Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Gov't Still Fighting the Man Behind Buckyballs; Guess Who's Winning?

usacoder writes with news of Craig Zucker, former CEO of the company behind Buckyballs, the popular neodymium magnet toys that were banned by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in July 2012. Zucker ran a brief campaign to drum up opposition to the government's ban, but it didn't turn out to be enough. Unfortunately for Zucker, the story didn't end there. Despite the magnets being labeled as not for kids, the Commission filed a motion to find him personally liable for the costs of a product recall, estimated at around $57 million. "Given the fact that Buckyballs have now long been off the market, the attempt to go after Mr. Zucker personally raises the question of retaliation for his public campaign against the commission. Mr. Zucker won't speculate about the commission's motives. 'It's very selective and very aggressive,' he says. ... Mr. Zucker says his treatment at the hands of the commission should alarm fellow entrepreneurs: 'This is the beginning. It starts with this case. If you play out what happens to me, then the next thing you'll have is personal-injury lawyers saying "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company."'"

555 comments

  1. Sounds good to me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you play out what happens to me, then the next thing you'll have is personal-injury lawyers saying "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company.

    So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible.

    Good.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 4, Informative

      no, thats NOT good. that means that you can be personally sued for anything that goes on with the company. imagine you had a startup ladder company and you personally got sued for 100M dollars because your ladder caused injury to some dumbass who set it up upside down. you think im being silly? you do know why they have all those stickers on the ladder telling you how to use it dont you? it is because the companies LOST a lawsuit for that very reason. it would be totally ridiculous to fine a person for the actions or products of a company, even if that person created or is in charge of the company.

    2. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be good, if only they were applying it to a company that actually did misdeeds, instead of this one.

    3. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 0

      there are a ton of lawsuits against companies, and hardly even a small percentage of them is misdeeds. the vast majority are frivolous lawsuits, where, if a person had to pay the fines, they would be ruined instantly

    4. Re:Sounds good to me by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that this, the very case that's "starting it all", is also the exact reason why this is not the right way to do things. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps, as sometimes it is the actions of one person which need to be punished, but it is more often the actions of the company as a whole, the culture behind how the company operates, that needs to be addressed.

      This man did nothing wrong; he sold a product that was not safe for kids to use and labeled it as not safe for kids to use. He should not be liable for the actions of the employees of the toy stores who sold them to kids, nor for the actions of the employees of the distribution houses that sold them to the toy stores who hired employees who then sold them to kids. He didn't sell them to kids himself, and he didn't sell them to toy stores where he'd only reasonably expect that they'd be sold to kids. He labeled them as not safe for kids and clearly did not intend for them to be sold to, or used by, kids. Blame all of the irresponsible parties for any children harmed by these things, for sure; let's start with the parents who bought these for their kids or left their own set where their kids could get to them (they're labeled quite clearly and should be locked away from young children, and only used by older children under close supervision, just like any other dangerous item), then the purchasing agent at the toy store who thought it would be a good idea to sell an item labeled as not safe for children in a place where things are bought primarily by and for children, then the distribution house employee(s) who thought selling unsafe items to toy stores would be a great way to make a buck. And that's where it should stop.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 1

      That kind of voids the idea of limited liability, though. And it gets even more problematic if you were to extend it to the individuals hired by the company to make the actual decisions (i.e. not the owners) -- suppose for example that some engineers employed by Samsung would be required to pay a billion dollars to Apple for patent infringement, personally, because they were the ones that chose to implement certain features. Suddenly it becomes extremely risky to make a career in R&D.

    6. Re: Sounds good to me by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...because he set it upside down.

      So the problem is not the liability but the stupidness of the judicial system that allows for bogus claims. Correct the problem, not something that happens to be vagely related.

      As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan

    7. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "the vast majority are frivolous lawsuits" cite sources
      This has been studied extensively. Every study I have read on this shows that judges tend to toss out the frivolous lawsuit and that the majority of cases that got to trial actual have some merit.

    8. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you play out what happens to me, then the next thing you'll have is personal-injury lawyers saying "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company.

      So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible.

      Good.

      I hear what you are saying, but if you're looking for that landmark case that is going to start locking up all the greedy, corrupt bastards in business today, I can think of a hell of a lot of corporate assholes far more evil than someone leaning heavily on common sense when marketing a product with magnets.

      (Sorry, after reading how teens were "victims" of this product, it's quite clear that common fucking sense is sorely lacking here. Don't eat magnets, dumbass.)

    9. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, why go after the wallstreet sharks that fund politics when you can stage an example on a one-man-company.

      Score: -17, you're a fucking moron.

    10. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible. Good."

      Um... NO.

      First, you have to identify actual misdeeds. Buckyballs were NOT sold as children's toys! They were labeled that they were NOT for children.

      The fact that Buckyballs were recalled at all is what is pathetic. But also of great concern. Because if the government were to win, then any company that makes cleaning products that kids get hold of and poison themselves with... or car manufacturers... or makers of power tools... anybody who sells things that are NOT children's toys could be prosecuted simply because someone let their children play with them (or negligently gave them access).

      The criminals here were the adults who let children play with unsafe objects. Hell, makers of children's toys who include a label that says "Warning! Contains small parts. Not for children under 4 years old." is exempt from this kind of government harassment. Yet you're seeing someone being pursued for this when they weren't even selling children's toys! It is OUTRAGEOUS.

      This is an extremely dangerous precedent and the government must lose this case. Otherwise, anybody could be prosecuted for anything, merely if some child gets hold of it. Bad, bad, bad.

    11. Re:Sounds good to me by calidoscope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no, thats NOT good. that means that you can be personally sued for anything that goes on with the company.

      Since the lawsuit was filed by the Federal Government, let's carry this a bit further. If any employee of the Federal government (this includes judges) can be shown to have caused harm through malfeasance or negligence, then that employee can be held personally liable for the decision. Think anyone would want to work for the government under those conditions?

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    12. Re:Sounds good to me by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that isn't even close to a logical conclusion. What it says is that nobody will be able to start a new company unless they are very, very rich. It also says that nobody will want to start a company, since if they are very rich they have little to gain and everything to lose.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Sounds good to me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What has your example got to do with this situation? The company was told to stop selling a product because it was dangerous. The CEO personally decided to carry on selling it anyway, instead of stopping and then fighting the ruling.

      It has nothing to do with the stupidity of the user, and everything to do with the CEO personally making a decision he had been warned could lead to people being hurt, and then some people got hurt. Feel free to debate personal responsibility all you like, but it is irrelevant here. No matter how stupid the government's decision to ban the product was failure to comply with the ban makes him liable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Sounds good to me by Stumbles · · Score: 2

      That would be a good thing. There are far to many brainless people working in government, this commission is just one example.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    15. Re:Sounds good to me by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      If they didn't go after buckyballs, they'd have to waste time going after other products which are labeled as unsafe for kids, like caffeinated alcohol drinks, or alcohol in general (you really think all those kids puking their guts out at spring break are of legal age?). Cigarettes are still being sold to kids despite the labels, so maybe recall them also?

    16. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hypothesis:
      1. Manufacturers generally get sued for all kinds of crazy reasons, when people have been stupid while using their products.
      2. Manufacturers slap on "not safe for kids" and similar labels all the time, just to be safe.
      3. The label loses any semantic meaning, since it is always there. People start to ignore it, and try to rely on their own judgement.
      4. Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous? There is lack of imagination as to what happens with more than one of those in a small child's intestines.
      5. ...
      6. Visit to the ER.

    17. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see any problem with having them in toy stores. If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times. I realize this sucks to have to be on top of your really stupid 13 year old... but... if they are that stupid... it is what it is. WATCH THEM.

      I think most kids would be smart enough by the age of 6 to know better than to swallow inedible objects. In fact I think a lot of 4 and 5 years olds are smart enough not to swallow such things. I remember being aware of this danger at age 4. It's not just bucky balls that can cause serious harm.

      I'm actually more tempted to encourage people to leave these things around the house of people with kids over the age of 6. It'll get rid of all the idiots who propose such bans in the first place.

      The only way I can see liability for such things is if a toy store sold them to a 4-6 year old. However you'd have multiple liable parties in that case. A 4-6 year old generally shouldn't be left to wondering with a wad of cash in there pocket. Maybe you can leave them alone at home for a little while.. but at a toy store where there is no adult watching after them? And then I'd at least expect the sales person to reasonably think the buyer could read the warning. I'd rate these things for 9+. And yea- I realize not all 9 year olds are smart enough not to do stupid things like leave them out. But thats why you have parents and younger kids should be supervised at all times.

    18. Re:Sounds good to me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to Wikiepdia:

      Buckyballs launched at New York International Gift Fair in 2009 and sold in the hundreds of thousands before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall on packaging labeled 13+.[2] According to the CPSC, 175,000 units had been sold to the public. It is not known how many sets were actually returned. Buckyballs labeled "Keep Away From All Children" were not recalled.

      Subsequently, Maxfield & Oberton changed all mentions of âoetoyâ to âoedesk toyâ, positioning the product as a stress-reliever for adults and restricted sales from stores that sold primarily children's products.

      So apparently they were being marketed as "toys" at some point.

      Because if the government were to win, then any company that makes cleaning products that kids get hold of and poison themselves with... or car manufacturers... or makers of power tools... anybody who sells things that are NOT children's toys could be prosecuted simply because someone let their children play with them (or negligently gave them access).

      I don't know how you do it in America but in the UK the law generally works on the basis of what a "reasonable person" would think and assume. Clearly a reasonable person would not consider a cleaning products, a car or a power tool to be a suitable toy. What a reasonable person does think is ultimately up to a jury though.

      It's also worth noting that cleaning products usually do have prominent warnings on them. Cars need a license to drive that isn't available to children and also come with pages of warnings in the manual (since they don't come in a box). Power tools also have warnings on them. Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Sounds good to me by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While this might ( most likely ) be off topic, didn't Scientologist act upon and prove this already when they slammed the IRS with multiple lawsuits. I forget the outcome but I believed it was negative to the IRS.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    20. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't continue selling them. He put on a campaign to try to get the ruling overturned. The company no longer exists. The issue now is that they want him to pay for a recall of all of the sets sold.

    21. Re:Sounds good to me by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the company was told to come up with a corrective action plan to deal with the danger which the Consumer Product Safety Board thought that the product posed The CPSB gave them a two week deadline or face a lawsuit. In the meantime, contrary to precedent, the CPSB contacted retailers directly. The CPSB filed lawsuit the morning after the corrective action plan was filed (meaning the CPSB had not had time to review the plan before they submitted the lawsuit).
      In response to the lawsuit, the CEO of the company launched a PR campaign to attempt to raise public awareness and political pressure to save his business. When the PR campaign failed, the CEO dissolved the company (since the CPSB had essentially outlawed their only product). Oh, and by the way, my understanding of the legality of the situation is that it was legal to continue selling the Buckyballs until the CPSB got a court ruling in their favor.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:Sounds good to me by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that the government had not banned them. The government started the process of banning them. There were still several steps to go before it actually banned them. The company had no customers by the time the government had actually banned them.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:Sounds good to me by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad thing is, it wasn't marketed towards children, yet it seems safer than party balloons, which are marketed towards children.

      One of the few injuries (not deaths, like we have with balloons) from Buckyballs was the ingestion after someone put them on a cake. At some point you need to give up trying to protect people......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Sounds good to me by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... stop selling a product because it was dangerous

      You say that as if he were selling fireworks, caustic cleaning supplies, or surplus hand grenades.

      He complied, labeling the product as not for children, and not for ingestion. The same kind of warnings that show up on fireworks *and* caustic cleaning supplies. I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.

      Well it seems that there is a warning on smoke greandes"DANGER-DO NOT USE HC IN CONFINED OR ENCLOSED AREAS- PERSONNEL MUST WEAR THE PROTECTIVE MASK IN ANY CONCENTRATION OF HC SMOKE" It doesn't say you can't feed it to children though.

      Next time you hear about a child getting hurt with a firework, household cleaning supplies, or falling off a bicycle, be sure to remind them to sue the CEO for selling dangerous items. Don't forget to sue the CEO of every company along the entire distribution chain too.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    25. Re:Sounds good to me by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      But they were never marketed as "food", specifically or otherwise. It is notable that a "reasonable person" needs to be reminded of the distinction.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Sounds good to me by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because if the government were to win

      Unfortunately, the government already won. The case is over, the company closed down.

      Now the worst part is the government wasn't satisfied with that, and they are suing the creator for basically everything he owns, despite very few injuries, and no deaths as a result of these balls.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those companies made enough money to afford to bribe people in power.

    28. Re:Sounds good to me by sycodon · · Score: 1

      RTFM. Sold for 13+, when the definition of "Child" changed, they raised it to 14.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    29. Re:Sounds good to me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... let's carry this a bit further. If any employee of the Federal government ...

      Zucker was not "any employee". He was the founder, CEO, and primary beneficiary of the product's former success. I am not saying he should be liable for the full cost of the recall, but I am saying your analogy is silly.

    30. Re:Sounds good to me by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      What has your example got to do with this situation? The company was told to stop selling a product because it was dangerous. The CEO personally decided to carry on selling it anyway, instead of stopping and then fighting the ruling.

      It has nothing to do with the stupidity of the user, and everything to do with the CEO personally making a decision he had been warned could lead to people being hurt, and then some people got hurt. Feel free to debate personal responsibility all you like, but it is irrelevant here. No matter how stupid the government's decision to ban the product was failure to comply with the ban makes him liable.

      Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for his actions.

    31. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the PR campaign failed, the CEO dissolved the company (since the CPSB had essentially outlawed their only product).

      This right here might be the grounds to sue him, did he dissolve the company before the company was held liable for the costs of the recall? If the company runs out of funds that's OK, but if you funnel money out that is not. People here complain about companies shielding bad deeds, but there are there to absorb the liability, if you end the company who gets the liability?

    32. Re: Sounds good to me by someone1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who gave that magnet to the kid?

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    33. Re:Sounds good to me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.

      As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.

    34. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.

      So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.

      THEY'RE CLEARLY LABELED AS NOT FOR KIDS.

      I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    35. Re: Sounds good to me by Bengie · · Score: 1, Informative

      My kid once shot himself
      My kid once stabbed himself
      My kid once poured acid in his eyes
      ....

      Yep. Not bogus at all.

    36. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they tell you to not ingest them?

    37. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm... malfeasance in public office is a crime.

    38. Re:Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous?

      And who's fault is that? It's certainly not the fault of the person who started the company that makes the product. If anything the parent should be prosecuted for child abuse.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    39. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      Yet I have trouble regarding them as anything else. How many children are idiotic enough to swallow them and die, and why does the existence of such people mean that products must be banned?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    40. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the merit in this case is creating bad publicity for the CPSB, undermining public perception.

    41. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a "bit" more sinister than that. They hired private eyes to spy on key IRS personal, wire taped them and blackmailed them into submission.

      Just like the mafia would do. Scrap that, Scientology is a sub-company of the Mafia.

    42. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But lets totally disregard the fact that there were only 15 reports of ingestion and none of them were even remotely close to fatal.

      It was never sold as a toy for children. Ever. Not at any point. That they had to print stickers for the little container to state such is just a fact of life, but what he did was never "willful and negligent disregard"

    43. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for the actions of a corporation.

      There. FTFY.

      IANAL, but if I understand the issue (not necessarily a given), the corporation is responsible for any torts arising from its actions. If there were criminal acts involved, the individuals allegedly responsible for those criminal acts can be prosecuted. tl;dr version: If there's a lawsuit/civil matter, the corporation is liable. If there are criminal acts, the individual perpetrating those acts can be held criminally liable.

    44. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they tell them not to shove it up their arses?

      It has a ring. But as a cockring? Naah.

    45. Re: Sounds good to me by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.

      You have to eat more than one to have the problem. A single one passes through without attracting itself to anything else.

      And if you commonly let your kid near or play with dangerous items you are a totally ignorant crappy parent who ought take some personal responsibility for all of your failings instead of blaming other people for them.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    46. Re:Sounds good to me by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm saying that if the CEO personally decides to go against the ban and people get hurt then he has to accept some responsibility.

      Except that's not what happened. You would know that wasn't actually what happened if you did even a cursory look into the events as they unfolded. Your whole rant about sticking it to the CEO being good is entirely misguided.

    47. Re: Sounds good to me by arth1 · · Score: 1

      My kid once shot himself
      My kid once stabbed himself
      My kid once poured acid in his eyes

      Oooh, you're rich, man!
      Even after the lawyers take their two thirds!

      If there are people who don't see what's wrong with parents who aren't willing to take responsibility, as in actually taking responsibility and not passing it on to companies and schools, they need to be put down. Really.

    48. Re: Sounds good to me by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Just like the mafia would do. Scrap that, Scientology is a sub-company of the Mafia.

      It is... unfortunate that you chose to badmouth Cosa Nostra.

    49. Re: Sounds good to me by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Maybe he swallowed a steel ballbearing with it

    50. Re:Sounds good to me by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for his actions.

      ...and we certainly can't have that! It undermines the whole basis of corporate capitalism.

      This guy is an asshole. Anyone who bottles and resells tap water has a place in the special hell. Anyone who profits from exploiting the name of a great thinker ("Bucky"balls?) has a place in the special hell. He dissolved the company in order to avoid paying for the recall. Special hell.

      Some more neutral coverage than the WSJ's:

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    51. Re: Sounds good to me by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      On one hand, I was answering about a claim about putting a stair upside down.

      On the other hand, if you put your claim in proper context, as in "I left my son playing without supervision with a tiny object clearly labelled as dangerous, not only once but at least twice" (you know it takes two magnets to put you in trouble), I would say, yes, it looks a lot like a bogus claim.

      And finally, I clearly stated that for whatever non-bogus claims he should answer no less than at the level he would profit if successful.

    52. Re: Sounds good to me by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fucking parents, how do they work?

    53. Re:Sounds good to me by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      So are butt plugs. Your point being?

    54. Re:Sounds good to me by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.

      As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.

      and you have to read all of it within ten seconds

    55. Re:Sounds good to me by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 1

      By this logic, your smartphone needs to be taken off the market. Far more children are injured each year by swallowing batteries than were ever hurt by swallowing magnets. Your cellphone has a battery, and therefore is too is too dangerous to be available to the general public.

    56. Re:Sounds good to me by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Really? You're gonna slam the WSJ as impossible partisan and site the NYT as a no-partisan source?

    57. Re:Sounds good to me by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only problem is, there are no misdeeds. These things were clearly labeled as not for kids. While there has been a very small number of injuries (small enough that many toys intended for children are actually more dangerous), they are clearly not the fault of the manufacturer, distributor., etc, but the fault of inattentive parents. There will always be injuries to children because of inattentive parents.

      Unless you want a complete nanny-state, where everything potentially dangerous to kids is prohibited (wonder how they will get rid of all those stones just lying around, for example), you have to accept that parents are responsible for their kids safety. That includes teaching them to be careful when they are older and it also most definitely includes not letting anything dangerous lying around within their reach when they are at an age where they take everything into their mouths.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    58. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm in complete agreement with you. Ever since the early 90's the world has moved towards a "its not my fault because" type attitude. Its not my fault that little sally is a b*tch and failing school, she has ADHD/Aspergers....

      I've got three kids, and one had a set of buckyball magnets. I gave them to a 15 year old as he was old enough to know he shouldn't eat them. When they were in the "everything goes into the mouth" phase i didn't give them powerful magnets. I bought age-appropriate toys to avoid this exact problem. It should be common sense that at a certain age you need to watch the kids and protect them from themselves.

      Combine the "it wasn't my fault attitude" with the ability to sue for a lot more then if you won an average lottery and you have a real mess on your hands.

    59. Re: Sounds good to me by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The one week I don't have mod points.

    60. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I think your right in that there should be some personal responsibility. However I'm not convinced that we should be indifferent to those whom have been negatively effected by there own stupidity/negligence/etc. We all make stupid choices at one time in our lives and while there may be horrible horrible repercussions (loss of bowel) there too should be some 'protections'. However these protections should not come at the expense of our freedoms (to make, sell, invent, support, etc dangerous product). The protections that should be in the form of public health insurance. That is the public should be insured and there expenses should be covered in the event of tragedy.

      It may be reasonable that for public safety there be restrictions from time to time on dangerous items. However that in and of itself should not prevent there sale. There were reasonable measures taken (warnings) that should have absolved him of liability (due to negligence) and if the safety board so decided to pursue additional restrictions on said products it should have been negotiated. Failing that it should have gone before a judge. At no time should there have been liability here as actions were taken in a timely fashion to resolve concerns over the product and had they not it should have been up to the safety board to take action to take him to court to force said actions and not his liability for failing to do so.

    61. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do they have a sticker on each one saying not for children? Because otherwise it's the makers fault anytime a kid blows themselves up! Never the parents fault!

    62. Re: Sounds good to me by bentwonk2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The box had a warning label, but not the product, and unlike drain cleaner the product does not stay in the box, it's designed to be stuck to things. Furthermore the product looks like a cake decoration, a candy. In addition they then enhanced the buckyball line by introducing a range of candy colours, (oranges, pink, red, blue) from memory, the orange looked particularly delicious. The drugs industry goes to some effort to try to differentiate their pills from candy, buckyball were going in the opposite direction, it was asking for trouble. Also having watched adults play with buckyballs, they often try and make an earring, so I can imagine the following , kid A places a ball either side of their ear "look lets scare mom that I got a peircing" kid B goes one better and places one either side of their tongue" I might add I bought some chinese knockoff buckyballs, not a warning label in sight and not buckyballs fault, but a concern for the commission. Given this I understand why they product was banned, they were potentially dangerous, but in a subtle way that a reasonable person would not have suspected (unlike lawndarts), and a warning on the packaging would not be sufficient in many cases. However that said going after the company CEO for the price of the recal, that seems unprecedented and draconian, surely the point of a limited liability company is to do just that, limit the liability, if this sets a precedent forget bucky balls but go after CEO's of BP, Philip Morris, James Hardie, that will be fun and games, and see the politicians running to protect their revenue.

    63. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "So apparently they were being marketed as "toys" at some point."

      But not, as far as I know, children's toys, and especially not small children's toys. Go to ThinkGeek and look at all the toys. But they aren't being marketed for children, much less small children.

      "I don't know how you do it in America but in the UK the law generally works on the basis of what a "reasonable person" would think and assume. Clearly a reasonable person would not consider a cleaning products, a car or a power tool to be a suitable toy. What a reasonable person does think is ultimately up to a jury though."

      Of course, the U.S. is also a Common Law country, so we also have the "reasonable person" standard. But isn't that the whole point? If a manufacturer clearly marks something Keep Away From All Children, as Buckyballs clearly did, is it "reasonable" to hold the manufacturer responsible when your kid swallows them?

      Or is it more "reasonable" to blame the parents for putting something known to be hazardous within the reach of small children?

    64. Re: Sounds good to me by anubi · · Score: 1

      I think the core problem is Zucker marketed buckyballs as toys for kids. Home Depot (where I just picked up a couple of packs of neodymium magnets ) would also be in a hot spot had they marketed these as a toy instead of as a tool.

      I don't think Zucker was thinking clearly when he considered this as a business model... likely his hopes of entrepreneural success overwhelmed his common sense of kids eating these things. My feeling is he saw they weren't poisonous and had no sharp edges....one would most likely pass through with no more ado than a small nut or bolt - he probably never considered what would happen if two of these were ingested, several hours apart, so that the magnets try to attract each other once in the intestine ( with each magnet being in a different fold of the intestine ). Of course, the magnets would migrate to each other as the crow flies, and catch both intestinal walls between them, and with the pinching, shut off the blood supply to that tiny section of intestinal wall. Something like that would be extremely difficult for a doctor to diagnose because it would not leave any chemical signatures of infections or biological distress in the blood until the damage had been done and the intestine began to rot. Once the structural integrity of the intestines are compromised, the chyme leaks out into the abdominal cavity, making one heckuva mess which will be fatal if not corrected.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    65. Re: Sounds good to me by dasunt · · Score: 1

      The box had a warning label, but not the product, and unlike drain cleaner the product does not stay in the box, it's designed to be stuck to things.

