I recall from some reading on this case a few more details as well.
McDonald's coffee was known to be hotter than normal. It's actually pretty good coffee, and it's far easier to let your coffee cool for a moment than to warm it more if you like it really hot. At any rate, there had been many (hundreds) of suits filed against McDonald's in the USA for coffee spills. Every one was quietly settled.
Then, this elderly woman receives her cup of coffee, and spills it between her legs in her car. Yes, it is supremely stupid to put a hot coffee between your legs as you drive away. At any rate, she suffered very bad burns to her thighs. Being elderly, she was in the pool of hot coffee longer than a younger person who could have moved away faster. She also required a lot more medical care than someone younger.
She filed suit with McDonald's. McDonald's decided to pursue this lawsuit instead of settling, which was a surprised given the history of settlements for these cases. Perhaps it had a unique property that made it more appealing for pursuit.
The actual awards arising from this case went both ways. From memory, the old woman who spilled the coffee was actually liable for negligence on the order of a couple hundred thousand dollars. However, McDonald's was also held liable for negligence, though I believe for a greater percentage. What swayed the case so heavily in the old woman's favor were the punitive damages. The court awarded her a large sum of punitive damages, as I recall in response to the sudden aggressive pursuit of this case by McDonald's. Of course, multi-million dollar damages awarded made headlines. McDonald's appealed the ruling, but the case didn't receive more significant media coverage. It's entirely possible that the woman settled during the appeal for a smaller amount, realizing that the case could be drawn out long enough for her funeral.
Sorry - no real citations, but nothing is embellished here. It's a tough matter to discuss without all the facts. When you realize the source of the large award (punitive damages, not negligence), and that the woman was in fact held partially liable for the negligence, it's not so black and white.
Something that is overlooked in nearly all of the "Green" innovations is the complete life cycle of the device. Some others have touched on maintenance as a factor, or the affect on the turbine's direct surroundings. What we've failed to consider is the energy expended to manufacture and assemble the enormous composite blades, the gearboxes, and the columns. We must also factor in energy used transporting the building materials and completed components to the installation site. Once the turbines have been installed, they require maintenance, and likely will require replacement gearboxes on occasion. Finally, when they have faithfully served for their design life, we will expend still more energy to demolish the turbines and recycle the materials where possible.
I'm thinking of 600 or more of these wind turbines being built, and the amount of energy that will be consumed in their manufacture. Do they even pay for themselves over their lifetime of use?
Living in an apartment, I was actually surprised with the opposite. It appears that there are 20 or so wireless networks with good signal strength in range, and I am in a corner of the building. However, there is not a single network that isn't using some form of encryption. I don't know if this is typical, but all the supposed luddites living in this building (a combination of college/university age couples and 50+ year old singles) have obviously figured their wireless routers out.
The other premise upon which people base a lot of paranoia regarding network and personal computer security is the assumption that they possess something worth stealing. There are many effective credit card fraud methods in use that don't require any sort of computer exploitation, but rather involve "social engineering." What other information does the average person have on his PC that is of value? Of course I would be disturbed if somebody managed to obtain my entire photograph library, but that is of so little value to somebody else, I doubt very much that any significant effort would be put towards obtaining it.
Not only does getting "dressed for work" mentally prepare a person to actually get down to business, it also symbolizes the development of that person as a whole. Whether or not your job constitutes public appearance, the effort you put into your appearance reflects on your personality. If you are unwilling to look presentable for work, it can give the appearance to others that you are not likely to put in the effort elsewhere in your work.
While there are exceptions, as with everything, I've generally found that harder, more effective workers at school or work are also more effective and productive in other avenues of their lives. This effectiveness shows in how they organize their personal space and how they maintain their own appearance.
So, congratulations to those who can make a lot of money being slobs at home. It's not a "sacrifice" to your work to put on 30 pounds and convert your home to an office. Nor is it a concession to the difficulty of your work that you can't otherwise maintain your appearance. If life is so tough, and "not sustainable", find a job you can sustain instead of blogging about how terrible your blogging job has made your life.
Regarding the phone calls while working from home - why not get a business phone line? Don't give it to your friends. Shut off the home phone when you're "at work" and answer the personal messages later. Let your friends be miffed at the answering machine.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're at it, our body systems could continually provide updates via Twitter and Facebook.
