> Has anyone considered that there is little left to marketing than making you afraid of not having a product? Pretty much makes all advertising "FUD"
Incorrect and misleading are the problems here. You're incorrect that there's little left to advertising besides making you afraid not to have something. I see ads that try to make me feel like I'm being negligent in some way if I don't buy, but that's not even a large majority of them. Add to that the fact that they put these ads out as independent industry papers, and it becomes downright misleading because they're doing their best to make sure you don't realize it's just an ad.
Virg
I Knew Rocket Scientist, and You're No...
on
ISS May Have A Leak
·
· Score: 1
> With all the sensors and remote monitoring I'd think this would be an automated alert.
Um, I'd think it was an automated alert because Mission Control was alerted automatically when the pressure fell beyond specification. So yeah, it was an automated alert.
Just to note, the Dr. Pepper in Mission to Mars was in a drink bag, which is not a pressure vessel. It's reasonable to assume that it was non-carbonated, flavored-with-Dr. Pepper-syrup drink, not really a carbonated beverage.
But other than that, yeah, I'm with you. It was a really dumb way to look for a leak.
> But if the ISS is losing pressure wouldn't it gain a higher volume of mercury rather than lose it?
No, it would lose it. A barometer measures pressure by the atmosphere's ability to push a column of mercury up a vacuum tube by pressing on the reservoir in the bowl at the bottom. As the air pressure drops, the pressing force that drives the mercury in the bowl drops, which means more of the tube mercury settles back down into the bowl.
> Yes, but why is there even a black and white camera on board? What possible advantage can it have over a color one?
Bandwidth. The BW camera is a navigation camera, and to be most useful, it needs to have just enough resolution to make it possible to navigate, and smallest data size per picture possible so that more pictures can come through the limited bandpipe. Therefore, it's the best choice to use a low-res BW camera for the task.
> Murdering innocents for the cause, oops... no check.
Well, it's far from mainstream (but then, so is bin Laden), but there are indeed a number of fundamentalists who like to kill innocents in the name of Christianity. You are only part right here.
> Also no check on the last two. You're confusing allowing views other than evolution to be taught with EXCLUDING evolution. Not everyone bows at the altar of evolution like you.
The point is that creation science is specifically and strongly Christian, and requires a Christian belief system to make any sense. That's what sets it aside from evolutionary theory, which is not tied to any particular religion.
> Frankly, if there was a third theory to compete with creationism and evolution, I'd welcome it too.
Well, then you'd be in a very small minority in the South, and by the way, there are a number of other beginning-of-world theories out there. How much hue and cry do you think you'd get from teaching Buddhism or even the Islamic version of origins in Alabama? If you think that any story other than Christian genesis would be accepted, you're deluding yourself.
> The second item you mention also has no bearing- nowhere in America there some Christian theocracy in place, thanks to the first amendment.
Both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, he's discussing what these people want, which is indeed laws based on their religious code. Second, if there's no evidence of theocratic law in the U.S., why can't I buy beer on Sunday morning in 38 states? Why is polygamy a jailable offense? There's plenty of God's law in the U.S. law books.
> Damn those Christians for wanting to be allowed to quietly say grace over lunch. They should be publicly flogged.
You know, if it was only that they could worship in peace, I'd be all for it, but it never is for them alone. They don't want it just to be legal to have their kids carry a copy of the Ten Commandments, they want it legal to post it on the school door, and in the state house rotunda, and have teachers profess it to everyone while the kids who don't agree get to leave the room. Perhaps it's just a few bad apples, but if you'd control your own constituents better, maybe we on the outside wouldn't have to pass legislation to force them to act like grownups.
> What makes you think that during that 0.1% of the time there will be a cop around to stop them before they get into an accident?
That's not relevant. The goal is to reduce the attractiveness of doing the dangerous thing, so it's less likely that they'll actually be doing it in the 0.1 percent time when they did it before. If they're not doing the dangerous thing, they might very well avoid any accidents on their own.
> Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.
Not odd. Some laws protect rights, and other laws abrogate them. But by definition, laws restrict actions. The only question is whose actions.
> No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur.
There are too many situations where this doesn't work because the risks are too high, based on potential outcomes. Also, there are situations where the outcome of a failure in judgement might not be a crime, but still has repercussions that are unacceptable. Take for example prohibitions against personal ownership of high explosives. If it was legal for me to keep dynamite in my garage, and because I stored it wrong I blew my house off the foundations, the result wouldn't be a crime but could certainly have repercussions for others. By the same token, it's accepted that driving under the influence has unacceptable risks, and it's been deemed insufficient to charge people only with crimes based on what happens after they crash, because innocent people die too often. So, we charge people for the behavior, not just the consequences. There are those who think that operating these devices is too dangerous to let people do it and only punish when it causes grief, because the grief is too high to wait for it to happen.
> Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.
The problem is that statistics show that too many people are not capable of making this judgement call rationally. Yes, it's true that some of the people are spoiling it for the rest of you, but the numbers don't lie. If everyone did these things only when no other cars were in sight, then it wouldn't be such a big deal (it would still be dangerous, but less so to bystanders). The problem is that people still do it in traffic, so it stands to reason that if they won't stop themselves, someone has to do it for them.
> Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.
Good idea in theory, but as stated above some of those morons are doing things that involve external effects, so they need to be restricted to protect those innocent bystanders. You and I may not need a law that says to stop at red lights, but there are those who do.
> I know plenty of very pragmatic people who are nonetheless quite dull, logically speaking. I, on the other hand, approach absent minded...when i get in the car, i put the lappy in the trunk.
Your use of English indicates that you're British, at least so far as language training is concerned, but despite using "lappy" you refer to the trunk of your car as a "trunk", not a "boot". Please reconcile.
I could only conclude that either you're far too good at English to be here, or you're really a Brit, but in the latter case you've been Americanized enough that you should feel free to do stupid things with impunity while you drive.
> I have driven around with a passanger with laptop stuck into OBDII port or BRC LPG diagnostics port to see what happens with the car and adjust things accordingly. What about tuned cars with custom chips that allow some tweaking? So that is gonna be illegal, too?
What about them? Have your passenger bring a slightly longer cable and sit in back. If you don't have a passenger, you shouldn't be doing mobile diagnostics on your own, since it's distracting you from your driving.
> As people said, what about giving directions to the driver based on mapping software in computer?
See above. Put the laptop user in the back seat. If that'll be an issue, print it out.
> There are perfectly good uses for laptop in a car, and they don't cause more distraction or accident risk.
Quite right, but then there are too many who would abuse those uses. For the vast majority of good uses, this law won't be a big problem.
> Yep, guess we should take those computers our of jets and helicopters then. Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen.
Comparing driving and flying military aircraft like this makes you look like an idiot. A few points to consider:
1.) Your buddy trained extensively for that particular vehicle, using all of the equipment that comes with it. Ask him how his wingmates or CO would react to his bringing a laptop to use while flying.
2.) Your buddy flies an aircraft. If he flies in a straight line, he won't hit anything, and if he's in a position where that's not true, it's not likely he's looking anywhere other than the terrain in front of him.
3.) Your buddy flies in proximity to other highly trained pilots, if he flies near anyone else at all. Nobody is around who will "cut him off" to make a merge.
4.) Your buddy flies an aircraft, so he has an extra dimension to work with in evading danger.
5.) The computer your buddy uses is designed as a heads-up display so that he can use it while his head is up. Is your laptop designed to project its image on the windshield?
6.) Despite the fact that all of those systems are designed to be easy to use while piloting, there are still large numbers of combat pilots that turn off portions of the HUD because they find it too distracting.
> If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.
If you can't recognize the difference between operating cars and helicopters, or if you think you can drive safely looking at your passenger seat, then you should consider taking your own advice, since you're a danger to others on the road with you.
