Until they actually came to the UK and realised that the weather really *is* that changable.
I posted earlier today about how nice and sunny the weather was. Since then it has hailed, blown a gale and is now clearing up looking like the evening will be as clear and pretty as the morning.
There was a pigeion preening outside my window in the sun and then suddenly it was being shot-blasted and couldn't get into the air to find shelter.
Surely it's only dangerous to consumers who have been avoiding paying tax. Isn't that the choice you make when you decide not to pay your taxes in the first place?
Mind you, it was irritating when DHL contacted me last year with a final demand for taxes they had payed on my behalf on a couple of ThinkGeek orders and invoiced to an old address they found in god knows what dusty old fileing cabinet, so I never knew I owed them and had assumed the order fell under some obscure ``zero rate tax on stupid toys'' clause.
How the *hell* do you get "rather lower" than most estimates?
Er, because I've usually seen 95-98 degC as a good brewing temperature.
``f it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit''
Which is what I said. It's not ging to drop 25 degreesin the time it takes to pour and hand over a cup. So if you keep it at 180-185 you will be serving it at 179-184 or something close to that.
Where did you dredge that 160 figure up from? I did a quick google to see if I could find a reputable source reccomending serving coffee that cool and found only some references to the temperature for steamed milk and lots of stuff related to the McDonald's case where it seems to have originated with a doctor talking about at what temperature it would be safer to pour the coffee over yourself.
There is a reasonable balance between "stupid people deserve what they get" and "protect people from themselves"
Indeed, and it is around the point where the protection of stupid people makes life noticably worse for non stupid people. Maybe a sign saying ``if you are a klutz, please order our special `tepid coffee' '' would have been an apropriate level.
Also for the record, coffee is the most popular beverage worldwide (7 million tons to tea's roughly 3 million tons).
Er, coffee is a lot heavier than tea for the amount needed to make a cup (6-10g vs ~2g). For the record, the world's most popular beverage, unsuprisingly, is water.
Why are the Americans always so critical of British food?
It's a hold over from WWII, when for obvious reasons the food was limited, and there were lots of americans around feeling home sick.
The steriotype got started and has never gone away.
Probably not helped by the fact that the British tourist industry has traditionally been operated by people who thought of WWII nostalgicly, so food encountered by visitors has often been so bad even tourists don't deserve it.
And, of course, there is no real tradition of British restaurants. Restauraunt food has generally been faux-French, or more recently indian and other adopted cuisines. To get good British food you would have had to shop and cook, which obviously tourists don't, or find somewhere aimed at natives -- I've been told that following long distance lorries with UK plates to find the obscure eateries aimed at them used to be the thing to do to get good, cheap, though not eligant, food.
Coffee should not be *served* at that temperature.
The National coffee association reccomends brewing coffee at 195-200 degF and serving at 180-185 degF. That is rather lower than some reccomendations I have seen. So, the McDonalds coffee was at the high end for serving, low end of what it would be when brewed. About right for take-away, which will cool slightly during transportation.
Mcdonald's corporate policy dictated that the coffee be held at that temperature prior to serving.
Good for them. Pity this woman has caused them to serve sub standard coffee now in case a moron buys it and decides to juggle with the cup.
I can reasonably expect that if my clumsy-ass friend knocks the coffee into my lap, I won't have to go to the hospital for in-patient care.
Do you also assume that if she accidentally stabs you in the eye with a fork you won't need to go to hospital?
Hint. Keep boiling water and sharp things away from clumbsy people, or keep yourself away from the dangerous combination.
Like I said - most people don't expect coffee to be *served* at a temperature hot enough to cause potentially fatal injuries.
Like I said, you shouldn't generalise from your weird and self destructive world view to `most people'. ``Most people'' are more likely to drink tea than coffee, since it is the more popular drink worldwide, and that is brewed and served even hotter! Remarkably few adults seriously damage themselves with it.
For interest, I stuck a thermometer into my coffee pot. I didn't get to it right after it was made, and so it had dropped to 85 degC 185 degF. Bang on the top end of the reccomended serving range. Ain't technology wonderful. Slurp!
I'll have you know that the British climate has improved dramatically since Americans started driving 10-mile-a-gallon SUVs.
Unfortunatly, the consensus seems to be that global warming will likely result in the UK reverting to the climate you'd expect at this latitude. Think Moscow, Labrador, the Alaskan pan-handle, then warm them just a little from now.
The coffee in the McDonald's case was served at 180-190 Fahrenheit.
Which is substantially below the temperature at which coffee should be brewed, as I said. If you have never made coffee, go look in a book.
