Democratic way. How does democracy relate to our economy?
If a company breaks the law and makes me lose money, I have no other recourse but to sue them to recover my losses. Why would you even think that I would buy the products if they are a dishonest company. Of course I would no longer purchase from them. But you haven't resolved with how to deal with them breaking laws and cheating me out of money.
Asking for justice with in our system IS the democratic way.
Yes, but for violating a toll. You have to stop if you don't have fastlane to pay the toll.
Actually, they don't care if you stop and try to pay the toll. My friend wasn't paying attention and ended up in the fastlane lane off of Mass Pike getting on 84 south. We pulled over and walked around the building and tried to pay, but they wouldn't let us. They said that as far as the system is concerned you have violated it. If it is a first offense they will let you go, but after that your citation will be in the mail.
Maybe cover up your license plate and blow through and see what happens?
seriously doubt you are anywhere near qualified to make that assessment. Until you become a woman and either of those things happen to you in an highly conservative eastern culture stfu.
Wow. It is good you posted as an AC, since you decided to make such idiotic statements. Rape does not depend on the victim being female, and it is mainly not a sexual act--it is an act of violence.
We're always told how America is the Land of the Free Market and Government Regulation is a Bad Thing. Yet the instant someone tries practising free-market economics for real over there, they're suddenly evil.
Nice strawman. No one said they are evil for practising free-market economics.
What the hell difference is there between this type of counterfeiting, and what every supermarket is doing with its "own brand" copies of bestselling goods anyway?
I think you misunderstand the difference between a real world copy and a digital copy. When a supermarket sells their own brand, such as bread, they actually have to make bread. They don't download a copy of someone else's bread. I think you need to try and understand why they call it copyright infringement and not stealing.
It's all very well to say that if you're poor and have principles, you should do without;
Do without? For Christ's sake! We are talking about a luxury item. Damn right, do without. Suck it up and do without. Welcome to reality.
Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether.
This is a silly soundbite that is repeated over and over again becuase it sounds right. No one ever brings up the point that the wealthier people are the more they benefit by having a stable society (i.e. if there was civil war tomorrow the people with no money would be less affected economically--they got nothing to lose).
Then began the reconstruction phase of Iraq in which the military's mission is security and training. But I guess these concepts are too hard for liberal sheep to grasp.
Well, in defense of sheep, liberal or conservative, Bush seems to indicate that things are going as "planned," and if that is the case I don't think their mission has anything to do with security.
Coffee isn't for spilling. It's for drinking. McDonald's didn't make the coffee for her to spill on herself. It wasn't safe for spilling. They had no duty to make it safe for spilling.
So she would have not gotten 3rd degree burns if she had drank the coffee--the intended way for her to use it?
This ties in to proximate cause. Did they or should they have had knowledge that the average person might spill this coffee on themselves? The jury shouted out a resounding yes. Thousands of people every day spill coffee on themselves without serious injury. It happens during normal use of the item. Like I said thousands of other resteraunts were able to make coffee that doesn't give 3rd degree burns.
I still don't see why she shouldn't be able to collect the the same damages if she injected the coffee into her bloodstream. Spilling it on your groin and injecting it are equally un-intended usages of the coffee.
How are you using the word equally? Thousands of people a day spill coffee on themsleves each day while trying to drink it. This goes back to proximate cause. Injecting it and getting harmed is further steps away from Mcdonalds causing the harm. Once again this is a fuzzy judgement call (like most things in life), but I don't believe it's that hard to see that injecting is much further away from the intended use then accidently spilling it on yourself.
And no one is saying that she didn't accidently spill it on herself, it has more to do with McDonalds being grossly negligent (warned after many other injuries, way hotter then industry standard, etc). A normal person would not expect to be injured in such a way from the coffee. If this was common knowledge people would stay away from Mcdonald's coffee or be much more careful with their superheated coffee.
argh. That's exactly how the current law is written. Everything you mention is a judgement call. The jury decides what the primary cause of the injury is.
The primary cause of the injury was the tempertature. The woman could have spilled starbucks, burger king, duncan donuts, any number of other stores' coffee on herself and not received 3rd degree burns. The fact that a reasonable person would not expect to be significantly injured by coffee played a large role in the determination. The fact that you don't here about thousands of other coffee related lawsuits indicates that the current system is working.
How exactly would you change the rules? Add a clause saying that if you spill coffee they don't apply? You don't seem to be able to abstract away the coffee and think in concepts. Thousands of people have spilled coffee on themselves and would not win a negligence case in a court of law. The current rules seem to be working to me. She would have been more careful or not have bought that coffee if she had known it to be as dangerous as it was.