> Here's a little bit of advice from a developer. If a console game has the ability to save anywhere at any time, the game is going to be just a matter of quicksave/quickload until you're through the entire game.
Firstly, why would everybody play like this? Most people will develop some skill at the game because it's gratifying to do it. Second, if someone wants to QS/QL their way through the game because they like to do it, what right do you have to tell them it's wrong? That's his very point. If you restrict load/saves just so that someone won't be able to do it, you're interfering with the enjoyment of the game for those who like to do it that way. Why do you think you have the right to tell someone how they enjoy playing? By allowing QS/QL, you allow everyone to play the way they like to play, not just the way you like to play.
> If you don't like it, that's just too god damn bad.
Am I alone in thinking that's a piss-poor way to sell games? Maybe you should get over yourself and try developing for a wider audience.
> It's a Damded-if-you-do, Damned-if-you-don't situation. Obey your customers by heating the coffee hotter, and lose money (to lawsuits), or obey other customners by keeping coffee cold and lose money (due to lost sales).
This is nothing new in the legal world. Companies have gone out of business due to such things. I know that it sucks.
> Um, NOT. Millions served, less than 700 complaints.
Not for you, or McDonald's, to say. The ruling said that it was, and if the data in your statement is sufficient to overturn the decision, then they should have presented it on appeal, not told the first three judges to go pound sand. If they'd followed proper legal procedure, they wouldn't have had the problem with a multimillion dollar judgement. Again, I don't argue whether the coffee really is dangerously hot, but four judges ruled that it was, and they did nothing in a proper legal forum to try to convince anyone otherwise.
> She burned herself with a cup a coffee that MILLIONS of others had no problems with. How stupid is that?
I've never argued with the idea that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is stupid. However, labelling her stupid for that is different from labelling her stupid for initiating a lawsuit, and besides, I'm giving her the benefit of some doubt, since I know a lot of people who are not stupid who do stupid things on occasion, and get burned for it (no pun intended). Frankly, I think the stupidest thing she did was buy a cup of coffee from McDonald's, but that's just me.
> True. They had had complaints from people who picked up a cup in the morning, and were pissed their coffee was cold by the time the got to work. So they, in response to their customers, raised the temp.
I understand that they did it in response to customer requests, but that's not relevant to the legal decision. The decision stated that they were to lower the temperature because it was hazardously high. If it wasn't really a hazard, the correct response is to file for a stay pending appeal, and then appeal the decision. It is most certainly NOT to ignore the ruling on the idea that the payouts for lawsuits won't eat up the profits. McDonald's got into a pissing contest with the court system, and they paid through the nose for it. This woman is the beneficiary of that payout, but she's not alone in her lawsuit by a long shot. Hundreds of people filed suits; she just happened to be the case at hand when the judge decided to hand a beat-down to the company.
> Heaven forbid we call people who do stupid things 'stupid'.
She got a big pile of money for burning herself with a cup of coffee. How stupid is that? McDonald's invited a multimillion dollar payout by playing jerk with a judicial order or three. How stupid is that? I know where my vote goes.
Who mentioned a "coffee law"? The law was "obeying a court-ordered injunction". Care to field the argument that this isn't a law? If they didn't like it, they should have appealed it in the last cases. Ignoring it was breaking the law.
> The coffee was quite safe.
According to the court decision, it wasn't. Did they have a valid case that it was in fact safe? Then they should have appealed on those grounds (no pun intended). Again, ignoring the ruling because they didn't agree with it is breaking the law.
> The old woman was stupid, but McDonald's did nothing wrong.
Hmm, do I need to mention again that, in fact, ignoring a court order qualifies as "wrong" in a legal sense?