Score.
I recall from some reading on this case a few more details as well.
McDonald's coffee was known to be hotter than normal. It's actually pretty good coffee, and it's far easier to let your coffee cool for a moment than to warm it more if you like it really hot. At any rate, there had been many (hundreds) of suits filed against McDonald's in the USA for coffee spills. Every one was quietly settled.
Then, this elderly woman receives her cup of coffee, and spills it between her legs in her car. Yes, it is supremely stupid to put a hot coffee between your legs as you drive away. At any rate, she suffered very bad burns to her thighs. Being elderly, she was in the pool of hot coffee longer than a younger person who could have moved away faster. She also required a lot more medical care than someone younger.
She filed suit with McDonald's. McDonald's decided to pursue this lawsuit instead of settling, which was a surprised given the history of settlements for these cases. Perhaps it had a unique property that made it more appealing for pursuit.
The actual awards arising from this case went both ways. From memory, the old woman who spilled the coffee was actually liable for negligence on the order of a couple hundred thousand dollars. However, McDonald's was also held liable for negligence, though I believe for a greater percentage. What swayed the case so heavily in the old woman's favor were the punitive damages. The court awarded her a large sum of punitive damages, as I recall in response to the sudden aggressive pursuit of this case by McDonald's. Of course, multi-million dollar damages awarded made headlines. McDonald's appealed the ruling, but the case didn't receive more significant media coverage. It's entirely possible that the woman settled during the appeal for a smaller amount, realizing that the case could be drawn out long enough for her funeral.
Sorry - no real citations, but nothing is embellished here. It's a tough matter to discuss without all the facts. When you realize the source of the large award (punitive damages, not negligence), and that the woman was in fact held partially liable for the negligence, it's not so black and white.
Something that is overlooked in nearly all of the "Green" innovations is the complete life cycle of the device. Some others have touched on maintenance as a factor, or the affect on the turbine's direct surroundings. What we've failed to consider is the energy expended to manufacture and assemble the enormous composite blades, the gearboxes, and the columns. We must also factor in energy used transporting the building materials and completed components to the installation site. Once the turbines have been installed, they require maintenance, and likely will require replacement gearboxes on occasion. Finally, when they have faithfully served for their design life, we will expend still more energy to demolish the turbines and recycle the materials where possible.
I'm thinking of 600 or more of these wind turbines being built, and the amount of energy that will be consumed in their manufacture. Do they even pay for themselves over their lifetime of use?
Living in an apartment, I was actually surprised with the opposite. It appears that there are 20 or so wireless networks with good signal strength in range, and I am in a corner of the building. However, there is not a single network that isn't using some form of encryption. I don't know if this is typical, but all the supposed luddites living in this building (a combination of college/university age couples and 50+ year old singles) have obviously figured their wireless routers out.
The other premise upon which people base a lot of paranoia regarding network and personal computer security is the assumption that they possess something worth stealing. There are many effective credit card fraud methods in use that don't require any sort of computer exploitation, but rather involve "social engineering." What other information does the average person have on his PC that is of value? Of course I would be disturbed if somebody managed to obtain my entire photograph library, but that is of so little value to somebody else, I doubt very much that any significant effort would be put towards obtaining it.
Just feed it straight to my veins.
Not only does getting "dressed for work" mentally prepare a person to actually get down to business, it also symbolizes the development of that person as a whole. Whether or not your job constitutes public appearance, the effort you put into your appearance reflects on your personality. If you are unwilling to look presentable for work, it can give the appearance to others that you are not likely to put in the effort elsewhere in your work.
While there are exceptions, as with everything, I've generally found that harder, more effective workers at school or work are also more effective and productive in other avenues of their lives. This effectiveness shows in how they organize their personal space and how they maintain their own appearance.
So, congratulations to those who can make a lot of money being slobs at home. It's not a "sacrifice" to your work to put on 30 pounds and convert your home to an office. Nor is it a concession to the difficulty of your work that you can't otherwise maintain your appearance. If life is so tough, and "not sustainable", find a job you can sustain instead of blogging about how terrible your blogging job has made your life.
Regarding the phone calls while working from home - why not get a business phone line? Don't give it to your friends. Shut off the home phone when you're "at work" and answer the personal messages later. Let your friends be miffed at the answering machine.