Ya know, it strikes me that the companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too with this. They're saying that we have all the responsibilities of music licensed to us, and a CD sold to us, whereas they have all the rights of both cases. As in, we can't copy the music we've licensed to a different medium because we bought the CD, we can't sell the CD to someone else because we actually bought a license to the music, they don't have to replace a lost/damaged/stolen CD for media costs because we bought the CD, they have a right to copyright enforcement because we licensed the material... It strikes me that either the law needs to pick one model or the other, and make sure both parties share the rights and responsibilites of that model.
Of course, that'll never happen with the Republicrats in charge...
Actually, transfer of ownership is forbidden. Strictly speaking, they only want you to have one player per character. It's just that the auction of items and characters is actually enforcible.
Was that a family-owned grocery store then? Because the union at the big chain store I worked at was set up and managed by the stores itself, and I understand that's the norm. Furthermore, the charters of those unions forbid things like strikes, work slowdowns, etc. In other words, they're just a way for the employer to siphon some money from the employee's paychecks and provide a sinecure for the CEO's nephew. Their real purpose, of course, is to prevent a REAL union from receiving legal recognition, since membership in the store's union is, of course, mandatory. Those unions do jack shit for the employee, and every employee in the store knows it.
Using a house to shield you from the forces of nature is spineless and wrong.
See how bloody stupid that statement was?
Fact is, the vast majority of our institutions are *designed* to shield us from those forces. Government. Police. Fire department, anyone? Insurance companies.
Maybe the best way of dealing with it is to find a way to protect yourself from negative consequences?
First Amendment protection isn't granted to slander, libel, or the classic "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" either. If speech is directly harmful to others, it's not protected. There's no reason First Amendment protection couldn't be given to code, but making an exception for directly, intentionally harmful code.
And no, DeCSS doesn't fit that mold. Slander and libel don't have legitimate applications. Neither do viruses. DeCSS, on the other hand, does.
Second, the market for a compatible DOS was effectively eliminated when Windows finally picked up steam, not when Microsoft started including DOS in the same cardboard box as Windows 95. I'm sure MS would have preferred to simply retire DOS completely and make Windows 95 a free-standing OS, but couldn't do so because it would have orphaned all those old DOS apps (not to mention the fact that Windows still relied (relies?) on much of the basic services of DOS - but that's another story). So it put DOS in semi-retirement by hiding it behind the Windows shell.
Uh, dude? Windows *required* DOS. How does "Windows picking up steam" eliminate the market for a product it requires? Windows 95 also *requires* DOS, as does 98 and ME. All these are is DOS in the same box as Windows. DOS won't be in retirement (semi- or otherwise) until they finally retire that entire OS series in favor of an NT based kernel. However, prior to 95, that DOS did not have to be MS-DOS. Windows 3.x could run just as easily on DR-DOS as it could on MS-DOS. So yes, it was 95's inclusion in the box that destroyed the market for a compatible DOS.
I also find it laughable to hear so many people bitching about Microsoft bundling non-operating system programs with Windows when most Linux distributions come with every piece of Linux freeware under the sun "bundled" on the same CD and nobody complains about that or whines that it's "unfair" to Microsoft.
*sigh* Bundled != integrated. I have a CHOICE to not install the 10,000 different programs that come on the disk. No matter what I do, when I install Windows 98, ME, 2000, etc, I get Exploder on my system. Furthermore, the distros bundle competing software. They don't pick your newsreader, your email client, etc. for you. Most importantly, no Linux distro has a monopoly, either of PC OS market or even the Linux distro market.
1) Microsoft owns Windows and IE and ought to be able to combine them if it damn well wants to regardless of technical or any other kind of benefits
Unless harm can be demonstrated to others as a result. Property rights aren't absolute, even if corporations should have any rights.
Neither OEMs, nor consumers, or anybody else is forced by law to use Windows or any other Microsoft product
Nope. They're forced by market pressure created by MS's unethical and illegal actions. What you rabid libertarian types always seem to forget is that others besides the government can wield force, and there's more types of force than law or physical threats.
