And this post pretty much sums up why we could potentially be screwed in all of this. The parent talks about some rational concerns and mentions a possible solution (also one that is in some ways obvious) which will require sacrifice and out come the posts about "you first".
It's not that reducing our footprint is impossible, it's just how do you get a society to change their ways when the trappings of modern life built around comfort are so hard to escape? The difficulty will really be convincing people that living a less convenient life actually will help later generations and the results of your sacrifice will never be tangible.
Happen to know of a deposit large enough to dump in the ocean and make a global difference? It would be like taking a grain of salt and expecting it to measurably effect the salinity of a bathtub of water.
I had to read your post a few times, mostly because I have such a hard time relating to it. You are implying either directly or indirectly that you coast or have coasted in school because there's no money in it. Also, it seems to be that you inherently find no value in education.
For me, money itself does nothing. It can help you purchase things, sometimes it makes life easier (often times it makes life much more complicated) but if you'll forgive the cliche, it cannot buy me happiness or satisfaction. Of all the memories I have, none of the really good ones are about money. All of them are about something I worked hard over a period of time and felt proud of either the accomplishment or the praise of others, sometimes both. I remember skating backwards for the first time. I remember getting my dad to come to one of my shows. An odd memory I have is working hard for my dad one summer doing dreadful work in the hot summer sun, but it was for the purpose of helping him build the house our family lived in. We joke about it now and how crappy the work was, but I have a lot of pride that I helped build something with him. Those are just a few things that I value, much more than the money I could have potentially gotten paid for time spent otherwise.
Money might work for some people, regrettably. It saddens me a bit because it seems American culture already spends an obscene amount of time worshiping money. However, I have found that the less tangible rewards (time is a big one for me now) are far more rewarding.
No, you are full of shit. Want proof? Reverse the situation...
Watch how quickly the MS lawyers would come out if the Firefox team came out with something they called a system patch, but buried in it was an plug-in that embedded itself in the OS with no way to uninstall it. I'm betting "oops" just wouldn't do.
It's about context. Read the actual text of the issue being framed here. Look earlier in the text which I hadn't quoted:
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.
This was a speech on diversity and progress. Looking at the second paragraph that I did quote, you can see that there seems to be a disconnect between law and discrimination against groups that historically did not have the advantages of white males. That's the context of the quote in which it is framed.
Let me quote someone else here too...
I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
That's from Justice Alito...who is essentially saying the same thing, but from a different perspective. People are focusing too much on the quote of being "a wise Latina woman" and not enough on her later statements on where she is constantly evaluating her assumptions and prejudices.
Christ, do we have to do this again....From the speech:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
[...]
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
For God's sake, just READ once in awhile rather than have things spoon fed to you from the talking heads.
How many of them have actually have trials to determine guilt or innocence? Have they even had a chance for a trial? I'm really hazy about where they are in that step but we still need to respect the rule of law. If some of them are innocent, are you suggesting that they work off their incarceration because we jailed them? (Not trying to be a pain here, honest question).
Snarkiness aside, there's a problem in your methodology. Even the best set it and forget it systems have problems and without monitoring and testing, your data is at risk. The old saying goes your backups are only as good as your restores. If you are not testing the validity of your restore files, what's the point of doing backups? Bad data/no data...what's the difference? It's as good as gone unless you take it to On-Track to recover.
Because we should all live our lives in fear and worry, right?
I'm not trying to make light of that situation, but I picked up the phrase "fear fuels the economy" from somewhere and if you look around, it does. Watch the news? How many times are they telling you about something dangerous or about how so-and-so is horrible and bad for you. For every fear, there's a market to be sold to. Yes, bad things happen, but in terms of history, we are living in one of the most safest times ever.
Y'know, I got lost all the time as a kid. I threatened to run away and I think my parents reaction was "go ahead". It's almost as if they didn't want me around.
In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision. The judge could read it and still rule the other way.
Please keep in mind that this is a amicus brief requested by SCOTUS, not an independent one filed by interested party. I would say that they would put more weight into this brief if it was requested what the DOJ thought about the legal position here.
Corporations are known to support whomever is in power. While I don't like the fact that the Dems are in their pocket on some matters, your inference is that the other side of the aisle is better when they get money from these interests as well. Plus, it's almost as if they don't have to lobby Republicans because they already support many of their positions without their support. That's playing both sides of the aisle.
