The reason these stories are interesting are because they are (relatively) rare events
The only thing rare is the act getting caught on video. And, quite frankly, it's getting less and less rare. Look at the number of 'police abuse' videos from, say, 20 years ago, compared to last year, for example. Either the cops are abusing people a lot more lately, or they have always been abusing people, bu tit's being caught on video a lot more. Either way, it's not very good for the cops.
True, the line between 'cell phone' and 'handheld organizer' and '(laptop) computer' are blurring. But the point is there's nothing 'new' or 'innovative' there, just a merging of different ideas.
What happens when you focus such a device on.. oh... Say THE SUN?
Nothing. Unless you have a power source large enough to expand your inertial dampening field to a significant enough size compared to the sun.
Having a field that encompasses a spaceship (say 4,500,000 tons for the Star Trek Enterprise D, from The Next Generation) is a far cry from having one that can affect the sun (somewhere around 2,192,409,010,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons). You'd need a device that was 487,202,002,000,000,000,000 times more powerful.
Exactly- 50 years ago, there were no 'personal' computers , no cell phones, no GPS, no Internet. (Well, you know what I mean). So, when these things were invented, whole new vistas opened up. But the last 5 to 10 years, what advances have been made in computers? Making them a little bit faster, a little bit smaller? What advances in Cellphones? A little faster, a little smaller, a camera, maybe a 'full' keyboard for texting. But these things are just minor refinements of the original ideas, not new ideas in their own right. We are lacking in 'new' ideas. It reminds me of the history of the USA. Europeans came over, found this whole continent just ripe for the taking. Huge expanses of land to explore, resources to use, room to expand. But these days, there is no 'new' land to explore- it's all been claimed. The new frontier is Space- there are lots of planets, asteroids, etc, and lots more other stellar systems out there. But, like the Native Americans in their canoes, we have little chance of traveling to Europe and conquering them, we'll just have to wait for someone to sail over here and conquer us.
So, when they get caught eventually (Hulu does have records of IP addresses), they can get charged with credit fraud, ID theft, etc, on top of the Intellectual Property offense?
I always wondered why they didn't do something like this with screeners. (In case you don't know, 'screener' refers to a copy of a movie that is sent to movie critics and censors before the movie is available to public). Take a minor detail, like the color of the purse a women in the background walks by with, and change it. Then when a screener is uploaded, all they have to do is download it, and look at that scene. By looking at the color purse, they know who's screener was copied.
But all Hulu has to do is insert a user ID into the stream. Something subtle, and distributed, so it can't be (easily) removed. When a pirated copy is found, they find the ID, and cancel that person's subscription, permanently.
It's possible, but it's also possible to take out the energy infrastructure of the USA with conventional methods.
There's a book 'Barracuda 945' in which an Arab man, brought to England as a youngster, grows up and joins the military, rises in the ranks to Major, and is then sent to Israel on a mission. He is struck by certain events there, and decides to defect to the Arabs. He uses his military skills to make friends, influence people, and rob a few banks, amassing a huge amount of money. He then comes up with a plan to use the Chinese (who owe them for reneging on an arms deal) to buy two Russian nuclear powered subs. He takes one across the pacific to Alaska and launches a few cruise missiles (non-nuke) at the oil pumping stations there, then blows a few holes in an underwater part of the oil pipeline, then goes down the west coast of the USA, blowing up any energy related facilities he can (oil transfer tanks, natural gas power stations, etc). He finally ditches the sub in the (now Chinese controlled) Panama canal. The British and American intelligence agencies are one step behind him the whole way.
Now, even without the nuclear submarine, it would be possible to do that damage conventionally. A few (hundred) pounds of C4, strategically placed, could strike a huge blow to the American energy grid.
I would not be surprised if -- for example, and I'm making this up -- the latest Intel processors had a hidden RFID capability supplied by the DoD that would cripple the processor if it received a particular coded signal. With a chip budget of billions of transistors, who could ever find something like that *if* it existed?
There's a book 'The Third Fury', if I recall correctly, that had this as a plot.