If anybody offered consumers a viable replacement for Windows most will tell Microsoft to go screw themselves. PC history over the last 20 years is littered with examples of operating systems and applications that were either worse than Microsoft's offerings (Lotus SmartSuite), were pathetically marketed (OS/2) or were ignored by the rest of the industry (BeOS). (emphasis mine)
So... Why exactly is it that BeOS was ignored by the rest of the industry? Isn't it simply because MS has the monopoly power to preven/make it not worthwhile to look at other OS's? Isn't BeOS a perfect example of the fact that your claim is, in fact, completely untrue?
Oh, and OS/2's failure had *plenty* to do with MS's monopoly power, not just IBM's pathetic marketing. (exclusive licensing agreements, making changes to Windows to prevent OS/2 from working properly with it, FUD, fear on the part of the trade rags...)
Like a good little communist/linux user, he should be happy and content where he is?
Like a good little fascist/windoze user, he should obey the will of the Great Company and do exactly what it wants no matter his opinions?
He's in a job he's happy with and that he's apparently good at. Why would the company be stupid enough to try to force him into a role he wouldn't be happy with, and that they're not sure he's good at?
I have been forced into promotions I didn't want and it always led me somewhere new and exciting.
Hey, just because YOU found you liked it after you bent over and took it up the ass from your bosses doesn't mean HE will. Some people don't like and aren't suited to management positions. Trying to force someone like that into one is extremely stupid, as well as assholistic.
It's better than that. I'm stuck behind StupidFilter at work, and it WAS blocked until a few months ago. Probably got complaints about too many false error reports from all the damn troll links.
Fortunately for Intel, they didn't have to take any risks, since every single one of the things you mentioned was done by someone else first. Hell, the Alpha alone did all of them before Intel did. Not one of these technologies were "in it's infancy" when Intel deployed them.
The only risk Intel takes in deploying any of these technologies is the risk that Intel customers won't buy them. That's the risk every company takes when introducing a new model. While yes, it means Intel is taking risks, none of the risks Intel takes actually advance the state of the art.
, sex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies...
... rape...
I hate to break into a perfectly good rant there, but all of these are FAR more common in extremely "moral" families, cultures, etc. The US, with it's HUGE fundie christian population and continual attempts to pass laws based on christian "morality" sits at the bottom of the industrialized world by every single measure you quoted. Sweden, with about the most liberal porn laws in the world, is at the top. Fundie christians have more abortions than any other religious group, followed closely by catholics. Child abuse is more common among fundie christians as well. Furthermore, NOT ONE REPUTABLE STUDY has ever managed to prove any connection between porn and sex crimes.
Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of us don't think there's anything morally wrong with stuff like sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, or out of wedlock births. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is. And just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean you have the right to pass laws preventing the rest of us from doing it. You don't like it? Don't look. But don't even THINK of trying to take away my right to do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of assault, and I'll defend myself accordingly.
I happen to consider myself a person with very strong morals. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less strong, or any less moral. Me fucking two women doesn't make me immoral; it's your attempts to restrict my rights that is immoral.
Bah, sounds like someone's stupid enough to actually believe Rush Limbaugh. News flash: the Republicans are not, and never have been, defenders of your rights (unless you believe you have a right to force your christian morals on other people, to dump your shit in my backyard, or to have my tax money pay for your company's fuckups). Up until the mid '80's, the Democrats did a moderately decent job of supporting free expression. Then, they decided to out-Republican the Republicans, and we end up with the system we've got today, where there's no substantive difference between the parties. Each is pushing basically the same Christian-supremacist corporate feudalistic agenda in slightly different words.
You want your rights protected? Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote New Party. But neither of the Weasel Twins (my apologies to weasels) is going to do jack shit to protect your rights.
Because it's the government's Constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce.
Any corporation is a creation of the government; the act of incorporation is done through the government. The government has a responsibility to regulate its creations and prevent them violating the rights of the government's constituents.
It's much better for everyone to prevent the possibility of a crime rather than simply to punish it, where this can be done without violating anyone's rights. Corporations have no natural rights to be violated. If the government can prevent a crime by regulating a corporation, it damn well should.
Remember, corporations have no *right* to exist. We allow them to exist because they're the most effective means of (not the word I'm looking for, but...) distribution of capital we've found. If allowing a corporation to exist causes more harm than good, that corporation should not be allowed to exist.
Hey! FCC! How about NOT approving a merger, just for the hell of it? I know it's a weird idea for you, but you DON'T exist just for the convienience of the multinationals here.