I think most people have an expectation that the coffee they are served won't be capable of burning their skin clean down to subdermal tissue. I think that's reasonable.
Then you are an idiot who will get burned someday, and one can only hope your evaluation of `most people' is a reflection of your idiocy, not theirs. If someone makes fresh coffee and gives you a cup, it will be up over 200 degF. You should handle it with care until it has a chance to cool down. The fact that you usually get cool coffee which has been standing does not mean you should expect always to get cool coffee. Expect the most dangerous possibility and check. This is a basic life skill your parents should have taught you.
In other news, knives can be sharp, even if you have only ever seen dull plastic fast food spatulas.
i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't
however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected
The two are not in conflict. The journalists didn't sign NDAs.
Apple should have management procedures in place to track sensitive information and find leaks, or, where that is impossible due to the nature of the information, they should not make the information's secrecy commercially vital.
If they can't be arsed to look after what they consider vital information, they shouldn't expect others to do the job for them.
I'm sitting here eatind some rather nice cheese, looking at the bright sun on the red sandstone building oposite contrasting with the gorgeous blue sky with just a decrorative amount of cloud and thinking ``damn, all the women must have gone to the US to become hollywood stars and supermodels''.
Much as I think people have a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee shouldn't inflict third-degree burns over their genitals through two layers of clothing.
Only if they don't know how to make coffee. IIRC the coffe in question was substantially cooler than normal coffee brewing temperature.
So, the best you can say is that people might have an expectation that fast food places let the coffee go tepid by the time it gets to the customer.
Still not a reason not to treat it with respect due a dangerous object though. You should never presume that someone else's incompitence has ensured your safety. Sometimes they will suprise you by doing something correctly and you will be in deep shit.
Eg. my taxes are administered from Cumbernauld, and all major trials which are about crimes around here would be held at the high court in Edinburgh. My hub airport would be in Amsterdam.
Oh, and of the 5 big UK banks, RBS is headquartered in Edinburgh as is HBOS. Barclays,Lloys and HSBC are in London.
Is that based on actual data, or just your perception from your choice of media? Remember that most non-violent burglars will not even attempt a burglary when someone is home, they will go next door instead, so any burglar who finds someone home is statistically much more likely to be a psycho (a few, of course, will have just been unlucky).
Besides which it is irrlevent. Someone should not be sentenced based on the tendencies of other people, but on their own actions.
Yes, I realize the law does evolve with changing times, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.
Why? ISTM that the law is a tool we have to delimit the power of the state. What limits we want on the state change with time, and we can't have primary legislation for every small drift in society. To sticke to copyright, there was a time when copying and using a work were essentially separaate, one could argue that the sound comeing out of a gramophone was a copy of the marks on the disk, but only a philosopher would do so. Now we have technologies where making a copy is integral to using the work -- eg a DVD player will have a buffer used in decoding. The law has to be reinterpreted to make the distinction between copying for use and copying for geting an extra copy.
Now suddenly someone jumps up and says they want to "rent" music and that is all it takes to magically turns what *was* fair use into copyright infringment?
That is for the court to decide in the short term and the legislators in the medium term. The fundamental established rule of thumb for fair use, I believe, is that it does not harm the copyright owners normal execution of their rights. What those normal rights are is clearly a matter of social and technological context. Sale of videoes did not exist at one point, and most TV was live. and so someone with one of the ancient video recording machines could have argued sanely that there was no conflict between their making a copy, or even giving copies to others, qand the copyright owners excercising their rights. Suddently Videoes are everywhere and TV programmes are things which can be repeated, and there clearly is a conflict.
A related example of the problems caused by lack of flexability comes from contract law -- where there is little or no flexability for the court to take changes in the world into account. The BBC has rights to lots of programming which they can not use, because the contracts, stupidly in retrospect, but understandably in context, contain rather too specific an idea of what a repeat broadcast is. They have to contact everyone involved to get permission to, say, broadcast over the web, and that can be a hell of a lot of people.
in the Diamond and IIRC Napster cases, there is dicta endorsing the concept of space shifting as a fair use, and certainly it's popular enough.
Well, tax fiddling is popular, as is speeding, as is domestic violence, qthat has no direct bearing (of course, it can influence politicians and so legislation).
But yes, space or format shifting is the argument I would use is, as a strong supporter of copyright, someone were to call me on all the tapes and MP3s I have of music I own copies of in other formats. If it's ethical for me to run a long cable to the other room to send the music to a speaker, I can't see an argument that it is not ethical to do the same by recording a tape or MP3 and carying it to a player there.
Since when in jurisprudence does someone else get punished based on the action of another?