According to your principle if the victim does anything negligent any other act of negligence no longer matters. So if you are speeding in your car (say 1 mph over the limit) and anything goes wrong with your car, it explodes, all the tires blow out, a truck cuts you off, etc. It is only your fault since you were negligently operating your vehicle? That would be cool and all. I mean I could run over jay walkers, since they shouldn't be negligently crossing the road outside of a crosswalk. Why should they have any rights if they are going to be negligent?
Or the debt we owed them for showing unfortunate mercy during the first Gulf War and allowing him to exact his revenge on those that opposed him.
If it was mercy to not invade, is the act of us invading mercifuless? Read his Daddy's real reasons for not pressing on.
The UN was unable to prevent ethnic conflict in Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Burundi, Rwanda, or any other place on the planet.
Didn't the republican congress scathing criticize Clinton when he wanted to get involved in the Balkins? The UN is effective as the US makes it. Even if it isn't effective, it is not diplomatic to burn bridges by being arrogant.
deciding what marriage was for the entire country
The whole marriage argument is idiotic. People seem to only understand zero sum games. It's not zero sum. Granting priviledges to same-sex unions and even calling it a marriage doesn't make an opposite sex marriage any different. What you suddenly don't love you wife anymore because you can marry your guy friends?
at least the United States military isn't paralyzed by a complete lack of leadership at the top, and we won't be handicapped for decades to come by a military that is still equipped and training to fight the Cold War.
Huh? How did clinton's military do in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Like the reality of all those terrifying WMDs (heh-mission accomplished)?
Or the reality of those strong ties between Saddam and 9/11?
Or the reality of the current economy?
Or the reality of the victory over the threat to everyone's marriage--the gays?
Or the reality of the deficit?
Or the reality of how well Clinton's military has done despite poor planning?
Please clarify which part of reality needs to come flooding in.
I'm lacking the conviction to send my friends over there to die for a lie. Do you also know the number of civilians that died in Iraq because we thought it in their best interest to free them (think orders of magnitude above our own casualties)? It's good we freed them...from this world.
It's her own fault that she spilled coffee on herself. "Levels of negligence" are irrelevant because she injured herself.
She would not have injured herself without having a dangerous product made by McDonalds.
The four pieces involved with negligence:
that there is a duty of care owed to a person;
a breach of that duty occurred;
there is a reasonably close casual connection that causes injury (proximate cause); and
that injury causes actual damage or loss.
Number 1 is broken because McDonalds has a duty not to disguise a seemingly safe product as a dangerous one. There was no warning that McDonald's coffee was way hotter than industry standard or that it would cause serious injury. They should know that it is highly likely that someone will spill their coffee on themselves.
Number 2 is easy because they obviously purposely sold super-heated coffee.
Number 3 is the one you are having difficutly wrapping your head around involves a close correspondence to the defendent's breach of duty that resulted in the accident. It is easy to see how mcdonald's superheated coffee was a proximate cause to the 3rd degree burns
If a legal system lets you get to trial for damages (let alone win) because you spilled coffee on yourself, that legal system is broken. Period.
If you think they got slapped hard by this lawsuit only because of spilled coffee then you are clueless.
She spilled the coffee on herself. All the rest of the points you want to bring up about it simply don't matter. Even if the coffee was 1000 degrees (impossible of course, but...) she still spilled it on herself.
It's so black and white is it? So if you happen to drive 1 mph over the speedlimit and the bridge you are crossing fails and you plummet into a river and become paralyzed, you should have no legal recourse. I mean if you weren't negligently speeding you won't have have been on the bridge when it collapsed. Does it not occur to you that there are levels of negligence? You've been working with binary way too long.
I just bought a very nice bike with a lifetime warranty on the frame - and don't ever expect to have to call in the warranty. It doesn't cost that much more to make a bike frame _much_ better, and it's worth the premium.
Does it cover the transmission and power train or just rust? How exactly does a bike frame end up failing? Car running it over? I don't see getting run over as a failure of the frame.
RTFA. She found out that the creative commons is not about copying stuff without permission, it's about copyright in the same way as the GPL, and about the artist choosing how [s]he wants the works distributed.
Ok, AC. You are saying this powerful woman just found out about the CC. Before the RIAA filters were on too tight and CC just released their mission statement, so she never realized that the CC "is not about copying stuff without permission."
Thank you for pointing out how I needed to RTFA again. I'll read more carefully next time. What a great head-fake by the CC to confuse the RIAA!!
If I see one more out of shape slob with glowing white legs in Dockers shorts with black socks, loafers, and a shirt tucked into their shorts in a way that calls attention to their fat ass beer gut...
What if they are tan and are in good shape? Sounds like you're more upset that they aren't fine physical specimens.
Slashdot Mirror
-1 Inane
Democratic way. How does democracy relate to our economy?