      Could the warning label be more clear? I'm specifically thinking of "this is dangerous to children because ingestion can cause [problem]".

    66. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, the government already won. The case is over, the company closed down. "

      WHOOSH!

      You missed the whole point. Sure, that was bad enough. But IF THE GOVERNMENT WINS THIS, it will set an even WORSE precedent. Because this would not just shut the company down, but make the CEO personally liable for harming small children... even though their product (see the link I provided above) was clearly marked "Keep Away From All Children".

      If that prospect doesn't give you chills, then nothing will.

    67. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I'm of the opinion that everything in this world doesn't have to be "somebody's fault". Or more precisely; placing blame isn't necessarily very interesting or useful to solve a problem. Sometimes, it's just better to look at things as they are, objectively without judgement, to identify the most constructive course of action.

      I'm certainly not trying to argue that this is the manufacturers fault. The parents shouldn't let their children play with such things, so if you must choose a single party to point at, it would probably be them. But the reality of it is that people are going to make mistakes. Not everyone is going to realise all potentials dangers all the time. Doing something as extreme as prosecuting the parents for child abuse in this situation isn't actually going to help anybody, unless they force-fed their kids magnets. And in all likelihood, those parents already got a number of sleepless nights and enough feelings of guilt to very careful selecting toys in the future, which is about as much as you can realistically hope to achieve.

      From a more systemic point of view (and without having seen exactly how the warning used to read), I am guessing that the best solution to reduce the number of accidents, if that's what we want to do, would be to explain more clearly why the magnets are dangerous to children. People are usually more inclined to follow instructions if they fully understand the logic behind them. For example: "If accidentally swallowed, these magnets will get stuck in the intestines, probably tearing a hole in them. Treat them like poison. Keep them away from children." would be more effective than for example: "This is not a children's toy. Improper use can lead to injury or death."

    68. Re: Sounds good to me by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan

      Agreed. The problem here is that it wasn't his company that threw the shit, it was just his fan it was thrown into.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    69. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally would love to see them go after Lloyd Blankfein, John Corazine, etc, for the damage their companies have caused ordinary people in this country. There have been some suicides attributed to peoples losses from their actions too, so I think the death penalty should apply. Might send a 'message' to the banking industry on their actions towards us 'muppets'.

    70. Re:Sounds good to me by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times.

      ALL small children will put anything they find in their mouth, it's a hard wired instinctive behaviour that's starts as soon as they are born and is mostly gone by time they hit school. Very young babies spend most of their waking hours staring at their hands and punching themselves in the face in an attempt to figure out how to use their arms to get stuff into their face. And yes, you do have to keep an eye on them 24x7.

      I cannot agree with the court. The were clearly marked not for children, the labels are aimed at the parents who buy them, not the kids that swallow them. If the problem is common then it probably indicates a low awareness of the hazard by parents so perhaps I can agree with withdrawing them from stores. However the product is in no way "defective" so I certainly don't agree the company (let alone the CEO personally) should be liable for the cost of recalling stock that was bought and sold legally and in good faith. To me that smacks of retrospective punishment.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    71. Re: Sounds good to me by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Informative

      He marketed them as toys for adults, clearly labeled as not for kids.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    72. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.

      As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.

      And if you actually had to *read* a entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese, to know not to give your young child - or leave them alone around - that hand grenade, the legalese isn't the only thing that is 'dense'.

      And, even if you hadn't read the booklet of warnings in dense legalese, if you gave your child access to that hand grenade you are a really dense parent with really really poor parenting skills, and you child would be far better off if you just took than hand grenade into the woods with you, pulled the pin and dropped it at your feet, and waited for the result. At least then the child would be rid of one of the major causes of injury to them.

    73. Re: Sounds good to me by Jstlook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Three points (from the article itself):

      1) Zucker did not market buckyballs. The company, of which he is CEO, marketed them.
      2) Zucker may have been the CEO of the LLC, but under the current laws there is no excuse for the regulatory commission going after a single person, rather than the company that he ran.
      3) The company clearly *did* consider the risks of this product, as they originally marketed them as 13+. His company went on to be even more clear when it became obvious that idiots cannot comprehend what problems magnets can cause.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    74. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem with this train of thought is where do you draw the line? Recall the hot coffee story a number of years ago. What temperate should coffee be served and who is responsible if you drive and spill it on yourself?

      Some things already have ridiculous warnings like metal ladders and "do not use near live electrical lines". Does it need to be said that metal conducts electricity and therefor if the ladder touches a live wire bad things will happen?

      Everyone is looking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit and so you get product warning labels warning you that the product label warning could give you a paper cut..

    75. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypothesis:

      1. Manufacturers generally get sued for all kinds of crazy reasons, when people have been stupid while using their products.

      2. Manufacturers slap on "not safe for kids" and similar labels all the time, just to be safe.

      3. The label loses any semantic meaning, since it is always there. People start to ignore it, and try to rely on their own judgement.

      4. Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous? There is lack of imagination as to what happens with more than one of those in a small child's intestines.

      5. ...

      6. Visit to the ER.

      I could agree with that, however since you said people "ignore the label and try to rely on their own judgement", isn't it then the fault of *their judgement* and not the fault of the manufacturer who plainly labelled the product? Perhaps everyone should start suing the car companies - after all, if some idiot takes a car and deliberately drives that car into a crowd of people, injuring/killing some of them (as recently happened in CA), that's the "car manufacturers fault" right?

      And of course the idiot who is trying to text on their phone while not paying attention to the road while driving, and rear-ends someone causing an accident and injury/death is certainly not to blame for their own actions, it's all the fault of the cell phone manufacturer, cell provider, and car manfacturer too, right?? Given that, of course an *ethical* company would stop manufacturing these items and go out of business right? So we'd have no cars and no cell phones... wait, that might actually be a good thing. ;-)

    76. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 2

      And to add to that, by the way: Here there may (again) be a problem with the legal tradition in the US. Presumably, writing something broad like "improper use can lead to injury or death" is safer from a culpability reduction perspective than being specific, since then you have covered any possible way someone may hurt themselves. Otherwise, someone can argue that you didn't describe exactly the way they got hurt. It is, on the other hand, probably more likely that someone actually will hurt themselves, than if you are specific with the dangers.

    77. Re:Sounds good to me by msobkow · · Score: 1

      It's equally ridiculouse for the owners, CEO, and directors of a company to walk away from the lawsuits with hundreds of millions of dollars while having the company declare bankruptcy to avoid paying out when they lose the lawsuits.

      A balance needs to be struck. Right now it is grotesquely in favour of the CEO, and it shouldn't be.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    78. Re: Sounds good to me by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      What's stopping your dumbass kid from eating a ball bearing of the exact diameter of a buckyball? The strength of a typical electromotor case, I'm guessing. So why aren't the Fed banning vacum cleaners, etc?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    79. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 1

      Yes, to the extent that we need to blame a single party, it would those who had poor judgement. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily help us very much. People are, and always will be, imperfect. The way I see it, this is more of a system failure.

    80. Re:Sounds good to me by methano · · Score: 1

      My wife gave me some of these Buckballs for Christmas a couple of years ago before they were banned. I have to admit, it's real tempting to put them in your mouth. Also, it's impossible to get them back into that cube shape like they were when she bought them. But they are fun to play with. I enjoy them even more now that they're banned.

    81. Re: Sounds good to me by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      In summary, I think the action of the CPA was justified.

      They would be if the object of the action weren't so arbitrary. I can think of several dozen other products that could be defined as dangerous but aren't, but they aren't a hot new item, are they?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    82. Re: Sounds good to me by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel
      > removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.

      He'd have to eat two magnets in two separate events. The problem is they cling together from different intestine switchbacks, thus killing the tissue in the two walls by crushing closed their blood supplies. Pain and holes ensue.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    83. Re:Sounds good to me by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      No, I'll tell you what'll follow: Colt Arms, Smith & Wesson and BSA subjected to class action lawsuits following incidents in which tools made by them have been directly implicated in fatalities. Ford Motor company, General Motors and Hyundai getting the same treatment. Cold Steel and Stanley as well following people getting shanked with Bowies and boxcutters. Stihl and McCulloch getting sued after some arse in Arkansas decides it might be a good idea to ignore the safety advice printed on the bar and attempt to stop the fucking thing with his scrotum.

      This shit might sound ridiculous, but this is the way you're advocating. THAT, to me, sounds utterly fucking batshit insane.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    84. Re: Sounds good to me by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      could the parents not fucking READ?? That's called parental negligence, not some creep in a trenchcoat handing out snake egg magnets at the school gates and daring the little darlings to swallow them!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    85. Re: Sounds good to me by Tastecicles · · Score: 0

      oh, you're already at +5, I'd've given you all my mod points if I hadn't already commented.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    86. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hot coffee story wasn't about spilling coffee while driving. That's just the spin.

    87. Re:Sounds good to me by Genda · · Score: 0

      Does this mean I can go after Justice Scalia for pushing "Corporations are people" leading to the raft of mischief we've endured recently? Let's get busy!

    88. Re: Sounds good to me by Genda · · Score: 2

      And unjust as well. It can be argued that the Cosa Nostra occasional does positive things. I'm still waiting for a single positive outcome from Scientology.

    89. Re:Sounds good to me by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      in English Law, there is a common clause in most Statutes that holds company directors equally and personally liable for ANY violations that occur within or provably on behalf of the company. The situation described in this article would not serve as an example, but here's one that would:

      A company has an employee who drives a company car. Said employee causes an incident while driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Said incident causes fatalities. For the sake of argument, he is charged and convicted with negligent manslaughter. Guess what? Since he did it with the company car, on company time, the Director of the company is held equally liable and is also charged and convicted with negligent manslaughter as if he himself was at the wheel. See how that works yet?

      It stems from the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, where the phrase "I was only following orders" didn't get SS guards or Gestapo officers - or their superiors, who may or may not have even been present at a single execution - off of death sentences.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    90. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that how the rugrat wins a Darwin award?

    91. Re: Sounds good to me by FullCircle · · Score: 1, Informative

      McDonalds was clearly guilty of serving dangerously hot coffee but the media spun it as frivolous.

      McDonalds specified coffee to be 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. That's hot enough to cause third degree burns and require skin grafts.

      Read some of the details or watch the documentary. The burns were horrifying and yet the poor lady gets crucified in the media.
      http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
    92. Re:Sounds good to me by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      hate to tell you this, but lack of a piece of paper is no physical barrier to sitting behind a steering wheel, putting pressure on the clutch and turning the key.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    93. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 1

      The label on the box would probably not have stopped me from buying them by itself, just as the T labels on PS3 video games has not stopped me. The safety labels on consumer items is as often just a CYA action on the part of the manufacturers, not a serious effort to protect or warn people of the dangers involved.

      So you ignore the warning label and of course it's someone else's fault. *shakes head* Unbelievable.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    94. Re: Sounds good to me by D'Sphitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The box had a warning label, but not the product...

      Neither do balloons, yet dozens of kids choke to death on them every year.

    95. Re: Sounds good to me by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.

      I don't think shifting the blame is the cause so much as greed or desperation. Desperation I can understand, if a kid eats one and the parents owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees they can't possibly pay, trying to get money from a big corporation starts to look like your only move I guess.

      Not saying that's better, just that I don't think it has as much to do with scapegoating responsibility.

    96. Re: Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You have to eat more than one to have the problem. A single one passes through without attracting itself to anything else.

      As long as you stay away from anything and everything metallic or magnetic....

    97. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 4, Informative

      The box had a warning label, but not the product, and unlike drain cleaner the product does not stay in the box, it's designed to be stuck to things.

      Neither do tacks or dozens of other things that aren't for children. Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if it will fit in their mouth count on a kid eating it? I don't have kids and I know that. If the frigging box says not for children I'm going to take it out of the box and THEN assume it's safe for children. That's ridiculous. From what I've seen of buckyballs there isn't room to put the warning on the balls themselves where it would actually be readable.

      In addition they then enhanced the buckyball line by introducing a range of candy colours, (oranges, pink, red, blue) from memory, the orange looked particularly delicious. The drugs industry goes to some effort to try to differentiate their pills from candy, buckyball were going in the opposite direction, it was asking for trouble.

      Yeah, he made colors so more kids would eat them. I don't understand the logic here. The colors mean you can do more interesting things with them. Heaven forbid they add value to there product. They do the same thing with tacks.

      Also having watched adults play with buckyballs, they often try and make an earring, so I can imagine the following , kid A places a ball either side of their ear "look lets scare mom that I got a peircing" kid B goes one better and places one either side of their tongue"

      THE BOX SAID THEY ARE NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. So who's fault is it when the parent gives them to the kids?

      Given this I understand why they product was banned, they were potentially dangerous

      Damn near everything is potentially dangerous. These are no more dangerous than thousands of other things out there. Know how many kids are killed in cars every year? Yet no one does a damn thing to address that problem. It's always just an accident, someone else's fault.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    98. Re:Sounds good to me by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.

      Once the legalese is stripped away it all boils down to "Once you pull the pin, Mr. Hand Grenade is not your friend!"

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    99. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while i think crucifying Craig Zucker is wrong, i'm OK with the recall. i personally don't like the recall but 'the people' decided to recall, so i accept it because i'm really not coocoo for bucky-balls. if the company had a bill to pay for the recall, the company should pay it. if Craig Zucker dissolved the company to avoid paying that bill, then, yes, Craig Zucker should have a bill to pay.

      i think the whole lawsuit thing by the parents is ridiculous. ultimately, it is their responsibility to supervise their children. as a judge, i would not have awarded them any money for medical bills, etc. what they paid in medical bills is the cost of their negligence. nobody's perfect. i sympathize and would not crucify the parents either. however, they were awarded a large sum of cash and created this big bucky snowball that's rolling downhill. let the crucification of the parents continue as a counter-balance.

    100. Re: Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why he's in trouble. High strength magnets are not a toy.

      They certainly are a toy. By the way, there are other adult toys kids should not have access to --- such as hunting rifles used in hunting sports.

      Firecrackers, BDSM gear, high powered laser pointers, racing cars, four wheelers/ATVs, diving boards, dirt bikes, soldering irons, CNC tools, wood carving and arc welding tools, and the list of adult toys/hobbyist products goes on and on; of adult toys that nobody should allow their kids (or kids) unfettered access to, aside from exceptional situations --- very responsible kids who first understand the dangers and are supervised, and known to be very careful and responsible.

    101. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, that is insightful. a precedent upon which to recall guns...

      thanks for the idea, jane!

      Sincerely,
      Barry-O

    102. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 2

      The main point was the line is hard to draw when it comes to protecting people. Again, what temperature "should" coffee be served at? What about people who want it hotter so its still hot when they drink it a few minutes later (say stop on the way to work)?

      Much like the magnets, what might be safe to some isn't safe for others....

    103. Re:Sounds good to me by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Even worst, if one intentionally hurts someone else by doing exactly what you said not to do, you can end up being sued for (not sure how to express myself in english) "promoting murder".

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    104. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But other toys (Lego for example) come in a box that says not for children under X years old, and nobody expects the Lego to stay in the box or have each individual block marked as unsafe for children. Doesn't that make this a double standard?

    105. Re:Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times.

      The problem with buckyballs; is children age ~12 to 14 were using pairs of buckeyballs to "fake a tongue piercing"; by placing one magnet on top, and another magnet on the opposite side of the tongue

      The children likely had no intention of swallowing any magnets, but it occured due to an "accident" which happened while they were playing a dangerous game with the balls.

    106. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... do you know where I could get me some black-market buckyballs?

    107. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or else what?

    108. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, normally you should read it before you let go of the spoon...

    109. Re: Sounds good to me by Xeno+man · · Score: 0

      That's easy. It should be at a temperature that is less than what would cause severe physical damage if someone had it spilled on them, a not uncommon accident. The line between "ow ow ow thats hot" and "Ahhhhhh I need surgery" is easy enough to draw.

      As for what a minority of people want. I don't give a flying fuck. That is what thermoses and microwaves are for. Still not good enough, brew your own fucking coffee.

    110. Re:Sounds good to me by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      They are holding him personally responsible for the actions of others using something against the directions.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    111. Re: Sounds good to me by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Most metals are not magnetic.

    112. Re:Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This right here might be the grounds to sue him, did he dissolve the company before the company was held liable for the costs of the recall? If the company runs out of funds that's OK, but if you funnel money out that is not.

      Funneling money out after taking on liability would be called fraudulent transfer. I suspect they weren't that dumb. Based on buckyballs' website, their assets were transferred to a liquidating trust, for the purpose of dispensing with the company; therefore they can file their claims against the trust, so no... that's not a good reason to sue the former shareholders: On December 27, 2012 Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC (the "Company") stopped doing business and filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of State of Delaware, thereby ceasing to exist pursuant to applicable Delaware law. The MOH Liquidating Trust has been established to deal with and, to the extent they are valid, pay, to the extent assets are available, ....

    113. Re:Sounds good to me by spongman · · Score: 1

      s/buckyballs/any product that could potentially cause harm to anyone/g

      Say goodbye to commerce.

    114. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.[...]I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.

      It's the kid's fault. If you are truly tired of the lack of personal responsibilty, realize that each individual is responsible for his own actions. If you start pushing blame to the parents, then you may as well blame "society", whatever the hell that means.

    115. Re:Sounds good to me by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      And as a Slashdot reader, I know that users never RTFM or the EULA. Even if they do, they won't remember it.

      Remember drivers ed? They tend to tell you to use turn signals. In practice, the check engine light will burn out before the turn signals will.

      (wooh! a car analogy!)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    116. Re:Sounds good to me by Sylak · · Score: 1

      If he was stupid enough not to form an LLC or an S-Corp, it's perfectly normal for him to be held personally liable for this, since in the cases of a sole proprietorship the individual and company are one in the same.

    117. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was exactly about that. So McDonald's had it at 190F. It's not like people always spilled coffee on themselves and expected all companies that made coffee to be only be 130F. "Well the last time I spilled something hot on myself in my crotch it wasn't that bad therefore I can expect that from everywhere". Really? I get hot coffee and drinks all around the world. I take a small sip first to see exactly how hot it is because it could be luke warm to down right fcuking hot. Who knows? That is what the responsible average person should expect.

    118. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      So what is the temperature as a number? This is the problem with these types of discussions, to much of this is subjective. Anyhow, as I said, some things might be safe for some and not others and this becomes difficult to "enforce". Especially as the "I will sue" and the "its not my fault" groups converge.

    119. Re: Sounds good to me by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I accidentally spilled some bleach in my ammonia and I died a painful death. Can I sue Clorox? Surely they should have known that this might happen. They shouldn't have put so much chlorine in their bleach. These companies have to be held responsible for the damage they cause by selling dangerous products.

    120. Re:Sounds good to me by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Bloody insane. Do something as an individual and you are liable. Create a two dollar company and now you claim the company did it. So no problem Bank Robbers Incorporated, guess what they do with the guns and ammunition they have and the dead bodies they pile up. Are they liable, no, it's the companies fault. Seriously how cracked are you. Individuals make the decisions, individuals carry out the actions and individuals should be held liable. Hiding it behind the pseudo person of a company is a straight up corruption and lie. A corporate charter is basically a licence for individuals who own that corporation to commit crimes and personally get away with it.

      Every time a corporation commits a criminal act, a full investigation should be launched into all the individuals involved in the carrying out of that criminal act and they should be held personally criminally liable for the actions they carried out. No out of court settlements, no fine the share holders who had nothing to do with it, target those that carried out the criminal acts and penalise them accordingly.

      No more privatise the profits and socialise the losses. (It ain't about ladders, it's about pharmaceuticals killing tens of thousands, contaminated foods, stealing peoples pensions, oh yes wait and just like all other products even defective ladders that fail).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    121. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do you have a learning disability, or are you just really fucking stupid? Nothing you have stated in this thread matches even the most generous interpretation of reality.

    122. Re: Sounds good to me by __aawavt7683 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

      "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
      "Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes."

      Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right. I guess the woman that burned herself was unfit to experience coffee. Are you?

    123. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apostrophes are dangerous. Someone gave you a box of them, and you just disemboweled your first sentence with one.

    124. Re: Sounds good to me by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      I really hate governments that decide they need to make an example of someone. Is it my imagination or is the US doing that A LOT?

    125. Re:Sounds good to me by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      if I owned a ladder company I would make two-way ladders that worked whether they were oriented up or down.

    126. Re: Sounds good to me by davester666 · · Score: 1

      And yet, millions of people managed to successfully consume it.

      Until someone tried drinking and driving, and hit a bump and spilled it in their lap.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    127. Re: Sounds good to me by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I accidentally spilled some bleach in my ammonia and I died a painful death. Can I sue Clorox?

      Obviously not because you're a dead mofo. next question.

    128. Re: Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Most metals are not magnetic.

      You mean most matter is not very magnetic near room temperature, except with a massively powerful magnet.

      With a strong enough magnet, all matter is magnetic.

      Anyways... if you lay down on a metal surface containing Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, or Gadolinium, and have ingested one of these; you may be placing a sufficiently magnetic surface close enough to a powerful magnet, that there is a danger.

    129. Re: Sounds good to me by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fucking parents, how do they work?

      They don't. Government has spent the better part of 50 years trying to be "co-parents" along with the education system.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    130. Re:Sounds good to me by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a former Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    131. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your statement is reprehensible, as this may be one of the clearest-cut cases of a mis-decided suit that I can possibly think of. While I can certainly feel pity for the pain the plaintiff suffered, it was *entirely* her fault. Who would she have sued if she'd brewed the coffee? It'd be just as hot, but there'd be no deep wallets to recompense your idiocy.

      Perfect captcha: imbecile.

    132. Re: Sounds good to me by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some are just looking for that big pay out. Some actually think it's someone else's fault. Many are just desperate for some way to not live in poverty after the accident and so are susceptible to a slip and fall lawyer's slick pitch. A decent social safety net would cover the latter case quite well. Courts not willing to entertain the arguments of every nutter and creep that darken it's doors at the defendant's expense would cover the first two.

      The latter would be bolstered by the knowledge that due to the safety net, in the unlikely case that the nutter or creep may also have a valid case they will not be left destitute if the courts show them the door.

    133. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of misdeeds: every negligent parent that allowed their unsupervised child to eat a magnet who then decided to sue the manufacturer instead of seeking parenting lessons.

    134. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say goodbye to commerce

      "Good. Good." -Obama and the other Communists

    135. Re: Sounds good to me by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      It was not about spilling coffee while driving. The car was in park.

    136. Re:Sounds good to me by sjames · · Score: 1

      They were marketed for 13+ years old based on your quote of Wikipedia.

      While that might have turned out to be inadequate, it doesn't seem to be so obviously so that it should attract such an extreme liability It's not like he marketed real handguns suitable for ages 6 and up.

    137. Re: Sounds good to me by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point, intentionally I suspect. It's not that there is a temperature where coffee "should" be served, it's that any product sold for profit should be generally safe under foreseeable uses. McDonald's knew from a long series of previous lawsuits that normal use of their coffee often resulted in spills especially in cars when served from the drive-thru, and those spills often led to extreme medical emergencies. That's the standard: if you become aware that your product under normal use is dangerous, then your profits from imposing that danger are recoverable. That's unremarkable. Of course that's how the law works.

    138. Re: Sounds good to me by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      Anyways... if you lay down on a metal surface containing Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, or Gadolinium, and have ingested one of these; you may be placing a sufficiently magnetic surface close enough to a powerful magnet, that there is a danger.

      Not at all. The only danger is if you eat two neodymium magnets more than a few minutes apart but within a 24 hour period. If you eat one, nothing happens, it comes in your poop. If you eat several at same time, nothing happens, you poop several at same time. The problem is that small intestine crosses near itself in countless places. If two magnets are traveling in different parts of the small intestines that cross closely they will start to pinch, and the prolonged pinching will eventually perforate the intestines. Magnets are fun, but they are serious toys, not something you hand over to someone who can't understand the consequences of ingesting questionable items.