Accessory before the fact. If the child is too young to be held totally responsible for their actions, the parent should be providing guidence. I fthe guidence results in a crime then they are an accessory.
Hey Mom, give me $20 or I'll commit a crime and you will go to jail.
If you bring up your child to act like that you deserve to go to jail.
Some kids ARE brought up right and go wrong.
If they do so as adults, then there is no issue. If they do so as kids, you have a choice between trying to put them right or keeping an eye on them.
This is idiotic thinking from Democrats/socialists.
Clearly it's not comeing from a Democrat. Socialists, by definition, would put the blame on society, not on the parents. I'm neither, I'm a liberal in the sense the rest of the world uses, not your sill US redefinition. I believe in personal responsibility, that includes responsibility for your children while they are too young to be ully responsible for themselves.
When you read it carefully all it REALLY says is "the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright". Period.
Yes, but that is, as you say later, an empty statement.
In general fair use has been taken to cover copying for purposes related to working with the work (eg for reviewing, for teaching about the, for `time shifting' a broadcast of the work), but not for executing the primary purpose of the work (eg copying a novel to have a copy to read for the normal reasons one would read a novel).
Specifiucally, I know of no court decision that the fact that a copy was poor quality meant it was `fair use'.
What the fuck is wrong with this kid, and his parents?
Proposal: if your minor child is convicted of a crime you get hit with a proportion of the sentence dependent on the age of the child.
(100% at 5 years old, 0% at 18, not sure what the interpolation function should be).
The criminal in question was out on bail when committing this robbery and had 13 priors. For this, he gets all of 11 months?
Given he was 19, most of the priors were presumably when he was legally a child.
Not that I'm saying that should have limited his sentence, but I suspect that is what did so.
I do wonder what he will get when the earlier offence he was on bail for comes up, assuming he is found guilty.
What tickles me is how he was dressed. It's the modern equivalent of a stripy jersey and a bag labeled SWAG (assuming that image has any salience for non UK people). They might as well have arrested him as he left home dressed like that, the only problem being they wouldn't know if he planned burglary, car theft or just being an embarassment to the species.
It has never been a problem if you deal with an intruder in any reasonable manner. There was a tabloid thrash trying to raise concerns that this had somehow changed and the government put out a leaflet saying, in effect, ``hey, guys, nothing has changed''.
Reasonable is defined in the usual common law manner, as whatever a jury decides is reasonable. Since juries are just folk (with a bias against selection of burglars) they tend to decide the homeowner was perfectly reasonable in beating crap out of the bastard.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted earlier today about how nice and sunny the weather was. Since then it has hailed, blown a gale and is now clearing up looking like the evening will be as clear and pretty as the morning.
There was a pigeion preening outside my window in the sun and then suddenly it was being shot-blasted and couldn't get into the air to find shelter.
Surely it's only dangerous to consumers who have been avoiding paying tax. Isn't that the choice you make when you decide not to pay your taxes in the first place?
Mind you, it was irritating when DHL contacted me last year with a final demand for taxes they had payed on my behalf on a couple of ThinkGeek orders and invoiced to an old address they found in god knows what dusty old fileing cabinet, so I never knew I owed them and had assumed the order fell under some obscure ``zero rate tax on stupid toys'' clause.
Er, because I've usually seen 95-98 degC as a good brewing temperature.
``f it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit''
Which is what I said. It's not ging to drop 25 degreesin the time it takes to pour and hand over a cup. So if you keep it at 180-185 you will be serving it at 179-184 or something close to that.
Where did you dredge that 160 figure up from? I did a quick google to see if I could find a reputable source reccomending serving coffee that cool and found only some references to the temperature for steamed milk and lots of stuff related to the McDonald's case where it seems to have originated with a doctor talking about at what temperature it would be safer to pour the coffee over yourself.
There is a reasonable balance between "stupid people deserve what they get" and "protect people from themselves"
Indeed, and it is around the point where the protection of stupid people makes life noticably worse for non stupid people. Maybe a sign saying ``if you are a klutz, please order our special `tepid coffee' '' would have been an apropriate level.
Also for the record, coffee is the most popular beverage worldwide (7 million tons to tea's roughly 3 million tons).
Er, coffee is a lot heavier than tea for the amount needed to make a cup (6-10g vs ~2g). For the record, the world's most popular beverage, unsuprisingly, is water.
It's a hold over from WWII, when for obvious reasons the food was limited, and there were lots of americans around feeling home sick.
The steriotype got started and has never gone away.
Probably not helped by the fact that the British tourist industry has traditionally been operated by people who thought of WWII nostalgicly, so food encountered by visitors has often been so bad even tourists don't deserve it.