Also, did you even read the summary? There is no higher court to appeal. This is for the Supreme Court. And you seem to not understand how appeals work and have little concept of jurisdiction in cases. Cases do get moved, that is understandable, but you can't just pick a district that seems favorable and move to switch jurisdiction because that's where you want it. I know we love to get cynical about lawyers and legal systems around here, but justice moves slow and mostly gets it right. Not all the time, but more often than not.
By "this bigot", I assume you are referring to Sotomayor? By calling her a bigot, I assume that you are referring to her comment about Latinos which has become the rallying cry of conservatives saying she's unqualified because she's "racist"?
Here's the thing I don't understand about some people (I'm just going to use your comment because it so perfectly illustrates my thought). In one way, you get smug about your obvious conservative position (highly likely that you tell people that you're not really conservative, but rather libertarian) and say that you want the other side to define their position, then immediately dismiss it as being ridiculous.
Internet society has allowed us to create our own echo-chambers, listening over and over again to "your side" and dismissing the other side as just wrong--never really hearing the other side, just straight dismissal. And it is easy in this day and age to do so. Instead of being in a society and a community where you every day experience and deal with opposing opinions, we voluntarily shut ourselves out. It's easier to dismiss people who you don't agree with. I don't understand how we can get past this where people like you who have made up your mind will listen to others of opposing views.
Public figures face enormous scrutiny, expanding by leaps and bounds every year as recordings seem ubiquitous and YouTube makes it easy to post anything. How well would you do in today's society? I wouldn't likely do well. I would rather look at her opinions and judge from there. That, after all, is what is important in this case.
Anyway, this is just a rant and I'll probably get modded down for off-topic or worse. I just don't see how we go forward in a society when we refuse to listen to someone you don't agree with.
Good information you have there. I have to say though that most of the non-profits I deal with mostly have a donor database to let them know about upcoming events, keep them abreast of special events and the occasional email asking for a donation. Although there are some that use it to call their donors to ask for more, most of the time it's for emails...not to mention the tax information they need to keep and hold onto.
No, sorry. Awful idea. Usually, a 60 person operation has a donor list in the thousands. Exchange is going to choke sending that out. It's just simply not designed for something like that. Believe me, I've had orgs who have tried it. A good CRM is nothing to sneeze at.
Oh my, I shouldn't feed the troll, but this pisses me off.
This particular troll apparently has no idea of what non-profits do or what they do for people at large. Go ahead, pick something that you might care about...I bet there's a non-profit (probably several) that either helps or advocates on your behalf. Let's try this game, shall we?
Emergency relief? How about the Red Cross for one?
Health issues? Too many to mention.
How about the military? Adopt a Platoon. Paralyzed Veterans of American...many many more.
Firefighters and Police? You bet they're covered.
That's just a small sampling and some of the bigger names in the industry. There are thousands more. And they all have donors and supporters who care about that particular thing. You are way off the mark about it not being a "real job". Most of the people that work at non-profits work long hours and far harder than you sitting on your ass cruising Slashdot. And they do it for a pittance of pay because it's something they care about.
FWIW, Salesforce supports non-profits with 501(c)3s for next to nothing. I know some businesses use Salesforce and it costs a lot, but they do offer a steep discount for non-profits.
Bingo. This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the topic. I can't imagine what this game would have been like without being able to ski. Instead of the fast paced/all action game it became, it would have turned into a sniper-fest waiting for the other guy to peek their head around a ridge.
Wow...I'm enjoying my comment bounce up and down between Off-topic and Informative. I've started a betting pool at work and have people shouting for certain outcomes, just as if a large pile of money rides on it being red or black!
Why is it when people get indignant about law, they bring up the McDonald's coffee case? Here, read about it.
For those of you that are "tl:dr", here's the case in a nutshell. McDonald's knew it had a problem with coffee temperature, thought that it would be cheaper to settle potential cases rather than fix the problem. The jury awarded punitive damages (which the plaintiff did not ask for) which amounts to the total of two days worth of profit McDonald's makes on their coffee sales. The plaintiff, who suffered third degree burns, would have not filed suit if McDonald's would have compensated for her medical issues which included skin grafts to her groin, thighs and buttocks and her stay in the hospital.
Being indignant is so much easier when you are ignorant about the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
And this post pretty much sums up why we could potentially be screwed in all of this. The parent talks about some rational concerns and mentions a possible solution (also one that is in some ways obvious) which will require sacrifice and out come the posts about "you first".