Stupid is as stupid does, as was said in a movie once. McDonald's decided that making their coffee very, very hot would be good for sales. The consumer boards protested that it was dangerous. A judge agreed and told McD's to reduce the temperature. They ignored the judge. Someone else got burned. Again, McDonald's was fined and told to fix it. They again refused, assuming the lawsuits were going to cost less than the extra profits they'd get from coffee sales, the idea being that more people would buy from them because they'd have coffee that was still hot when they got to work. A third suit came up, and again, McDonald's was cited for superheating their coffee, and told to desist, and once again they refused. Take note that at this point, they'd ignored three judges' demands to fix the problem. So then this woman came along, and because McDonald's had been told many times to fix it, and had refused, the judge passed down a ridiculously enormous judgement against them, so that it would stop being profitable for them to ignore judicial orders. Guess what? It worked.
So let's not call this old woman stupid, just because she did a stupid thing. The stupidity was in McDonald's ignoring the law until a judge felt it necessary to kick them in the teeth for it.
> Smeagol was NOT a Hobbit. They describe him as being "not unlike a Hobbit" in the movie, but a Hobbit of the Shire he was not.
Be careful with the label. Not all Hobbits hail from the Shire, as described in the book. There were three major segments of the Hobbits, and those river-folk living by the Anduin were among them (the Stoors if I recall the book correctly).
> Either it is survival of the fitest by denying the weak resources, or you give the weak some resources so that they will later be able to bail you out when you are weak...
That philosophy doesn't realistically apply to this situation. In this situation (and of course, assuming they had the right fuel), they're not denying him the necessities of life at all. They're feeding him and letting him stay there free of charge, and they offered him free transport for himself and transport for his plane if he's willing to pay for the carriage charges. If they give him fuel they have in reserve, they endanger themselves and their own operations for his convenience, not survival, since without the fuel, he can still get home safely, just not the way he himself wants to do it. So in real terms, they shouldn't be asked to take on a very real risk just so he can do the trip his way. He had the chance to do it his way, and he failed, and so now he has to take the undignified way home so as not to unnecessarily endanger the McMurdo crew.
> I was obviously speaking from the mistaken knowledge that they had the right kind of fuel he needed to get himself out of the jam.
Agreed, but even if they did, I'm not sure that would exempt "not feasible". They have a certain amount of the fuels that they do have for their own use, and for reserves in case of emergency. It's not a matter of being punitive that they want to preserve their reserve in case something goes wrong and they need it to survive until the next shipment (or rescue, if the problem is severe enough). Selling him a large portion of that reserve can easily leave them in a situation where their own contingency plan isn't sufficient, and so giving up their own contingency plan so they can become his contingency plan is unreasonable.
> Unless selling him fuel is illegal or at all damaging to their operation, then their action is just punitive and not compassionate.
Sorry, but you're still leaving out "not feasible". The point of compassion is made irrelevant by the fact that they don't have fuel rated for his aircraft in the first place, and were relatively sure that the American base nearby didn't have it, either.
So much for the Golden Rule, at least in this case.
There's more than meets the eye here. There are areas (the New York Metro area and greater Atlanta are the two I'm familiar with) where, if you're not travelling above the speed limit during rush hours, you're actually blocking the flow of traffic. It's unreasonably unsafe to drive at 55 mph when the rest of the traffic is travelling at 70 mph, but that action is the only method to avoid ticketing. A bad situation all around.
> I don't see why anyone would want to live in New York city anyway considering how crowded it is and how big of a terrorist target it is. I prefer living in a quiet midwestern suburb of less than 10,000 people. Much less stress and crime, no worries about terrorism, etc.
Well, try being an actor, or working in the garment industry, or the financial markets. Or, for even more fun, try being black or Hispanic.
Slashdot Mirror
> Has anyone considered that there is little left to marketing than making you afraid of not having a product? Pretty much makes all advertising "FUD"
Incorrect and misleading are the problems here. You're incorrect that there's little left to advertising besides making you afraid not to have something. I see ads that try to make me feel like I'm being negligent in some way if I don't buy, but that's not even a large majority of them. Add to that the fact that they put these ads out as independent industry papers, and it becomes downright misleading because they're doing their best to make sure you don't realize it's just an ad.