    139. Re:Sounds good to me by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Buckyballs, then Monsanto, DuPont, Bank of America, JP Morgan, nuclear power companies, grocers selling tainted food, lawyers who fail to protect their clients, Drone operators and manufacturers. The list goes on and on... hmm politicians?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    140. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now we are all relegated to luke warm soup and drinks just because someone spilled coffee on her crotch. Way to ruin something for the rest of us.

    141. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At my local coffee shop, I frequently (as in: more than several times a week) order a pour-over. I "specify" that the hot water come from the boiling espresso machine instead of the hot tap on the Bunn machine, because the hotter water makes my fresh cup of coffee taste markedly better once it is brewed.

      But do I drink it at that temperature? No, at least not very quickly. And do I hold it between my legs while driving? Fuck no.

      In other news, I also check the lid on my coffee, wherever it comes from, just to make sure I don't pour the hot liquid all over myself when I take a drink.

      And when I sit down to dinner, I look at the food on my fork before I cram it into my mouth. If it looks too hot (due to the copious amounts of steam rolling off), I'll take my time with it so I don't burn my mouth.

      And when it's raining and I go outside, I expect to get wet.

      And if I ignore a traffic signal when driving, I expect to get run into.

      So what temperature can a person withstand without injury? According to a graph, 140 degrees F for less than 5 seconds.

      140 degrees is very tepid coffee. 140 degrees is less than the required serving temperature for many hot foods. 140 degrees is not hot enough, yet is still dangerous to the skin.

      Maybe we should require that all commercially-sold coffee be iced, and that all floors leading to such commercial coffee dispensaries be coated in thick, padded, skid-resistant rubber floors.

      We should also take steak knives out of the steak houses: Someone might hurt themselves. Or at least have them sign a waiver before they're allowed to eat their T-bone (OMG! BONES IN MEAT! SOMEONE MIGHT CHOKE!).

    142. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1

      (html fail: a graph)

    143. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, this argument was lost a long time ago. The court of public opinion has ruled and you lost.

      Some people might take that as a gentle reminder to review your side of things, but no.

      Let's just accept your contention that the burns were horrifying. Might that have anything to do with storing a hot drink on your lap? Oh no, it has to be McDonalds. After all, who has the money? Not the customer, no.

      When people say coffee, they assume hot coffee. Only non-hot coffee needs to be qualified, as in, "iced coffee". Now there's a drink you can place between your legs, and not endanger your crotch. As anyone over the age of 8 or so, knows.

    144. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Is it my imagination or is the US doing that A LOT?

      It's not your imagination. It's starting to get rather scary.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    145. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why you said "commonly". It only takes once. You probably just don't understand the simple concept of "scale".

    146. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In what world does the foreseeable uses of brewed coffee include dumping it all over oneself?

      Yes, accidents happen. Sometimes, they're terrible accidents.

      But terrible though they may be, it's really no different than choking on a Big Mac: Should we have McD's cut those into bite-size portions, like I used to do with hot dogs when my daughter was very young?

      It is implicit that coffee is hot. Be careful. If you can't be careful, then don't order coffee: You're an adult, and you get to decide what is best for you.

    147. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point you need to go back to first grade and learn about basic punctuation.

      As Slashdot itself says: "Filter error: please use fewer 'junk' characters."

    148. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they were in the "everything goes into the mouth" phase i didn't give them powerful magnets

      In my house, the strong magnets are strong enough that little kids can't pull them off the fridge. No, seriously, I have trouble pulling them off the fridge, and if they stick together, it's a major project to separate them.

      Postulate: BuckyBalls weren't powerful enough.

    149. Re: Sounds good to me by Agent+ME · · Score: 1

      Does Clorox sell bleach and ammounia together in drive-throughs?

    150. Re: Sounds good to me by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They were labelled 13+ when that was the standard. When the standard changed to over 14, he changed the packaging to meet the new requirement.

      He even offered a recall for any of the old 13+ packages. Of over 175,000 units sold, fewer than 50 were returned by consumers.

      ~~

    151. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, the guvment doesn't want coffee served in a drive-thru to be hot enough to nearly kill someone when spilled! That's practically the same thing as the guvment outlawing knives! I feel so persecuted! First they outlaw people dieing in drive-thrus, next they'll be rounding us all up in containment camps!

    152. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was a drink served to a drive-thru. Things being spilled there is not a freak accident!

    153. Re: Sounds good to me by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I accidentally spilled some gasoline in my lighter and I died a painful death. Can I sue Exxon? Surely they should have known that this might happen. They shouldn't have put so much octane in their gasoline. These companies have to be held responsible for the damage they cause by selling dangerous products.

    154. Re: Sounds good to me by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      fucking banks, they don't have parents. or morals. or plain old human decency. yet they're more criminal than the magnet magnate.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    155. Re: Sounds good to me by Splab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are 216 in my set, they have all been accounted for and are sitting neatly in a 6*6*6 structure, there have been pets, infants, children and drunken people near them, but none have been lost, swallowed or used for lewt sexual acts.

      It's all about being responsible and removing the stuff that isn't toys when individual who might think they are toys are around.

    156. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.

      It is bogus, as the kid would have had to have eaten _two_ of said magnets to injure their bowel.

    157. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are sold as a cube puzzle and I always restore the cube after making something. I am very afraid of my own responsibility not to let my cat swallow them. Both examples of a kid using them are clearly poor choices on the parents sake. Decorating Cakes and placing them on fridges. The recall was a move to build carriers not a public safety issue. People need to be responsible for there actions not the government

    158. Re: Sounds good to me by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      My kids were stringing popcorn with needle and thread at age 2 (with close supervision). It doesn't take more than a poke or two for them to learn. I would break double edged razor blades to cut balsa for stick and paper models at age 6. I had a cousin working as a choker setter in the woods at age 8. His 12 year old brother was operating a D8 Cat, driving a log truck and doing welding. Sometimes I think we baby this generation too much

    159. Re:Sounds good to me by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that cleaning products usually do have prominent warnings on them. Cars need a license to drive that isn't available to children and also come with pages of warnings in the manual (since they don't come in a box). Power tools also have warnings on them.

      And then, there are assault rifles.

    160. Re: Sounds good to me by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      My god, you mean they serve a drink that is supposed to be made with near-boiling water at the temperature of near-boiling water? It's insanity! If you don't hold a cup of coffee carefully, don't take care when drinking from it, or you place it between your legs and pull out of the drive-thru, then sorry -- that's your own fault, or that of your parents for not teaching you coffee is hot. Cook your own food at home? Hell, own a regular electric kettle? If so, you probably deal with food and/or beverages that are just as hot on a daily basis.

    161. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between hot and then what McDonalds was doing. If I order coffee, then no, I don't expect to get third degree burns if I spill it. Neither do you, so stop being a disingenuous ass about it.

    162. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legos are unsafe for kids of all ages...ever step on one?

    163. Re:Sounds good to me by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Yes, but most lawsuits are settled before trial, for various reasons. So even frivolous lawsuits are likely to harm you.

    164. Re:Sounds good to me by Dthief · · Score: 1
      So the person who bought small round objects and left them around a 4-year old should be responsible....the company that made something really fun should?

      this is not a product that is inherently dangerous in any way, its only dangerous if you really pervert the use by any mode of insertion (oral or other).

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    165. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1. someone ELSE bought the coffee and gave it to an old woman. this is about equal to giving hot coffee to a small child. similar motor skills & skin thickness
      #2. the old woman placed the coffee between her legs and TOOK THE LID OFF IN A CAR
      #3. the hot coffee spilled and she was too feeble even to react properly.
      #4. mcdonalds didn't pick the temperature out of capitalist evil. it was selected by experts to ensure maximum flavor. guess what temperature starbucks coffee used to be? tim hortons? dunkin donuts? this lawsuit changed retail coffee forever.

      this case basically became an anti-capitalist socialist/communist. they dont care what the facts are, the corporation MUST be evil and MUST be punished.

    166. Re: Sounds good to me by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Spilled drain cleaner is typically cleaned up quickly, and if touched does damage but usually not too much. A few stray magnet balls can sit there until some toddler chomps them. Are you really calling a two-year-old "stupid crotch fruit" for that? And it doesn't have to be the toddler's house, or his parents who were responsible for losing them.

      Look, on the one hand it's incredibly rare that this will happen, and I get that, and it's a reasonable argument, but that's not what you're saying. What do you do when it's statistically likely that a product will cause harm to someone not involved in the negligence?

      I was out once, vaping my e-cig, when the unit failed (not my fault, the seal was defective) and spilled a significant amount of nicotine fluid. I got some napkins and cleaned it up well, mostly because if I didn't, it would have been fairly easy for some random toddler to overdose himself on nicotine. It was a sobering moment, really. I know it's incredibly unlikely, but what if I hadn't cleaned it up, and that had happened? Would you hurl insults at the toddler, or me, or the e-cig manufacturer? To be consistent with what you posted, it seems that you'd yell at the poisoned toddler.

      There's a difference between liability for oneself, and liability for likely harm to others, and it's worth drawing the distinction even if you conclude in some cases that it's not worth exercising.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    167. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this can make people hiding financially and legally behind companies and corporation, fictive legal "person" entities, GREAT!!!

      By all means be accountable.

    168. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know your country is really screwed up once that booklet starts weighing more than the case of grenades ;).

    169. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In practice what happens is guys like him who aren't really that responsible (it's the parents fault) will get in trouble.

      Whereas other people get to go free:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_Global#October_2011:_MF_Global_transfers_client_account_funds_to_its_own_account

    170. Re: Sounds good to me by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      McDonalds specified coffee to be 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

      Wow those are big numbes

      That's hot enough to cause third degree burns and require skin grafts.

      My god that's terrible, so it MUST be McDonald's fault!

      McDonalds was clearly guilty of serving dangerously hot coffee but the media spun it as frivolous.

      The thing is hot drinks are best made at or near boiling point. Near for coffee, and actually at 100C for tea. They're also best served fresh.

      You know what? Boiling water is dangerous. Most adults accept this. Hell, even kids do.

      I remember a close teenage relative of mine years ago spilled a cup soup on herself and got some quite nasty burns. Rather unpleasant. I don't think it ever crossed her mind that it wasn't her fault but was the fault of the vendor she saw filling the cup from a freshly boiled kettle.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    171. Re:Sounds good to me by KrazyDave · · Score: 1

      "As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese" That a flat-out lie. Total fabrication. There's no "legalese" or booklet, otherwise. An Armed Forces member is governed under martial law the second he or she swears the oath. Your Constitutional rights are suspended until you have completed your six year obligation and receive your formal discharge at that time. People under martial law cannot sue the government which hold said law over them. Therefore, 'legalese" booklets do not exist since there is absolutely no liability for the contractor to the service member. This concept is spelled out early and often in the service member's career and is common knowledge to anyone who has served. Grenades, like any other ordnance, comes in marked containers and each grenade's description (smoke, frag, etc.) and military nomenclature is printed on the individual grenade. There are no fucking "booklets,"

      --
      www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
    172. Re:Sounds good to me by God+Of+Atheism · · Score: 1

      This is an extremely dangerous precedent and the government must lose this case. Otherwise, anybody could be prosecuted for anything, merely if some child gets hold of it. Bad, bad, bad.

      Which is extremely convenient for an oppressive regime.

    173. Re: Sounds good to me by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      any product sold for profit should be generally safe under foreseeable uses.

      What - the - FUCK?

      That is so far from being true. If it were, it would be impossible to sell motor vehicles of any sort, power tools, ladders, bicycles, kitchen knives, certainly guns, any sort of cleaning fluid etc.

      McDonald's knew from a long series of previous lawsuits that normal use of their coffee often resulted in spills especially in cars when served from the drive-thru, and those spills often led to extreme medical emergencies.

      Expecting McD's or anyone to stop selling reasonable coffee because idiots keep it in their laps is like expecting power tool sellers to stop selling power tools because idiots refuse to use safety goggles.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    174. Re: Sounds good to me by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      Why not yell at the parents for letting their kid ingest random fluids in the street?

    175. Re: Sounds good to me by houghi · · Score: 1

      Boiling water is 100C, Coffee is made with boiling water.
      Some degrees less by cooling and you get to 85C to 90C. And that is what I would expect coffee to be and that is what it was.
      So unless she ordered an ice coffee or they made the coffee superheated in the container or threw the coffee in that persons lap, I would say stupidity from the customer.

      If you are stoopid enough to put that in your lap in a moving vehicle, then that is YOUR fault. If I spill my milkshake, I do not expect them to clean my car.

      If I burn my lips on a flaming sambucca, who can I sue? And yes, the burn were horrifying, but that is not related to the fact that it was HER stupidity. One again:
      1) Boiling water is hot
      2) Coffee is made with boiling water
      3) A moving car is not stable
      If those three do not make you able to deduct that you should not put coffee near your person in a driving vehicle, then you should be labeled as a person unfit to do their own purchases.

      Oblig.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    176. Re: Sounds good to me by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not really. The better grades of even black tea taste better when they are brewed at 90-95C. You would murder the taste of a green tea with boiling water, 90C is the absolute maximum you should use and that only for the cheapest kind out there. The best ones should be brewed at 60C!

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    177. Re: Sounds good to me by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't make it the magnet manufactures fault. Its plain stupid to think otherwise. I mean bullets are pretty small as well. What happens when kids swallow those?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    178. Re:Sounds good to me by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ..and I bet the contract for hand grenades came with a booklet describing safe use.

      You may not be able to sue the government, but the army can sue the manufacturer for damaging its property - i.e. you.

    179. Re:Sounds good to me by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You'd lose money. People would buy from your competitors, as their ladders are cheaper and have a down as well as an up.

      If I owned a ladder company I'd tell any customers using it stupidly to fuck off. I'd go out of business too, but at least I'd have a clear conscience.

    180. Re: Sounds good to me by delt0r · · Score: 2

      Was driving four wheeler around the farm as soon as i could reach the gear peddle. Had a soldering iron i used unsupervised from 7. Did my first weld about the same age and was allowed to use the workshop about that age as well. Been hunting on the farm with .22 since i was 13, mostly because we just didn't have a rifle till then.

      Seriously we are so overprotective that we don't let kids grow up until they leave home. Your job as a parent is not to protect mostly. But to prepare. You simply can't protect them, and not from the worst threat they face, themselves.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    181. Re: Sounds good to me by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      As for what a minority of people want. I don't give a flying fuck. That is what thermoses and microwaves are for. Still not good enough, brew your own fucking coffee.

      Ah, I see. So when a minority of people wanted the right to vote, you wouldn't have given a flying fuck. When a minority of people want to get married, you wouldn't have given a flying fuck. See how this works?

      Political definitions are terribly difficult to get right, but if pressed I'd have to identify myself as a "conservative with serious libertarian leanings" as a means of expressing my personal belief system. I happen to fully support the "minority rights" I detailed above in virtually every historical and contemporary sense they're commonly discussed. In other words, I believe in personal freedom, personal responsibility and letting others make their own choices, coupled with a healthy measure of attention to fiscal accountability at all levels of government.

      I'll add in the fact that I have two daughters and a third child on the way. I also appreciate the value of firearms. Would you care to guess the best way to prevent accidents with guns in any given home? You might start by drilling it into your children that weapons are not toys, followed by careful instruction in their proper storage and operation. You might be amazed by the results. As for idiots who don't treat things that can harm them with extreme caution, well, this is called natural selection, and it's the way our species managed to get where it is today.

      You sound like the sort of person who gets a hard-on at the mere thought of government pushing every citizen into nice, neat little boxes for their own good and that of their comrades, no matter how utterly fucking stupid they or their comrades may be in their failure to exercise due caution with materials that might just cause physical harm if improperly applied to human tissue.

      In short, go fuck yourself, you asinine, jackboot licking little piece of shit.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    182. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is, it wasn't marketed towards children, yet it seems safer than party balloons, which are marketed towards children.

      One of the few injuries (not deaths, like we have with balloons) from Buckyballs was the ingestion after someone put them on a cake. At some point you need to give up trying to protect people......

      let evolution take it's course...

    183. Re: Sounds good to me by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I would say that either the court of public opinion is still in session or the case has several appeals left. I used to be on the side of McDonald's until I heard the facts of the case. These aren't merely "horrific" burns, these are third degree burns. Was the award excessive? Possibly. But assuming for the moment that the original amount sought plus attorney's fees were awarded, should McDonald's have lost the case? I'd say most definitely.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

    184. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      You know what, i dont even drink coffee (i'm overly sensitive to temperatures and what some find comfortable i find painfully hot). But given this i understand how coffee is "brewed" and that its probably hot....
      I own a number of power tools, and my dad was a woodworker. Most are dangerous under "foreseeable uses". You can use a table-saw in a manner you think it was suppose to be and still get yourself in trouble ("kickback").

      I can drive my car EXACTLY how it is suppose to be driven at the posted limits and still have an accident. Part of the issue is "common sense", so with the coffee story, is it common for people to take the lid off the cup by putting something known to be hot between their legs in a "parked car"? One would think the lid was on there for safety reasons (to prevent spilling perhaps)? If so, this is intentionally bypassing the "safety device" and becomes like running a tablesaw without the blade guard on. A lot of people do it as the guard sometimes gets in the way, but it takes years of experience and skill to get to this level.

      Much of these "product safety issues" are around big-dollar lawsuits, fed by lawyers encouraging them and a court system granting the payouts.

      Someone posted a link that there is a movie about this, i think i will swing by the library and see if they have it. What is also interesting is that at $30 its comparable to many big-budget Hollywood blockbusters.

    185. Re: Sounds good to me by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      How fresh? Is there a range that would make it safer to wait a few minutes so that it becomes more acceptably safer but still retains the qualities that "fresh" coffee more desirable?

    186. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      I also thought the "As for what a minority of people want. I don't give a flying fuck" comment was a bit ignorant.
      Wonder if the same feeling is applicable if they were the one in the minority on something, or only when they feel they are with the majority? In the classic "NIMBY" case i suppose they would be willing to have a landfill next door to them as the "majority wants it and they don't give a flying fuck what the minority want"?

    187. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand slashdot. Every time there's a story about fraudulent mortgages, or banks betting against the investments they're selling to customers, or a dozen other corporate abuses, the comments are filled with people calling for criminal prosecution of the executives. Here we have yet another story of corporate behavior contributing to personal harm, and most of the comments seem to decry even civil prosecution of the executive.

    188. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the rest of that webpage? I only ask because cherry picking the one you want and leaving the rest out seems like such a lack of effort on your part.

      Properly cleaned after each use ..... home use advice?Yes. Resturant or coffee bar? Very likely Fast food coffee? Not cost effective, so unlikely.
      Cleaned a couple of times per day, when the employees would not be serving customers, very likely.

      "The Equipment

      Make sure that your equipment is thoroughly cleaned after each use by rinsing it with clear, hot water and drying it with an absorbant towel. Check that no grounds have been left to collect on any part of the equipment and that there is no build-up of coffee oil. Such residue can impart a bitter, rancid flavor to future cups of coffee."

      This one stand out for the not a normal business option; as in they are not going to spend the time and money with bottled or filtered water but will use tap water instead.

      "The Water

      The water you use is VERY important to the quality of your coffee. Use filtered or bottled water if your tap water is not good or imparts a strong odor or taste, such as chlorine. If you are using tap water let it run a few seconds before filling your coffee pot. Be sure to use cold water. Do not use distilled or softened water."

      This stands out as not so very business oriented instructions - I would even say it was aimed at personal use

      "The Grind

      If you purchase whole bean coffee, always grind your beans as close to the brew time as possible. A burr or mill grinder is preferable because all of the coffee is ground to a consistent size. A blade grinder is less preferable because some coffee will be ground more finely than the rest. If you normally grind your coffee at home with a blade grinder, try having it ground at the store with a burr grinder. You may be surprised at the difference!

      Do not underestimate the importance of the size of the grind to the taste of your coffee. If your coffee tastes bitter, it may be overextracted, or ground too fine. On the other hand, if your coffee tastes flat, it may be underextracted, meaning that your grind is too coarse. Tell the professionals where you purchase your coffee exactly how you will be brewing it. For example, will you be using a plunger pot? A flat drip filter? A cone drip filter? A gold mesh filter? They will grind it specifically for the preparation method you have chosen and the equipment you use.

      Before using the coffee, try rubbing some of the grounds between your fingers so that you can 'feel' the grind and become acquainted with the differences in size.

      Never reuse your coffee grounds. Once brewed, the desirable coffee flavors have been extracted and only the bitter undesirable ones are left."

      Having gone through the webpage I would suggest that it is intended to be advice that is aimed at individuals who are brewing their own coffee, and is not instructions for resturants brewing coffee.

    189. Re: Sounds good to me by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Lego blocks don't kill you when you eat them.

    190. Re: Sounds good to me by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Idiot.

      McDonalds sold coffee at the temperature that their research indicated the customers wanted/expected. That's how "running a business" works.

      --
      No sig today...
    191. Re: Sounds good to me by grumbel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take more than a poke or two for them to learn.

      And it doesn't take more then two Buckyballs to kill you. The whole problem with Buckyballs is that their danger isn't obvious. They look like a toy, play like a toy, are packaged like toy and when swallowed might kill you.

    192. Re:Sounds good to me by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It is difficult, but with some practice, they can be recubified... There are several good ways of doing it. I recommend youtube instructional videos. Also I've noticed that even cubes are easier to make than odd cubes. So if you got a 5x5x5 pack, make a 4x4x4 cube.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    193. Re: Sounds good to me by makomk · · Score: 1

      Zucker knew that the company he ran was about to be hit with the costs of organising a recall on their product. In order to avoid his company having to pay the massive liabilities resulting from their dodgy but profitable marketing strategy, which would have rendered all his shares in the business worthless, he shut down the company and transferred all its funds to himself. That's why the CPSC can go after his personal money - it was the business' money at the point at which he knew it had incurred the liability.

      For some reason, the Wall Street Journal and Slashdot want businesses to be able to sell unsafe products, and then transfer all the money to the owners when their actions come back to haunt them, leaving the company unable to pay the costs and the owners with all the profits and immune from legal action to recover any of them.

    194. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea personal responsibility. In you case you are personally responsible for being a faggot and a fucktard. You have poluted this message board with an extreme level of aggressive faggotry. I am now going to fine youi 2 bilion dollars to be paid to the state and the states legal council over the next 20 years.

      See the U.S. legal sytem just works. It is a blind system (blind to all forms of truth and sense) where highly paid verbal word smiths duke it out in the court of law. Each side distorting the truth in miraculous ways. The judge not carring about the truth, only the law (which is a sufficiently complex system that it can not be both consistant and complete) , and expecting a jury to make a good decision formed on half truths and incomplete information.

    195. Re: Sounds good to me by makomk · · Score: 1

      Neither do tacks or dozens of other things that aren't for children. Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if it will fit in their mouth count on a kid eating it?

      The danger posed by tacks is obvious just from looking at them. Buckyballs look almost exactly like candies - the danger they pose, which in some ways makes them worse than tacks, is so non-obvious that there's people both here on Slashdot and in the WSJ comments section who've failed to grasp it even after reading the warning (in fact even after reading graphic details of the internal injuries to kids from swallowing them):

      What's stopping your dumbass kid from eating a ball bearing of the exact diameter of a buckyball? The strength of a typical electromotor case, I'm guessing. So why aren't the Fed banning vacum cleaners, etc?

      you could choke on almost anything sold in a dollar store. does it mean that they're selling death machines?

      But other toys (Lego for example) come in a box that says not for children under X years old, and nobody expects the Lego to stay in the box or have each individual block marked as unsafe for children

    196. Re:Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm of the opinion that everything in this world doesn't have to be "somebody's fault".

      Well, you're wrong. Everything is somebody's fault. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because it's inconvenient. That's not to say that our system actually punishes the responsible, but there's always someone responsible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    197. Re:Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So apparently they were being marketed as "toys" at some point.