It's not that reducing our footprint is impossible, it's just how do you get a society to change their ways when the trappings of modern life built around comfort are so hard to escape? The difficulty will really be convincing people that living a less convenient life actually will help later generations and the results of your sacrifice will never be tangible.
Happen to know of a deposit large enough to dump in the ocean and make a global difference? It would be like taking a grain of salt and expecting it to measurably effect the salinity of a bathtub of water.
Y'know, people used to raise children without a television and without Disney at one point. It's true!
I had to read your post a few times, mostly because I have such a hard time relating to it. You are implying either directly or indirectly that you coast or have coasted in school because there's no money in it. Also, it seems to be that you inherently find no value in education.
For me, money itself does nothing. It can help you purchase things, sometimes it makes life easier (often times it makes life much more complicated) but if you'll forgive the cliche, it cannot buy me happiness or satisfaction. Of all the memories I have, none of the really good ones are about money. All of them are about something I worked hard over a period of time and felt proud of either the accomplishment or the praise of others, sometimes both. I remember skating backwards for the first time. I remember getting my dad to come to one of my shows. An odd memory I have is working hard for my dad one summer doing dreadful work in the hot summer sun, but it was for the purpose of helping him build the house our family lived in. We joke about it now and how crappy the work was, but I have a lot of pride that I helped build something with him. Those are just a few things that I value, much more than the money I could have potentially gotten paid for time spent otherwise.
Money might work for some people, regrettably. It saddens me a bit because it seems American culture already spends an obscene amount of time worshiping money. However, I have found that the less tangible rewards (time is a big one for me now) are far more rewarding.
No, you are full of shit. Want proof? Reverse the situation...
Watch how quickly the MS lawyers would come out if the Firefox team came out with something they called a system patch, but buried in it was an plug-in that embedded itself in the OS with no way to uninstall it. I'm betting "oops" just wouldn't do.
It's about context. Read the actual text of the issue being framed here. Look earlier in the text which I hadn't quoted:
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.
This was a speech on diversity and progress. Looking at the second paragraph that I did quote, you can see that there seems to be a disconnect between law and discrimination against groups that historically did not have the advantages of white males. That's the context of the quote in which it is framed.
Let me quote someone else here too...
I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
That's from Justice Alito...who is essentially saying the same thing, but from a different perspective. People are focusing too much on the quote of being "a wise Latina woman" and not enough on her later statements on where she is constantly evaluating her assumptions and prejudices.
I hope this explains this better.
Christ, do we have to do this again....From the speech:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
[...]
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
For God's sake, just READ once in awhile rather than have things spoon fed to you from the talking heads.
How many of them have actually have trials to determine guilt or innocence? Have they even had a chance for a trial? I'm really hazy about where they are in that step but we still need to respect the rule of law. If some of them are innocent, are you suggesting that they work off their incarceration because we jailed them? (Not trying to be a pain here, honest question).
I've actually had this work occasionally. It's usually my last ditch attempt to recover items.
Snarkiness aside, there's a problem in your methodology. Even the best set it and forget it systems have problems and without monitoring and testing, your data is at risk. The old saying goes your backups are only as good as your restores. If you are not testing the validity of your restore files, what's the point of doing backups? Bad data/no data...what's the difference? It's as good as gone unless you take it to On-Track to recover.
Notice that "taught" is in the past tense. I'm beginning to see a trend here...
Because we should all live our lives in fear and worry, right?
I'm not trying to make light of that situation, but I picked up the phrase "fear fuels the economy" from somewhere and if you look around, it does. Watch the news? How many times are they telling you about something dangerous or about how so-and-so is horrible and bad for you. For every fear, there's a market to be sold to. Yes, bad things happen, but in terms of history, we are living in one of the most safest times ever.
Won't somebody think of the children!
....uhmmm.
Y'know, I got lost all the time as a kid. I threatened to run away and I think my parents reaction was "go ahead". It's almost as if they didn't want me around.
Hang on, I have a phone call to make.
In theory you're right, but remember this is only a brief sent to a judge, it's not a judge's final decision. The judge could read it and still rule the other way.
Please keep in mind that this is a amicus brief requested by SCOTUS, not an independent one filed by interested party. I would say that they would put more weight into this brief if it was requested what the DOJ thought about the legal position here.
Corporations are known to support whomever is in power. While I don't like the fact that the Dems are in their pocket on some matters, your inference is that the other side of the aisle is better when they get money from these interests as well. Plus, it's almost as if they don't have to lobby Republicans because they already support many of their positions without their support. That's playing both sides of the aisle.