An ex-president had a secret deal with the head of an electronics firm and a president of a TV network. The chips the electronics guy made came in two varieties- one normal, one with a hidden circuit that would respond to a coded signal sent by the TV guy's satellite. The special chips, which were only in equipment sold/given to foreign powers, would shut the chip down upon receiving that signal. Then, years later, the electronics guy (now retired, and no longer running the company) finds out that ALL the chips, even those given to the US Military have the hidden circuit. And the TV guy's network is undergoing a hostile takeover....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a political party in Sweden. Founded in 2006, it is now the third largest party in Sweden in terms of membership. Its sudden popularity has given rise to parties with the same name and similar goals in Europe and worldwide, forming the international Pirate Party movement.
Your mowing example is a PERFECT example. In many of the other cases they settled out of court. They said "Yeah, sorry, we should have been more careful, let us pay for that".
No, it's more like they say "Shit. We didn't do anything wrong, but it'll cost more to hire a lawyer then just pay a few bucks. Here's a check."
(Yes, I know McDonalds already has lawyers.)
If you dent your neighbor's car you should say "Yeah, sorry, I should have checked for rocks, let me pay for that".
McDonalds DID offer her cash. It just wasn't enough. She wanted $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Then, her demand rose to $90,000, and then $300,000.
If you dented your neighbors car while mowing, you can bet your ass a court would make you pay for it,
Maybe. But Would they make me pay $200 for $110 in damage? And would they consider me "negligent" int the way I mow??
I agree to say McDonalds as an organization is 'negligent' for serving hot coffee is a pretty big stretch.
That was the entire basis of her lawsuit.
I am sure the largest piece is the profit motivation of squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'.
McDOnalds brewign and holding temps are right in line with the National Coffee Association. Why does the NCA exist? To help sell more coffee. If anything they would give directions that resulted in more coffee sold, not "squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'"
Based on what happened to the woman I have a REAL hard time believing it wasn't unreasonably hot.
So, you'll base your opinion on one lady who got burned, and not all the other cites, from Industry Associations, other restaurants, coffee maker companies, and judges.
I'm sorry, but this shows a lack of logical thinking.
she asked for help with the medical bills to cover the fact that the coffee burnt her so bad that she spent a week+ in the hospital and had to have skin grafts.
SHE is the one who mis-handled the coffee, resulting in her burns. SHE is directly responsible for her injuries. Why should McDOnalds "help" her??
If I was juggling a chainsaw and it chopped my leg off, should the chainsaw manufacturer pay me?
If I was juggling knives and chopped my finger off, should Ginsu pay me??
If I was [mis-handling a product] and [injured myself], should [product manufacturer or retailer] pay me???
'Yes' or 'No' answers to those three questions, please.
Wow, maybe some day you'll be fortunate enough to see (in a non-McDonald's restaurant) a ceramic cup of hot coffee slip from your mother's hand. I'm sure you'll sit there in perfect understanding as you watch her cunt go up in flames and agree that the damage is all her own goddamned fault.
It would be, if she dropped it. Who's fault would you suggest her dropping it is?
1. Bullets are dangerous, yet only a tiny fraction of them ever wind up penetrating a human body and causing damage. This constant assertion that the number of burns vs the number of cups sold has anything to do with this is totally irrelevant. So because most bullets never kill anyone, I can go shoot someone and argue in court that what I did wasn't negligent or reckless because most bullets don't kill anyone so I shouldn't have to act as if they are dangerous? That is mindbogglingly stupid and pointless.
And the award for 'worst analogy of the year' goes to....
Sharp knives can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell knifes that are sharp.
Fast cars can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell cars that are fast.
Hot coffee can be dangerous. It can cause severe injuries if mishandled. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell coffee that is hot.
You are entering this based on the assumption that McDonald's should be held innocent based on their behavior as a composite of everything they have done rather than as the actions of that day.
No. I am arguing that what they did that day (and all the other days) was not 'negligent', nor 'dangerous'. This is clearly shown by the statistically negligible number of injuries they end up with.
So because I have not done anything wrong every other day of my life, except that one day, I should be innocent.
More like, if you mow your lawn safely 23,999,999 times, and on the 24,000,00th time, a freak accident happens- say a rock comes out the mower and dents your neighbors car- you're not "negligent" in the way you mow.