      I buy stuff specifically on the basis that it is a toy for me. Many things including marital aids are marketed as "toys" without being marketed for children, and indeed specifically being marketed as adults. So now you want to steal the word "toy" from adults? What the fuck is wrong with you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    198. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "reasonable person"? In the USA?
      The USA Federal Government has outlawed "common sense" decades ago. This is the end product of the myriad rules and regulations that every governmental body releases.
      Once "common sense" is gone, as it is now in the USA, then there can be no "reasonable person". A real person has no right or ability to determine "reasonable person" would do or say or think--only the Federal Government or one of its subsidiaries can determine "reasonableness".
      There is no such thing as a "no-brainer" in the USA. Every choice, decision, thought must now be supported by a study, a survey, a program. The obvious is no longer enough to make a decision or even come to an opinion.
      Only if the USA Federal Government makes a pronouncement, can its citizens and taxpayers make a "credible" decision.

    199. Re: Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.

      I don't think shifting the blame is the cause so much as greed or desperation

      Apparently, you too are in denial. It's shifting the blame because of greed or desperation. Why would you excuse these actions in others unless you need to excuse similar actions of your own?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    200. Re: Sounds good to me by bloggerhater · · Score: 1

      If you genuinely believe that this company is at fault for kids eating those magnets... Well YOU are part of the problem. Angry and ignorant. Just the way Uncle Sam likes you. The perfect meat puppet.

      Amazing how Bucky balls were so quickly assaulted... Why haven't guns been pulled off the market? More kids kill them selves with firearms yearly than ever were killed by Bucky ball miss use.

    201. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "personal responsibility" you speak of? What does it mean? Are you saying that you can make your own decision? A decision about my own child?
      Now, now. You need to take a "time out" and think about your foolish statement. Surely everyone (maybe not you but you are the only one) knows that only our Federal handlers can take and assign responsibility. Surely everyone knows that thoughts and decisions belong to the Federal Government. No one can surely make life happy and successful without Federal Government help and guidance. Surely, you don't think that you know how to live your own life, do you?

      Otherwise, why would the Federal Government provide you with permanent housing, permanent healthcare, permanent cell phones, permanent control?

    202. Re: Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right.

      That is only because your reading comprehension is somewhere below a third-grade level. You're trying to claim that coffee should be served at the brewing temperature, but nowhere on that page does it actually specify a serving temperature, only a brewing temperature. Further, NCAUSA is not qualified to hold forth on serving temperatures as is related to public safety; they are an industry shilling organization, not a public safety organization. Perhaps if you were interested in tracking down a reputable citation instead of trying to prove what you already believed (I too once believed, briefly, that a woman who got seriously burned because of McDonalds' incompetence and greed was at fault) then you'd be able to come up with something more reliable, like Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages. (Brown, Diller). e.g. "The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C)".

      You're also neglecting to remember that McDonalds was using a styrofoam cup which was significantly thinner than average, which became excessively deformable at these temperatures; not really a cup at all, more of a sort of coffee envelope. This was the cause of the spill. If McDonalds were less greedy, they would use either a more substantial cup (like literally everyone else) or less excessive serving temperatures.

      In short, you know nothing about this, and yet you are still trying to come up with reasons why McDonalds should be permitted to sell dangerously hot coffee for no reason other than their greed, because you are dead wrong about coffee serving temperature. Why are you so sure that you have something valuable to add to this conversation when you are in fact in a position of utter and complete ignorance?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    203. Re: Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      140 degrees is very tepid coffee. 140 degrees is less than the required serving temperature for many hot foods. 140 degrees is not hot enough, yet is still dangerous to the skin.

      Subjective, irrelevant, subjective.

      Maybe we should require that all commercially-sold coffee be iced, and that all floors leading to such commercial coffee dispensaries be coated in thick, padded, skid-resistant rubber floors.

      We require that commercially-sold anything be safe for the purchaser, or clearly labeled as to why it is not safe, and a good faith effort must be made to make it as safe as possible. We require that certain chemicals be sold in metal drums, or in heavy plastic ones which must meet certain specifications. The entrance to the store and the store itself must meet certain specifications. So while you're being fascetious, the truth is that typically, all products are already held to [meaningful] standards like these.

      We should also take steak knives out of the steak houses: Someone might hurt themselves. Or at least have them sign a waiver before they're allowed to eat their T-bone (OMG! BONES IN MEAT! SOMEONE MIGHT CHOKE!).

      Knives are known to be able to cut things you didn't intend, and bones are known to be choking hazards, but coffee is never intended to be sold at such a high temperature that it can cause severe burns, nor in a cup which becomes a baggie at the temperatures at which it is served.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    204. Re: Sounds good to me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In what world does the foreseeable uses of brewed coffee include dumping it all over oneself?

      When the cup is known to become a floppy mess at temperatures below the temperature at which they filled it with contents being served at an unnecessarily high temperature which is itself in excess of the established policies and procedures.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    205. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      it doesnt matter what he was, he didnt get 100% of the company's profit, he probably got a rather high salary, but not all of the profit, therefore he doesnt take the blame for things the company does. that is the whole point of incorporation, to protect individuals from being ruined by lawsuits against a company. the very first thing any smart person does when they make a company is incorporate for this reason. it doesnt matter whether or not you are going to be a bad person, someone will eventualy sue you. it is exactly the same as getting a lawyer any time the police want to talk to you for any reason(whether or not you are guilty). you do it to be safe.

    206. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the temperatures on your graph are also lower then the minimum safe temperates for MOST of the food we eat.

      http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html

      So, should we serve food below these temperatures as well knowing its NOT safe for consumption because someone might drop it on their leg and cause a burn?

    207. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, if it's not to cause physical damage, then less than 130 F. I'm sorry, but I'd complain that it was cold if it was served at that temperature.

    208. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      As i posted below, most food we eat have to be ABOVE 145 with 160 - 165 being the average: http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html

      This is in the "will burn you very fast" range, should we serve food below these temperatures as well knowing its NOT safe for consumption because someone might drop it on their leg and cause a burn?

    209. Re:Sounds good to me by Monoman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I agree that individuals should be responsible for their actions. The judicial system just needs to apply a little common sense and therein lies the problem.

      The judicial system is often driven by money rather than the desire to seek justice.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    210. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      next time you start up a company and decide not to incorporate, let me know. there is a difference between committing a serious personal crime( something that a lot of crooked ceo's get charged for), and producing a product that isnt safe for children that has to be recalled for that very reason(even though the parents should have said no to the children). hes not being charged with a criminal offense, the government is trying to charge him personally for the 50 something million dollars that it cost them for the total recall of the product (even though the company has been out of business for years). also, let me ask you this, if you create a company, you are saying that you should be held liable for anything that goes wrong in the company? what if one of your employees was the one being malfeasant? should you be charged with problems he caused? well, what about the CEO? a lot of times CEO are not the owners of the company. you are still going after the owner right? i mean he DID create the company, and he IS raking in the profit. now lets move on to publicly owned companies, because in teh eyes of the law, they are the same thing. if you always go after the owners for things that go wrong in the company, then you would be going after every single person who owns shares in a company, because technically they are the owners. i think you are being a little bit ridiculous when you are saying that the owners need to be held liable for things a company does. there are reasons for the whole incorporation thing.

    211. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      he did though. thats the problem. the government is trying to charge him for something hes not liable for

    212. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      the company's name was maxfield and oberton LLC. the government is trying to go after him anyway. this is why im saying it isnt a good slope for the government to running on

    213. Re:Sounds good to me by Alef · · Score: 1

      There are always multiple actions and circumstances that lead up to an accident. Labelling some as faulty and some as correct is principally a philosophically arbitrary choice, and while sometimes useful, often tends to oversimplify the situation. If you furthermore limit yourself to select a single action or party as "the responsible", you have mentally eliminated all the other factors that perhaps should be addressed.

      I'm not saying that blame or responsibility as a concept is useless. Quite the contrary. The threat of blame can keep people from being negligent, at least to an extent. However, sometimes something is just the result of a long range of less than optimal decisions and circumstances, any one of which isn't obviously the single cause. And sometimes you just have bad luck, due to factors out of anyone's control (or like the saying goes: "shit happens"). If we at every instance force ourselves to define who is the culprit, we risk missing what is really important: the bigger picture.

    214. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lego blocks don't kill you when you eat them.

      Not sure if troll, stupid, or this really did just slip your mind, but I have two words for you.

      Choking hazard.

    215. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very rich or, even better, very politically connected.

    216. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples vs oranges. Small company owners could not afford $100 million. Lawyers would take the insurance money instead. Example: doctors. Lawyers COULD take doctors' personal possessions, and in some cases do, but that is the overwhelming minority. Ususally, they just take what the malpractice pays. Doctors do not have legal protection behind corporations. They are personally liable for everything. Large corporation CEO's could personally afford $100 million, so they would be personally liable. No, this would not be the end of the world. Just look at doctors. Yes, this is a good thing.

    217. Re: Sounds good to me by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.

      If you use terms like "crotch fruit" that's usually a sign that you felt your argument can't stand on its own and needed emotional appeal for the "har har look how tough my callousness makes me" -crowd. The interesting question, then, is why make said argument in the first place? Vested interests? Psychological problems? Trolling?

      Also, drain cleaner usually comes in bottles with safety caps, presumably because manufacturers of dangerous chemicals think they might be held responsible for not taking reasonable precautions.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    218. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, the Wall Street Journal and Slashdot want businesses to be able to sell unsafe products, and then transfer all the money to the owners when their actions come back to haunt them, leaving the company unable to pay the costs and the owners with all the profits and immune from legal action to recover any of them.

      Way to deliberately mislead people. What we want is for businesses to be able to sell products that, when used by responsible people and in responsible ways, are safe. Beyond that, it is the moron user's fault for anything bad that happens. The product was safe, the user was not.

      Question, when do you plan on going after home improvement stores for selling power tools? I know a guy who had to have his thumb reattached after he nearly sliced it off on a table saw, so clearly you should consider table saws unsafe, right? No? In this instance, it is the moron user's fault? Gee, how conveniently double-standard of you.

    219. Re: Sounds good to me by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1
      And similarly, the government is alleging that the "Buckyballs" product should not have been sold as a toy at all. Packaging and marketing materials clearly identifiy it as a toy, and the manufacturer clearly was aware it was being sold in toy stores, which are primarily frequented by parents of young children. Yes, the parent is to blame for letting HIS kid play with buckyballs, or for not clearing them out of reach when he had friend with kids over, but that does not absolve the manufacturers and distributors and marketers of all responsibility.

      One point if you can find the words "fun" and "toy" in this image. 100 points if you can find a warning that this product is not safe for children. http://www.geardiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/buckyballs_photo_three.png

    220. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you buy raunchy romance novels and Fifty Shades of Grey at the bookstore and give them to your kids too?

      Fucktard.

      Captcha:stupidly (how apt)

    221. Re: Sounds good to me by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Take your equivocation and stick it where your head is. You want medical research? Well it has been done: http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator'sGuide.pdf.

      The severity of a scald injury depends on the temperature to which the skin is exposed and how long it is exposed. The most common re gulatory standard for the maximum temperature of water delivered by residential water heaters to the tap is 120 degrees Fahrenheit/48 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the skin of adults requires an average of five minutes of exposure for a full thickness burn to occur. When the temperature of a hot liquid is increased to 140 o F/60 o C it takes only five seconds or less for a serious burn to occur 1 . Coffee, tea, hot chocolate and other hot beverages are usually served at 160 to 180 o F /71-82 o C, resulting in almost instantaneous burns that will require surgery. Since immediate removal of the hot liquid from the skin may lessen severity, splash and spill burns may not be as deep as burns suffered in a bathtub.

    222. Re: Sounds good to me by westlake · · Score: 1

      1) Zucker did not market buckyballs. The company, of which he is CEO, marketed them.

      The distinction without a difference.

    223. Re: Sounds good to me by garompeta · · Score: 1

      Why on Earth do we have the responsibility to protect stupid people? If stupid people die for doing stupid stuff, it is full-fledged Darwinism. Let nature take its course.

    224. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible. Good.

      Wow, am I ever happy to see such logic as the first comment. It's so often that "companies" are used to shield individuals from responsibility for their actions that I don't understand how it is that everyone isn't on the same page on this issue.

      Another related issue is that such warnings are often so downplayed that you can't seriously claim that anyone has been warned. For example, "NeilMed Sinus Rinse" mentions "Do not use tap or faucet water for dissolving the mixture unless it has been previously boiled and cooled down," which leaves one thinking that maybe they'll get an infection and have to go to the doctor to get some antibiotics. Turns out that an amoeba can get into your brain and that there's no effective treatment and you'll die in two weeks. However, there's no mention on the label that failing to follow this advice can result in death, and it comes after a warning that using plain water in the rinse will hurt, which downplays its significance.

      The buckyballs, however, seem to know how to do their warning labels:

      http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/doctors-warning-labels-on-magnetic-toys-arent-enough/

      It's a rather large warning, as far as warnings go, and it not only explicitly mentions the possibility of death but it also describes the mechanism by which it can cause death just in case you might assume the warning was senseless. Maybe they could have made it a little larger and put the word "death" in bold type and used brighter colors or something, but it isn't as if the warning was nothing more than "keep away from children" and hidden away in the middle of a paragraph full of warnings like "don't throw magnets at people" and other nonsense. In this case, I don't see how the guy should be held liable since it seems like he honestly tried to warn people of the danger rather than downplay it in order to make more sales.

      The article I linked mentions that, after adding the warning, the number of injuries has gone up. I'd say that's a sure indication that what we're looking at isn't a matter of people being unaware of the danger, but of terminally stupid people killing their kids. The terminally stupid will kill their kids one way or another, and so to take the product off the market is rather dumb since it just makes one less fun thing for the rest of us to play with.

    225. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

      "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
      "Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes."

      Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right. I guess the woman that burned herself was unfit to experience coffee. Are you?

      You are misleading yourself..

      185 F is the temperature of coffee the instant it is brewed.

      135 F is the recommended serving temperature.

      Ideally coffee should not be heated to maintain a temperature, as the heating cooks the coffee oils.

      Combinations of the above three statements doesn't mean that coffee should be served at 185 F, ever.

      Of course, for it to be served at 185 F, it had to be brewed at a higher temperature (about 210 F), which is really the kicker. McDonald's was alone in the world with this higher brewing temperature, which they implemented a few months prior to save about two cents per cup of coffee (you can use less grounds at 210F).

      They also had other lawsuits of a similar nature (but not ones where the damage was so extensive) that they had settled, or were ongoing. In one of those other lawsuits, the Court ordered McDonald's to lower it's brewing temperature, and that Court order was ignored.

    226. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right. I guess the woman that burned herself was unfit to experience coffee. Are you?

      He's probably just never had coffee. I remember years ago reading the "McDonalds really did screw up and serve coffee too hot" argument and thinking it made a lot of sense. After all, it attacks the issue scientifically, mentioning all sorts of temperatures and talking about what temperatures create what kinds of burns and whatnot. Combine that with the general desire that the world not be completely fucked up and its easy to conclude that, yes, McDonalds are a bunch of bastards who served their coffee too hot.

      Then I started drinking coffee, and soon learned that while the hot coffee that comes out of the coffee maker may be too fucking hot to drink, it's nevertheless the temperature at which coffee tastes best. That's why you sip on it, balancing its scolding hot nature with your desire to drink something that doesn't taste completely like ass. Sure, it doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but it's what you do if you drink coffee.

      Maybe we can debate the wisdom of serving such a beverage in a flimsy styrofoam cup via drive-thru (and of course we'd then have to debate the wisdom of placing such a thing between your legs rather than in a cup holder), but we can't debate the wisdom of serving it hot because, as anyone who actually drinks coffee knows, that's how it's done.

    227. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you (as you brew in a coffee shop) pass the cup through a drive thru window, with the lid partially attached? There is some contention over whether the cup was securely placed between the legs or was dropped into the lap. One side says this, the other that. That's why the prosecution focused on the inherently dangerous temperature. Also, the temp it was being served at was the temp out of the machine. This isn't possible without some temp drop, which meant that they had modified their machines to brew at higher than standard temperatures (which they had two months before). And they already had a number of coffee-related lawsuits (4) at the time of this one, one which led to a Court order to reduce coffee brewing temperature, which they ignored.

      Now, with your personal experience, do you expect to disobey the Court, injure four people within a span of months, settle four lawsuits, attempt to settle a fifth (which won't settle for the $250,000 offered because that won't even cover the already incurred medical expenses), and serve coffee at brewing temperatures damn the injuries just because it's a person's personal choice to sip coffee which is so hot it will instantly burn?

      Perhaps it was a personal choice to be wearing sweat pants? Perhaps it was a personal choice to wear a seat belt? Those two factors meant that she personally chose not to be able to remove the sweat pants in the under 7 seconds required to avoid third-degree burns. Not "some burns" or "burns" but, all tissue dead third-degree burns.

      Your personal experience has been misapplied, due to your ignorance

    228. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few points to counter your hypothesis:

      1. It's the only warning on the box.
      2. It's a rather large and obvious warning.
      3. It explicitly mentions death as a possible outcome of ingestion.
      4. It describes how the product can cause death, just in case you still thought the warning was nonsense.

      I've seen a lot of insufficient warnings on products, but this isn't one of them.

    229. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      But they were never marketed as "food", specifically or otherwise. It is notable that a "reasonable person" needs to be reminded of the distinction.

      You are right, they were never marketed as food; however, a reasonable person might put a toy in their mouth and expect to not die. We put things in our mouths that are not food all the time, even as adults. (pens, pencils, table ware, mouth guards, etc.)

      So your statement that it was not marketed and labelled as food has little bearing on the matter because there is a strong precedent that reasonable people put non food items in their mouth.

    230. Re: Sounds good to me by FullCircle · · Score: 1

      From the linked article:
      "Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit."

      I understand what you're saying, I'm simply tired of this case being used as an example of frivolous lawsuits when it's a perfect example of why these type of lawsuits exist.

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
    231. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.

      Yet I have trouble regarding them as anything else. How many children are idiotic enough to swallow them and die, and why does the existence of such people mean that products must be banned?

      You are blaming the victim by labeling them an idiot.

      There are millions of opportunities to die at any moment, and one's ignorance of an opportunity doesn't mean that they deserved to die. The Law has acknowledged that full consent of all dangers may never be fully expressed or received; but, a reasonable person should not arrive at unreasonable risk.

      One person put these on a birthday cake (I'll bet the structure looked cool), and people say "how stupid" (labeling). Meanwhile it's not stupid to put other toys on birthday cakes, like die stamped metal cars, dolls, toy solders, etc. Clearly people are post-facto labeling victims as to stupid to deserve to live, and they should consider the implications of such nasty tactics instead of facing the harder approaches of really thinking about the situation.

      Shame on you and please stop considering yourself a good decent human being.

    232. Re: Sounds good to me by FullCircle · · Score: 1

      Did you see where 190 degrees is on that graph?

      That's just stupidly hot, especially for something you're handing out a window and into a car after approximately 700 previous burn complaints.

      Telling McDonalds to bring the coffee down to reasonable temperatures is more like telling steak houses to stop throwing steak knives to customers from the kitchen.

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
    233. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the vast majority are frivolous lawsuits" cite sources
      This has been studied extensively. Every study I have read on this shows that judges tend to toss out the frivolous lawsuit and that the majority of cases that got to trial actual have some merit.

      This is a very important point to remember. Judges are there to judge the merits of a case. They are not robots who follow a script.

      Sometimes I feel that the audience here is too familiar with programming, and imagine that the entire world that they don't interact with works like a procedural call. Which would lead to them believing that frivolous lawsuits must be pursued to the end, wasting resources. This mistake biases them to look at lawsuits that seem silly on the surface as never having merit, and thus another example of a frivolous lawsuit.

      For example, people are decrying that this toy is unsafe to be swallowed, and it is. So they blame parents, which might not even be present. But nowhere did the packaging indicate, "If swallowed this toy will certainly cause death." So the parents aren't taking extra precautions; it is reasonable to survive the swallowing of a toy. Apparently I did (too young to remember) having swallowed a wooden bead.

    234. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You are blaming the victim by labeling them an idiot.

      Yes, I am, and I do believe they're imbeciles. What of it? Saying that I am "blaming the victim" does not automatically win arguments, and in this case, there isn't even a real perpetrator.

      There are millions of opportunities to die at any moment

      Yes. Accept it.

      and one's ignorance of an opportunity doesn't mean that they deserved to die.

      I didn't say that they deserved to die, just that people who get themselves killed like that are probably morons.

      As for my feelings on their deaths, I don't really care. I do, however, begin to care when imbeciles attempt to ban entire products and tools simply because some people misused them and injured themselves and/or died.

      Shame on you and please stop considering yourself a good decent human being.

      I would prefer not to consider myself a "good decent human being" if it means joining the ranks of imbeciles.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    235. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please shut the hell up, there are adults talking.

      Cars, guns, cnc machines pretty much everything you listed are not toys. I enjoy sex with my wife does that make her a toy? No. Just because you enjoy something does not make it a toy.

    236. Re: Sounds good to me by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 1

      I also have 2 sets, all accounted for. I have 3 grandchildren in the house regularly, youngest 3 years old, oldest 12. All of my Buckyballs are accounted for as well.

      I agree, it's all about personal responsibility, being a responsible parent and grandparent. Taking the time to make sure those under your care are safe, happy and secure.

      It's so sad that society no longer expects people to take personal responsibility, for parents to be held responsible for their children, and for grandparents to be mindful of their grandchildren when in their care. The government has gotten too much into our lives and our business and taken our ability to and our desire to care for our children and our children's children.

      Isn't it time to take back what is ours, our lives, our responsibilities, and our ability to raise our own children, in whatever manner we see fit, without someone else telling us how?

    237. Re: Sounds good to me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is lucky enough to have responsible parents, and the government has a responsibility to protect them. The real problem is that there is no way to easily determine who has good parents and who has bad ones accurately for millions of children simultaneously, so we tend to err on the side of caution. Also, parenting is hard so parents tend to want help from the government, like warnings placed on dangerous things and toys tested for safety.

      The whole "nanny state" thing is getting pretty tired. You can be individually responsible while still have help from the state.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    238. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy is perfectly sound -- you simply lack comprehension.

    239. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Every choice, decision, thought must now be supported by a study, a survey, a program.

      I wish that were true. If it were, we could get rid of the TSA, copyrights, patents, and numerous other garbage (seeing as how there's no evidence they're effective).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    240. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, why not? These greedy corporations have been demanding all of the rights of citizenship with out any of the risk and responsibility? Corporations have free speech rights in politics! The only reason they want that is so they can pour billions of dollars into elections for someone to vote in the interests of the corporation. Hobby Lobby demands religious rights - ever see a corporation in a church? What pew does Hobby Lobby sit upon? Does it wear a dress or a suit? None of that tripe - this is a about denying certain kinds of insurance to employees and regulating their behavior with the force of money and law. So it is quite fair to say that if the corporation is little more than the religious expression of the owner or operators, then so is the maleficence. So the next time some giant company ignores safety regulations and kills a few people (see link below), perhaps a few of those decision makers will get sent to prison.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_explosion

    241. Re: Sounds good to me by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      But you pay taxes on 3/3 so the other third goes to Uncle Sam. You'll be lucky if you don't owe taxes beyond what you won in court.

      --
      ...
    242. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they mistakenly used the common definition of "Child" meaning "a person under a certain age". Apparently, the government definitions of "Child" is now "non-government persons".

      Embrace the fun happy place! We are all our benevolent overlord's children!

    243. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't tell from the rest of the content that it was written wearing nothing but chairman Mao boxers and a grubby Che t-shirt?

      Please don't expect anything useful from a troll like that.

    244. Re: Sounds good to me by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 2

      The main point was the line is hard to draw when it comes to protecting people. Again, what temperature "should" coffee be served at? What about people who want it hotter so its still hot when they drink it a few minutes later (say stop on the way to work)?

      Much like the magnets, what might be safe to some isn't safe for others....

      The main point is, people need to be responsible for themselves, it's not up to others to protect them, if they are old enough to be considered adults. It's up to a parent to protect their children, not up to someone else, unless the child is in an other's care for a time, such as at school, day care, camp.

      The point is, that it's a person's OWN responsibility to protect themselves and their own family's. It's not a company's responsibility to worry about how someone eats or drinks what they serve.

      When is a person expected to check if food or drink is too hot. When do people take personal responsibility for their own safety and actions, and stop blaming others for their own carelessness?