ADM. Exxon. Philip Morris. Anheuser-Busch. Hearst Paper. Dupont. RJ Reynolds. Abbott Labs. Mobil. Eli Lilly.
If hemp were legal, this is just a tiny fraction of the companies that would lose huge amounts of money. Not to mention the money they'd lose if the other currently-illegal drugs were legal.
Furthermore, the prison industry is a HUGE industry in the US. Between construction, supplies, maintenance, personnel, etc. and the vast amounts of near-free labor (check how many travel agencies use prison labor to book their flights--then think about whether you want to give your credit card number to the guy on the phone), billions of dollars are being made off the prison industry.
Then you've got the people supplying the ever-expanding police departments, the anti-drug "education" programs, the court system...
Don't tell me no one's getting rich off the drug war, that's a load of shit and you know it.
Dunno about that, but you could almost certainly get away with claiming that the CCA is an organization dedicated to the destruction of fair use rights and reducing anyone dependant on information to a state of effective serfdom.
They are going to try to force companies to have elections for management!! Banks being forced into the public domain!!?? If that's not purely unconstitutional, I don't know what is.
It's entirely constitutional. Corporations aren't people, and they have no rights whatsoever other than those granted them in their charters. (Or at least they shouldn't; we've had some courts in this country that were either bloody stupid or bought-and-paid-for.) They are creations of the government, they exist at the sufferance of the government, and their charters can be withdrawn if the government chooses.
Furthermore, as they have no rights, there's no constitutional reason for the government not to manage their affairs as closely as it desires. A corporation has no RIGHT to do business. It's a PRIVILEGE granted to it by the government; as such, it can have any conditions attached the government desires.
Advisable, now that's another story. But there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
For example, there are laws against fraud, rape, robbery, and murder. There is an implicit assumption involved that those things are made illegal because they are morally wrong. One can argue that the basis of these laws is that they constitute an aggression of one party onto someone else, but even this presumes that aggression against another is wrong.
The difference is, that enough people agree that causing harm to another is wrong that we consider people who disagree insane. There's not even close to that kind of agreement on pornography.
In my opinion, laws banning something should only be enacted if:
1) There's sufficient agreement that it's wrong that someone who disagrees can be reasonably classified as insane (IE, 99.99999% of the world agrees) or
2) It can be objectively demonstrated that the cost of allowing the thing to be legal is greater than the cost of making it illegal.
Porn doesn't fit either of those categories, so laws censoring it are wrong. That includes laws requiring filtering in public places.
You mean to tell me that you can be reasonably expected to know that a nail is sharp, that a stove is hot, and that a pizza is hot? Pardon me for saying so, but if you couldn't expect that, you're a moron. Now, as I said, if there was negligence on behalf of Company X, and they knew about it, you'd have a case going. But if you're just suing because you're too stupid to realize that the razors made by the Widget Razor Company were sharp when you sliced your hand off, you deserve to be ridiculed.
Uh, no. I shouldn't be reasonable expected to assume that a nail has barbs on it. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that a stove would heat its entire top. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that pizza would burn out my sinuses. I thought that it would be pretty obvious that that's what I meant.
Similarly, she shouldn't have been expected to assume that her purchase from a fast-food restaurant would be delivered to her in an unconsumable, dangerous state. Hot, yes. Painful, yes. Hazardous to her health, no. *THAT'S* why she was granted medical costs. And yes, third degree burns are hazardous to a person's health. Without prompt treatment, the injuries she suffered could possibly have been life-threatening, not just permanently disfiguring. Third-degree burns are NASTY.
You're right, lawsuits are an individual's protection against corporate abuse. Note the bold print? If Company X acted negligently, then you have a case. But if you acted negligently, you deserve to be laughed out of court. Don't expect a jury to bow down to you because you were stupid to protect yourself from yourself.
You mean, a company that ignores repeated warnings that it's selling a product in a state that's not simply useless to the consumer but actually hazardous to their health in order to avoid having to throw away coffee for a few extra minutes isn't negligent? You've got a funny of negilgence there definition there.
The fact that the jury felt that McDonalds was, in fact, negligent is why she was awarded punitive damages.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, it strikes me that the companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too with this. They're saying that we have all the responsibilities of music licensed to us, and a CD sold to us, whereas they have all the rights of both cases. As in, we can't copy the music we've licensed to a different medium because we bought the CD, we can't sell the CD to someone else because we actually bought a license to the music, they don't have to replace a lost/damaged/stolen CD for media costs because we bought the CD, they have a right to copyright enforcement because we licensed the material... It strikes me that either the law needs to pick one model or the other, and make sure both parties share the rights and responsibilites of that model.