There is no shortage of information out there that shows McDonald's screwed this one up.
Please, mention some of this 'information'. Specific pieces, not a link to an article.
No amount of subjective bullshit about "coffee is best at 185+ degrees" compares with the objective assessment of evidence that says "at 185+ degrees it can cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds".
And no amount of "hot coffee is so very, extremely, positively, exceptionally dangerous!!1!11!!" compares to the fact that only 0.0000004166% of people actually burned themselves.
So...why didn't they follow the advice that it should be served in a warmed mug too? I mean...heated liquid in styrofoam cups...mmm mmm good stuff there.
They sell Millions of cups a year. How many cups of coffee have you sold? Why should we consider you the expert??
Oh, a few interesting things from the article YOU linked to:
-She suffered burned "over 6 percent of her body", not 16%, as has been mentioned here.
-Of the 700 claims of burns, only "Some claims" involved third-degree burns. Practically speaking that means a minority, other wise it'd be phrased as "most claims..."
- "Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees." There goes you're "it was hotter than that" theory.
You are full of crap. NO BODY drinks coffee at 25 degrees Fahrenheit off boiling.
I have posted several cites to back my claims.
But at 180 to 190 degrees it is physically impossible to drink without burning yourself,
Again, I have cites. McDonalds serves it at this temperature TO THIS DAY. Other restaurants serve it at that temp. The national Coffee Association says to serve it at that temp. I have posted at least one link to a Home coffee maker that keeps it at that temp.
You can say I'm "full of crap" if you wish. That's a personal opinion of yours. But if you wish to say these other people/companies/etc are full of crap, you'll need to provide evidence.
As to the "optimal drinking temperature" if the essential oils evaporate at ~155 degrees, then those oils will be evaporating quickly from the pot at temperature above that.
I just replied to someone else in this thread who quoted "Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink.""
175, 155? Would you people please make up your mind? In either case, the coffee needs to be brewed and held hotter than those temps.
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
"Aromas" only come into play when the cup is opened for drinking. In other words, usually after the driver has reached their destination. For the coffee to be that temp at that time, it needs to be hotter to begin with... like, about 185F, the temp McDonalds had it at.
And, once again, the national coffee association says 185. Bunn says 185. Your source says 175. That's only 10 degrees difference.
Oh, what you left out was "at least" 700, and "had settled out of court".
No- "The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year."
You also make the incredible assumption that the temperatures across all of those cups were consistent ... "they want to provide a consistent flavor experience".
Um, yeah.
As previously pointed out the punitive damages didn't come from the woman in question, they came from the jury pissed off at how McDonalds behaved during the ordeal.
The jury was not 'pissed off', they were emotionally swayed by pity.
So...the people that got all the information, that sat there and directly witnessed all of the proceedings believed that McDonalds was behaving very poorly.
I've been on juries, and both were mostly filled with idiots. They didn't think logically, they 'thought' emotionally. "Wouldn't you want a lot of money if you were hit by a car?" is a direct quote from one such juror to me. I replied: "Not if it was my fault I was in the middle of the road in the middle of the block, not paying attention, as the guy admitted on the stand".
In another case, one juror refused to say 'guilty' despite the 7 audio- and video-tapes of the accused dealing drugs. Why? "It'll be his third strike, and I don't want him going to jail for life."
So don't go on about how "well,the jury found...". Because most jurors are idiots , easily swayed by emotion and prejudice.
Of course not. The employee doesn't have millions of dollars.
The owners are responsible to some extent for what their employees do on the clock.
Like I said, if McDonalds had trained the employee incorrectly, or incompletely, then I might agree with suing them.
16% is considered quite a lot of third degree damage.
From http://stellaawards.com/stella.html : "Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was)..."
Interesting how you use the higher of the two numbers...
Wrong, the number is irrelevant.
No, it is not. Not when you are trying to prove "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". If these things were true, many more people would have hurt themselves on the "defective, unreasonably dangerous" coffee. The low numbers prove it was NOT unreasonably dangerous.