      When is it a person's responsibility that a product that they bought is unsafe for children in their care?

      When do we take back what is ours to begin with, our ability to make decisions on how to raise and care for our own children?

    245. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go to trial

      And there's your problem. Trials are EXPENSIVE AS HELL. If you don't have the funding to support a multi-million dollar bill from your lawyers, you are forced into taking a settlement. The vast majority of product defect lawsuits never result in a trial and precedent.

    246. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Darwin said, and George Carlin improved upon, Survival of the fittest. If they are too stupid to do something that can hurt or kill them, GREAT! Get them out of the gene pool!

    247. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Spilled drain cleaner is typically cleaned up quickly, and if touched does damage but usually not too much. A few stray magnet balls can sit there until some toddler chomps them. Are you really calling a two-year-old "stupid crotch fruit" for that? And it doesn't have to be the toddler's house, or his parents who were responsible for losing them.

      This applies to a million other things. So lets just ban everything. It's a stupid argument to claim there is only one thing in the whole world that could cause a kid harm if left laying around.

      And for the record I think pretty much all crotch fruit are stupid. I don't like children in general and certainly don't like ones being raised such that they think the whole world revolves around them which is the majority of crotch fruit these days.

      I was out once, vaping my e-cig, when the unit failed (not my fault, the seal was defective) and spilled a significant amount of nicotine fluid. I got some napkins and cleaned it up well, mostly because if I didn't, it would have been fairly easy for some random toddler to overdose himself on nicotine.

      Strange. I've always taken the attitude that cleaning up after myself when I make a mess in a public place is simple common courtesy. Makes me think of walking into a restaurant and seeing a table with food slung all over the place, smeared on the table and spread about the floor for several feet around the table. Who are these people that think it's ok to let their kids act like that in public?

      Would you hurl insults at the toddler, or me, or the e-cig manufacturer? To be consistent with what you posted, it seems that you'd yell at the poisoned toddler.

      Up to a certain age a child pretty much reflects the mentality of the parent. Prior to that point the child being stupid is pretty much solely reflective of and the responsibility of the parent. The child may be stupid but it's the parent's fault. Note that I called the crotch fruit stupid but blamed the parent. There is no inconsistency there. The hope is at some point the child recognizes this and starts taking responsibility for themselves. That's happening less and less.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    248. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...labeled 13+."

      Age of 13 is that in between age, is it not? You're no longer a child, but you're not an adult. They're, what do they call it? A TEENAGER!

      If a 13 yro, or 12 yro for that matter, is stupid enough to swallow something like this, and $_diety forbid, DIE, I'd start to wonder if natural selection was at play.

      Unless this was put in Toys R' Us, or any other hobby or toy store, at 2 ft of eye level marketed for kids below 11, this whole thing is fucking insane!

      This just in: kids do stupid things. Be it with items not meant with them, targeted at adults, or with the drain cleaner under the sink. It's sad, to be sure when things go deadly, but I have a hard time sympathizing when kids aren't properly instructed what IS and ISN'T safe in their own home, much less are bought things they shouldn't have in the first place.

      (and now for the ULTIMATE inclusion and karma burning)

      This goes right along with parents and relatives that buy teenage rated, or worse, games and R and X rated movies for kids (see 13) and think it's OK.

    249. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Look, on the one hand it's incredibly rare that this will happen, and I get that, and it's a reasonable argument, but that's not what you're saying. What do you do when it's statistically likely that a product will cause harm to someone not involved in the negligence?

      I forgot to refute this one. Did you actually do a statistical analysis of the probability of a kid coming across 2 randomly dropped buckyballs and swallowing them (you have to swallow at least 2 for them to harm you) against the probability of a coming across say a randomly dropped pretty colored tack? Didn't think so. I would take a big wager on which presents the greater probability of causing harm. And to completely obviate this argument compare it against the odds of a kid getting hurt in a car accident. Yet no parent thinks twice about throwing their kid in the back of the death machine and driving off like a maniac while putting on makeup/shaving and texting. Much less do they argue for banning them. So much for statistical argument.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    250. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Do you see where 165 is on the graph? Did you know 165 is the MINIMUM safe temperature for chicken?
      http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html

      The lowest is precooked pork (since it was already cooked once) at 140F. Again according to the chart this will cause burns within around three seconds. Keep in mind that the minimum food temperatures is the internal temp, so the outside edge is probably much hotter..

      Now i guess one is a safety issue while the other is a preference, but we do deal with things at those temperatures daily.

    251. Re:Sounds good to me by wad4ever · · Score: 1

      The issue of lawsuits stems from a separate core problem: People abuse the system to try to get a big chunk of cash.

      The solution to this is simple: Nobody can benefit by someone else's punishment.

      How? Every case is divided into two parts, compensatory and punitive. Compensatory is taken from the company and given to the idiot who used the ladder upside down, to compensate him for his medical bills and lost income ONLY. But here is the key point: If the judicial process determines that the company must be punished, then a fine is imposed. And the fine is destroyed. As in, bring cash to the courthouse, shred it, and then burn it.

      Why? Because nobody must benefit by someone else's punishment. Not charities, not orphans, and certainly not the winner of the lawsuit! We need to remove all incentive to punish people, and only then will society be motivated to help each other instead of hurt each other.

      PS: If you disagree with this on the grounds that destroying currency is illegal, you should spend a few moments and see if you can come up with a solution to that problem. It's not hard.

      PSS: Think of the psychological impact of employees destroying boxes and boxes of hundred dollar bills, representing the profits of your company. FTW!

      --
      --- wad
    252. Re: Sounds good to me by greenbird · · Score: 2

      If you use terms like "crotch fruit" that's usually a sign that you felt your argument can't stand on its own and needed emotional appeal for the "har har look how tough my callousness makes me" -crowd. The interesting question, then, is why make said argument in the first place? Vested interests? Psychological problems? Trolling?

      That's pretty funny and quite ironic. You don't even try to refute my weak (as you claim) arguments but instead attack my choice of words.

      Also, drain cleaner usually comes in bottles with safety caps, presumably because manufacturers of dangerous chemicals think they might be held responsible for not taking reasonable precautions.

      Unless this was an attempt. I chose one example. Come on stretch your mind a little bit. Look around the room you're sitting in. You will see dozens of things in that room that could potentially cause harm to kids if left unattended. Far more kids are hurt and even killed by TVs than by buckyballs. Tacks are made in pretty candy colors and left laying all over the place. And don't get me started on the number of people (including kids) killed and maimed in cars. How come no one is trying to ban any of those?

      And yes I used strong words. Using strong words only lessens an argument for the weak minded. That is, unless of course the strong words are the only argument...*looks at first paragraph above*...Hmmm. I used strong words to emphasize the idiocy of claiming anything that hurts you kid is someone else's responsibility. Giving a product clearly labeled as not for kids to your kid and then blaming whoever made the product when the kid gets hurt is asinine (Uh oh. There's those strong words again).

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    253. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If it were, we could get rid of the TSA, copyrights, patents, and numerous other garbage (seeing as how there's no evidence they're effective)."

      In general I have agreed with you in this thread, but here I must draw the line.

      Recent abuse of the patent and copyright systems, made possible largely by recent law and regulation changes, are not even remotely the whole history of patents and copyrights, and do not mean that patents and copyrights are worthless. There is LOTS of evidence -- the vast majority of it -- that shows that a reasonable body of patent and copyright laws can and does foster innovation and the arts (including writing).

      Anything can be abused. But it is irresponsible to equate the abuse of something with the worth of that thing. By that logic, we could call children worthless because they were abused, or automobiles worthless because some people speed or drive recklessly.

      Do you also believe, given recent proven abuses by the IRS, that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of the concept of taxation?

    254. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone seems to be missing a very important point here... The government is not regulating coffee temperatures. Businesses are welcome to serve coffee at boiling temperatures; they just run the risk of being liable if they don't take what the common public deems to be reasonable precautions to ensure their customers are not injured by their product. Had McDonald's served their coffee in thermoses instead of flimsy paper cups, the story might have been very different.

    255. Re:Sounds good to me by carys689 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what insurance is for? Businesses, large and small, get sued all the time. If you don't have insurance, especially if you're running a small business, you COULD be held personally liable, so this is not something new.

    256. Re: Sounds good to me by will_die · · Score: 1

      You want to know how the lawyers got the temperature they said the coffee should of been served at?
      They went around to places that sold sell coffee and then took the average of them.

    257. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's all about being responsible..."
      This is exactly correct, and a problem too many adults seem to have these days.

    258. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      There is LOTS of evidence -- the vast majority of it -- that shows that a reasonable body of patent and copyright laws can and does foster innovation and the arts (including writing).

      Where is the evidence that, in this day and age, copyright and patent law foster innovation to any significant degree? How is this judged in an unbiased, objective way, and how is it done without looking into an alternate world where copyright and patent laws simply don't exist (and the cultures and countries are otherwise the same)? I've had people tell me that there is lots of evidence that copyright and patent laws are beneficial (if the laws themselves are 'reasonable'), but then they failed to actually show me the evidence.

      Anything can be abused. But it is irresponsible to equate the abuse of something with the worth of that thing.

      I'm not talking about abuses, but evidence that these things are effective.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    259. Re: Sounds good to me by expatriot · · Score: 1

      The coffee suit was partly about the temperature but mainly about the cup which was unstable when heated and the top was removed. The coffee was served with the top on and the sugar and milk in a separate container, therefore it was McDonalds policy that you should take the top off of a unstable cup which is over your lap.
      Ergo, decision against McDonalds.

    260. Re:Sounds good to me by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We put things in our mouths that are not food all the time, even as adults.

      Nice people don't swallow...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    261. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not good - your a biblical asshole AmMojo.

    262. Re: Sounds good to me by OurDailyFred · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you meant lewd and not lewt, so could you tell me about the lewd sexual acts with Bucky Balls ?

      If you have pictures, that would be helpful as well, just in the interests of science, of course.

      Thank you

      --
      If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    263. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the bigger problem: this flies in the face of the central concept of capitalism, innovation and start-ups - limited liability. EVERY business from large corporation to start-up to mom-and-pop is protected by this concept, but if you can go after the individuals EVER AFTER THE CORPORATION IS GONE (as in this case), then you just drove a stake through the very heart of the ENTIRE US economy because why would anyone take the risk of starting a company let alone running one?

      On the other hand, if this is upheld, it means that corporations are NOT really people. It's a very bad way to go about attaining that obviously precedent however.

    264. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no sir, he is a realist. the government should not be going out and fighting wars with companies for ridiculous actions done under the care of neglegent parents. if the parents can't raise their children then take them away and force the idiots to pay child support to the institution. let's stop penalizing our job creators for the stupidity of the consumer

    265. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Where is the evidence that, in this day and age, copyright and patent law foster innovation to any significant degree?"

      There is simply no way to do that. We can only judge by the historical evidence.

      "How is this judged in an unbiased, objective way..."

      See above.

      "... without looking into an alternate world where copyright and patent laws simply don't exist (and the cultures and countries are otherwise the same)? I've had people tell me that there is lots of evidence that copyright and patent laws are beneficial (if the laws themselves are 'reasonable'), but then they failed to actually show me the evidence."

      Here, at least, we can approximate. And the evidence is all around you. While we don't have countries and cultures that are the same, we DO have cross-sections of many different countries and cultures, in which one of the major distinguishing features has been the absence of any official concept of "rights" to intellectual creations (i.e., inventions, and writings or other forms of art). Examples of these are the former Soviet countries, and (increasingly we have to use the word "formerly" here) Communist China. Those are not the only examples but are certainly the two largest. No, their cultures and their countries were not the same -- they were VERY different -- and yet the rejection of private ownership of personal creations was one of their glaringly common traits.

      And guess what? They didn't just do poorly, they failed.

      By that I mean: look at their performance during the period in which they rejected intellectual ownership, and look at their relative prosperity now, as they have been increasingly embracing it. It is like night and day.

      I assert that they are not exceptions, but rather large examples of the rule.

      Another case in point: now that America's patent and copyright regulation has arguably been seriously abused and less "reasonable" by most peoples' assessment, its economy pretty much sucks.

      Yes, it is pretty hard to isolate that one variable. Nevertheless, the historical correlations (which I have barely touched on) are pretty damned glaring.

    266. Re: Sounds good to me by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a fuckload of masturbatory feel good bullshit. I'm talking about a restaurant and their fucking COFFEE options but of course that must mean that must be my opinion about every major public issue. Nice that you need to bring up your political leanings so everyone can know what a great fucking person you are. I think you forgot to mention that you are against Hitler and the Nazis were a bad thing.

      You sound like the sort of loud mouth idiot that jerks off to the American flag every night proclaiming how good freedom feels. Just because I used the word minority, doesn't mean I'm referring to every TYPE of minatory, but never fear, you will be there wearing a cape telling everyone how great you are not realizing there is no one needing your help.

      Please, go fuck your self you elitist asshole.

    267. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes sir, it is getting to be about time. Let them stack powder kegs. A spark will come soon, and tyranny will fall as it always does eventually.

    268. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead poisoning, unless you mean an entire round. Not sure what would happen then. Particularly if a catalyst was also present.

    269. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example is indeed somewhat silly, because it is side-stepping the real issue. The problem is not holding people accountable for their actions, whether they perform them on personal title or in a function at a company. The problem is allowing idiots to sue others for their own stupidity. This includes people who use their ladder upside down, as well as people who let their children play with little balls (magnetic or otherwise) small enough to swallow or jam up a nose.

    270. Re:Sounds good to me by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      if this is upheld, it means that corporations are NOT really people.

      They aren't. You're ignorant for even thinking that they are under the law. Corporate personhood doesn't mean what you think it does.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    271. Re:Sounds good to me by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      You're on shakey ground there. Employers ARE responsible for the actions (and their consequences) of their employees. This has been true for decades. Nothing new.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    272. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately the one page quickstart guide is clear and concise:

      1) pull pin
      2) throw at target
      3) run very fast away from target

    273. Re:Sounds good to me by methano · · Score: 1

      Right after I posted, I tried the original 6x6x6. I did it by making 6x6's and folding them over onto the growing cube. I was able to almost make it except that I now appear to have only 213 balls instead of the original 216. I left off 3 corners. It would clearly have been more stable if I had all of them. After fondling it a bit, it went haywire and collapsed into the close-pack on one plane. So I smushed it into randomness again.

      Maybe those 3 lost balls are what killed the cat.

    274. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always be sued for what you did working for a company. Only shareholders have limited liability. The people doing wrong are always responsible for their actions. It couldn't make sence any other way.

    275. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy to say when you aren't a parent. One slip up is all it takes. One house visit where someone leaves them out. These things by just pass through the body like other small objects, they connect to each other, through tissue, so they don't move. Surgery is required to extract them.

      Having said that, personal liability for the recall costs is absurd, and a deadly warning for entrepreneurs in your country.

    276. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these is not sold as a game/puzzle/toy.

    277. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesnt matter what he was, he didnt get 100% of the company's profit, he probably got a rather high salary, but not all of the profit, therefore he doesnt take the blame for things the company does. that is the whole point of incorporation, to protect individuals from being ruined by lawsuits against a company. the very first thing any smart person does when they make a company is incorporate for this reason. it doesnt matter whether or not you are going to be a bad person, someone will eventualy sue you. it is exactly the same as getting a lawyer any time the police want to talk to you for any reason(whether or not you are guilty). you do it to be safe.

      Incorporation dosen't protect you from liability for the choices you personally make. it protects you from liability for the choiced of people who work on your behalf. If you're an asshole, you'll face the conciquences.

    278. Re:Sounds good to me by redlemming · · Score: 1

      This has been studied extensively. Every study I have read on this shows that judges tend to toss out the frivolous lawsuit and that the majority of cases that got to trial actual have some merit.

      Any how many of these studies are either a) done by legal professionals, or b) done by people who receive research funding from legal professionals? Even if a claim is made that the funding for a given study does not come from, say, a Bar Association, would we have any reason to believe that claim to be true?

      No rational person can study the US legal system without coming to the conclusion that the system is heavily biased to the benefit of the legal profession (not every person who conducts such a study, of course, will admit this, for obvious reasons).

      We have a) enormously complex laws (just look at the length of the Patriot Act or the Obama Health Care act), we have b) laws that penalize people by absurd amounts for minor offences (look at some of the penalties for copyright infringement), we have c) no oversight of the legal system or of legal ethics by non-lawyers (most members of Congress are lawyers, so they clearly don't count), and we have d) contradictory laws (consider how many laws violate the "no law" provision of the 1st Amendment, or the "may not be infringed" provision of the 2nd Amendment, or the many rights that can reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment).

      All of this creates a complex, confusing, even contradictory legal system, and a quite scary one (just look at the number of fences that have gone up around property that is not being used, a huge infringement of the right to travel, simply because the people responsible for those properties are scared of being sued -- in some cases, insurance companies are even requiring this), which in turn creates a huge artificial demand for the services of the legal profession.

      The conclusion follows that the legal professionals making up Congress and most state legislatures have created a legal system to the benefit of their profession. This is not a question of conspiracy, it's a matter of people without a strong sense of integrity recognizing shared advantage, in a system with no meaningful check or balance on them to keep things in hand. In ethics terms, the core problem here as a name: "conflict of interest".

      So long as the legal profession has control over determining the nature, scope, and form of the legal system, problems of this kind are inevitable. The issues with tort law, bad though they are in themselves, are just one symptom of the underlying ethics problems.

      Claims that the USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave are no longer tenable in the face of the disastrous mess the US legal system has become over the past 6 decades. Now it is more apt to describe the USA as the land of excessive law, excessive bureaucracy, abusive government, and of people who are scared of their own legal system. All too often it seems as though the concept of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" has been replaced by the concept of government "of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer".

      Fixing this is going to be enormously difficult. Even a quick study of high court decisions shows the high courts are unwilling to seriously address ethics issues regarding the legal profession. This should not be entirely surprising, given the nature of the selection process for these offices, but this means that neither the legislative nor judicial branches can be relied on for sponsoring reform. The only hope for reform short of revolution seems to be another Civil Rights movement on the same massive scale as the last one.

    279. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the woman in question would've also been burned if the coffee were at 180F, the high end of hot beverage temp. Because she was wearing sweatpants, it would've still held against her delicates, requiring skin grafts. It sounds like the issue is not the temperature of coffee, but the weak cup that collapsed.

    280. Re: Sounds good to me by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      Using strong words only lessens an argument for the weak minded.

      Spoken like a true asshole.

      No stronger words could be spoken

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    281. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      There is simply no way to do that. We can only judge by the historical evidence.

      Okay.

      Here, at least, we can approximate.

      You can.

      By that I mean: look at their performance during the period in which they rejected intellectual ownership, and look at their relative prosperity now, as they have been increasingly embracing it. It is like night and day.

      Yes, it is pretty hard to isolate that one variable.

      Yes, it's pretty much impossible. Using former Soviet countries and Communist China as examples means using countries and cultures that are vastly different from our own in a number of ways, and they've changed in many ways over the years, so it's not as if only their stances on copyright and patent law changed.

      and yet the rejection of private ownership of personal creations was one of their glaringly common traits.

      Likely along with a number of other things. Besides, there also could be multiple types of policies that hurt innovation.

      Nevertheless, the historical correlations (which I have barely touched on) are pretty damned glaring.

      Not to me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    282. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the essence of your pos is:

      There is a correlation between intellectual ownership and economic success in recent history, therefore one must cause the other.

      Correlation is not causation. Your "argument" is worthless.

    283. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Hand Grenades have 5 second fuses.

    284. Re: Sounds good to me by merky1 · · Score: 1

      Show me a restaurant that serves food straight out of the oven and into your mouth... Well prepared food is allowed to "rest", where as mc-d's serving temp was 180.

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
    285. Re:Sounds good to me by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      that's what i just said, fucker.

    286. Re: Sounds good to me by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Not everyone is lucky enough to have responsible parents, and the government has a responsibility to protect them. ....
      The whole "nanny state" thing is getting pretty tired. You can be individually responsible while still have help from the state.

      If it's necessary, however let us take a look at some examples. Such as the kid who drew a picture of a gun, that was a toy, that his father used to scare monsters away at night. Where the school called child services and took the kids. Or where child services has tried and in some cases successfully to force parents to quit their jobs, and go on welfare to take care of their kids. Or even cases where the kids are handed away from a responsible father, and to an irresponsible mother. Or where hearsay is taken as factual evidence.

      Perhaps, just perhaps the state has run amok. And I haven't even started on things in the US such as seizing kids from parents who are responsible gun owners...because there were guns in the house.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    287. Re: Sounds good to me by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Just got back from the local pizza place. From their oven to my plate...

    288. Re: Sounds good to me by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Was that the same woman who bought a full container of hot coffee at the drive-in window, placed it between her legs and drove off, such that the movement of her ample thighs distorted the cup and popped off the top so she got splashed with hot coffee?

      Bad burn, yes, and worse thinking. But that's just it: she wasn't thinking. Her lawyer was, and McDonalds caved. If I remember from the story, McD had already offered to pay her full medical bills and then some, but that wasn't good enough.

      I may have missed other suits around the same time, but in my mind it's this one incident that really tore things open, reversing the line between responsible use and rewarding stupidity.

    289. Re:Sounds good to me by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. "fucker".

      Now, go and find a website populated by utter fucking morons and post there, because you'll be appreciated by your peers and wont look like a complete cock. Again.

    290. Re:Sounds good to me by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Gp: my ladders only go up.

      Me: I beat you, because my ladders go up and down!

      You: I beat you, because my ladders go up and down!

      Me: fuck off redundant fucker.

      You: I know you are but what am I!

      Me: stfu

    291. Re:Sounds good to me by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Doh. Well done on missing the subtlety of my post. I would point it out, but even that would be beyond you.

      Goodbye.

    292. Re:Sounds good to me by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Foe. Disappear now.

    293. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      three, m'lord.

    294. Re: Sounds good to me by catprog · · Score: 1

      Bad burn, yes, and worse thinking. But that's just it: she wasn't thinking. Her lawyer was, and McDonalds caved. If I remember from the story, McD had already offered to pay her full medical bills and then some, but that wasn't good enough.

      If I recall correctly the amount they offered did not even cover her medical bills.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    295. Re: Sounds good to me by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      It's more like expecting power tool manufacturers to have safety features on their hardware. Have you ever bought power tools? They have safety features.

      In this case, if McDonald's wanted to serve coffee hot enough to melt off human skin, then they have a positive duty to sell that dangerous liquid in a container sufficient to the task. It's the reason you can't buy a gallon of gasoline in a paper bag -- if someone tried to sell it to you that way, they'd be liable for the foreseeable injuries.

    296. Re: Sounds good to me by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      The liability issues are the same for table saws: if there is an accessible way to make the product safer then the company is liable if they fail to include them. When is the last time you bought a table saw? The one I bought last year had several safety features for anti-kickback and other common table-saw mishaps. In the McDonald's case there was an accessible solution: put the scalding hot coffee in a spill-resistent cup. Done and done. The cups exist, they are widely available, and McDonald's knew of the problem from a string of previous lawsuits. For profit reasons McDonald's didn't want to pay the couple extra pennies for the better cups, opening them to liability. Alternatively, they could have served coffee at the maximum temperature that a human mouth can possibly handle without damage, which luckily is lower than the temperature required to melt off a woman's labia, but McDonald's decided to serve it even hotter. (I'm pretty sure the reason was so that people could get hot coffee and still have it hot a long time later when they finally drank it. Fair enough, in which case get the better cups.) Again, that's how things are supposed to work.

    297. Re: Sounds good to me by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      When it's dispensed from a drive through while at a temperature hot enough to melt off a woman's labia, and also when your company has already lost a long series of previous lawsuits with exactly the same circumstance.

    298. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEO is just the title of an employee charged with executive duties. They are still an employee, and paid and treated as an employee with that level of duties and responsibilities. Founding it and benefiting from it are irrelevant. Have you ever started a company? If no, then where do you presume to have acquired your expertise?

