Common sense would dictate that you let the coffee cool before you serve it in a drive through. That's all.
And are YOU going to tell someone to wait at a drive through window for 5-10 minutes while the coffee cools? I thought this was a semi-serious discussion.
The coffee was still given to her at an extremely dangerous temperature.
So now we appoint someone with a thermometer right? That's about the only accurate way to measure the variance between recommended holding temperature and recommended consumption temperature.
Serving someone scalding hot coffee while they're in a soon-to-be-moving vehicle is just irresponsible.
So put up a sign saying "You want our coffee? COME IN!"? The temperature difference isn't going to be all that much greater than someone who comes in, gets the coffee, and runs right back to their car.
Even if the coffee were at 150 degrees (instead of an absurd 180-190 degrees) it would be less dangerous.
And a baseball bat is "less dangerous" than a gun. They can BOTH still be used to inflict death on you. Trying to quantify one as "more bad" than the other is mental masturbation, nothing more.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who buy coffee at a drive-through intend to begin consuming it as soon as it's cool enough to drink.
The problem is, your guarantee is worth exactly the effort it takes to turn off my monitor. And we're not talking about "the vast majority". We're talking about one careless individual.
If the coffee wasn't served at a scalding-hot temperature, that would be immediately, and that would additionally eliminate the risk of injury.
As soon as you find a way to exactly regulate the cooling of coffee in such a way that you can take it from holding temperature to drinking temperature without making someone wait at a drive through window for 10 minutes, be my guest.
I know common sense...ain't. But for the select few who have it, and the even more rarefied individuals who HEED it, common sense dictates you don't try to drink scalding hot liquid while you're driving around in a moving vehicle. It also dictates that your lap is an EXTREMELY poor choice of cup-holder for such a beverage.
I know, common sense should always remind you that it, itself, isn't a universal trait. But that damn optimism gets in the way every now and again. So people ASSUME you'd never do something that dumb.
1: Pouring coffee increases it's surface area. This increased surface area allows the beverage to cool faster. So, right away, the temperature that it's "served" at is lower. 2: The addition of condiments (sugar, cream, etc), most of which are kept cold or at room temperature cool the beverage down. So anyone drinking coffee any other way but black isn't drinking 200 degree coffee.
I'm not debating that hot liquids burn you. If this is what you're arguing, your tree is over THERE. I'm merely stating that the temperatures that coffee is brewed, held, and served at are NORMAL. The beverage, however, is NOT meant to be immediately consumed (or applied topically) at those temperatures.
Coffee = Hot Hot = It Can Hurt You It Can Hurt You = TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTIONS AND DON'T PUT IT IN YOUR LAP!
Even had the woman been more explicitly warned as to how hot the coffee REALLY was, it's highly doubtful she wouldn't have made the same error in judgment. She'd probably done it tens, or hundreds of times before and she was FINE!
No. The conscience is the result of tens of thousands of years of warring between the expediencies of staying alive and repression by various forms of authority (parental, social (in a broader scope than the parental), civil, ecclesiastical, etc).
I'm sorry, but state executions have as little in common with this as apples and Buicks.
Justice is obtained in the courtroom. Revenge may be a motivator for said justice.
The execution is about expediency. If you have a rabid dog who has attacked someone, you don't cage it and wait for it to die of old age. You make sure it can never EVER do that again. You put a bullet in it.
Any protestations of the prior two sentiments is just wangsty window dressing.
I've seen people who've taken shotgun blasts to the head. Their body held on for days. DAYS. All the while their brains were, literally, leaking out their ears and nose.
Sure, the person who was housed in that brain is just...gone. But the fact that the body hangs on for that long isn't pleasant, humane, or economical.
Not quite sure where you got the notion that a hospital is a sterile environment. Far from it. Sure, tools and things can be sterilized. Most hospitals can be, at best, "clean" environments.
TomTom may be a great, profitable-as-fuck company. But litigation of this sort is STUPIDLY expensive. And Microsoft could drop the actual value TomTom (debt and all) on the litigation several times over and never miss it. TomTom, OTOH, has to be more circumspect (since they don't have access to the next best thing to God's pocketbook). They can burn all the money on the suit OR they can settle and get on with business, using aforementioned money to build the business more.