Namely to pre-mix DRIVE THROUGH sales with milk and sugar as per customer requirements.
Sure. Takes longer, slows down sales. People get frustrated, so elsewhere, McDonalds loses more sales. People not satisfied with the amount of milk/sugar they get, bitch at the employees.
Sounds like a real good idea. [/sarcasm]
I have an alternative. How about we teach people to be careful with cups of hot liquid? I mean, 23,999,999 manage to do it without being taught, so hard hard could it be to teach the 24,000,000th person, too??
hot drinks that require complex manipulation
Most adults don't find 'put cup in secure place before attempting to remove lid' to be "complex manipulation". I guess you do.
Since McDonald's sell many times more that 24 million cups of coffee, the risk of someone suffering injury is substantial.
700 people in 10 years, nationwide.
For comparison, 900 people die by getting hit by lightning in 10 years, nationwide.
500,000+ die in car accidents
2,000,000 die of alchohol related causes in the same time period.
And you're thinking we really need to re-design coffee cups because 700 people got their fingers burned? There's nothing more important to be discussing? Nothing more important to sue over?
Last I heard that particular store had been cited REPEATEDLY for violations regarding their coffee
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.
I see that Coffee Association quote thrown out word for word all over the internet, but I have not been able to find a true source for it.
I'll break the process down for you:
1) Go to Google. 2) Search for national coffee association 3) Click the first link. 4) In the black bar near the top, click the "All About Coffee" link 5) Scroll down, click the "How to brew coffee" picture link. 6) Scroll down to the "Water temperature During Brewing" section, where you'll find this: Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. 7) Scroll a few inches further, and you'll find this: Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately! Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible and, later in the paragraph: If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.::sheesh::
By all means, continue to perpetuate the notion that companies should be protected from shitty behavior.
Yeah, shitty behavior like giving customers what they want- hot coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
If a data set reveals a person's ZIP code, birthdate and gender, there's an 87 percent chance that the person can be uniquely identified
What idiot answers all those questions correctly?
The reason these stories are interesting are because they are (relatively) rare events
The only thing rare is the act getting caught on video. And, quite frankly, it's getting less and less rare. Look at the number of 'police abuse' videos from, say, 20 years ago, compared to last year, for example. Either the cops are abusing people a lot more lately, or they have always been abusing people, bu tit's being caught on video a lot more. Either way, it's not very good for the cops.
He put his hand/arm up to protect his face and head from hitting the glass window the cop threw him into.
Wasn't this on last weeks House episode?
True, the line between 'cell phone' and 'handheld organizer' and '(laptop) computer' are blurring. But the point is there's nothing 'new' or 'innovative' there, just a merging of different ideas.
What happens when you focus such a device on.. oh... Say THE SUN?
Nothing. Unless you have a power source large enough to expand your inertial dampening field to a significant enough size compared to the sun.
Having a field that encompasses a spaceship (say 4,500,000 tons for the Star Trek Enterprise D, from The Next Generation) is a far cry from having one that can affect the sun (somewhere around 2,192,409,010,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons). You'd need a device that was 487,202,002,000,000,000,000 times more powerful.
So, yeah...
Exactly- 50 years ago, there were no 'personal' computers , no cell phones, no GPS, no Internet. (Well, you know what I mean). So, when these things were invented, whole new vistas opened up.
But the last 5 to 10 years, what advances have been made in computers? Making them a little bit faster, a little bit smaller? What advances in Cellphones? A little faster, a little smaller, a camera, maybe a 'full' keyboard for texting. But these things are just minor refinements of the original ideas, not new ideas in their own right. We are lacking in 'new' ideas.
It reminds me of the history of the USA. Europeans came over, found this whole continent just ripe for the taking. Huge expanses of land to explore, resources to use, room to expand. But these days, there is no 'new' land to explore- it's all been claimed. The new frontier is Space- there are lots of planets, asteroids, etc, and lots more other stellar systems out there. But, like the Native Americans in their canoes, we have little chance of traveling to Europe and conquering them, we'll just have to wait for someone to sail over here and conquer us.
So, when they get caught eventually (Hulu does have records of IP addresses), they can get charged with credit fraud, ID theft, etc, on top of the Intellectual Property offense?