If a company breaks the law and makes me lose money, I have no other recourse but to sue them to recover my losses. Why would you even think that I would buy the products if they are a dishonest company. Of course I would no longer purchase from them. But you haven't resolved with how to deal with them breaking laws and cheating me out of money.
Asking for justice with in our system IS the democratic way.
Yes, but for violating a toll. You have to stop if you don't have fastlane to pay the toll.
Actually, they don't care if you stop and try to pay the toll. My friend wasn't paying attention and ended up in the fastlane lane off of Mass Pike getting on 84 south. We pulled over and walked around the building and tried to pay, but they wouldn't let us. They said that as far as the system is concerned you have violated it. If it is a first offense they will let you go, but after that your citation will be in the mail.
Maybe cover up your license plate and blow through and see what happens?
However, it begs a question
Once again: begs the question or this one.
Exactly.
Maybe you shouldn't be in public if you don't want your picture taken.
We're always told how America is the Land of the Free Market and Government Regulation is a Bad Thing. Yet the instant someone tries practising free-market economics for real over there, they're suddenly evil.
Nice strawman. No one said they are evil for practising free-market economics.
What the hell difference is there between this type of counterfeiting, and what every supermarket is doing with its "own brand" copies of bestselling goods anyway?
I think you misunderstand the difference between a real world copy and a digital copy. When a supermarket sells their own brand, such as bread, they actually have to make bread. They don't download a copy of someone else's bread. I think you need to try and understand why they call it copyright infringement and not stealing.
It's all very well to say that if you're poor and have principles, you should do without;
Do without? For Christ's sake! We are talking about a luxury item. Damn right, do without. Suck it up and do without. Welcome to reality.
Of course, we need to make some capital investments to get the same "goodness" with less power.
I would equate capital with energy. i.e. it takes energy to make the capital to buy the improvements.
Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether.
This is a silly soundbite that is repeated over and over again becuase it sounds right. No one ever brings up the point that the wealthier people are the more they benefit by having a stable society (i.e. if there was civil war tomorrow the people with no money would be less affected economically--they got nothing to lose).
Yeah, you mean the banner that the sailors made, which Bush had nothing to do with?
Don't you feel like a jackass after the AC posted this link with Rove regreting using the banner? Quote: "the White House staff had it made by a private vendor"
Then began the reconstruction phase of Iraq in which the military's mission is security and training. But I guess these concepts are too hard for liberal sheep to grasp.
Well, in defense of sheep, liberal or conservative, Bush seems to indicate that things are going as "planned," and if that is the case I don't think their mission has anything to do with security.
Forgot a link.
Coffee isn't for spilling. It's for drinking. McDonald's didn't make the coffee for her to spill on herself. It wasn't safe for spilling. They had no duty to make it safe for spilling.
So she would have not gotten 3rd degree burns if she had drank the coffee--the intended way for her to use it? This ties in to proximate cause. Did they or should they have had knowledge that the average person might spill this coffee on themselves? The jury shouted out a resounding yes. Thousands of people every day spill coffee on themselves without serious injury. It happens during normal use of the item. Like I said thousands of other resteraunts were able to make coffee that doesn't give 3rd degree burns.
I still don't see why she shouldn't be able to collect the the same damages if she injected the coffee into her bloodstream. Spilling it on your groin and injecting it are equally un-intended usages of the coffee.
How are you using the word equally? Thousands of people a day spill coffee on themsleves each day while trying to drink it. This goes back to proximate cause. Injecting it and getting harmed is further steps away from Mcdonalds causing the harm. Once again this is a fuzzy judgement call (like most things in life), but I don't believe it's that hard to see that injecting is much further away from the intended use then accidently spilling it on yourself.
And no one is saying that she didn't accidently spill it on herself, it has more to do with McDonalds being grossly negligent (warned after many other injuries, way hotter then industry standard, etc). A normal person would not expect to be injured in such a way from the coffee. If this was common knowledge people would stay away from Mcdonald's coffee or be much more careful with their superheated coffee.
argh. That's exactly how the current law is written. Everything you mention is a judgement call. The jury decides what the primary cause of the injury is.
The primary cause of the injury was the tempertature. The woman could have spilled starbucks, burger king, duncan donuts, any number of other stores' coffee on herself and not received 3rd degree burns. The fact that a reasonable person would not expect to be significantly injured by coffee played a large role in the determination. The fact that you don't here about thousands of other coffee related lawsuits indicates that the current system is working.
How exactly would you change the rules? Add a clause saying that if you spill coffee they don't apply? You don't seem to be able to abstract away the coffee and think in concepts. Thousands of people have spilled coffee on themselves and would not win a negligence case in a court of law. The current rules seem to be working to me. She would have been more careful or not have bought that coffee if she had known it to be as dangerous as it was.