Of course, that'll never happen with the Republicrats in charge...
--
Actually, transfer of ownership is forbidden. Strictly speaking, they only want you to have one player per character. It's just that the auction of items and characters is actually enforcible.
--
What do you mean the ONLY way? Nothing is preventing workers from getting together on their own and approaching their employer.
Uh, what exactly do you think a union *is*? I't a group of employees getting together and presenting problems to their employer.
--
Was that a family-owned grocery store then? Because the union at the big chain store I worked at was set up and managed by the stores itself, and I understand that's the norm. Furthermore, the charters of those unions forbid things like strikes, work slowdowns, etc. In other words, they're just a way for the employer to siphon some money from the employee's paychecks and provide a sinecure for the CEO's nephew. Their real purpose, of course, is to prevent a REAL union from receiving legal recognition, since membership in the store's union is, of course, mandatory. Those unions do jack shit for the employee, and every employee in the store knows it.
--
Hmmmm.... Let's take that a little farther
Using a house to shield you from the forces of nature is spineless and wrong.
See how bloody stupid that statement was?
Fact is, the vast majority of our institutions are *designed* to shield us from those forces. Government. Police. Fire department, anyone? Insurance companies.
Maybe the best way of dealing with it is to find a way to protect yourself from negative consequences?
--
Actually, I think he was just enjoying the opportunity for him to bitch at a Slashdot reader for forgetting a recently posted story, for a change. :)
--
First Amendment protection isn't granted to slander, libel, or the classic "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" either. If speech is directly harmful to others, it's not protected. There's no reason First Amendment protection couldn't be given to code, but making an exception for directly, intentionally harmful code.
And no, DeCSS doesn't fit that mold. Slander and libel don't have legitimate applications. Neither do viruses. DeCSS, on the other hand, does.
--
Department of Education is executive branch. They're the President's proxy, not Congress's.
--
Second, the market for a compatible DOS was effectively eliminated when Windows finally picked up steam, not when Microsoft started including DOS in the same cardboard box as Windows 95. I'm sure MS would have preferred to simply retire DOS completely and make Windows 95 a free-standing OS, but couldn't do so because it would have orphaned all those old DOS apps (not to mention the fact that Windows still relied (relies?) on much of the basic services of DOS - but that's another story). So it put DOS in semi-retirement by hiding it behind the Windows shell.
Uh, dude? Windows *required* DOS. How does "Windows picking up steam" eliminate the market for a product it requires? Windows 95 also *requires* DOS, as does 98 and ME. All these are is DOS in the same box as Windows. DOS won't be in retirement (semi- or otherwise) until they finally retire that entire OS series in favor of an NT based kernel. However, prior to 95, that DOS did not have to be MS-DOS. Windows 3.x could run just as easily on DR-DOS as it could on MS-DOS. So yes, it was 95's inclusion in the box that destroyed the market for a compatible DOS.
I also find it laughable to hear so many people bitching about Microsoft bundling non-operating system programs with Windows when most Linux distributions come with every piece of Linux freeware under the sun "bundled" on the same CD and nobody complains about that or whines that it's "unfair" to Microsoft.
*sigh* Bundled != integrated. I have a CHOICE to not install the 10,000 different programs that come on the disk. No matter what I do, when I install Windows 98, ME, 2000, etc, I get Exploder on my system. Furthermore, the distros bundle competing software. They don't pick your newsreader, your email client, etc. for you. Most importantly, no Linux distro has a monopoly, either of PC OS market or even the Linux distro market.
1) Microsoft owns Windows and IE and ought to be able to combine them if it damn well wants to regardless of technical or any other kind of benefits
Unless harm can be demonstrated to others as a result. Property rights aren't absolute, even if corporations should have any rights.
Neither OEMs, nor consumers, or anybody else is forced by law to use Windows or any other Microsoft product
Nope. They're forced by market pressure created by MS's unethical and illegal actions. What you rabid libertarian types always seem to forget is that others besides the government can wield force, and there's more types of force than law or physical threats.