I always wondered why they didn't do something like this with screeners. (In case you don't know, 'screener' refers to a copy of a movie that is sent to movie critics and censors before the movie is available to public). Take a minor detail, like the color of the purse a women in the background walks by with, and change it. Then when a screener is uploaded, all they have to do is download it, and look at that scene. By looking at the color purse, they know who's screener was copied.
But all Hulu has to do is insert a user ID into the stream. Something subtle, and distributed, so it can't be (easily) removed. When a pirated copy is found, they find the ID, and cancel that person's subscription, permanently.
You only see it because it's your password. Everyone else sees it like this:
Really? That works? My password is ********.
It's possible, but it's also possible to take out the energy infrastructure of the USA with conventional methods.
There's a book 'Barracuda 945' in which an Arab man, brought to England as a youngster, grows up and joins the military, rises in the ranks to Major, and is then sent to Israel on a mission. He is struck by certain events there, and decides to defect to the Arabs. He uses his military skills to make friends, influence people, and rob a few banks, amassing a huge amount of money. He then comes up with a plan to use the Chinese (who owe them for reneging on an arms deal) to buy two Russian nuclear powered subs. He takes one across the pacific to Alaska and launches a few cruise missiles (non-nuke) at the oil pumping stations there, then blows a few holes in an underwater part of the oil pipeline, then goes down the west coast of the USA, blowing up any energy related facilities he can (oil transfer tanks, natural gas power stations, etc). He finally ditches the sub in the (now Chinese controlled) Panama canal. The British and American intelligence agencies are one step behind him the whole way.
Now, even without the nuclear submarine, it would be possible to do that damage conventionally. A few (hundred) pounds of C4, strategically placed, could strike a huge blow to the American energy grid.
I would not be surprised if -- for example, and I'm making this up -- the latest Intel processors had a hidden RFID capability supplied by the DoD that would cripple the processor if it received a particular coded signal. With a chip budget of billions of transistors, who could ever find something like that *if* it existed?
There's a book 'The Third Fury', if I recall correctly, that had this as a plot.
An ex-president had a secret deal with the head of an electronics firm and a president of a TV network. The chips the electronics guy made came in two varieties- one normal, one with a hidden circuit that would respond to a coded signal sent by the TV guy's satellite. The special chips, which were only in equipment sold/given to foreign powers, would shut the chip down upon receiving that signal. Then, years later, the electronics guy (now retired, and no longer running the company) finds out that ALL the chips, even those given to the US Military have the hidden circuit. And the TV guy's network is undergoing a hostile takeover....
Like the Pirate Party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a political party in Sweden. Founded in 2006, it is now the third largest party in Sweden in terms of membership. Its sudden popularity has given rise to parties with the same name and similar goals in Europe and worldwide, forming the international Pirate Party movement.
Your mowing example is a PERFECT example. In many of the other cases they settled out of court. They said "Yeah, sorry, we should have been more careful, let us pay for that".
No, it's more like they say "Shit. We didn't do anything wrong, but it'll cost more to hire a lawyer then just pay a few bucks. Here's a check."
(Yes, I know McDonalds already has lawyers.)
If you dent your neighbor's car you should say "Yeah, sorry, I should have checked for rocks, let me pay for that".
McDonalds DID offer her cash. It just wasn't enough. She wanted $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Then, her demand rose to $90,000, and then $300,000.
If you dented your neighbors car while mowing, you can bet your ass a court would make you pay for it,
Maybe. But Would they make me pay $200 for $110 in damage? And would they consider me "negligent" int the way I mow??
I agree to say McDonalds as an organization is 'negligent' for serving hot coffee is a pretty big stretch.
That was the entire basis of her lawsuit.
I am sure the largest piece is the profit motivation of squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'.
McDOnalds brewign and holding temps are right in line with the National Coffee Association. Why does the NCA exist? To help sell more coffee. If anything they would give directions that resulted in more coffee sold, not "squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'"
Based on what happened to the woman I have a REAL hard time believing it wasn't unreasonably hot.
