dangerous to the adults that use them as well, and in fact, can cause the same kind of damage that buckyballs do. Yet, they don't have government agencies trying to ban them. Case in point:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/dildo-mans-intestines-doctors_n_1981242.html

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  30. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    I don't have kids. Why should I be subject to restrictions because some parents can't watch their offspring and they manage to swallow random objects?

    The world is full of objects that are dangerous if swallowed. Watch your kids and let me have my toys.

  31. Bought the Blue Balls... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    .... so men don't get them. /wink

    They really do sell Blue Buckyballs. So now when I play with them, blue buckyballs, and I roll them around you blue balls won't feel all alone. /wink

    Sorry, it was just so easy....

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  32. They are NOT going out of business by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    They are just shutting down their lines of small magnets (buckyballs and cubes). According to their website they still plan to sell the larger magnets and are planning new products.

    I have a feeling this was their plan all along, turning the CPSC action into a publicity stunt to sell out their remaining stock.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  33. Well, we've come a long way... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, you could by Jarts. The package included six rather heavy pointy metal spikes with plastic fins on them (three each with two different colors of plastic fins), front-weighted so that they would land point first when thrown, and heavy enough that they would pierce into even fairly hard soil and stick upright; yellow plastic goal rings; and instructions.

    IIRC, the instructions actually called for two people to stand at opposite ends of the yard, with one of the yellow target rings for the other guy to aim at laying on the ground in front of your feet, and then you'd throw the Jarts toward one another in an attempt to land them in the target. Or maybe that's just how we played, when we visited Grandpa and Grandma's house when I was a kid. (They didn't have a lot of other toys around, because they raised their kids in the era before it was expected that every child get new toys every year; but they did have an old set of Jarts, so we amused ourselves with those. Occasionally we even talked Grandpa into playing with us.)

    Anyway, my point is, none of us ever actually got hurt with those things, but the risk we were taking was obviously rather larger than with these magnet toys, and we were well behaved. If you gave Jarts to a group of athletically inclined kids with a taste for violence, it's virtually a sure thing someone would become injured.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    1. Re:Well, we've come a long way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you gave Jarts to a group of athletically inclined kids with a taste for violence, it's virtually a sure thing someone would become injured.

      I dunno, with those big plastic fins and all, I'd imagine they'd be a lot tougher to swallow than the Buckeyballs.

      [rimshot]

  34. Complete Bull Feces by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the salty language, but at worst, this company should have had to put a "10+" and "Not for internal consumption" conspicuously on their packaging. This is a harmless, novelty toy; not a Jagged Metal O in your box of Krusty O's or a Bag'o'Glass (link for those of you too young to know that one). This is a toy which has dangerous consequences if ingested...

  35. Move to Canada by ironicsky · · Score: 1

    It seems to me, that maybe American children are more prone to putting things in their mouth that they shouldn't, which is the same reason why the Kinder Egg is banned in the states, because kids swallow the parts, which isn't a concern in Canada for some reason. Buckyballs needs to move their operations to Canada, where we have a greater degree of personal responsibility for doing stupid things.

    1. Re:Move to Canada by Petron · · Score: 1

      In the US, we pass laws to protect the stupid.

      Now we have too many stupid people.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  36. "Widespread use of the term" by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    However, being driven out of business is not enough for R Buckminster Fuller's estate, who has filed yet another lawsuit that they own all rights to the name "buckyballs" despite widespread use of the term.

    ... yes, widespread use of the term when referring to R Buckminster Fuller's discovery. Come on, Subby, that's like saying "McDonald's claims they own rights to the name 'Big Mac' despite widespread use of the term referring to a fast food burger from McDonald's."

    1. Re:"Widespread use of the term" by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      R Buckminster Fuller did not discover buckyballs. They were named in his honor because of the similar to his geodesic dome designs.

    2. Re:"Widespread use of the term" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't discover Buckyballs. They were named after him years after his death.