Also, did you even read the summary? There is no higher court to appeal. This is for the Supreme Court. And you seem to not understand how appeals work and have little concept of jurisdiction in cases. Cases do get moved, that is understandable, but you can't just pick a district that seems favorable and move to switch jurisdiction because that's where you want it. I know we love to get cynical about lawyers and legal systems around here, but justice moves slow and mostly gets it right. Not all the time, but more often than not.
By "this bigot", I assume you are referring to Sotomayor? By calling her a bigot, I assume that you are referring to her comment about Latinos which has become the rallying cry of conservatives saying she's unqualified because she's "racist"?
Here's the thing I don't understand about some people (I'm just going to use your comment because it so perfectly illustrates my thought). In one way, you get smug about your obvious conservative position (highly likely that you tell people that you're not really conservative, but rather libertarian) and say that you want the other side to define their position, then immediately dismiss it as being ridiculous.
Internet society has allowed us to create our own echo-chambers, listening over and over again to "your side" and dismissing the other side as just wrong--never really hearing the other side, just straight dismissal. And it is easy in this day and age to do so. Instead of being in a society and a community where you every day experience and deal with opposing opinions, we voluntarily shut ourselves out. It's easier to dismiss people who you don't agree with. I don't understand how we can get past this where people like you who have made up your mind will listen to others of opposing views.
Public figures face enormous scrutiny, expanding by leaps and bounds every year as recordings seem ubiquitous and YouTube makes it easy to post anything. How well would you do in today's society? I wouldn't likely do well. I would rather look at her opinions and judge from there. That, after all, is what is important in this case.
Anyway, this is just a rant and I'll probably get modded down for off-topic or worse. I just don't see how we go forward in a society when we refuse to listen to someone you don't agree with.
WHOOOSH!
Good information you have there. I have to say though that most of the non-profits I deal with mostly have a donor database to let them know about upcoming events, keep them abreast of special events and the occasional email asking for a donation. Although there are some that use it to call their donors to ask for more, most of the time it's for emails...not to mention the tax information they need to keep and hold onto.
No, sorry. Awful idea. Usually, a 60 person operation has a donor list in the thousands. Exchange is going to choke sending that out. It's just simply not designed for something like that. Believe me, I've had orgs who have tried it. A good CRM is nothing to sneeze at.
Oh my, I shouldn't feed the troll, but this pisses me off.
This particular troll apparently has no idea of what non-profits do or what they do for people at large. Go ahead, pick something that you might care about...I bet there's a non-profit (probably several) that either helps or advocates on your behalf. Let's try this game, shall we?
Emergency relief? How about the Red Cross for one?
Health issues? Too many to mention.
How about the military? Adopt a Platoon. Paralyzed Veterans of American...many many more.
Firefighters and Police? You bet they're covered.
That's just a small sampling and some of the bigger names in the industry. There are thousands more. And they all have donors and supporters who care about that particular thing. You are way off the mark about it not being a "real job". Most of the people that work at non-profits work long hours and far harder than you sitting on your ass cruising Slashdot. And they do it for a pittance of pay because it's something they care about.
FWIW, Salesforce supports non-profits with 501(c)3s for next to nothing. I know some businesses use Salesforce and it costs a lot, but they do offer a steep discount for non-profits.
Raise the failure flag!
Bingo. This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the topic. I can't imagine what this game would have been like without being able to ski. Instead of the fast paced/all action game it became, it would have turned into a sniper-fest waiting for the other guy to peek their head around a ridge.
Good God, man! Haven't you heard about the facts!
Wow...I'm enjoying my comment bounce up and down between Off-topic and Informative. I've started a betting pool at work and have people shouting for certain outcomes, just as if a large pile of money rides on it being red or black!
My cut is 10%. Thank you, indecisive moderators!
Why is it when people get indignant about law, they bring up the McDonald's coffee case? Here, read about it.
For those of you that are "tl:dr", here's the case in a nutshell. McDonald's knew it had a problem with coffee temperature, thought that it would be cheaper to settle potential cases rather than fix the problem. The jury awarded punitive damages (which the plaintiff did not ask for) which amounts to the total of two days worth of profit McDonald's makes on their coffee sales. The plaintiff, who suffered third degree burns, would have not filed suit if McDonald's would have compensated for her medical issues which included skin grafts to her groin, thighs and buttocks and her stay in the hospital.
Being indignant is so much easier when you are ignorant about the facts.