And, of course, there is no real tradition of British restaurants. Restauraunt food has generally been faux-French, or more recently indian and other adopted cuisines. To get good British food you would have had to shop and cook, which obviously tourists don't, or find somewhere aimed at natives -- I've been told that following long distance lorries with UK plates to find the obscure eateries aimed at them used to be the thing to do to get good, cheap, though not eligant, food.
The National coffee association reccomends brewing coffee at 195-200 degF and serving at 180-185 degF. That is rather lower than some reccomendations I have seen. So, the McDonalds coffee was at the high end for serving, low end of what it would be when brewed. About right for take-away, which will cool slightly during transportation.
Mcdonald's corporate policy dictated that the coffee be held at that temperature prior to serving.
Good for them. Pity this woman has caused them to serve sub standard coffee now in case a moron buys it and decides to juggle with the cup.
I can reasonably expect that if my clumsy-ass friend knocks the coffee into my lap, I won't have to go to the hospital for in-patient care.
Do you also assume that if she accidentally stabs you in the eye with a fork you won't need to go to hospital?
Hint. Keep boiling water and sharp things away from clumbsy people, or keep yourself away from the dangerous combination.
Like I said - most people don't expect coffee to be *served* at a temperature hot enough to cause potentially fatal injuries.
Like I said, you shouldn't generalise from your weird and self destructive world view to `most people'. ``Most people'' are more likely to drink tea than coffee, since it is the more popular drink worldwide, and that is brewed and served even hotter! Remarkably few adults seriously damage themselves with it.
For interest, I stuck a thermometer into my coffee pot. I didn't get to it right after it was made, and so it had dropped to 85 degC 185 degF. Bang on the top end of the reccomended serving range. Ain't technology wonderful. Slurp!
The devil has all the best food, to go with the tunes.
Unfortunatly, the consensus seems to be that global warming will likely result in the UK reverting to the climate you'd expect at this latitude. Think Moscow, Labrador, the Alaskan pan-handle, then warm them just a little from now.
Which is substantially below the temperature at which coffee should be brewed, as I said. If you have never made coffee, go look in a book.
I think most people have an expectation that the coffee they are served won't be capable of burning their skin clean down to subdermal tissue. I think that's reasonable.
Then you are an idiot who will get burned someday, and one can only hope your evaluation of `most people' is a reflection of your idiocy, not theirs. If someone makes fresh coffee and gives you a cup, it will be up over 200 degF. You should handle it with care until it has a chance to cool down. The fact that you usually get cool coffee which has been standing does not mean you should expect always to get cool coffee. Expect the most dangerous possibility and check. This is a basic life skill your parents should have taught you.
In other news, knives can be sharp, even if you have only ever seen dull plastic fast food spatulas.
however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected
The two are not in conflict. The journalists didn't sign NDAs.
Apple should have management procedures in place to track sensitive information and find leaks, or, where that is impossible due to the nature of the information, they should not make the information's secrecy commercially vital.
If they can't be arsed to look after what they consider vital information, they shouldn't expect others to do the job for them.
I'm sitting here eatind some rather nice cheese, looking at the bright sun on the red sandstone building oposite contrasting with the gorgeous blue sky with just a decrorative amount of cloud and thinking ``damn, all the women must have gone to the US to become hollywood stars and supermodels''.
Only if they don't know how to make coffee. IIRC the coffe in question was substantially cooler than normal coffee brewing temperature.
So, the best you can say is that people might have an expectation that fast food places let the coffee go tepid by the time it gets to the customer.
Still not a reason not to treat it with respect due a dangerous object though. You should never presume that someone else's incompitence has ensured your safety. Sometimes they will suprise you by doing something correctly and you will be in deep shit.
Er, England is totally London centric.
Eg. my taxes are administered from Cumbernauld, and all major trials which are about crimes around here would be held at the high court in Edinburgh. My hub airport would be in Amsterdam.
Oh, and of the 5 big UK banks, RBS is headquartered in Edinburgh as is HBOS. Barclays,Lloys and HSBC are in London.
Well, that would improve the UK no end, be the first useful thing the US has done since WWII.
Is that based on actual data, or just your perception from your choice of media? Remember that most non-violent burglars will not even attempt a burglary when someone is home, they will go next door instead, so any burglar who finds someone home is statistically much more likely to be a psycho (a few, of course, will have just been unlucky).
Besides which it is irrlevent. Someone should not be sentenced based on the tendencies of other people, but on their own actions.