If anybody offered consumers a viable replacement for Windows most will tell Microsoft to go screw themselves. PC history over the last 20 years is littered with examples of operating systems and applications that were either worse than Microsoft's offerings (Lotus SmartSuite), were pathetically marketed (OS/2) or were ignored by the rest of the industry (BeOS). (emphasis mine)
So... Why exactly is it that BeOS was ignored by the rest of the industry? Isn't it simply because MS has the monopoly power to preven/make it not worthwhile to look at other OS's? Isn't BeOS a perfect example of the fact that your claim is, in fact, completely untrue?
Oh, and OS/2's failure had *plenty* to do with MS's monopoly power, not just IBM's pathetic marketing. (exclusive licensing agreements, making changes to Windows to prevent OS/2 from working properly with it, FUD, fear on the part of the trade rags...)
--
Like a good little communist/linux user, he should be happy and content where he is?
Like a good little fascist/windoze user, he should obey the will of the Great Company and do exactly what it wants no matter his opinions?
He's in a job he's happy with and that he's apparently good at. Why would the company be stupid enough to try to force him into a role he wouldn't be happy with, and that they're not sure he's good at?
I have been forced into promotions I didn't want and it always led me somewhere new and exciting.
Hey, just because YOU found you liked it after you bent over and took it up the ass from your bosses doesn't mean HE will. Some people don't like and aren't suited to management positions. Trying to force someone like that into one is extremely stupid, as well as assholistic.
--
It's better than that. I'm stuck behind StupidFilter at work, and it WAS blocked until a few months ago. Probably got complaints about too many false error reports from all the damn troll links.
--
You said you read it in Dutch, right? FYI - in the original English it's crysknife.
--
Fortunately for Intel, they didn't have to take any risks, since every single one of the things you mentioned was done by someone else first. Hell, the Alpha alone did all of them before Intel did. Not one of these technologies were "in it's infancy" when Intel deployed them.
The only risk Intel takes in deploying any of these technologies is the risk that Intel customers won't buy them. That's the risk every company takes when introducing a new model. While yes, it means Intel is taking risks, none of the risks Intel takes actually advance the state of the art.
--
, sex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies...
... rape...
I hate to break into a perfectly good rant there, but all of these are FAR more common in extremely "moral" families, cultures, etc. The US, with it's HUGE fundie christian population and continual attempts to pass laws based on christian "morality" sits at the bottom of the industrialized world by every single measure you quoted. Sweden, with about the most liberal porn laws in the world, is at the top. Fundie christians have more abortions than any other religious group, followed closely by catholics. Child abuse is more common among fundie christians as well. Furthermore, NOT ONE REPUTABLE STUDY has ever managed to prove any connection between porn and sex crimes.
Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of us don't think there's anything morally wrong with stuff like sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, or out of wedlock births. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is. And just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean you have the right to pass laws preventing the rest of us from doing it. You don't like it? Don't look. But don't even THINK of trying to take away my right to do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of assault, and I'll defend myself accordingly.
I happen to consider myself a person with very strong morals. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less strong, or any less moral. Me fucking two women doesn't make me immoral; it's your attempts to restrict my rights that is immoral.
--
Bah, sounds like someone's stupid enough to actually believe Rush Limbaugh. News flash: the Republicans are not, and never have been, defenders of your rights (unless you believe you have a right to force your christian morals on other people, to dump your shit in my backyard, or to have my tax money pay for your company's fuckups). Up until the mid '80's, the Democrats did a moderately decent job of supporting free expression. Then, they decided to out-Republican the Republicans, and we end up with the system we've got today, where there's no substantive difference between the parties. Each is pushing basically the same Christian-supremacist corporate feudalistic agenda in slightly different words.
You want your rights protected? Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote New Party. But neither of the Weasel Twins (my apologies to weasels) is going to do jack shit to protect your rights.
--
Bah. Read more carefully. FCC, not FTC.
--
Remember, corporations have no *right* to exist. We allow them to exist because they're the most effective means of (not the word I'm looking for, but...) distribution of capital we've found. If allowing a corporation to exist causes more harm than good, that corporation should not be allowed to exist.
--
Hey! FCC! How about NOT approving a merger, just for the hell of it? I know it's a weird idea for you, but you DON'T exist just for the convienience of the multinationals here.
--
Wow, you finally, actually got a real racist to bitch it!
Pretty good troll, here, but you've pretty much driven the "racism" thing into the ground. Maybe you should try a right-wing troll next time?