  37. A Warning is as Good as a Ban by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We used to buy Magnetix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetix

    They were great fun...simple...self assembling, but you could do some fun things. It seemed like a great toy for kids. After we had gathered a sizable collection, we heard about the warning of swallowing the magnets. Coincidentally we also started noticing the magnets falling out of their plastic housings.

    So, we heavily increased the supervision as the kids were playing with them. Made sure to keep everything glued in tight and or disposed of. Basically I guess that means I'm a responsible parent.

    In the end though, we stopped buying them and switch to a toy that was less hazardous. That means the warning effectively became a ban ...for my house...

    I think that's how it should work with pretty much everything.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
  38. Dangerous round things by Karger · · Score: 1

    So, CPSC has decided to ban the sale of small round things due to their capacity to harm children. I'm so glad that they'll finally be putting a stop to all those injuries caused when children get their hands on adult toys. Oh, wait, they're only banning *magnetic* bullets?

  39. Who not Hungry Hungry Hippos then? by caknuckle · · Score: 1

    And yet Hasbro is still allowed to sell Hungry Hungry Hippos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Hungry_Hippos, which is openly advertised as a toy marketed to 4 to 6 year olds. My guess is Hasbro has a heck of a lot more money than R Buckminster Fuller's estate to pursue legal action.

    1. Re:Who not Hungry Hungry Hippos then? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Not to defect the CPSC, but this is an apples to oranges comparison. The hungry hippos balls aren't magnets so they aren't nearly as dangerous.

    2. Re:Who not Hungry Hungry Hippos then? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Oops! defect --> defend. Sorry! I already hit submit.

    3. Re:Who not Hungry Hungry Hippos then? by caknuckle · · Score: 1

      It's only after I read several linked articles that I found out that the problem with bucky balls is that they can attract together inside and pinch the intestines, causing severe problems. TFA should've at least mentioned that key detail.

  40. Can't... resist... by BinarySolo · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I wish there was a simple button you could press... to somehow indicate that you no longer stand by what you said.

    Maybe you could ask Mitt Romney where he got his!

  41. Change the name to SchtickyBalls by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    problem solved.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Change the name to SchtickyBalls by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

      Exactly, when morons sue you, always do what the morons want. Why do you have to stop making the "metalAWESOME?"

      I love "metalAWESOMES." It's like "liquidAWESOME" (Beer) only made of metal.

      --
      What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  42. dragée by aepervius · · Score: 1

    They are candy which have many form and content. The most wide spread is the ovoid form with almond in it, the other sort with chocolate. There are other sort but those are the crushing majority. The majority come in flat void shape but some come as metallic looking round and small, mostly in confiserie. You offer them (the almond or choco one flat ovoid one mostly) mostly at christian communion, confirmation, mariage, bapteme. And yes refuse whatever skipkent is offering ;)

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  43. These have been on my "to purchase" list. by Lashat · · Score: 1

    for a few months. Finally, pulled the trigger.

    Thanks for the notice.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:These have been on my "to purchase" list. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Order Zen magnets instead. I've played with both, and Zen is better.

  44. Re:How about instead of arbitrarily banning produc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes but think of the hassle. After another kid dies they would need to print all there packaging again.

  45. Saving my unopened set with my lawn darts by MDMurphy · · Score: 1

    I'm saving the one unopened set I have. I'm storing them with my lawn darts. Maybe I'll put them in a box with my Scrabble dictionary I bought when I heard the new edition would remove "offensive" words, and my green laser pointer if enough idiots shine them at police helicopters that they get banned too.

  46. Get the facts by aarongadberry · · Score: 1

    The state objected to their labeling, not their product. They labeled the toy as OK for 14+. The state says that magnets must be labeled as not safe for 14 and under. The labeling included 14 year olds as part of an acceptable audience. From an observers perspective, the company has been completely immature about the entire event. They responded with inflammatory accusations of persecution and have used the event repeatedly in their marketing. And now they are shutting down...? The company should have been fine. This misrepresentation makes me wish I hadn't given them money. There are alternatives out there.