So, you'll base your opinion on one lady who got burned, and not all the other cites, from Industry Associations, other restaurants, coffee maker companies, and judges.
I'm sorry, but this shows a lack of logical thinking.
she asked for help with the medical bills to cover the fact that the coffee burnt her so bad that she spent a week+ in the hospital and had to have skin grafts.
SHE is the one who mis-handled the coffee, resulting in her burns. SHE is directly responsible for her injuries. Why should McDOnalds "help" her??
If I was juggling a chainsaw and it chopped my leg off, should the chainsaw manufacturer pay me?
If I was juggling knives and chopped my finger off, should Ginsu pay me??
If I was [mis-handling a product] and [injured myself], should [product manufacturer or retailer] pay me???
'Yes' or 'No' answers to those three questions, please.
Wow, maybe some day you'll be fortunate enough to see (in a non-McDonald's restaurant) a ceramic cup of hot coffee slip from your mother's hand. I'm sure you'll sit there in perfect understanding as you watch her cunt go up in flames and agree that the damage is all her own goddamned fault.
It would be, if she dropped it. Who's fault would you suggest her dropping it is?
1. Bullets are dangerous, yet only a tiny fraction of them ever wind up penetrating a human body and causing damage. This constant assertion that the number of burns vs the number of cups sold has anything to do with this is totally irrelevant. So because most bullets never kill anyone, I can go shoot someone and argue in court that what I did wasn't negligent or reckless because most bullets don't kill anyone so I shouldn't have to act as if they are dangerous? That is mindbogglingly stupid and pointless.
And the award for 'worst analogy of the year' goes to....
Sharp knives can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell knifes that are sharp.
Fast cars can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell cars that are fast.
Hot coffee can be dangerous. It can cause severe injuries if mishandled. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell coffee that is hot.
You are entering this based on the assumption that McDonald's should be held innocent based on their behavior as a composite of everything they have done rather than as the actions of that day.
No. I am arguing that what they did that day (and all the other days) was not 'negligent', nor 'dangerous'. This is clearly shown by the statistically negligible number of injuries they end up with.
So because I have not done anything wrong every other day of my life, except that one day, I should be innocent.
More like, if you mow your lawn safely 23,999,999 times, and on the 24,000,00th time, a freak accident happens- say a rock comes out the mower and dents your neighbors car- you're not "negligent" in the way you mow.
There is no shortage of information out there that shows McDonald's screwed this one up.
Please, mention some of this 'information'. Specific pieces, not a link to an article.
No amount of subjective bullshit about "coffee is best at 185+ degrees" compares with the objective assessment of evidence that says "at 185+ degrees it can cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds".
And no amount of "hot coffee is so very, extremely, positively, exceptionally dangerous!!1!11!!" compares to the fact that only 0.0000004166% of people actually burned themselves.
So...why didn't they follow the advice that it should be served in a warmed mug too? I mean...heated liquid in styrofoam cups...mmm mmm good stuff there.
They sell Millions of cups a year. How many cups of coffee have you sold? Why should we consider you the expert??
Oh, a few interesting things from the article YOU linked to:
-She suffered burned "over 6 percent of her body", not 16%, as has been mentioned here.
-Of the 700 claims of burns, only "Some claims"
involved third-degree burns. Practically speaking that means a minority, other wise it'd be phrased as "most claims..."
- "Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees." There goes you're "it was hotter than that" theory.
[citation needed]
You are full of crap. NO BODY drinks coffee at 25 degrees Fahrenheit off boiling.
I have posted several cites to back my claims.
But at 180 to 190 degrees it is physically impossible to drink without burning yourself,
Again, I have cites. McDonalds serves it at this temperature TO THIS DAY. Other restaurants serve it at that temp. The national Coffee Association says to serve it at that temp. I have posted at least one link to a Home coffee maker that keeps it at that temp.
You can say I'm "full of crap" if you wish. That's a personal opinion of yours. But if you wish to say these other people/companies/etc are full of crap, you'll need to provide evidence.
As to the "optimal drinking temperature" if the essential oils evaporate at ~155 degrees, then those oils will be evaporating quickly from the pot at temperature above that.