Why? ISTM that the law is a tool we have to delimit the power of the state. What limits we want on the state change with time, and we can't have primary legislation for every small drift in society. To sticke to copyright, there was a time when copying and using a work were essentially separaate, one could argue that the sound comeing out of a gramophone was a copy of the marks on the disk, but only a philosopher would do so. Now we have technologies where making a copy is integral to using the work -- eg a DVD player will have a buffer used in decoding. The law has to be reinterpreted to make the distinction between copying for use and copying for geting an extra copy.
Now suddenly someone jumps up and says they want to "rent" music and that is all it takes to magically turns what *was* fair use into copyright infringment?
That is for the court to decide in the short term and the legislators in the medium term. The fundamental established rule of thumb for fair use, I believe, is that it does not harm the copyright owners normal execution of their rights. What those normal rights are is clearly a matter of social and technological context. Sale of videoes did not exist at one point, and most TV was live. and so someone with one of the ancient video recording machines could have argued sanely that there was no conflict between their making a copy, or even giving copies to others, qand the copyright owners excercising their rights. Suddently Videoes are everywhere and TV programmes are things which can be repeated, and there clearly is a conflict.
A related example of the problems caused by lack of flexability comes from contract law -- where there is little or no flexability for the court to take changes in the world into account. The BBC has rights to lots of programming which they can not use, because the contracts, stupidly in retrospect, but understandably in context, contain rather too specific an idea of what a repeat broadcast is. They have to contact everyone involved to get permission to, say, broadcast over the web, and that can be a hell of a lot of people.
Well, tax fiddling is popular, as is speeding, as is domestic violence, qthat has no direct bearing (of course, it can influence politicians and so legislation).
But yes, space or format shifting is the argument I would use is, as a strong supporter of copyright, someone were to call me on all the tapes and MP3s I have of music I own copies of in other formats. If it's ethical for me to run a long cable to the other room to send the music to a speaker, I can't see an argument that it is not ethical to do the same by recording a tape or MP3 and carying it to a player there.
Prisons are well known for their lack of violence and drugs of course.
So I made a typo, so sue me. The point stands.
I read the article before it came up here.
Accessory before the fact. If the child is too young to be held totally responsible for their actions, the parent should be providing guidence. I fthe guidence results in a crime then they are an accessory.
Hey Mom, give me $20 or I'll commit a crime and you will go to jail.
If you bring up your child to act like that you deserve to go to jail.
Some kids ARE brought up right and go wrong.
If they do so as adults, then there is no issue. If they do so as kids, you have a choice between trying to put them right or keeping an eye on them.
This is idiotic thinking from Democrats/socialists.
Clearly it's not comeing from a Democrat. Socialists, by definition, would put the blame on society, not on the parents. I'm neither, I'm a liberal in the sense the rest of the world uses, not your sill US redefinition. I believe in personal responsibility, that includes responsibility for your children while they are too young to be ully responsible for themselves.
Still his kid. Should have thought of the consequences before going for a divorce.
Yes, but that is, as you say later, an empty statement.
In general fair use has been taken to cover copying for purposes related to working with the work (eg for reviewing, for teaching about the, for `time shifting' a broadcast of the work), but not for executing the primary purpose of the work (eg copying a novel to have a copy to read for the normal reasons one would read a novel).
Specifiucally, I know of no court decision that the fact that a copy was poor quality meant it was `fair use'.
Proposal: if your minor child is convicted of a crime you get hit with a proportion of the sentence dependent on the age of the child. (100% at 5 years old, 0% at 18, not sure what the interpolation function should be).
Somehow I doubt that someone who got 33 convictions by 19 will manage to keep his nose clean in jail and get full remission for good behaviour.
This guy is not only antisocial, he is stupid when he is being antisocial and gets caught a lot.
Given he was 19, most of the priors were presumably when he was legally a child.
Not that I'm saying that should have limited his sentence, but I suspect that is what did so.
I do wonder what he will get when the earlier offence he was on bail for comes up, assuming he is found guilty.
What tickles me is how he was dressed. It's the modern equivalent of a stripy jersey and a bag labeled SWAG (assuming that image has any salience for non UK people). They might as well have arrested him as he left home dressed like that, the only problem being they wouldn't know if he planned burglary, car theft or just being an embarassment to the species.
Did you read what you linked to?
It has never been a problem if you deal with an intruder in any reasonable manner. There was a tabloid thrash trying to raise concerns that this had somehow changed and the government put out a leaflet saying, in effect, ``hey, guys, nothing has changed''.
Reasonable is defined in the usual common law manner, as whatever a jury decides is reasonable. Since juries are just folk (with a bias against selection of burglars) they tend to decide the homeowner was perfectly reasonable in beating crap out of the bastard.