Virg
> With all the sensors and remote monitoring I'd think this would be an automated alert.
Um, I'd think it was an automated alert because Mission Control was alerted automatically when the pressure fell beyond specification. So yeah, it was an automated alert.
Virg
Just to note, the Dr. Pepper in Mission to Mars was in a drink bag, which is not a pressure vessel. It's reasonable to assume that it was non-carbonated, flavored-with-Dr. Pepper-syrup drink, not really a carbonated beverage.
But other than that, yeah, I'm with you. It was a really dumb way to look for a leak.
Virg
> But if the ISS is losing pressure wouldn't it gain a higher volume of mercury rather than lose it?
No, it would lose it. A barometer measures pressure by the atmosphere's ability to push a column of mercury up a vacuum tube by pressing on the reservoir in the bowl at the bottom. As the air pressure drops, the pressing force that drives the mercury in the bowl drops, which means more of the tube mercury settles back down into the bowl.
Virg
> Yes, but why is there even a black and white camera on board? What possible advantage can it have over a color one?
Bandwidth. The BW camera is a navigation camera, and to be most useful, it needs to have just enough resolution to make it possible to navigate, and smallest data size per picture possible so that more pictures can come through the limited bandpipe. Therefore, it's the best choice to use a low-res BW camera for the task.
Virg
> Murdering innocents for the cause, oops... no check.
Well, it's far from mainstream (but then, so is bin Laden), but there are indeed a number of fundamentalists who like to kill innocents in the name of Christianity. You are only part right here.
> Also no check on the last two. You're confusing allowing views other than evolution to be taught with EXCLUDING evolution. Not everyone bows at the altar of evolution like you.
The point is that creation science is specifically and strongly Christian, and requires a Christian belief system to make any sense. That's what sets it aside from evolutionary theory, which is not tied to any particular religion.
> Frankly, if there was a third theory to compete with creationism and evolution, I'd welcome it too.
Well, then you'd be in a very small minority in the South, and by the way, there are a number of other beginning-of-world theories out there. How much hue and cry do you think you'd get from teaching Buddhism or even the Islamic version of origins in Alabama? If you think that any story other than Christian genesis would be accepted, you're deluding yourself.
> The second item you mention also has no bearing- nowhere in America there some Christian theocracy in place, thanks to the first amendment.
Both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, he's discussing what these people want, which is indeed laws based on their religious code. Second, if there's no evidence of theocratic law in the U.S., why can't I buy beer on Sunday morning in 38 states? Why is polygamy a jailable offense? There's plenty of God's law in the U.S. law books.
> Damn those Christians for wanting to be allowed to quietly say grace over lunch. They should be publicly flogged.
You know, if it was only that they could worship in peace, I'd be all for it, but it never is for them alone. They don't want it just to be legal to have their kids carry a copy of the Ten Commandments, they want it legal to post it on the school door, and in the state house rotunda, and have teachers profess it to everyone while the kids who don't agree get to leave the room. Perhaps it's just a few bad apples, but if you'd control your own constituents better, maybe we on the outside wouldn't have to pass legislation to force them to act like grownups.
Virg
> What makes you think that during that 0.1% of the time there will be a cop around to stop them before they get into an accident?
That's not relevant. The goal is to reduce the attractiveness of doing the dangerous thing, so it's less likely that they'll actually be doing it in the 0.1 percent time when they did it before. If they're not doing the dangerous thing, they might very well avoid any accidents on their own.
Virg
> Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.
Not odd. Some laws protect rights, and other laws abrogate them. But by definition, laws restrict actions. The only question is whose actions.
> No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur.