    1. Re:Get the facts by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Read this one: http://zenmagnets.com/index.php?p=1_18_CPSC_Press_Release and let me know who is being unreasonable. It looks to me like they are taking down similar products with zero injuries, which the seller indicates is a first. Why is the CPSC (not the state) doing this?

  47. Dragées also banned by MDMurphy · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Dragées also banned by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "The counsel said, 'Well, it's sold clearly as a decoration, not a confection. People don't eat it.' And I said, 'Come on!' And he said, 'No, people don't eat it.' And I said, 'I'll call you back in a half hour.'

      "I took the dragees and I went across the street to the Superior Court and into the chambers of all six of the Superior Court judges. I showed them the jar. I came back, called counsel on the phone and said, 'I just went across the street. I did a straw poll of all the judges in my county, and every one of them has eaten these things. And one of them, I won't tell you which one, always picks the dragees off the cookies and eats them first. Now, you decide which judge you want to be in front of to make the defense argument that no one eats them.' And he said, 'Oh.' "

      I definitely ate them as a kid.

  48. "swallowed magnets can stick to intestines" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says "swallowed magnets can stick to intestines." Why? Because they're magnetic? Or no differently from any other object that one might swallow?

    1. Re:"swallowed magnets can stick to intestines" ? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Two magnets in different parts of the intestines can stick together, effectively sticking to the intestines and causing a hole to form. All that shit in there then has free access to the rest of your body.

    2. Re:"swallowed magnets can stick to intestines" ? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      If you swallow one, it's fine. If you swallow a second one, it may stick to the first one... but the first one may have gone around the bend in the intestine first. The pressure from the magnets causes blood to be forced out of the tissues compressed between them, you get a dead spot, then a punctured intestine, which causes peritonitis, a potentially fatal condition.

  49. I hope Polarity (the board game) isn't next! by JoshDM · · Score: 1

    Little leaning rare earth magnets designed to look like othello pieces (but can appear like oreos to really REALLY stupid kids), chokeable if placed in the mouth, JUST LIKE A LEGO!

    It's a pretty good game, though: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/380/polarity

  50. Simple solution by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Sell the brand to an overseas company. There are over 6 billion other people you can sell them to.

  51. they're not closing... by Progoth · · Score: 1

    Why does the summary say the company is going out of business? They're still selling the larger items and that article doesn't say anything about them closing - in fact, it says they're working on new stuff.

  52. Re:dragée by LMariachi · · Score: 1

    I don’t know if the name is used in other parts of the world, but in the U.S. the “ovoid form with almond in it” are called “Jordan almonds.” The chocolate ones are usually M&Ms.

  53. Ridiculous... by haydensdaddy · · Score: 1

    My toddler loves playing with them and has never choked on any of them... now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get her off of the refrigerator door...

  54. Re:How about instead of arbitrarily banning produc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the public is just so freaking stupid and it is NEVER their fault that someone like the brilliant people in government have stepped up to protect them. gawd, what next, bottles with screw off caps because someone can swallow them?

  55. those are not the buckyballs I know or remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these are the original Buckyball( Buckminsterfullerene )
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene

  56. Ok, you are uninformed... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    All that is true. But people still dream of going into the US and oppening a small business.

    In most of the world, people envy that 30 minute head start, and wish they had so much time.

  57. Out Of Spite by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    If I were them, I'd come up with an even MORE dangerous toy to put on the market. Buckyspikes, anyone?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  58. A small matter of priorites. by westlake · · Score: 1

    You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?

    Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?

    1. Re:A small matter of priorites. by biojayc · · Score: 1

      You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?

      Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?

      If buckyballs were the only dangerous thing for children, then yes I would whole heartedly agree with this! Let's ban them and save the children. The reality is, however, that there are many many things that are dangerous for children and it isn't feasible to tidy up the world so no child gets hurt. Do we rip all trees out of the ground because some kid might climb one in a public park and fall and hurt himself? Or perhaps a child was at a pool and couldn't swim so he drowned. The pools serve no purpose but pleasure, and since they kill kids, ban them all. It's just a question of how far do you go? Ultimately the safety of children rest with the parents.