    299. Re:Sounds good to me by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, I disagree with it on the grounds that destroying currency lessens the amount of it in circulation, which increases the value of the remaining stuff in circulation, and therefore everyone actually benefits from someone being fined, defeating the purpose of your suggestion - and in fact increasing the incentive for unrelated third parties to take action to bring litigation.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    300. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1

      No.

      Food-borne illness is a much bigger and more social problem than food-borne burns.

    301. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1

      McDonald's, at the time, was using styrofoam cups for coffee, which tend to be very well-insulated by default.

      AC fail.

    302. Re: Sounds good to me by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      none have been lost, swallowed or used for lewt sexual acts.

      Wait, you can use them for sex? Why am I just now learning this?

    303. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1

      The point, drinkypoo, is that if the correct serving temperature for hot coffee is deemed to be on the same scale as other prepared foods, it will always cause burns from exposure.

      Therefore, the impetus is on the vendor to serve only tepid or iced coffee, or on the consumer to make sure that they handle the hot beverage accordingly.

      That said: You're wrong. We require that a commercially-sold anything come with appropriate warnings, but we do not require that the commercially-sold anything be safe. I can buy chlorine bleach and Draino at the dollar store. I can buy MEK and live ammunition at the hardware store. I can buy gasoline at the gas station. I can buy hot coffee from the drive-through. (I can also buy a bandsaw, or a chopsaw, or a plasma cutter, or a laser-cutting CNC, or....)

      I don't want to douse myself or unduly expose myself with any of these things, but if I do, then I bloody-well reckon that it is my own fault for doing so, and the consequences are mine alone.

      And so when I buy propane, I make sure the tank is secured so the valve is protected. And when I buy hot coffee, I do not put it between my legs and hope for the best.

      Even my almost-twenty-year-old German car has a cupholder which does a fantastic job of securing a McDonald's coffee cup, but if I didn't have that luxury, then I would still never put the cup of hot coffee (or chocolate or tea or Bovril or whatever) between my legs: I would find another way.

      FFS, srsly.

    304. Re: Sounds good to me by adolf · · Score: 1

      And, but, so? I take steps to avoid pouring hot coffee on myself, just as I take steps to avoid having piping-hot kabobs shoved into my ass.

      The liquid is hot: It is coffee.

      So don't put it between your legs while driving a car, mmm'kay? Can't figure out some other way to hold the coffee? Then think ahead, and don't order it. (Or just go inside and sit down for a bit to consume the known-hot liquid.)

      Also don't drink denatured alcohol, as it has a government mandate to cause permanent organ failure if consumed. And please don't bathe in the Draino -- it burns the flesh something nasty. And don't smoke when filling your lawnmower with gas, and most especially don't light a smoke when filling your lawnmower. Please wear your seatbelt. And make sure you wear an approved, filtered respirator when handling organic solvents. Also: Spay or neuter your animals. And always signal when turning. And please also wear a condom unless you want both children and diseases, either of which can be traumatic, expensive or impossible to treat (or all of the above).

      Srsly.

      You want hot, fresh food? Try baked spaghetti at any restaurant worth dealing with. Or a cup of hot chocolate at any good coffee shop. Or a pizza from any place that serves pizza.

      You want a generic example? Fine. Pick any Subway. Order a 6" chicken breast sub, and have it toasted, and request no toppings. They'll first microwave the chicken, then bake it in their high-speed convection oven, wrap it up, and hand it to you.

      Serving temperature? Dunno, but it is going to be damned hot. I don't want it on my genitals so I'm going to avoid putting it there.

      Just as Lady McCoffee should have avoided in her coffee incident.

    305. Re:Sounds good to me by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.

      As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.

      and you have to read all of it within ten seconds

      Actually, the directions clearly say that shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    306. Re:Sounds good to me by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Really? Really? You're gonna slam the WSJ as impossible partisan and site the NYT as a no-partisan source?

      Um, yes?

      Just because you see issue in a specific source because it disagrees with your world view, does not mean that it is actually biased.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    307. Re: Sounds good to me by mysidia · · Score: 1
      Let me just clear something up, all of those items can be used for play in responsible ways, therefore -- when used in such manners, they are all toys, Toy defined: Toy source: wikipedia:

      A toy is any item that can be used for play. Toys are generally played with by children and pets. ... Many items are designed to serve as toys, but goods produced for other purposes can also be used.

      Buckeyballs are a toy, because they can used for play --- for example: adults fiddling around with them, and sometimes putting together nifty structures, and such.

    308. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing idiots from the gene pool one balloon at a time.

    309. Re: Sounds good to me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I never said it worked perfectly. Sometimes doctors accidentally kill people, doesn't mean we should give up on medicine.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    310. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Not to me."

      Then pick up a history book.

    311. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation. Your "argument" is worthless.

      I am not an idiot, and the argument is not worthless.

      While correlation does not prove causation, it can strongly suggest causation. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

      The more you find separate incidences of correlation, when other variables change, the stronger the evidence for causation. Unless you can find another variable that has an even stronger correlation.

      In this case, I know of no such "other variable".

    312. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      no, the COMPANY is responsible. the actual owner is not liable as long as they have incorporated

    313. Re:Sounds good to me by Xicor · · Score: 1

      no, if your company is an LLC or something else i cant remember, you cannot be held personally liable for anything to do with the company

    314. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      No need. I'm looking for actual proof, looking to societies and times vastly different from our own doesn't really provide it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    315. Re:Sounds good to me by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 1

      "Hello, Pot, this is Kettle...."

      Read the comment again, since you apparently were behind the door the day they taught reading comprehension in your school.

      I was not objecting to him siting the NYT (A left-leaning source) to make his argument, I was objecting to him siting a left-leaning source in the same paragraph as slamming the WSJ (a right-leaning source) as hopelessly biased.

      Just because you see issue in a specific source because it disagrees with your world view, does not mean that it is actually biased.

      Physician, heal thyself.

    316. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "No need. I'm looking for actual proof, looking to societies and times vastly different from our own doesn't really provide it."

      Good luck with that. There is no "proof", and there are no societies and times that do not differ vastly from ours. Comparative analysis is the best you can get. I suggest learning to live with it.

    317. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If there is no actual proof, or anything even resembling it, then that just means copyright and patent law is unproven; it's pretty easy for me to live with that.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    318. Re:Sounds good to me by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If there is no actual proof, or anything even resembling it, then that just means copyright and patent law is unproven; it's pretty easy for me to live with that."

      I think sooner or later you will find that ignoring evidence simply because it isn't proof will not actually get you very far in life.
      Just sayin'

    319. Re:Sounds good to me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I haven't found it to be true that ignoring bad evidence holds me back.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    320. Re:Sounds good to me by phlinn · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. From the article, they processed the motion for the lawsuit 1 day before his corrective action plan was recieved.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    321. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      none have been ... used for lewt sexual acts.

      The fact that all 216 are accounted for is not proof of this ;)

    322. Re:Sounds good to me by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      Three, sir!

    323. Re: Sounds good to me by minchazo · · Score: 1

      Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod You can still get your hot coffee, just in a firmer container instead of the floppy little cups. ... wait are we talking about something else here?

    324. Re: Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      You realise you're being a hypocrite, right? That argument, just like it's twin the "entitlement" argument, can be even more readily applied to corporations and especially the executives who knowingly do something reckless and/or illegal and then start saying "It's not my fault because". You're applying one set of rules to the peasants and another to the lords.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    325. Re: Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Lets see... the passenger in a parked vehicle gets life threatening third degree burns requiring multiple surgeries and skin transplants to survive because a corporation knowingly and deliberately set the machine obscenely high against all instructions and had been causing injuries left and right.

      Actually, you're right, the Hot Coffee case is a great example.... just not in the direction you were hoping. You've just proven exactly why we need stronger and more personal liability for corporations and their executives. Even the largest fines in history are a mere fraction of the fined corporation's profits. That's not a penalty, that's an acceptable cost of doing business.

      Texas needs to start executing corporations like they do people.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    326. Re: Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      which is reasonably foreseeable. The average person is not going to understand why a magnet is dangerous for your innards until you explain it.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    327. Re:Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Mr. Grenade is *never* your friend. He's just a *quiet* angry drunk until you pull the pin, after that he starts getting belligerent.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    328. Re:Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      As explained elsewhere the guy tried to dodge by killing off the company, so now they're going straight for him.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    329. Re:Sounds good to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      they're going after him because he shut down the corporation in an attempt to funnel money away from the recall.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    330. Re: Sounds good to me by phazemstr · · Score: 0

      Lewd sexual acts involving small magnets you say?

      --
      Nothing to see.
    331. Re:Sounds good to me by stenvar · · Score: 1

      So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible. Good.

      Most likely, you own lots of shares in your retirement portfolio. This makes you a part owner of those corporations. If owners are regularly held liable for the misdeeds of corporations, you will be held liable for the misdeeds for the corporations you own shares in, with all your personal assets. Congratulations.

  2. the last line rings true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    """"you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company.""""

    If you go by the decision of Citizens United with Corporate Person-hood... it REALLY should be...

    However I want this more to be the case for large company's who do shit on PURPOSE and with intent and not small start-ups that don't account for the average humans capacity for stupidity (IE letting kids play with them and swallow them).

    CAP: hoodwink

    1. Re:the last line rings true... by Etcetera · · Score: 2

      However I want this more to be the case for large company's who do shit on PURPOSE and with intent and not small start-ups...

      This doesn't make sense. The larger a company is and the more persons in decision-making roles throughout the org, the *less* likely a company is acting with sufficient imperative to justify piercing the corporate veil.

      In reality, you seem to just be saying that Big Companies are Evil. Sorry, that doesn't fly. Limited Liability, and Corporate Personhood generally, are both there for reasons.

    2. Re:the last line rings true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Corporate personhood is *not* a good thing, no matter what you corporate sycophants think. Elevating a corporation to the same level in the law as an individual is a recipe for abuse, and it's rife in the USA.

      Corporations should have a set of *limited* and *enumerated* rights that are secondary to individuals, not personhood.

      And, yes, there is a reason corporate personhood exists... it's because robber barons in the 1800s wanted that way. Corporate rights aren't sent to us by God.

    3. Re:the last line rings true... by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Citizen's United didn't create the concept of corporations as people. That has been a longstanding principle carried over from common law. Note also that companies are not the same as corporations and the former does not have the privileges of personhood.

      The company in question is Maxfield & Oberton Holdings LLC. The limited liability aspect should be enough to protect the owners from a rapacious civil servant but clearly some people are more interested in furthering their careers with safety-nazi crusades than properly observing the law.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:the last line rings true... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Originally the idea of corporations as people was NOT a privilege. It was a liability in that it made corporations subject to legal action.

      If they were not people they weren't subject to legal action in court, you could not sue them and you certainly could not regulate them or hold them to a contract.

      Now of course it's been taken too far and corporate people have become bestowed with more and more attributes of personhood as time goes on. Citizen's United is the most famous recent aspect of this.

    5. Re:the last line rings true... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now of course it's been taken too far and corporate people have become bestowed with more and more attributes of personhood as time goes on. Citizen's United is the most famous recent aspect of this.

      I even read (or heard on the radio) some expert claiming that shareholders did not "own" companies, because companies were persons and laws against slavery prevent people owning other people. Yes, really! His argument was that shareholders only owned an entitlement to some share of future profits. Nothing more.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:the last line rings true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corporations are made up of people. Reducing the rights of a corporation reduces the rights of the people who belong to one.

    7. Re:the last line rings true... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      That's the most retarded thing I've read in my life! Just how how does reducing the rights of a corporation affect the rights of any individual involved?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    8. Re:the last line rings true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizen's United didn't impart more person-hood on corporations. It was based off of individual rights still being applicable when people are part of an association (it happened to be a corporation in this case). Whether this was good or bad, there is a lot of misinformation about this case.

    9. Re:the last line rings true... by anorlunda · · Score: 1

      Corporate personhood is *not* a good thing, no matter what you corporate sycophants think. Elevating a corporation to the same level in the law as an individual is a recipe for abuse, and it's rife in the USA.

      Corporations should have a set of *limited* and *enumerated* rights that are secondary to individuals, not personhood.

      And, yes, there is a reason corporate personhood exists... it's because robber barons in the 1800s wanted that way. Corporate rights aren't sent to us by God.

      I read somewhere that if corporations were not persons, then they could not be sued. IANAL but I think I see the logic. Can the defendant or plaintiff in a lawsuit be anything other than "a person?" Albeit an abstract person.

      Be careful before you retort with "sure, why not?" We could end up sinking the courts with infinite suits pitting machines against machines. My PC wants to sue your iPad.

      No doubt some Slashdotter will contradict me, but I'll say that all laws apply only to "people." Only "people" can own anything. How could it ever be different?

    10. Re:the last line rings true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens United took the principle "taken too far"? You realize what the ruling did, right? It's not like corporations were enslaving people. They were trying to buy ads.

      The whole point was that Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

      There's no "corporate exemption" to the First Amendment, free speech is free speech.

  3. Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish I could buy more.

    1. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawn Darts were fun too.

      What were my parents thinking of when they bought them for me.

    2. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      DealExtreme.com - it's where I've been getting mine from since this asshattery started.

      http://dx.com/s/magnet+balls

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    3. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Informative

      I played with a Bow and Arrow as a child - target arrows at least. I would fire them straight up in a field and then run to where they fell. firing them across a field was also fun and I played with large numbers of BlackCat firecrackers too. Looking back sure there was potential for stupidity and injury but it never happened. Why must we wrap kids in bubblewrap now?

      As an aside - I had a magnet collection as a child. All sorts of shapes, sizes, and some were VERY strong. Never once did it ever occur to me to place them in my mouth or swallow them, I was taught better than that. Why are kids today so damned stupid? Teens swallowing these trying to imitate piercings is plain retarded...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    4. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Oh and there WAS another company selling these made in the USA. They swore up and down they were going to fight this and they were apparently squashed too last I read their site. Long story short - these are easily available in many sizes and in great quantity you just cannot buy them from the American company that came up with the idea of using them as a toy...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    5. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, what do you actually do with them?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat disturbing that you can buy them so easily, and yet the government is still attacking the person who already complied with regulation and shut it down.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 2

      At work we have all sorts of fun with them. Hanging them from the lights and seeing how many can dangle - they nearly touch the floor. Making obscene sculptures out of them (some of the ones I have are as big as superballs). Pretty much it's just an idle distraction and some fun showing people the differences with magnetic polarity and whatnot. Leave a pile on your desk or hanging from something and you'll find that people cannot resist picking them up and making things with them. Mindless fun really although as a child they would have kept me entertained for hours I'm sure - I had a collection of magnets and I'd sit there for hours getting paperclips and other magnets to dance.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    8. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 2

      I used to buy Tritum keychains from DX as well because I couldn't get them shipped here from the UK. Seems that illumination using Tritium is considered a "trivial use of radiation" and keychains need not apply. Never mind that my watches have it and so do many gun sights. However, like the powerful lasers DX used to sell it seems these were pulled...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmgXZ9atf58

      http://club.dx.com/forums/forums.dx/threadid.994836

      DX sells, last I looked, GPS jammers, Cell jammers, all sorts of things that make the Govt. twitch. Having seen some of these firsthand purchased by others I can't help but laugh at crap like the banning of these balls. The day I heard about it I bought some from DX just to give them the finger.

      P.S. The lasers were apparently put in their own store now -> http://www.yourlasers.com/

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    9. Re: Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still buy this type of product from ZenMagnets.com which is in Colorado. These products are not banned and they are still actively fighting. I just ordered a set last month from them.

    10. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're more than 10-15 years old, these probably aren't the magnets you played with as a youth. Any magnets small enough to eat were not strong enough to perforate your intestines. All the kids who did swallow a magnet never made the news because they still had their intestines intact afterwords.

      Neodymium magnets are surprisingly strong for their size, maybe 10 times stronger than another magnet of the same size, depending on material. In the past decade they've really entered the consumer market, as fridge magnets, as parts of kids toys (which they fell out of causing a recall), and buckyballs. Before you could neglect your child and not worry about them eating a magnet. But now these are as bad as poison, and awareness hasn't caught up.

      You might find it interesting to get a few magnets just to see how strong they are. I've never gotten a magnet more than a cubic inch in volume, just because it's a hassle to have something that strong around.

    11. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At work we have all sorts of fun with them. Hanging them from the lights and seeing how many can dangle - they nearly touch the floor. Making obscene sculptures out of them (some of the ones I have are as big as superballs). Pretty much it's just an idle distraction and some fun showing people the differences with magnetic polarity and whatnot. Leave a pile on your desk or hanging from something and you'll find that people cannot resist picking them up and making things with them. Mindless fun really although as a child they would have kept me entertained for hours I'm sure - I had a collection of magnets and I'd sit there for hours getting paperclips and other magnets to dance.

      eww

    12. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Khith · · Score: 1

      Well, Nanodots are still around and for sale. They're basically the same thing. Get them while you can!

    13. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you're too stupid to recognize that children who swallow small objects are in the 1-3 year old range. I thought this was common knowledge but I guess you'd rather go by your own personal anecdotes instead of generalized reality.

    14. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and there WAS another company selling these made in the USA. They swore up and down they were going to fight this and they were apparently squashed too last I read their site. Long story short - these are easily available in many sizes and in great quantity you just cannot buy them from the American company that came up with the idea of using them as a toy...

      FYI: http://ZenMagnets.com is still alive.

    15. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by temcat · · Score: 1

      What, did you eat all you had?

    17. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an aside - I had a magnet collection as a child. All sorts of shapes, sizes, and some were VERY strong. Never once did it ever occur to me to place them in my mouth or swallow them, I was taught better than that. Why are kids today so damned stupid? Teens swallowing these trying to imitate piercings is plain retarded...

      I had a chemistry lab in my bedroom as a kid: it started with a "chemistry box for kids", then my dad started buying all kind of lab gear and chemicals to do experiments. After he was satisfied that I knew how to handle it responsably, I was allowed to use it on my own. I was 10 years old.

      Out of an "electricity and electronics box for kids" grew the other half of my bedroom, the half with the computers and oscilloscopes.

      If we would do today what we did then (late 70s, early 80s), I bet both the anti-terrorist and anti-drug squads would both show up within the week.

    18. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      DX made a new site just for their lasers. I think the name is yourlaser.com or something.

      IIRC, they did this because custom troubles for the main DX stuff,even if their were no lasers, got out of hand, in particular in australia.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    19. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      I don't think its disturbing to be able to buy them "so easily".

      I mean, seriously. You need a credit card or paypal to buy from them, so you are no infant in the "I eat metal stuff" phase.

      And secondly, you have dozens of way more deadly things in your appartment at any time, anyway.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    20. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's not the disturbing part..........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      True, they have gotten stronger I'll grant that. But I did have some pretty strong magnets as a child although likely not large enough to be swallowed. I think the strongest small magnet I had was alnico, it came taped in a children's book from the BookMobile in a book about magnets. It's what got me interested in magnets in the first place - I'm a good bit older than 15 ;-) as I got older I got many many more magnets but for a good while that one was the strongest I had and never once did I think to put it in my mouth nor did anyone freak that I had it. I was in 1st grade for kripes sakes and smart enough to know it wasn't food.

      I am also aware as to what a hassle it is to have these in your home. I have some extremely strong magnets that came from ancient HDD. Larger for sure but strong enough that when I walked past a tube TV within say 3ft I had screwed up colors for days afterwards. I've been forced to keep them out in my garage where they cause a little less trouble. With flat panels everywhere it's less trouble but when two of these come together they can smash fingers so I tend to leave them alone. I do desire some of the larger Neo magnets but I know that they can be far more dangerous!

      Regardless of strength they don't belong in kid's mouths. I can understand concerns about them as parts of toys but as a desk toy for adults? At what point do we exercise personal responsibility? The way they have gone after this guy is silly, his precautions seem to be sensible and I recall the warnings on them when I saw them in the stores. I know that early on the warnings were weaker, they changed that. This certainly seems like bureaucracy run wild to me...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    22. Re:Those magnets sure were fun by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Issues with PayPal also got them all screwed up it seems and may be why the tritium tubes were removed

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  4. Of, by, and for the powerful elite by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the sense in having laws if you can't apply them selectively and perniciously.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Of, by, and for the powerful elite by epSos-de · · Score: 1

      Craig Zucker is an AAA-Level A-hole. He used to sue competitors of him while he was in business. And now he is complaining about the same cruelty that he did to others. It only suits him well that he is in the same situation now as his own victims were.

  5. But its for the kids by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just shut up and take it.. Ask for more. How dare you create a product that could be misused if used inappropriately.

    Now, joking aside this is really scary that the government is doing this.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:But its for the kids by westlake · · Score: 1

      Just shut up and take it.. Ask for more. How dare you create a product that could be misused if used inappropriately.

      The ingested BuckyBall is from a geek's desktop toy --- and banned because the geek couldn't keep them out of the reach of his own kids. Couldn't see the danger in these things even when it was staring him in the face.

      Can be used an educational tool for children; Also a good gift for a friend.

      [The Inevitable Disclaimer Follows]

      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.

      Black Bucky balls Magnets Supraballs

      The one and only NeoCube! The fun never stops! The is the HOTTEST toy in 2010. It's a super-strong magnet, it's a toy & it's a stress reliever. This rare earth magnetic toy gives you and your loved ones hours of fun to build endless objects.

      You can snap, pull, mold, squeeze and construct an endless variety of shapes with the 216 pc set. Each spherical magnet is made from a rare-earth, super-strong magnetic metal known as neodymium.

      With these magnetic balls, you can create many cool shapes. You can play "darts" on your refrigerator even. Or just use them as small, but strong magnets for displaying photos or holding papers.

      NeoCube

    2. Re:But its for the kids by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is. And that they get away with it is even more scary. It fits into a general trend with the US government having less and less accountability and getting more and more irrational and paranoid. That can only end in a catastrophe. It fits in well with some other current observations though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about the parents who gave their [now dead] children (read: under 13) the thing be charged with manslaughter, unless giving them other things they shouldn't have which results in death [the list is is quiter long, but includes firearms, cutlery, chemicals, etc.] is also okey-dokey.

    1. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns don't kill kids. Kids kill kids. Ban kids, not guns.

    2. Re:How about by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that they were originally sold as toys. I know it's an unpopular view in the US but as an EU citizen I would expect any box labelled "toy" and sold by a reputable retailer to be safe for children. Of course I accept responsibility for my kids, but I also expect my government to test products to make sure they are safe, which is why we have laws for that kind of thing. I'm kinda surprised it was even legal to sell them without a warning in the first place.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:How about by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excuse me, they were always sold as toys FOR ADULTS.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the original box had a label indicating they were toys but also for people aged 13 and above.

      If a box says "toy", do you assume it's safe for a 2 year old child? 5 year old? 15 year old? There's quite a difference between them. A paintball gun is a toy, and so is an RC helicopter. I still wouldn't want a 3 year old kid near those but they might be pretty safe for a responsible 12 year old with supervision.

    5. Re:How about by fermion · · Score: 1
      Having a child accidentally die is a tragedy, and sometimes the parents are to blame. Like when they leave a loaded gun around a 5 year old. Or leave a pot of boiling water with the handle sticking out. Our toxic household chemicals on a low shelf. These are very preventable deaths.

      But with buckeyballs it was a product that was very fun, and the cause of injury was not immediately apparent. That is, the kid has to swallow more than one and they had to coincidentally be in the GI tract at the same time but in different locations. Even I am not sure how this happens since they are magnets and tend to stay together. I guess eating them about an hour apart? In fact it seems that less than 30 children were injured and no died. For comparison, the about the same number die every year from ingestion of household products, and 143 children dead from gun violence.

      So there are many things that parent might be charged for murder with, but buckeyballs are not one of them. They are not the reason kids die. But the lack of toys like buckeyballs is the are the reason kids grow up stupid and uncreative. yes, let give them star wars themed lego where they can just copy what other have done. They are safe, empty of all adventure.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:How about by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lego has sharp corners, and an untold number of children have hurt themselves, including eye injuries. Let's switch to Duplo, the safer alternative!

      Bah, when I was a kid, I was whittling, taking the bus alone and doing pyrography at age six. Kids today might have a slightly higher chance of reaching adulthood alive, but for a much lower value of "alive".