According to your principle if the victim does anything negligent any other act of negligence no longer matters. So if you are speeding in your car (say 1 mph over the limit) and anything goes wrong with your car, it explodes, all the tires blow out, a truck cuts you off, etc. It is only your fault since you were negligently operating your vehicle? That would be cool and all. I mean I could run over jay walkers, since they shouldn't be negligently crossing the road outside of a crosswalk. Why should they have any rights if they are going to be negligent?
Or the debt we owed them for showing unfortunate mercy during the first Gulf War and allowing him to exact his revenge on those that opposed him.
If it was mercy to not invade, is the act of us invading mercifuless? Read his Daddy's real reasons for not pressing on.
The UN was unable to prevent ethnic conflict in Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Burundi, Rwanda, or any other place on the planet.
Didn't the republican congress scathing criticize Clinton when he wanted to get involved in the Balkins? The UN is effective as the US makes it. Even if it isn't effective, it is not diplomatic to burn bridges by being arrogant.
deciding what marriage was for the entire country
The whole marriage argument is idiotic. People seem to only understand zero sum games. It's not zero sum. Granting priviledges to same-sex unions and even calling it a marriage doesn't make an opposite sex marriage any different. What you suddenly don't love you wife anymore because you can marry your guy friends?
at least the United States military isn't paralyzed by a complete lack of leadership at the top, and we won't be handicapped for decades to come by a military that is still equipped and training to fight the Cold War.
Huh? How did clinton's military do in Afghanistan and Iraq?
and objective reality will come flooding in.
Like the reality of all those terrifying WMDs (heh-mission accomplished)?
Or the reality of those strong ties between Saddam and 9/11?
Or the reality of the current economy?
Or the reality of the victory over the threat to everyone's marriage--the gays?
Or the reality of the deficit?
Or the reality of how well Clinton's military has done despite poor planning?
Please clarify which part of reality needs to come flooding in.
Sad day for 98% of Americans. Don't forget that some people are really going to benefit.
I'm lacking the conviction to send my friends over there to die for a lie. Do you also know the number of civilians that died in Iraq because we thought it in their best interest to free them (think orders of magnitude above our own casualties)? It's good we freed them...from this world.
She would not have injured herself without having a dangerous product made by McDonalds.
The four pieces involved with negligence:
that there is a duty of care owed to a person;
a breach of that duty occurred;
there is a reasonably close casual connection that causes injury (proximate cause); and
that injury causes actual damage or loss.
Number 1 is broken because McDonalds has a duty not to disguise a seemingly safe product as a dangerous one. There was no warning that McDonald's coffee was way hotter than industry standard or that it would cause serious injury. They should know that it is highly likely that someone will spill their coffee on themselves.
Number 2 is easy because they obviously purposely sold super-heated coffee.
Number 3 is the one you are having difficutly wrapping your head around involves a close correspondence to the defendent's breach of duty that resulted in the accident. It is easy to see how mcdonald's superheated coffee was a proximate cause to the 3rd degree burns
You can figure out #4.
If a legal system lets you get to trial for damages (let alone win) because you spilled coffee on yourself, that legal system is broken. Period.
If you think they got slapped hard by this lawsuit only because of spilled coffee then you are clueless.
It's so black and white is it? So if you happen to drive 1 mph over the speedlimit and the bridge you are crossing fails and you plummet into a river and become paralyzed, you should have no legal recourse. I mean if you weren't negligently speeding you won't have have been on the bridge when it collapsed. Does it not occur to you that there are levels of negligence? You've been working with binary way too long.
I just bought a very nice bike with a lifetime warranty on the frame - and don't ever expect to have to call in the warranty. It doesn't cost that much more to make a bike frame _much_ better, and it's worth the premium.
Does it cover the transmission and power train or just rust? How exactly does a bike frame end up failing? Car running it over? I don't see getting run over as a failure of the frame.
RTFA. She found out that the creative commons is not about copying stuff without permission, it's about copyright in the same way as the GPL, and about the artist choosing how [s]he wants the works distributed.
Ok, AC. You are saying this powerful woman just found out about the CC. Before the RIAA filters were on too tight and CC just released their mission statement, so she never realized that the CC "is not about copying stuff without permission."
Thank you for pointing out how I needed to RTFA again. I'll read more carefully next time. What a great head-fake by the CC to confuse the RIAA!!
ISP's...ACL's...IP's... ISP's... ISP's
5/10 for use of the " ' "
If you get any worse you should not use it at all and you will be correct more of the time!
No one finds it really odd that suddenly she writes an article supporting the CC? What's in it for her? What is the underlying motive?
Maybe she is trying to subvert the CC from within?