--
ADM. Exxon. Philip Morris. Anheuser-Busch. Hearst Paper. Dupont. RJ Reynolds. Abbott Labs. Mobil. Eli Lilly.
If hemp were legal, this is just a tiny fraction of the companies that would lose huge amounts of money. Not to mention the money they'd lose if the other currently-illegal drugs were legal.
Furthermore, the prison industry is a HUGE industry in the US. Between construction, supplies, maintenance, personnel, etc. and the vast amounts of near-free labor (check how many travel agencies use prison labor to book their flights--then think about whether you want to give your credit card number to the guy on the phone), billions of dollars are being made off the prison industry.
Then you've got the people supplying the ever-expanding police departments, the anti-drug "education" programs, the court system...
Don't tell me no one's getting rich off the drug war, that's a load of shit and you know it.
--
Dunno about that, but you could almost certainly get away with claiming that the CCA is an organization dedicated to the destruction of fair use rights and reducing anyone dependant on information to a state of effective serfdom.
--
They are going to try to force companies to have elections for management!! Banks being forced into the public domain!!?? If that's not purely unconstitutional, I don't know what is.
It's entirely constitutional. Corporations aren't people, and they have no rights whatsoever other than those granted them in their charters. (Or at least they shouldn't; we've had some courts in this country that were either bloody stupid or bought-and-paid-for.) They are creations of the government, they exist at the sufferance of the government, and their charters can be withdrawn if the government chooses.
Furthermore, as they have no rights, there's no constitutional reason for the government not to manage their affairs as closely as it desires. A corporation has no RIGHT to do business. It's a PRIVILEGE granted to it by the government; as such, it can have any conditions attached the government desires.
Advisable, now that's another story. But there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
--
You've got a funny of negilgence there definition there
And I've there got a funny grammar using way of there.
Bah. You know what I meant.
--
For example, there are laws against fraud, rape, robbery, and murder. There is an implicit assumption involved that those things are made illegal because they are morally wrong. One can argue that the basis of these laws is that they constitute an aggression of one party onto someone else, but even this presumes that aggression against another is wrong.
The difference is, that enough people agree that causing harm to another is wrong that we consider people who disagree insane. There's not even close to that kind of agreement on pornography.
In my opinion, laws banning something should only be enacted if:
1) There's sufficient agreement that it's wrong that someone who disagrees can be reasonably classified as insane (IE, 99.99999% of the world agrees) or
2) It can be objectively demonstrated that the cost of allowing the thing to be legal is greater than the cost of making it illegal.
Porn doesn't fit either of those categories, so laws censoring it are wrong. That includes laws requiring filtering in public places.
--
You mean to tell me that you can be reasonably expected to know that a nail is sharp, that a stove is hot, and that a pizza is hot? Pardon me for saying so, but if you couldn't expect that, you're a moron. Now, as I said, if there was negligence on behalf of Company X, and they knew about it, you'd have a case going. But if you're just suing because you're too stupid to realize that the razors made by the Widget Razor Company were sharp when you sliced your hand off, you deserve to be ridiculed.
Uh, no. I shouldn't be reasonable expected to assume that a nail has barbs on it. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that a stove would heat its entire top. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that pizza would burn out my sinuses. I thought that it would be pretty obvious that that's what I meant.
Similarly, she shouldn't have been expected to assume that her purchase from a fast-food restaurant would be delivered to her in an unconsumable, dangerous state. Hot, yes. Painful, yes. Hazardous to her health, no. *THAT'S* why she was granted medical costs. And yes, third degree burns are hazardous to a person's health. Without prompt treatment, the injuries she suffered could possibly have been life-threatening, not just permanently disfiguring. Third-degree burns are NASTY.
You're right, lawsuits are an individual's protection against corporate abuse. Note the bold print? If Company X acted negligently, then you have a case. But if you acted negligently, you deserve to be laughed out of court. Don't expect a jury to bow down to you because you were stupid to protect yourself from yourself.
You mean, a company that ignores repeated warnings that it's selling a product in a state that's not simply useless to the consumer but actually hazardous to their health in order to avoid having to throw away coffee for a few extra minutes isn't negligent? You've got a funny of negilgence there definition there.
The fact that the jury felt that McDonalds was, in fact, negligent is why she was awarded punitive damages.
--