While it's not as fun as seeing Microsoft bitch-smacked by "some plucky young upstart", it's not MY investment (see MONEY) they're playing with.
You forget. Such people would have the majority of us (as long as it didn't include THEM) die off "for the greater good", and have the remainder living in caves, starving to death because anything you do has an environmental impact.
1: CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas produced. Notice how they don't mention any of the other things. 2: There's an environmental impact in GENERATING the biofuel as well. 3: Fuel consumption vs emissions. Sure, you produce 75% less of a single greenhouse gas. But if you're spending (and burning) 50% more in fuel because you're getting lower MPG, it tends to balance out.
And the fact that if you say "nuclear" to some people, they do a GREAT imitation of a cat, arching their spines, hissing and spitting.
Whoops! Sorry! That was three wasn't it?
They'll KEEP pointing to archaic monstrosities like TMI and Chernobyl and go "BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN!" until the end of time.
Yeah, and what if it started suddenly raining knives from the sky! Think of the children!
You simply CANNOT convince these people that it's safe and you cannot decouple "nuclear" from "weapon of destruction".
And while I'm disappointed in Shell for taking this step backwards, a part of me would MUCH rather a new, vigorous economic juggernaut create itself than having to deal with the back-monkey of a previous, someday-obsoleted industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Common sense would dictate that you let the coffee cool before you serve it in a drive through. That's all.
And are YOU going to tell someone to wait at a drive through window for 5-10 minutes while the coffee cools? I thought this was a semi-serious discussion.
The coffee was still given to her at an extremely dangerous temperature.
So now we appoint someone with a thermometer right? That's about the only accurate way to measure the variance between recommended holding temperature and recommended consumption temperature.
Serving someone scalding hot coffee while they're in a soon-to-be-moving vehicle is just irresponsible.
So put up a sign saying "You want our coffee? COME IN!"? The temperature difference isn't going to be all that much greater than someone who comes in, gets the coffee, and runs right back to their car.
Even if the coffee were at 150 degrees (instead of an absurd 180-190 degrees) it would be less dangerous.
And a baseball bat is "less dangerous" than a gun. They can BOTH still be used to inflict death on you. Trying to quantify one as "more bad" than the other is mental masturbation, nothing more.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who buy coffee at a drive-through intend to begin consuming it as soon as it's cool enough to drink.
The problem is, your guarantee is worth exactly the effort it takes to turn off my monitor. And we're not talking about "the vast majority". We're talking about one careless individual.
If the coffee wasn't served at a scalding-hot temperature, that would be immediately, and that would additionally eliminate the risk of injury.
As soon as you find a way to exactly regulate the cooling of coffee in such a way that you can take it from holding temperature to drinking temperature without making someone wait at a drive through window for 10 minutes, be my guest.
I know common sense...ain't. But for the select few who have it, and the even more rarefied individuals who HEED it, common sense dictates you don't try to drink scalding hot liquid while you're driving around in a moving vehicle. It also dictates that your lap is an EXTREMELY poor choice of cup-holder for such a beverage.
I know, common sense should always remind you that it, itself, isn't a universal trait. But that damn optimism gets in the way every now and again. So people ASSUME you'd never do something that dumb.
And the disappointments keep coming.
1: Pouring coffee increases it's surface area. This increased surface area allows the beverage to cool faster. So, right away, the temperature that it's "served" at is lower.
2: The addition of condiments (sugar, cream, etc), most of which are kept cold or at room temperature cool the beverage down. So anyone drinking coffee any other way but black isn't drinking 200 degree coffee.
I'm not debating that hot liquids burn you. If this is what you're arguing, your tree is over THERE.
I'm merely stating that the temperatures that coffee is brewed, held, and served at are NORMAL. The beverage, however, is NOT meant to be immediately consumed (or applied topically) at those temperatures.
Coffee = Hot
Hot = It Can Hurt You
It Can Hurt You = TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTIONS AND DON'T PUT IT IN YOUR LAP!
Even had the woman been more explicitly warned as to how hot the coffee REALLY was, it's highly doubtful she wouldn't have made the same error in judgment. She'd probably done it tens, or hundreds of times before and she was FINE!
Never mind that a court later rejected this claim to be false...
Never mind that home coffee brewers produce coffee at comparable temperatures...
Never mind that the National Coffee Assc. recommends brew temps between 190-205 degrees and maintenance temps above 180.