      The historical complaint of old people has been that the young have been too radical and reckless. We now have the first generation where the opposite is true - the youngsters are complacent slugs, incapable of a radical thought or reckless action. Even their music doesn't suck because it's too wild for us, but because it's too boring.

    7. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that they were originally sold as toys. I know it's an unpopular view in the US but as an EU citizen I would expect any box labelled "toy" and sold by a reputable retailer to be safe for children. Of course I accept responsibility for my kids, but I also expect my government to test products to make sure they are safe, which is why we have laws for that kind of thing. I'm kinda surprised it was even legal to sell them without a warning in the first place.

      A label stating that the product should be kept away from children and should not be ingested isn't enough? I guess literacy is overrated, eh?

    8. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that they were originally sold as toys. I know it's an unpopular view in the US but as an EU citizen I would expect any box labelled "toy" and sold by a reputable retailer to be safe for children.

      When did toy become synonymous with children?

      You think sex toys are for children because it says toy?

    9. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?!? Get a grip, man... Kids wouldn't shoot each other if they didn't have neodymioniumnium ecstacy tablet pill balls making them drunk and stoned....

    10. Re:How about by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Commonly everybody turning into a wimp is a sure sign of impeding cultural collapse.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:How about by mishehu · · Score: 1

      AmiMoJo - are sex toys for children? If not, your point is irrelevant. :-)

    12. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that they were originally sold as toys. I know it's an unpopular view in the US but as an EU citizen I would expect any box labelled "toy" and sold by a reputable retailer to be safe for children. Of course I accept responsibility for my kids, but I also expect my government to test products to make sure they are safe, which is why we have laws for that kind of thing. I'm kinda surprised it was even legal to sell them without a warning in the first place.

      Yet they were labelled as a "toy" for "13+"... and were sold by "reputable retailers"... and parents put them on a cake for young children to eat, or gave them to children *under* 13. They were *not* sold "without a warning", they were sold with a plainly marked warning in the form of an age limit - as are many other "toys", Lego for example - if you give a normal Lego (not the hugely oversized things they actually sell *for* children that age, that don't fit into their mouths) to a 1y/o and they ingest it and choke on it or have other issues because of it, is that Lego's fault? The fault of the *owner* of the company? (That actually happens fairly often, FYI, but the company can't be legally sued because the product is *plainly labelled* - as was this one - that the 1y/o should not have them).

      Someone above mentioned a butt plug, which is labelled as an "adult toy" - if you, as a parent, left it around for your 1y/o to have access to, they shoved it in their mouth and choked and died from it, should the manufacturer be blamed for your negligence in leaving a 'toy' (plainly labelled as such in its packaging) out for a 'child' (when it was labelled as 'adult') to choke on?

    13. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a child accidentally die is a tragedy, and sometimes the parents are to blame. Like when they leave a loaded gun around a 5 year old. Or leave a pot of boiling water with the handle sticking out. Our toxic household chemicals on a low shelf. These are very preventable deaths.

      But with buckeyballs it was a product that was very fun, and the cause of injury was not immediately apparent. That is, the kid has to swallow more than one and they had to coincidentally be in the GI tract at the same time but in different locations. Even I am not sure how this happens since they are magnets and tend to stay together. I guess eating them about an hour apart? In fact it seems that less than 30 children were injured and no died. For comparison, the about the same number die every year from ingestion of household products, and 143 children dead from gun violence.

      So there are many things that parent might be charged for murder with, but buckeyballs are not one of them. They are not the reason kids die. But the lack of toys like buckeyballs is the are the reason kids grow up stupid and uncreative. yes, let give them star wars themed lego where they can just copy what other have done. They are safe, empty of all adventure.

      Statistically something like 50+ young children *die* every year from 5-gallon buckets - people leave them around with water in them while I dunno, washing their cars or whatnot, or leave them outside where they get some rainwater in them, and then when their *not properly supervised* young child leans over it, falls in and drowns... is that the fault of the manufacturer? The owner of the company? Remember here, buckyballs were responsible for 30 *injuries*, while 5 gallon buckets are responsible for 50+ *deaths* a year, so obviously 5 gallon buckets are far more dangerous right? Why are we not reading about the US Govt lawsuit against the owners of companies that produce 5 gallon buckets?

    14. Re:How about by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Until relatively recently, toys *were* synonymous with children. That's the main reason that terms like "sex toys" or "adult toys" has a qualifying term before the word "toys" -- it indicates that they're exceptions to the rule, akin to someone specifying they're a "retro-gamer" because the term "gamer" normally refers to somebody that's into the current generation of consoles.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    15. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the excessive level of babysitting you require as a EU citizen, you are still completely fucking wrong,

      The EU defines toys as ""products designed or intended, whether or not exclusively, for use in play by children under 14 years of age".

      http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/toys/documents/directives/

      Buckyballs contained an explicit warning that they were, in fact, NOT for children under 13 (which is the similar, equivalent age limit here). I don't think you have any concept of what responsibility IS, let alone accepting any like you claim. All I'm reading from you is lies, misrepresentations and excuses.

    16. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best old man rant ever!

    17. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This saying, and variations like it have been around the English speaking world for at least 50 years: The only difference between men and boys is the price and size of their toys.

      Why? Because it's goddamned true.

    18. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, I don't think manslaughter cuts it for them. It just doesn't seem like those parents took a single precaution. More like:

          - Manslaughter
          - Negligence
          - Recklessness
          - Endangerment of a Child
          - etc.

      Essentially, they ought to be put away for a long enough time to become sterile so that they don't have more kids that "die from a product defect".

    19. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, when I was a kid,... and doing pyrography at age six.

      Dude, I read that as "doing pornography at age six". The whole tenor of your post was completely changed for me when I reread it.

    20. Re:How about by stenvar · · Score: 1

      But with buckeyballs it was a product that was very fun, and the cause of injury was not immediately apparent.

      The cause of injury may not be readily apparent with most dangerous adult things when you give them to kids.

      You should only give your kids things you understand and know to be safe for them. If you give them anything else, it is your fault.

  7. So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as were piercing the corporate veil, shouldn't we go after the CEO's that have cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars first? Or are government rules and regulations, and punitive actions only applicable for the little guy?

    1. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Agreed. You thought of BP, I thought of perhaps the CEO of Goldman Sachs, GM, and AIG.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If the blame lies with one person then Tony Hayward hasn't been in the position long enough. BP has been sick internally since the Amoco purchase which was the beginning of the end of internal accountability and started the trend of outsourcing all knowledge and engineering. I think the real culprit is Lord John Browne.

    3. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress controls the purse....period.

      Get more responsible representation.

    4. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Tony Hayward of BP hasn't been hanged for treason is proof that the OButtHead administration is, just like the rest of the federal government, in the employ of the corporations with the money to buy them.

      The punitive actions are directed at the little guy because the little guy doesn't have the money to fight back, and the most american'ts these days are too stupid, lazy, and ignorant to join sides with the little guy.

      Logic would dictate that we destroy the entire financial industry, oil industry, and agribiz indistries (for a start), but those industries have basically purchased the us federal government.

    5. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      BP has been sick since the days when it was the Ango-Iranian Oil Company.

    6. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by alexo · · Score: 1

      Or are government rules and regulations, and punitive actions only applicable for the little guy?

      Bingo!

    7. Re:So when is Tony Hayward of BP going to jail? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      As long as were piercing the corporate veil, shouldn't we go after the CEO's that have cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars first?

      The CEOs, despite their evil black hearts, don't have the power to take away our tax dollars.

      The only people who can ever "cost the US taxpayer billions" are politicians, and primarily the executive branch.

      So, we should go after the politicians that gave away our tax dollars freely and without coercion, that means both Bush and Obama.

  8. Thanks again, NSA by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    Thanks to your shenanigans, now we have to listen to every conspiracy theory anyone throws out there.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Thanks again, NSA by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      What conspiracy theory?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  9. Re:Selective enforcement by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. The product was not defective.
    2. No harm was done that I have read.
    3. No, the banks were not prosecuted, which makes this even more egregious.
    4. He didn't make a mistake.

    This is the out of control Feds doing what they do best, punish people who are creative and trying to get ahead. It is about control.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  10. Re:Selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can thank Chicago politics for this. Core up shun.

  11. Re:Selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The shot-callers at the banks who are causing all this harm are wildly rich. Same with the oil companies. And of course that matters because everyone in government service wants a piece of that pie, and the way they get it is by allowing the harm to continue unabated.

    We can pontificate about how government should serve the greater good all we want, and the saying of these words will not have the slightest impact on the actual incentives that governors face, nor on the mechanisms by which selfish bastards rise to power. Musing about how things should be will not make anything become that way.

    So, asking the government to do things will never yield the desired result. Force is the only language these sociopaths understand. Unless sufficiently-large numbers of people wise up to how government actually works, we will never be able to mount that force.

    In that regard, Snowden has done more good than all slashdot users combined, over slashdot's entire history.

  12. First rule for living in a totalitarian state: by GbrDead · · Score: 1

    Do not stick out.

    1. Re:First rule for living in a totalitarian state: by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or make things that stick together.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  13. Goverment is now punishing winners by Brymouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it was me and I had my life's work taken from me, and now being forced into bankruptcy and poverty, I'd hold the CPSC leaders responsible.

    A government without fear of the people is not a republic. Time to put the fear back into them.

    1. Re:Goverment is now punishing winners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was me and I had my life's work taken from me, and now being forced into bankruptcy and poverty, I'd hold the CPSC leaders responsible.

      A government without fear of the people is not a republic. Time to put the fear back into them.

      Your terroristic threat has been noted, Citizen. Patriotic agents will soon stop by to collect you; please do not resist. Resistance is futile.

    2. Re:Goverment is now punishing winners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes this guy a winner? The fact that he's rich? Or the fact that he makes something you personally found entertaining?

  14. More to it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methinks there is more to the story than what he's telling...

  15. Erm :( Bring em back FFS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamn it! Why did you guys have to post this? :( Now I get to be pissed off again at absurd overseas shipping charges for fucking magnets. "Fucking awesome magnets"! I don't have kids and luckily I don't have a taste for rems I'm more of a tortured baby cow burger kind of guy. "Someone will get it."

  16. This is what you get! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you sell super strong candy coated magnets to children. That's what happened, right?

  17. Sensationalist headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. Gov't Still Fighting the Man Behind Buckyballs; Guess Who's Winning?

    I guess Buckyballs?

    The wording is clue to my verdict, "U.S still Fighting the Man Behind Buckyballs"

    I rest my case.

  18. Critical Thinking by Phasedshift · · Score: 2

    Buckyballs were labeled as for adults and not for kids before the commission came after him. However, because they are so similar to a "toy" it was labeled as a concern by the government. In my opinion, this action removes personal responsibility from the parents (the product was clearly labeled), and there should have been no actions against Buckyballs as long as they were properly labeled. There are many other products out there that are far more dangerous which look like toys which do not have these concerns.

    Further, it begs the question:

    Is it the norm for similar cases where the owner/company simply went out of business (without doing a recall) on an unsafe product, for the owners to be held liable for the cost of a potential recall after the fact?

      If he is held personally liable, but a large number of other cases had companies which went out of business and the owners were not held liable - it seems likely there was some type of bias on his case.

    One last item:

    Protection from personal liability when you are a shareholder/officer of a corporation isn't absolute (you can still be held legally personally liable in certain cases.) Certain people here advise they don't like this fact, as they feel people should be personally liable. However, to be frank - fewer people would take risks if they faced personal ruin due to a lawsuit. A better option would be to revoke a company's incorporation status and in repeat offenses remove the ability for people to be part of another corporation perhaps. This would have the positives, without the negatives.

    1. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protection from personal liability when you are a shareholder/officer of a corporation isn't absolute (you can still be held legally personally liable in certain cases.) Certain people here advise they don't like this fact, as they feel people should be personally liable. However, to be frank - fewer people would take risks if they faced personal ruin due to a lawsuit. A better option would be to revoke a company's incorporation status and in repeat offenses remove the ability for people to be part of another corporation perhaps. This would have the positives, without the negatives.

      This is at first glance a great idea, but I suspect the offending parties would abandon ship like a bunch of rats, selling the the downgraded corporation to some other new corp. They already do this when they go bankrupt, leaving investors in the muck to just continue business as usual under a new enterprise name.

      I'd say that a possibly better solution would be a rule which demanded prison time of the responsible corporate leadership as well as personal seizures of their paychecks and bonuses, etc., when things go wrong legally. That would give an incentive to keep the company clean. It might make them less willing to take risks, but then reckless risk-taking is the problem to begin with, isn't it?

    2. Re:Critical Thinking by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      Buckyballs were labeled as for adults and not for kids before the commission came after him.

      That is a lie, they were labeled as for kids 13+

    3. Re:Critical Thinking by fnj · · Score: 2

      Is an adolescent of 13 some kind of dumb toddler now?

    4. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron trying to play semantic games and failing miserably. In the United States different safety rules apply to products designed for those under 14 and those 14 and over. The standards do not change at any other point, be it 18, 30 or 60 years old. Therefore the US considers those over 14 to be "adult" enough to use any product that is not individually regulated, there is no differentiation.

      http://www.cpsc.gov/Templates/cpsc/pages/SimplePage.aspx?id=52156

    5. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, by some metrics.

    6. Re:Critical Thinking by Arker · · Score: 1

      "Further, it begs the question:"

      Uhh, no it doesnt.

      Nice post other than that odd little non sequitur. Reads fine when you leave it out.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing, is that I can find several sites where I can buy Buckyballs (not by that name of course) and they have no legal issues whatsoever. This really is selective law enforcement.

    8. Re:Critical Thinking by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is a simple factual matter of if it was sold strictly for adults, or actually for both adults and children. Most Americans over the age of 21 do actually consider 13 yos to be children... and your uid is low enough that you already know that.

      It is not intellectually honest to base the facts of the case on your opinion about the case.

    9. Re:Critical Thinking by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      As far as morons playing semantic games go, I ask you this: is 13 greater or less than 14? So if something is sold to 13 yos, is it being sold to people under 14? Or not?

      Also, there are actually a bunch of other regulations that apply to things sold to younger ages. And you seem to think nothing is regulated at the age of 18, but all sorts of things are banned to sell to people under 18. Presumably you have some sort of semantic games to avoid those, and you just forgot to mention it.

    10. Re:Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the connected crooks can't come back through another company.

      "Connected crooks" contributes to corrupted politicians' campaigns so your idea, though is fair and right, cannot see day of light.

    11. Re:Critical Thinking by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Yes, apparently.

  19. Re:Selective enforcement by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Who did his products hurt? According to the article, not one person. And he folded his company like they wanted.

    What more should he have done?

  20. Re:Selective enforcement by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Crawled on his knees and begged forgiveness from our Federal Overlords. A heft campaign Contribution to the current Lord and Master probably would not have hurt either.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  21. Maybe a 13 year old kid ate their bandwidth! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ROTFLMA. The servers at www.cpsc.gov are broke:

    Server Error in '/' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Maybe a 13 year old kid ate their bandwidth! by Nightlight3 · · Score: 1

      They are still down. Now Slashdot will get sued and audited by IRS for crashing government's infrastructure.

      (Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.)

    2. Re:Maybe a 13 year old kid ate their bandwidth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLMA. The servers at www.cpsc.gov are broke:

        Server Error in '/' Application.

      Runtime Error

      Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.

      They're running IIS, that should be punishable by law.

    3. Re:Maybe a 13 year old kid ate their bandwidth! by bidule · · Score: 1

      They're running IIS, that should be punishable by law.

      They're broke. I think that's punishment enough.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    4. Re:Maybe a 13 year old kid ate their bandwidth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what you get when you slashdot a crappy government ASP.NET server.

  22. The purpose of corporations by LMariachi · · Score: 2

    Corporate personhood, entrepreneurship, big business vs. small, selective enforcement, none of those are the issue here. The issue is that corporations exist specifically to protect the personal assets of the individuals behind them. Otherwise no one would invest in anything, since that would expose all their worldly goods to liabilities incurred by the company, instead of just the amount they invested. (Lloyd’s of London is a notable exception; investors pledge all their personal assets. But that’s a special case.)

    Now, criminal wrongdoing is a different matter. Obviously you don’t get to form an LLC to rob banks and then enjoy immunity. But that’s not what’s happening here.

    1. Re:The purpose of corporations by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      (Lloydâ(TM)s of London is a notable exception; investors pledge all their personal assets. But thatâ(TM)s a special case.)

      They are not "investors", they are called "Names", since they don't actually put their capital into Lloyds, they pledge their assets to pay any losses. There is huge risk, but the rewards can also be great since the assets that are pledged can be invested elsewhere for profit.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:The purpose of corporations by fnj · · Score: 1

      The assets can be invested for profit regardless of whether they are pledged or not. That is not a "reward" from Lloyds.

    3. Re:The purpose of corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assets can be invested for profit regardless of whether they are pledged or not. That is not a "reward" from Lloyds.

      The point is that the assets can generate double income: once from pledging them as a Name at Lloyds and again from investing the assets. What's so hard to understand about that?

    4. Re:The purpose of corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate personhood, entrepreneurship, big business vs. small, selective enforcement, none of those are the issue here. The issue is that corporations exist specifically to protect the personal assets of the individuals behind them. Otherwise no one would invest in anything, since that would expose all their worldly goods to liabilities incurred by the company, instead of just the amount they invested.

      It seems to me that corporations were created to solve a symptom of another problem rather than solve that problem itself.

      At some point, someone created a company to do some business, then got sued for some frivolous reason, and was then homeless. Rather than solve the problem by making it harder for people to get sued for frivolous reasons and lose everything they own, they instead made it so that people can't get sued for the things they do as long as they incorporate first. So now the problem still exists, but only the corporation is sued out of existence, meanwhile in cases where individuals actually have done something wrong, they're untouchable because when they decided to do bad things, they did so while paying themselves a salary for their services, and so they're allowed to claim "I didn't do it, the company did" even though they are the brain of the company and responsible for everything it decides to do.

      We need to get rid of corporations and restore personal liability, and at the same time, make it so that people can't be sued out of existence unless they've actually done something deserving of such punishment. (which, as many people have noted, isn't the case with buckyballs)

  23. Lets see some bureaucrats become liable by russotto · · Score: 1

    So they find that he sold a defective product (given that the judge and the persecuting agency are one and the same, that's a foregone conclusion), they find him personally liable, they take everything he owns and everything he'll make in the future... maybe he should hold the administrative judge and the particular CPSC bureaucrats involved personally responsible.

  24. Re:Selective enforcement by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    Or maybe in this case a little personal responsibility? Like if you're a teen don't put them in your mouth to try and look cool? Decorate a wedding CAKE with them? Why would you put something that had warning labels all over it about ingestion IN or ON a piece of FOOD? I have purchased these, I own a bunch of them - I like magnets. I don't give them to children to play with because I'm not a moron and I've never placed them in my mouth - they aren't food. Lots of things are magnetic and we see them every day, why are these somehow special and in need of a product ban? Lawn darts these aren't and frankly even those were something I and others played with responsibly as CHILDREN without hurting anyone.

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  25. If I made guns or bullets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. I'd be rushing to defend him..

  26. Just Goes To Show You by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    He should have just marketed a real gun for kids. He'd probably still be in business, and some court would probably have ruled that neither he or his company could be sued for damages resulting from the use of his product. Perhaps his next venture should be buckyguns.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Just Goes To Show You by russotto · · Score: 2

      He should have just marketed a real gun for kids. He'd probably still be in business, and some court would probably have ruled that neither he or his company could be sued for damages resulting from the use of his product.

      That's true, for good reason. You see, the CPSC is explicitly denied jurisdiction over firearms and firearms ammunition. Know why? Because in 1975, Handgun Control Incorporated tried to get the CPSC to ban handgun ammunition; HCI went so far as to get the US District Court for the District of Columbia to order the CPSC to consider it. Then Congress stepped in (no doubt large bags of money were involved) and explicitly took the power to regulate firearms and ammunition away from the CPSC.

    2. Re:Just Goes To Show You by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Then Congress stepped in (no doubt large bags of money were involved) and explicitly took the power to regulate firearms and ammunition away from the CPSC.

      Either that or it was that pesky Second Amendment.

      Oh, in case you didn't know, the Supremes ruled back in the 1700's that printer's ink, being essential to the Free Press, couldn't be regulated/taxed like other stuff. A similar logic says that banning bullets would violate the Second,

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Just Goes To Show You by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He should have just marketed a real gun for kids.

      Well you've got that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Just Goes To Show You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all they had to do was call these BuckyBullets and they'd be regulation free.

    5. Re:Just Goes To Show You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, in case you didn't know, the Supremes ruled back in the 1700's that printer's ink, being essential to the Free Press, couldn't be regulated/taxed like other stuff.

      Or, you know, 1983.
      http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1839

    6. Re:Just Goes To Show You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you support them meddling in some industries, but not in others. Please write a cohesive, logical paper defending your position, or admit you're a hypocritical retard.

  27. I think I see where his thinking's gone wrong. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    It's not the government's place to say what has value and what doesn't in a free society.

  28. Every home should have some buckyballs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if little johnny is stupid enough to eat magnets.. little johnny doesn't get to have kids of his own.

    It's win win for the human species!

    Fuck my generation had lawn darts! Sharp pointed metal things we threw at each other! And dammed if the vast majority of us didn't make it. Because we weren't stupid enough to stand under them.

    America needs alot more potentially dangerous stuff for kids to play with. It weeds out the fat, slow, and stupid really well.

    1. Re:Every home should have some buckyballs! by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      how darwinian of you :)

      let's stop stupid people from pissing in the gene pool by giving everyone buckyballs!

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  29. INC. LLC??? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the reason for LLC (limited liability company) and incorporating? So only the company can be sued and the companies assets are all you can go after; and not the private property of the owner and it's officers & employees?

    I could be wrong, but wasn't this a company and not some guy selling these things out of his garage.

  30. Does this work both ways ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    If he wins his case will the individuals at the Consumer Product Safety Commission be personally liable to pay his costs & the Commission's legal bill ? After all: they were the ones who made the decision to engage in reckless litigation!

    No: I thought not.

  31. Haliburton CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And guess what? The government is not suing the Haliburton CEO when it destroyed evidence in the BP oil spill that cost 11 lives.

  32. Finally we can get rid of guns. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You can't mess with the 2nd amendment but I wonder how long gun manufacturers would last if the CEOs of all companies which sell products in the United States which could possibly injure someone are held liable.

    Oh what guns are ok but Buckeyballs are not because a child swallowed one? What if a child swallowed some ammo? That contains lead!

    Oh the hypocrisy.

  33. Anti-progress is the new black. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Some day you will curse the world you live in for giving the finger to Darwin and natural selection. Some day you'll realize that parenting skills are somewhat hereditary, and those that let kids eat magnets are to blame, not the magnets. If your ancient ancestors could have legally blame shifted as you do, you'd have gone extinct long ago.

  34. Innocent until proven guilty? by Kohath · · Score: 2

    Please explain why the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply in this case.

  35. Re:Selective enforcement by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    2. No harm was done that I have read.

    The article mentions that in one case, someone ate a ball that was used for decorating a wedding cake. In another case, a toddler ate one that was stuck to a refrigerator. No one has died from these.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  36. frivolous by chrismcb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is everyone just ignoring the reasons given for a recall? From TFA:

    Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."

    Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"

    1. Re:frivolous by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      you could choke on almost anything sold in a dollar store. does it mean that they're selling death machines?

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a common argument against porn.

      "We don't need it, so it's OK to ban it"

  37. And Zen Magnets are still available for sale by Trix · · Score: 1
    --
    I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
    1. Re:And Zen Magnets are still available for sale by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's because what is considered the important thing here is the head on a stake of someone who was visably defiant instead of any sort of consistency.

    2. Re:And Zen Magnets are still available for sale by makomk · · Score: 1

      Actually, the CPSC are in the process of going after Zen Magnets and the other sellers too, but don't let little facts like that stop you.

  38. Cars? Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of items are sold every day that are dangerous and that kill people. Hand guns have almost no other purpose but to kill people, but have we ever heard of the CEO of any of these companies being personally liable for how the products are used?