There are too many situations where this doesn't work because the risks are too high, based on potential outcomes. Also, there are situations where the outcome of a failure in judgement might not be a crime, but still has repercussions that are unacceptable. Take for example prohibitions against personal ownership of high explosives. If it was legal for me to keep dynamite in my garage, and because I stored it wrong I blew my house off the foundations, the result wouldn't be a crime but could certainly have repercussions for others. By the same token, it's accepted that driving under the influence has unacceptable risks, and it's been deemed insufficient to charge people only with crimes based on what happens after they crash, because innocent people die too often. So, we charge people for the behavior, not just the consequences. There are those who think that operating these devices is too dangerous to let people do it and only punish when it causes grief, because the grief is too high to wait for it to happen.
> Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.
The problem is that statistics show that too many people are not capable of making this judgement call rationally. Yes, it's true that some of the people are spoiling it for the rest of you, but the numbers don't lie. If everyone did these things only when no other cars were in sight, then it wouldn't be such a big deal (it would still be dangerous, but less so to bystanders). The problem is that people still do it in traffic, so it stands to reason that if they won't stop themselves, someone has to do it for them.
> Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.
Good idea in theory, but as stated above some of those morons are doing things that involve external effects, so they need to be restricted to protect those innocent bystanders. You and I may not need a law that says to stop at red lights, but there are those who do.
Virg
> I know plenty of very pragmatic people who are nonetheless quite dull, logically speaking. I, on the other hand, approach absent minded...when i get in the car, i put the lappy in the trunk.
Your use of English indicates that you're British, at least so far as language training is concerned, but despite using "lappy" you refer to the trunk of your car as a "trunk", not a "boot". Please reconcile.
I could only conclude that either you're far too good at English to be here, or you're really a Brit, but in the latter case you've been Americanized enough that you should feel free to do stupid things with impunity while you drive.
Virg
> I have driven around with a passanger with laptop stuck into OBDII port or BRC LPG diagnostics port to see what happens with the car and adjust things accordingly. What about tuned cars with custom chips that allow some tweaking? So that is gonna be illegal, too?
What about them? Have your passenger bring a slightly longer cable and sit in back. If you don't have a passenger, you shouldn't be doing mobile diagnostics on your own, since it's distracting you from your driving.
> As people said, what about giving directions to the driver based on mapping software in computer?
See above. Put the laptop user in the back seat. If that'll be an issue, print it out.
> There are perfectly good uses for laptop in a car, and they don't cause more distraction or accident risk.
Quite right, but then there are too many who would abuse those uses. For the vast majority of good uses, this law won't be a big problem.
Virg
> Yep, guess we should take those computers our of jets and helicopters then. Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen.
Comparing driving and flying military aircraft like this makes you look like an idiot. A few points to consider:
1.) Your buddy trained extensively for that particular vehicle, using all of the equipment that comes with it. Ask him how his wingmates or CO would react to his bringing a laptop to use while flying.
2.) Your buddy flies an aircraft. If he flies in a straight line, he won't hit anything, and if he's in a position where that's not true, it's not likely he's looking anywhere other than the terrain in front of him.
3.) Your buddy flies in proximity to other highly trained pilots, if he flies near anyone else at all. Nobody is around who will "cut him off" to make a merge.
4.) Your buddy flies an aircraft, so he has an extra dimension to work with in evading danger.
5.) The computer your buddy uses is designed as a heads-up display so that he can use it while his head is up. Is your laptop designed to project its image on the windshield?
6.) Despite the fact that all of those systems are designed to be easy to use while piloting, there are still large numbers of combat pilots that turn off portions of the HUD because they find it too distracting.
> If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.
If you can't recognize the difference between operating cars and helicopters, or if you think you can drive safely looking at your passenger seat, then you should consider taking your own advice, since you're a danger to others on the road with you.
Virg
> Here's a little bit of advice from a developer. If a console game has the ability to save anywhere at any time, the game is going to be just a matter of quicksave/quickload until you're through the entire game.
Firstly, why would everybody play like this? Most people will develop some skill at the game because it's gratifying to do it. Second, if someone wants to QS/QL their way through the game because they like to do it, what right do you have to tell them it's wrong? That's his very point. If you restrict load/saves just so that someone won't be able to do it, you're interfering with the enjoyment of the game for those who like to do it that way. Why do you think you have the right to tell someone how they enjoy playing? By allowing QS/QL, you allow everyone to play the way they like to play, not just the way you like to play.