But let's not let FACTS get in the way.
If you have a cup-holder, or a hand, yes. Only an idiot sticks a cup of hot coffee between their legs.
Moreover, the type of clothing she was wearing held the liquid against her skin longer as well.
No. The conscience is the result of tens of thousands of years of warring between the expediencies of staying alive and repression by various forms of authority (parental, social (in a broader scope than the parental), civil, ecclesiastical, etc).
I'm sorry, but state executions have as little in common with this as apples and Buicks.
Justice is obtained in the courtroom. Revenge may be a motivator for said justice.
The execution is about expediency. If you have a rabid dog who has attacked someone, you don't cage it and wait for it to die of old age. You make sure it can never EVER do that again. You put a bullet in it.
Any protestations of the prior two sentiments is just wangsty window dressing.
I've seen people who've taken shotgun blasts to the head. Their body held on for days. DAYS. All the while their brains were, literally, leaking out their ears and nose.
Sure, the person who was housed in that brain is just...gone. But the fact that the body hangs on for that long isn't pleasant, humane, or economical.
Not quite sure where you got the notion that a hospital is a sterile environment. Far from it. Sure, tools and things can be sterilized. Most hospitals can be, at best, "clean" environments.
Do a bit of research on nosocomial infection.
Okay, what does that do for fighting off infection then?
It's not like there's a magical component to this that identifies the transplanted material as "good" and infectious agents as "bad".
Yeah, the fines for violating it would probably exceed the $1000. ;-)
How is "downsizing" the equivallent of "no more"?
Een-gleesh?
Not even 101. Maybe 50.5. Maybe even 25.25. If worse comes to worst 12.625 (See Dick run. Run Dick run!)
Repeat after me.
America. Land of opportunity.
DEEPEST POCKETS WINS!
TomTom may be a great, profitable-as-fuck company. But litigation of this sort is STUPIDLY expensive. And Microsoft could drop the actual value TomTom (debt and all) on the litigation several times over and never miss it. TomTom, OTOH, has to be more circumspect (since they don't have access to the next best thing to God's pocketbook). They can burn all the money on the suit OR they can settle and get on with business, using aforementioned money to build the business more.
While it's not as fun as seeing Microsoft bitch-smacked by "some plucky young upstart", it's not MY investment (see MONEY) they're playing with.
In other words, they're having LAN parties there.
*whistle*
The special ingredient in XServe disk drives is... love. :-/
Spelled B U L L S H I T.
I'm ready for Raymond Cocteau, SanAngeles, and the end of the Franchise Wars now!
Hot dogs! Armor hot dogs! The dogs...kids...love...to...biiiiite!
Here
Part of this is the incest taboo. One isn't supposed to think of one's parent as a sexual being.
Or your libido is trying to tell you something...
If their internal apps have IE6-specific dependencies, they're not going to like IE8 any better.
Thanks for your limited anecdotal "evidence".
You forget. Such people would have the majority of us (as long as it didn't include THEM) die off "for the greater good", and have the remainder living in caves, starving to death because anything you do has an environmental impact.
1: CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas produced. Notice how they don't mention any of the other things.
2: There's an environmental impact in GENERATING the biofuel as well.
3: Fuel consumption vs emissions. Sure, you produce 75% less of a single greenhouse gas. But if you're spending (and burning) 50% more in fuel because you're getting lower MPG, it tends to balance out.
Oh wait. Inconvenient little factoids?
OH NOEZ!
Well. Two.
NIMBY
BANANA
And the fact that if you say "nuclear" to some people, they do a GREAT imitation of a cat, arching their spines, hissing and spitting.
Whoops! Sorry! That was three wasn't it?
They'll KEEP pointing to archaic monstrosities like TMI and Chernobyl and go "BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN!" until the end of time.
Yeah, and what if it started suddenly raining knives from the sky! Think of the children!
You simply CANNOT convince these people that it's safe and you cannot decouple "nuclear" from "weapon of destruction".
And while I'm disappointed in Shell for taking this step backwards, a part of me would MUCH rather a new, vigorous economic juggernaut create itself than having to deal with the back-monkey of a previous, someday-obsoleted industry.
One would suggest that you actually go look into the canon for the Champions setting before making asinine comments like this.