      Certainly there are times for things to be banned because they cause harm. Such as the baby doll a few years ago that was supposed to simulate eating and ended up munch on little girls' hair instead. A product that was marketed directly for kids and causes them harm is not good. But a product that is not marketed directly for kids, and only causes harm if eaten? Come on...

      I realize I'm making the same argument that everyone else is making so perhaps I'm not really adding anything to the discussion, but I just can't be okay with that line of thinking, and I probably lean more towards government regulation than the one you are quoting does. I do think there are times that it is important to protect children from things at a government level because parents in many cases obviously won't and it's not fair for the children. There are just much bigger and more worthy fish to fry than buckyballs...

    2. Re:A small matter of priorites. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?

      My toy isn't endangering any child. I don't have children. There are no children in my house, nor in my office. I have other things in my house that would be dangerous to children, like knives.

      If you have children, don't buy the damn thing, and if you do, keep it away from them. That's my point about personal responsibility. I'm not responsible for your children, and the company selling me magnets are not responsible for your children. It's your job to keep them safe, and if you don't want to do that job, don't fucking have children.

    3. Re:A small matter of priorites. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's your job to keep them safe, and if you don't want to do that job, don't fucking have children.

      And if someone does have children who doesn't want that job, what do you propose as the "fix" to that?

  59. Kind of happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gave my ex a bracelet out of those, she didn't eat them, she gave them back to me at the end of the relationship. At least i wont have to see anyone going around with them anymore.

  60. Consumer Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't he just make his product a commercial product and the CPSC would no longer have jurisdiction? According to 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(i) and (ii) definition of "Consumer products" it has to be “consumer products” that were “distributed in commerce.”. What if they were commercial products? Certainly that would be outside of the jurisdiction of the CPSC. If you can sell dynamite commercially, you should be able to sell magnets... "Zen Magnets are for sale to commercial artists only." Done. Then you can tell the CPSC to suck your balls. Tell them to suck mine while they're at it.

  61. This is a relatively unique situation by travisbean · · Score: 1

    I am not a fan of over regulation but bucky balls are fairly unique because their danger is not obvious and can not be communicated by it's form. They are too small to have a warning or graphic on them. I've seen a lot of bucky balls, I have NEVER seen the box with warnings (people throw it away). A small sphere (as opposed to say a kitchen knife, or a jart) is almost the definition of safe. Even swallowing one is not a horrible outcome. They are not poisonous. What I'm getting at is it's a very unintuitive danger. It's only when multiple are swallowed that it becomes deadly. So take yourself out of your obvious nerd minds and try to look at this objectively. The personal responsibly arguments hold together in the case of me the parent buying them and me the parent allowing my own toddler to eat them. But it's a big world out there. Your kid could take 2 off your desk. Would you even notice (or do you keep your bucky balls locked up in the gun safe)? She brings them to school. She leaves them on the floor. My younger kid comes by puts them in her mouth. Is this my neglect as a parent? Insert almost anything else into that scenario and the outcome is better because it's either larger, more obviously dangerous, or problematic but not dangerous. For example: Knives/tools/etc- Most reasonable adults and even kids above the age of 5 would intervene or tell someone "Hey, Bobby's trying to eat that knife" Bullets- If you saw a kid playing with a box of bullets, even a strangers kids, hopefully you would intervene. But even if the kid ate one it probably wouldn't kill him. BB's, Coins, Legos- Kids have been swallowing these for years and while it's unpleasant, they survive. The problem is they are small, numerous, easily transportable, and not intuitively dangerous.

  62. What about button batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's all the concern about button batteries. Like the ones in all those seasonal childrens toys at walmart, or in all those kids birthday cards... They're dangerous too!

  63. should get dismissed by sdnoob · · Score: 1

    they didn't have a problem with the name back in 2011.. from tfa:

    Maxfield & Oberton had permission from the estate just once to use Bucky's likeness in 2011 for a commemorative edition of Buckyballs

    imho, their window to sue based on the name of the product closed when they essentially endorsed it, and its name, when they gave permission for the guy's likeness to be used.. even if it was just one time.