> If you don't like it, that's just too god damn bad.
Am I alone in thinking that's a piss-poor way to sell games? Maybe you should get over yourself and try developing for a wider audience.
Virg
> It's a Damded-if-you-do, Damned-if-you-don't situation. Obey your customers by heating the coffee hotter, and lose money (to lawsuits), or obey other customners by keeping coffee cold and lose money (due to lost sales).
This is nothing new in the legal world. Companies have gone out of business due to such things. I know that it sucks.
> Um, NOT. Millions served, less than 700 complaints.
Not for you, or McDonald's, to say. The ruling said that it was, and if the data in your statement is sufficient to overturn the decision, then they should have presented it on appeal, not told the first three judges to go pound sand. If they'd followed proper legal procedure, they wouldn't have had the problem with a multimillion dollar judgement. Again, I don't argue whether the coffee really is dangerously hot, but four judges ruled that it was, and they did nothing in a proper legal forum to try to convince anyone otherwise.
> She burned herself with a cup a coffee that MILLIONS of others had no problems with. How stupid is that?
I've never argued with the idea that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is stupid. However, labelling her stupid for that is different from labelling her stupid for initiating a lawsuit, and besides, I'm giving her the benefit of some doubt, since I know a lot of people who are not stupid who do stupid things on occasion, and get burned for it (no pun intended). Frankly, I think the stupidest thing she did was buy a cup of coffee from McDonald's, but that's just me.
Virg
> True. They had had complaints from people who picked up a cup in the morning, and were pissed their coffee was cold by the time the got to work. So they, in response to their customers, raised the temp.
I understand that they did it in response to customer requests, but that's not relevant to the legal decision. The decision stated that they were to lower the temperature because it was hazardously high. If it wasn't really a hazard, the correct response is to file for a stay pending appeal, and then appeal the decision. It is most certainly NOT to ignore the ruling on the idea that the payouts for lawsuits won't eat up the profits. McDonald's got into a pissing contest with the court system, and they paid through the nose for it. This woman is the beneficiary of that payout, but she's not alone in her lawsuit by a long shot. Hundreds of people filed suits; she just happened to be the case at hand when the judge decided to hand a beat-down to the company.
> Heaven forbid we call people who do stupid things 'stupid'.
She got a big pile of money for burning herself with a cup of coffee. How stupid is that? McDonald's invited a multimillion dollar payout by playing jerk with a judicial order or three. How stupid is that? I know where my vote goes.
Virg
> There was no "coffee law".
Who mentioned a "coffee law"? The law was "obeying a court-ordered injunction". Care to field the argument that this isn't a law? If they didn't like it, they should have appealed it in the last cases. Ignoring it was breaking the law.
> The coffee was quite safe.
According to the court decision, it wasn't. Did they have a valid case that it was in fact safe? Then they should have appealed on those grounds (no pun intended). Again, ignoring the ruling because they didn't agree with it is breaking the law.
> The old woman was stupid, but McDonald's did nothing wrong.
Hmm, do I need to mention again that, in fact, ignoring a court order qualifies as "wrong" in a legal sense?
Virg
Stupid is as stupid does, as was said in a movie once. McDonald's decided that making their coffee very, very hot would be good for sales. The consumer boards protested that it was dangerous. A judge agreed and told McD's to reduce the temperature. They ignored the judge. Someone else got burned. Again, McDonald's was fined and told to fix it. They again refused, assuming the lawsuits were going to cost less than the extra profits they'd get from coffee sales, the idea being that more people would buy from them because they'd have coffee that was still hot when they got to work. A third suit came up, and again, McDonald's was cited for superheating their coffee, and told to desist, and once again they refused. Take note that at this point, they'd ignored three judges' demands to fix the problem. So then this woman came along, and because McDonald's had been told many times to fix it, and had refused, the judge passed down a ridiculously enormous judgement against them, so that it would stop being profitable for them to ignore judicial orders. Guess what? It worked.