I just replied to someone else in this thread who quoted "Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink.""
175, 155? Would you people please make up your mind? In either case, the coffee needs to be brewed and held hotter than those temps.
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
"Aromas" only come into play when the cup is opened for drinking. In other words, usually after the driver has reached their destination. For the coffee to be that temp at that time, it needs to be hotter to begin with... like, about 185F, the temp McDonalds had it at.
And, once again, the national coffee association says 185. Bunn says 185. Your source says 175. That's only 10 degrees difference.
Oh, what you left out was "at least" 700, and "had settled out of court".
No- "The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year."
You also make the incredible assumption that the temperatures across all of those cups were consistent ...
"they want to provide a consistent flavor experience".
Um, yeah.
As previously pointed out the punitive damages didn't come from the woman in question, they came from the jury pissed off at how McDonalds behaved during the ordeal.
The jury was not 'pissed off', they were emotionally swayed by pity.
So...the people that got all the information, that sat there and directly witnessed all of the proceedings believed that McDonalds was behaving very poorly.
I've been on juries, and both were mostly filled with idiots. They didn't think logically, they 'thought' emotionally. "Wouldn't you want a lot of money if you were hit by a car?" is a direct quote from one such juror to me. I replied: "Not if it was my fault I was in the middle of the road in the middle of the block, not paying attention, as the guy admitted on the stand".
In another case, one juror refused to say 'guilty' despite the 7 audio- and video-tapes of the accused dealing drugs. Why? "It'll be his third strike, and I don't want him going to jail for life."
So don't go on about how "well,the jury found...". Because most jurors are idiots , easily swayed by emotion and prejudice.
Wrong, no one is going to sue the employee.
Of course not. The employee doesn't have millions of dollars.
The owners are responsible to some extent for what their employees do on the clock.
Like I said, if McDonalds had trained the employee incorrectly, or incompletely, then I might agree with suing them.
16% is considered quite a lot of third degree damage.
From http://stellaawards.com/stella.html :
"Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was)..."
Interesting how you use the higher of the two numbers...
Wrong, the number is irrelevant.
No, it is not. Not when you are trying to prove "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". If these things were true, many more people would have hurt themselves on the "defective, unreasonably dangerous" coffee.
The low numbers prove it was NOT unreasonably dangerous.
Namely to pre-mix DRIVE THROUGH sales with milk and sugar as per customer requirements.
Sure. Takes longer, slows down sales. People get frustrated, so elsewhere, McDonalds loses more sales. People not satisfied with the amount of milk/sugar they get, bitch at the employees.
Sounds like a real good idea. [/sarcasm]
I have an alternative. How about we teach people to be careful with cups of hot liquid? I mean, 23,999,999 manage to do it without being taught, so hard hard could it be to teach the 24,000,000th person, too??
hot drinks that require complex manipulation
Most adults don't find 'put cup in secure place before attempting to remove lid' to be "complex manipulation". I guess you do.
The question is irrelevant.
No,it's not.
Since McDonald's sell many times more that 24 million cups of coffee, the risk of someone suffering injury is substantial.
700 people in 10 years, nationwide.
For comparison, 900 people die by getting hit by lightning in 10 years, nationwide.
500,000+ die in car accidents
2,000,000 die of alchohol related causes in the same time period.
And you're thinking we really need to re-design coffee cups because 700 people got their fingers burned? There's nothing more important to be discussing? Nothing more important to sue over?
Last I heard that particular store had been cited REPEATEDLY for violations regarding their coffee
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.
I see that Coffee Association quote thrown out word for word all over the internet, but I have not been able to find a true source for it.
I'll break the process down for you:
1) Go to Google. ::sheesh::
2) Search for national coffee association
3) Click the first link.
4) In the black bar near the top, click the "All About Coffee" link
5) Scroll down, click the "How to brew coffee" picture link.
6) Scroll down to the "Water temperature During Brewing" section, where you'll find this:
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.
7) Scroll a few inches further, and you'll find this: Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible and, later in the paragraph: If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
By all means, continue to perpetuate the notion that companies should be protected from shitty behavior.
Yeah, shitty behavior like giving customers what they want- hot coffee.