    This is a personal vendetta against the Buckeyball CEO because he had the balls to stand up against the feds and try to get attention for their discrimination against him. End of story.

  39. We got a bunch in our office by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    They beat stress-balls over and over when you need a coding break.

    All I can say is: only in America can they ban a magnet but argue against even the most basic control over a gun...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:We got a bunch in our office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because clearly it's the American people who wanted their magnets taken away. I'm sure it wasn't the government, which always acts in exactly the way the citizens want them to, right?

    2. Re:We got a bunch in our office by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think that's the ban nanny's payback for not being able to do gun control. "We may not have taken someones constitutional rights away but we can at least ban magnets."

      These days the scariest words I seem to hear are "Someone has to do something." No, no they don't. Sometimes it's best to do nothing.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:We got a bunch in our office by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I think it's patently ridiculous that a toy which has never harmed anybody and could only potentially do so if somebody was seriously stupid with it can be banned for being dangerous while a device with absolutely no possible use OTHER than to harm people cannot even be regulated properly.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:We got a bunch in our office by makomk · · Score: 1

      It's definitely harmed people all right - a number of kids have had to have major intestinal surgery and suffered all sorts of nasty long term side effects. If you read the WSJ opinion piece, they only say that it hasn't killed anyone; they're basically lying by omission.

    5. Re:We got a bunch in our office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have scored with many a girl when they can back to my place and see whatever buckyball structure I've built on my coffee table. So far I haven't found a single female who doesn't love playing with the balls.

      That pun was totally intended.

    6. Re:We got a bunch in our office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the constitution sometime, then understand a magnet is not spoken of in there. Firearms are. You go ahead and get rid of your guns, I will keep mine until the GOV kills me and takes them.

    7. Re:We got a bunch in our office by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Has it EVER occurred to you that maybe the founding fathers were not all-knowing and maybe, just maybe, they just once... made a mistake ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  40. Neo cube by nurb432 · · Score: 1
    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  41. OTOH by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mr. Zucker says his treatment at the hands of the commission should alarm fellow entrepreneurs: 'This is the beginning. It starts with this case. If you play out what happens to me [...]

    Without reference to the merits of the case, this sounds like a classic case of narcissistic paranoia.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No real psychiatrist would base an opinion like that on so little. You would have to feel somewhat self-important to do so yourself.

    2. Re:OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoia: A heightened sense of awareness. Example: After 1934, if you were around Germany and not paranoid, your chances of survival were diminished.

  42. Re:Our thug President and his thug exec agencies by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    You do realize that the CPSC is an independent agency of the US government, right?

  43. Action Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like fighting the IRS. Sell everything. Cancel all credit cards. Go on govt support. Well actually threaten to do that, unless they drop their actions. Be prepared to follow through. No empty threats. They can't take what you don't have.

  44. You sir, may be an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the poster serious or stupid? With a name like IP Freely I think crank but it seems so serious... and the high account # makes me think reborn nutcase troll. and idiot.

  45. Works the other way around, too.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Despite candy cigarettes resembling / modeling the real thing, we still allow kids to buy them and ingest them.

    It shouldn't be anyone's fault but the purchaser / user if a product is properly labeled as to what it is and isn't, and yet it's misused anyway.

  46. Yes, Please God. Number one, make it so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. It SHOULD be that way. What we need to reform is WHAT you can get found guilty about. Idiots SHOULD NOT be rewarded for their stupidity. Criminally negligent management (think the banking bailout group) SHOULD be held personally liable as should judges who fail to punish child rapists, politicians who legislate against scientific subjects beyond their understanding, and a large group of others.

  47. Re:Selective enforcement by gweihir · · Score: 1

    So some exceedingly small risk that also required several people to be stupid. No need for any action or any responsibility on the manufacturers side. Injuries from these things basically do not happen, as basically the guy with the cake tripping over his feet and killing himself or the toddler being killed by the fridge tipping over would have been a lot more likely. (Yes, both are so unlikely that they basically never happen. But there have been isolated cases.) Yet are there any calls to ban feet or fridges? No.

    The level of stupidity and ignorance with respect to risk-management displayed in this whole affair is staggering.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  48. US led by a Marxist; not capitalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise that the fed wants to destroy business. The surprise is when Obama actually seems to support capitalism . Rare I know.

  49. Fuck the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When do we get to start killing these authoritarian fucks so they can't hurt anyone else?

  50. WHAT THE FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does some bullshit unconstitutional agency like the " U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission", whatever the fuck that is, have the right to ban a magnet?! Fucking Nuke this joke of a country already and end it.

    Fuck all you all for voting in senile/retarded/christian/elderly authoritarian fucks year after year.

    1. Re:WHAT THE FUCK by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      The constitution in no way says what the government can do, since there are ammendments along with something called interstate commerce.

      Research.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  51. What about the banks?! by bknack · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that this is non-sequitur, but I can't help it: The first thing that came to mind is: What about the banks?

    I can't really see why the actions taken by this person's company are illegal or even immoral. At worse, it appears they may have misjudged (but even that assertion is only made with the full benefit of hindsight).

    In the case of the banks, they knew what they were doing was against established business practices, was immoral, and was illegal in many respects. Further, they knew this to be clearly the case at the time!

    So, I can't help asking again: What about the banks?????

    No fine, however large will "hurt" a corporation. Even bankruptcy and dissolution will not hurt the corporation. In the worst case, those affected are most likely to be small stockholders and line workers without the benefit of golden parachutes.

    If the CEOs and board members were given fines and jail, THAT would send a message.

    Cheers,
    Bruce.

    --
    Bruce A. Knack
    Silicon Surfers
  52. There were injuries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this guy got on the Rush Limbaugh Show to whine about Obama being anti-business. Then proceeded to lie about no injuries ever were the result of bucky balls. I keep my bucky balls out of reach of children. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who deliberately mislead the public on the dangers of their products.

  53. Corrupted administration behavior by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    A investigation targeting a person in retaliation to its speech? That looks like what happens in third word countries with corrupted administrations. Although in that situation, bribery is usually the way to settle, and I am not convinced it could help here.

  54. Limited liability by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The purpose of the limited-liability corporation is that corporate liabilities stop with the company's assets and do not follow into the pockets of the owners.

    Certain insurance companies (Lloyds of London) do not have limited liabilities because the owners back the policies with their huge fortunes, giving you assurance the company has the funds to pay out if necessary. Some spectacular tanker and space shot losses about 10 years ago got them into trouble as some people had to sell their estates to make good.

    Unless this guy was involved in some massive fraud, this isn't supposed to happen.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Limited liability by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the limited-liability corporation is that corporate liabilities stop with the company's assets and do not follow into the pockets of the owners.

      It could be that the court has decided to allow piercing the corporate veil. The exact criteria depends on which state, that the corporation is incorporated in, but there are various conditions under which Limited liability no longer applies or gets overridden due to the circumstances (such as violations of federal law; or refusal of officers to comply with a court order).

      Based on getbuckyballs.com/; it seems that Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC is an LLC formed in the state of Deleware; therefore, it will be a matter of Deleware law.

  55. lack of rare earths? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To what extent is this politically motivated because of the dearth of rare earth metals? Maybe all the hard disk manufacturers set their lobbyists to crack down on this businessman so they'd have less price competition.

  56. Re:Selective enforcement by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The product was not defective.

    Many toys over the years with powerful magnets have been banned because, if swallowed, they can connect with each other in the intestine, cause blockages, tissue death, and ultimately kill the person. This is well-documented and people have died in the past. It's not a fictional or abstract problem. While buckyballs were marketed as an "adults-only toy", the fact is that many of them were in turn given to children, and the recall was voluntary -- based on evidence supporting this statement.

    No harm was done that I have read.

    So people have to die or be hurt before we take action? That is a morally questionable stance, at best.

    No, the banks were not prosecuted, which makes this even more egregious.

    It is no more or less ethical or moral that they were, or were not prosecuted. Prosecution is what comes after harm has occurred, not before, and not to prevent. Therefore, it is exactly as egregious as it would be if it were prosecuted, compared to if it were not.

    He didn't make a mistake.

    When you play chess, you either win, or you lose. If you lose, it's because you made a mistake. This isn't about whether he played the game well or not. This isn't about his own morals or ethics. He lost. Maybe he shouldn't have. Maybe he's in the right and the government is wrong. But he did lose.

    Mistakes are not a cause for success or failure. They are not judgements of a person's character. Acknowledging them only means the acknowledgement that the intended result was not achieved. Thomas Edison made hundreds of mistakes before he created the first lightbulb. Failure is instructive. And progress is invariably filled with failure; But if we gave up after the first one, we would never accomplish very much at all.

    I'm sorry that you don't understand this; Given the fact that so many cowards marked my post as 'overrated' because they disagreed with this, instead of admitting that my position was solid and defensible it seems a great many people don't. But I can't blame you, anymore than I blame them -- our society puts such pressure on people to succeed that the acknowledgment of a mistake, of a failure, is a cultural taboo.

    The question this man needs to ask is... what did he learn? Going up against the government and losing is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of our greatest civil rights leaders have done so. If he's choosing to make a stand on business ethics, he should make it count for something more than simply crying foul that he didn't get the success he feel he's owed. His reaction suggests he has learned nothing from the experience, and thus, is a bad businessman. When he has figured out how to use this experience to make a meaningful contribution to his next business venture, then he will be marketable again. But right now, I wouldn't trust anything he says, or give him any of my money, because he has yet to learn a lesson from his failure.

    This is the out of control Feds doing what they do best, punish people who are creative and trying to get ahead. It is about control.

    Perhaps. But how many times have we, as hackers, geeks, and engineers, told someone who said something was impossible to get out of the way and let us have a crack at it? The government is simply another system to understand, program, adapt to, and eventually overcome. When you say "the government had it in for me!" -- whether it is true or not, you are letting them win. You are beaten. You have given in to despair and helplessness.

    So yes, it is about control... but if you're unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, if you're unwilling to captain your own ship, it's a rather empty thing to say government control is wrong; It is better than what you are doing for yourself.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  57. Counter suit by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    What he needs to do is counter sue the dumb ass parents that gave the things to their children for loss of $ related to their failure to heed warnings on the package and the government for failing to educate parents to read warnings on the label. After all it's the government that runs the public schools...

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  58. Re:Selective enforcement by mybadluck22 · · Score: 1

    When you play chess, you either win, or you lose.

    You can also draw.

    --
    If I could rearrange the keyboard, I'd put U and I together.
  59. Just sphere magnets? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Re:Just sphere magnets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so if someone uses these with a slingshot and gets two penetrating hits on a home invader....

  60. Re:Selective enforcement by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    You can also draw.

    True, but I don't think that makes my conclusion any less valid.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  61. banking by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Sounds like there are at least $10 trillion we should be looking at some bankers for.

  62. Hold the press! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. People are really interested in the law and how it affects human when it disrupts a white guy's ability to make money. We should be very concerned about this.

  63. Kids also swallow watch batteries by hack++slash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why aren't they banned too?

    http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Kylie-Rose-Ricards-220881061.html

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  64. Re:Selective enforcement by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Or maybe in this case a little personal responsibility? Like if you're a teen don't put them in your mouth to try and look cool? Decorate a wedding CAKE with them? Why would you put something that had warning labels all over it about ingestion IN or ON a piece of FOOD?

    "Well if you put a warning label on it that makes it okay!" logic falls short in some cases. Like if I were to put bleach into colorful containers with pictures of clowns and unicorns on them and then on the bottom print "Warning: Keep out of reach of children." ... Tell me, how many people would say my new brand of Spongebob Bleach With Unicorns and Rainbows packaging isn't asking for trouble?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  65. Re:Selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he folded his company like they wanted.

    Leaving the taxpayer footing the bill. Why shouldn't the man pay for the trouble he caused, regardless of harm or not? He financially harmed every US taxpayer 50 cents.

    Should he just be able to shrug it off and start another company? And if that too costs us $57 million, he can just close it down and move on?

    Really?

  66. Re:Selective enforcement by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    You can't just make stupid claims without any evidence, sense or logic. Show your work please. How did he harm every US taxpayer 50 cents?

  67. Re:Selective enforcement by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Keep yer training wheels on girlie. You got a long way to go.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  68. re: "guess who's winning" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for Threadjacking, but I need to know: Who's Winning?
    Someone, please respond with the correct answer. And mods, please mod that person to +5 so everyone can skip this entire article.

    Garbage titles like "guess who's winning?" do not belong here if nobody bothers to say who's actually winning...

  69. over a Magnet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apparently a spherical neodynium magnet is a source immense 300 year electrical power or something, otherwise who the heck would care about a magnet. unless the child swallowed a chunk of steel i dont even see an ingestion problem, if your kid is eating magnets and steel then he's probably a DC motor thats thrown a coil.

  70. Re:Selective enforcement by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many people ate pieces of plastic decorating a wedding cake, and pieces of plastic stuck to the refrigerator.

    Did we ban them?

    Anyway, I'll make a mental note that if I ever release a physical consumer product, I'll make sure to add a warning against putting it on a wedding cake.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  71. Re:Selective enforcement by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The major problem with magnets is when you eat two of them, they stick to each other through folds of the intestines. It would be quite hilarious actually, if it weren't so painful.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  72. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Rowenta clothes/ clothing iron. On page 4 of the manual, it clearly states:

    Warning! Never iron clothes while they are being worn.

    Being a subgenius, I have followed that advice. I also bought the cheaper irons, figuring there was little benefit from buying (I'm not making this up!) a "Digital" iron.

  73. And? by koan · · Score: 1

    What is wrong with "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company."

    You have no idea how many corporation CEO's and boot licks I would love to apply that to.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  74. GREAT!!! by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    This makes the owners of gun companies libel. About time.

  75. Scientific Method. by westlake · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right. I guess the woman that burned herself was unfit to experience coffee. Are you?

    Abstract:

    Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Brief exposures to liquids in this temperature range can cause significant scald burns. However, hot beverages must be served at a temperature that is high enough to provide a satisfactory sensation to the consumer.
    This paper presents an analysis to quantify hot beverage temperatures that balance limiting the potential scald burn hazard and maintaining an acceptable perception of adequate product warmth...
    Recent data from the literature defines the consumer preferred drinking temperature of coffee. A metric accommodates the thermal effects of both scald hazard and product taste to identify an optimal recommended serving temperature. The burn model shows the standard exponential dependence of injury level on temperature.
    The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C) for a population of 300 subjects.
    A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 degrees F (57.8 degrees C). The analysis points to a reduction in the presently recommended serving temperature of coffee to achieve the combined result of reducing the scald burn hazard and improving customer satisfaction.

    Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages.

    Burns, The Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, August 2008

  76. The consequence of the nanny state.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is that other companies that sell magnetic balls outside of the United States will continue to do so, and will sell them to American consumers via international mail. I believe, in fact, there are several companies that are profiting off of Buckyballs' demise in this manner.

    So the net effect is that (1) people will still be able to buy magnetic balls in America (2) a foreign company gets to profit instead of an American one, which hurts (albeit insignificantly) our economy.

    The CPSC needs to deal with actual product safety issues, not parental responsibility issues.

  77. Guess who's winning? by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Hmmm....how about fascism?

  78. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep Oleanders around the house. Your kiddo will only eat them once :/

    Maybe we can sue God ( if you're of the religous sort ) for creating such hazardous things without warning labels :/

  79. convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the government is ignoring it's own judicial ruling that "corporations are people" because it's convenient for them, but it would be nice if this set a precedent to allow individuals of other institutions (say, hedge fund managers) to be liable.

  80. These Kids Nowadays by sudon't · · Score: 1

    Wow, here I am being that old guy, but I have to say it: These kids nowadays are a bunch of pussies.

    Somehow, as a child, I survived chemistry sets, dissecting kits, a lead melting kit (with cowboy molds and, likely, lead paint), a wood-burning iron, my uncle's cigars and every other adult's cigarettes, all sorts of now illegal fireworks and amateur bomb-making, and a go-cart. Most of those while my age was in the single digits. Not to mention that we somehow managed to cross the street after school without the state forcing traffic to slow to a crawl, (and we did walk to school). When I was in high school, we had "open" lunch, and two smoke breaks. Can you imagine that kind of freedom given to teenagers today? I won't even mention arranged "play dates" - ugh.

    And we see what kind of allergy prone, germ- and tobacco-phobic, conservative hipster wanna-be, unrebellious young adults that have resulted, and the conservative era they've bequeathed us all. At this point, you can see why parents would prefer that the state decide for them that their children cannot play with magnets.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  81. Where can I get some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for a decades long fear of magnets acquired during the time of floppy disks, they sound like a lot of fun.

    Maybe they should have been painted with something that tasks really bad so no one would eat more than one.

  82. Government Power by george14215 · · Score: 1

    Everyone in America (except those in Guantanamo) can ultimately have their day in court when accused by the Government. The dirty little secret is that the Government can utterly destroy you without doing so.

  83. This is not "law" by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    This is the US American disease called "sue-itis". Can happen in Europe ( think of the French guy who is being held responsible & put on trial for his company having sold noxious breast implantates to thousands of women ), but rarely.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  84. What happened to the IQ of the average /. reader? by doccus · · Score: 1

    How in their right mind could ANYONE say this is good? If this precedent is set, who do you think they;'ll go after next? That's right, the average working stiff collecting a paycheck at some company he has no involvement with policywise. Work at an auito plant? maybe install the car door locks? better get insurance.. if "somebody has an accident and the door opened" it's YOU they'll go after for mega millions, buddy.. No more beer money for you...

  85. Re:What happened to the IQ of the average /. reade by doccus · · Score: 1

    Incidentally, I think those buckyballs ARE dangerous, because too many of the people that buy them are careless slobs and leave them around their toddlers..

  86. The problem is the government by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    is comprised of individuals that make bad decisions, and are not always motivated with the public's best interests in mind, sometimes are incompetent, sometimes just plain evil.

    With a corporation, at least you get to know THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISIONS.

    With the government, people are AOK to just let it go as "the government did it".

    Well, we need to know WHO is responsible within the organization that's made the decisions. They need to be under scrutiny, they need to be held accountable, and their names need to be spoken/reported. THOSE people should NOT have a right to relative anonymity. They work for US, not the other way around, which is the problem with government, and why people get pissed off and want to slash and burn it at every opportunity.

    Journalism used to be comprised of people who actually did some investigative reporting. Now all we have is regurgitation, and a lot of unanswered questions, and a dumbed-down public.

  87. Re:Selective enforcement by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    You apparently didn't see these packaged with their latest warnings - it was pretty clearly labeled. The person who decorated the cake with these was a complete moron. Adding steel balls - magnetic or not - to food is a recipe for disaster.

    Heh, a punny!

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  88. Pharma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when do some pharma execs get charged with murder? They knowingly let products onto the market knowing full well they would kill people.

  89. Re:Selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Many toys over the years with powerful magnets have been banned"

    evidence please? (and don't say google it, I did and all the attempted or actual bans are recent.)

  90. This is not "Bag O Glass" is it? by DrTime · · Score: 1

    Maybe this gang is too young to remember Dan Aykroyd and his SNL skits like: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/irwin-mainway/n8641/

  91. Thats not right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whose fault it is when it was clearly labeled that it was not supposed to be for kids

    http://www.wikisup.com/top-10-highest-paid-actors/

  92. what about BB's, Pellets, Paintballs? by Cito · · Score: 1

    If they ban Buckyballs when are they going to ban Walmart/Kmart/etc selling quart containers of copper BB's for bb guns or tiny pellet's for pellet rifles, or paintballs for that batter, all which are small and any mong kid will swallow as well.

    this entire situation is just stupid.

    BB's have been sold for decades, I remember buying BB's that came in what looked like quart milk container jugs back in the 70's and 80's and having BB gun fights "war" in the backyard shooting each other with daisy bb guns in the ass. And doing capture the flag type runs in '76-82 with bb guns.

    hurt like hell and left little bruises if you didn't wear jeans and long sleeve shirt, but even today you don't see government banning bb's

    and hell you don't even have to be over 18 to buy BB's, my son buys BB's all the time and he's 14.

    only difference between bb's and buckyballs is buckyballs are magnets... so what, they don't want kids to learn about magnets?
    cause they can definitely buy bb's at any age.

    1. Re:what about BB's, Pellets, Paintballs? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      ...only difference between bb's and buckyballs is buckyballs are magnets... so what, they don't want kids to learn about magnets?
      cause they can definitely buy bb's at any age.

      Big diff is buckyballs are strong magnets. Really strong magnets. So strong the concern is if they are swallowed they get into the intestines. If two of them are in the intestine they can attract and lock together. Inside the intestine that's a really bad thing. It COULD kill someone. AFAIK, it hasn't.

      Just another thing to add to my Consumer Protection Commission ban list. Lawn darts, toy cork gun, Gilbert U-238 science kit, slip and slide, etc. I never owned the U-238 science kit. Had a toy cork gun, Jarts, Slip and slide, and TWO packages of those magnets. Man-o-man, it's a wonder I'm alive? Especially with that cork gun.

      I'll be using those lawn darts tomorrow.

  93. Remember "Don't Use While Showering Or Bathing"? by chilizard · · Score: 1

    The first time I saw that label on a blow dryer I almost lost it, Take the damn labels off, If you’re really that stupid you don't belong in the gene pool. At four years of age I had a "Little Golden Book" (remember those?) featuring Donald Duck shoving a knife into a toaster, receptacle, lamp socket with the lightning bolts, glowing skeleton inside a silhouette, ya know, obvious results, Donald frazzled feathers spread out on his back with whiffs of smoke rising. Well I sure figured out that those were not good things to do and you didn't have to know how to read to get the message. I do not want to sound like a Nazi but our gene pool seriously needs a life guard, natural selection is now inoperative, Medical science with all the miracles and rewards, wonderful as it is has been circumventing Darwin for almost a century now, whats happening to our kids? The ever rising incidence of food allergies, ADHD, birth defects, asthma, neuro developmental disorders,autism. Blame it on pollution, chemistry, modern mass growing & food production these all sound like a good place to place the blame what is always left out, our egos and aspirations to preserve what would have been an unviable life. When I was born a infant to some degree had to prove itself of genetic viability through survival. Now when a life in reality is not viable what do we do... get ego's involved get the lawyers out, "Who's fault is this?" they cry! somebody will pay!!!! It's nobody’s "fault" it's nature way to fix the unrepairable, Nothing is always perfect! but no....It can't be the creator's better merciful choice NO It's got to be somebody's fault! enough Dollars will always make it right!!!! So we have infirm genes which should have been repaired through natural selection running amok, diluting our species ability develop successful genetic material for us to evolve, adapt and survive. Just trying to show 1 possible rational observation, I am a man of spirit and conscience, not an aspiring Nazi, sorry if it ruffles some feathers.

    --
    "In Every Life The Time Comes To Grab The Bull By The Tail And Face The Situation" W.C.Fields
  94. Hey: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are fucking retarded, kill your self.

  95. Note to Penguins: by AdamStanny · · Score: 1

    Do not know this or you will DIE in there again for ever.

  96. Re: no harm was done by neonsignal · · Score: 1

    While I agree that the product was not defective, and that banning was out of proportion to the scale of the problem, there was a potential for harm if they were given to children (not that they were marketed in that way). There have been a number of incidents in the past with other magnetic toys.

  97. America Hates YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The message is clear. America hates people who do business in America. America hates people who eat raw food in America. America hates people who capture rain water in a watertank. America hates people who grow Tomatoes. America hates people who read the constitution or books that aren't the Bible. America hates people who explain themselves during political campaigns. America hates people who spend money on Oil that isn't American. America hates people who call them out on their lies. America will torture people they don't like much. America will kill people on their "list" with a drone. America will explode your house and say "whoops, sorry about that, it's all just a part of how wars work".

    Basically what America wants is to be left alone. There there America, you can have all the poverty, impoverishment, and pipdreams you want, just as soon as you make the rest of the world hate you back as much as you hate it.

    O.o

  98. Corperations are now people also by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    So I guess this is an unintended consequence that companies are people, from a purely political point of view.

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better