So let's not call this old woman stupid, just because she did a stupid thing. The stupidity was in McDonald's ignoring the law until a judge felt it necessary to kick them in the teeth for it.
Virg
> Smeagol was NOT a Hobbit. They describe him as being "not unlike a Hobbit" in the movie, but a Hobbit of the Shire he was not.
Be careful with the label. Not all Hobbits hail from the Shire, as described in the book. There were three major segments of the Hobbits, and those river-folk living by the Anduin were among them (the Stoors if I recall the book correctly).
Virg
> It's almost like PJ took stock footage of people running out of a cave, added some lava, and threw Rudy and Elijah in front of a blue screen.
While Sean grumbled about being replaced as Samwise for such a pivotal scene...
Virg
> Either it is survival of the fitest by denying the weak resources, or you give the weak some resources so that they will later be able to bail you out when you are weak...
That philosophy doesn't realistically apply to this situation. In this situation (and of course, assuming they had the right fuel), they're not denying him the necessities of life at all. They're feeding him and letting him stay there free of charge, and they offered him free transport for himself and transport for his plane if he's willing to pay for the carriage charges. If they give him fuel they have in reserve, they endanger themselves and their own operations for his convenience, not survival, since without the fuel, he can still get home safely, just not the way he himself wants to do it. So in real terms, they shouldn't be asked to take on a very real risk just so he can do the trip his way. He had the chance to do it his way, and he failed, and so now he has to take the undignified way home so as not to unnecessarily endanger the McMurdo crew.
Virg
> Stop modding this shit informative you dumb shits, he made a joke
Um, so did the moderator who modded it "informative".
Virg
> I was obviously speaking from the mistaken knowledge that they had the right kind of fuel he needed to get himself out of the jam.
Agreed, but even if they did, I'm not sure that would exempt "not feasible". They have a certain amount of the fuels that they do have for their own use, and for reserves in case of emergency. It's not a matter of being punitive that they want to preserve their reserve in case something goes wrong and they need it to survive until the next shipment (or rescue, if the problem is severe enough). Selling him a large portion of that reserve can easily leave them in a situation where their own contingency plan isn't sufficient, and so giving up their own contingency plan so they can become his contingency plan is unreasonable.
Virg
> Unless selling him fuel is illegal or at all damaging to their operation, then their action is just punitive and not compassionate.
Sorry, but you're still leaving out "not feasible". The point of compassion is made irrelevant by the fact that they don't have fuel rated for his aircraft in the first place, and were relatively sure that the American base nearby didn't have it, either.
So much for the Golden Rule, at least in this case.
Virg
There's more than meets the eye here. There are areas (the New York Metro area and greater Atlanta are the two I'm familiar with) where, if you're not travelling above the speed limit during rush hours, you're actually blocking the flow of traffic. It's unreasonably unsafe to drive at 55 mph when the rest of the traffic is travelling at 70 mph, but that action is the only method to avoid ticketing. A bad situation all around.
Virg
> Let's see: you're breaking the law, it can be demonstrated through simple physics, here's a ticket.
Does simple physics determine that it was actually you driving the car?
Does simple physics demand that the clocks at the entrance and exit points be synchronized?
Does simplt physics prevent addition errors on the part of the toll ticket taker, or incorrect charges because of inaccurate OCR?
A real traffic stop reasonably reduces all of these factors, whereas an automated system cannot.
Virg
> I don't see why anyone would want to live in New York city anyway considering how crowded it is and how big of a terrorist target it is. I prefer living in a quiet midwestern suburb of less than 10,000 people. Much less stress and crime, no worries about terrorism, etc.
Well, try being an actor, or working in the garment industry, or the financial markets. Or, for even more fun, try being black or Hispanic.
Virg