You left out the rest like 16% 3rd degree burns, but oh well you must be a manager at McDonald's or something?
And As I've pointed out before, the severity of the injuries is irrelevant. If I try to juggle a chainsaw and chop off my leg, that's horrible, too. But it's my fault for not handling the chainsaw correctly. Just because it's a horrible injury doesn't suddenly make it the fault of the chainsaw manufacturer.
And, NO, I don't work for McDonalds. Never have.
So the real deal is this is was partly her fault and partly(mostly) McDonald's.
I disagree. It was Stella's careless handling of the coffee that caused the spill, and the spill caused the injury. Therefore, it was her fault.
Now if (for example) the McDonalds employee failed to properly secure the lid, and it spilled and cause Stella's injuries, then I would agree it was the employees fault. (Not necessarily "McDonalds" fault, unless they failed to properly train the employee.)
Either way the lawsuit was probably figured in as a risk worth taking. $2.7 million was a bargain for them if a better cup for elderly people cost them just 0.02 cents to produce.
Right. Then let's design and build a cup for left-handed people. And a cup for one-handed people. And a cup for clumsy people. And a cup for....
The standard cup was fine. IS fine. Only ONE person in 24 MILLION burned themselves with it. That was 70 people a year. For comparison, look at this: http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html site : "On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning." yes, that's right- you have a bigger chance of getting killed by lightning than of getting burned by McDonalds coffee.
So, please shut up about the coffee being too hot/dangerous.
Using numbers and statistics doesn't really matter with one specific case where the coffee may have been hotter than what is normally served for some reason.
That particular cup was no hotter than any other cup they served.
I think I would read the case history. It's public record and I'm sure you can look at it, but I think there was more to that particular case than user error.
From WIkipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Read that again: "She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her".
The woman in the famous coffee case wasn't just burned. Her vagina was scalded off. Gone. She had to have several skin grafts over several years before she could control her urination.
The severity of her injuries is irrelevant. She caused them herself by mis-handling the coffee. Bringing up how horrible the injuries were is a blatant appeal to people's emotions. "Pity the poor poor women with the burned crotch. Just look at the horrible, horrible burns. Let's give her lots of [other people's] money!"
Also, as you state, the coffee should be hot enough in the pot so that it cools down to about 140 when poured.
No, it still needs to be hot after the car (this was a drive thru, after all) reached it's destination. And after cream and sugar (if any) are added.
The problem with McDonalds coffee at that particular location was that it was still brewing temperature after being poured.
Incorrect. Brew at 200, hold at 185. This is standard for coffee.
It's like you're doing freelance astroturfing for McDonalds or something.
If McDonalds had done anything wrong, I'd be all over them. Brewing coffee at the right temperature is not wrong.
McDonalds sold a product for consumption within a car that was horrendously unsafe for said scenario by being too hot for that scenario.
THis is completely untrue. Did you miss the part where, for every idiot that burned themselves, 23,999,999 didn't?? How does one burn for every 24 million cups sold equal "horrendously unsafe"??!?
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature,
And market research shows customers want it HOT.::shrug::
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries.
"Shares the blame". No, she IS to blame.
But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was.
If she never spills it, the temperature is irrelevant. It is the mis-handling that made it cause injury.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product.
1) McDonalds DID have a warning on the cup. 2) Every idiot knows coffee is hot. But plates are not necessarily hot. It's a bad analogy.
And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
She was in a PARKED CAR. Who the hell keeps their seatbelts on while parked? In any case, that's not McDonalds fault.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
No, the jury was emotionally swayed by pictures of the...ladies... injuries. They let their feelings overrule their logic.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure. .::sigh::
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
If you don't believe the national Coffee Association (I mean, what do they know about coffee, Right?) , How about Bunn? Their website (http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html) says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200." and another page (http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html) mentions "water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)" and further down the page that say "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F ", which means it has to be above that temperature to be served.
Still not convinced? How about a judge?
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Why should they help her? The spill (and therefore the injury the spill caused) was her fault, not theirs.
Oh, and she asked for $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Hmmm.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
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.
Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts
'Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants' does fine, thank you.
No thank you, there's little enough time to get through all the things I want to learn, investigate and use without wasting two years learning ( through routine degradation ) how to effectively kill other human beings without questioning the reason and/or be the instrument of a system I can see the need for but don't always agree with the letter of.
No one said you would have to "waste two years...learning to kill". Six months (or four, maybe three. It's a rough idea in progress) learning basic military stuff. Weapons, strategy, tactics, law, history, and how to apply all that when you need it. After that, you go on to learn your assigned work. My example was 'police', but it might be 'DMV worker' or 'construction worker' or 'road worker' or 'building inspector', or 'social worker' or 'computer tech', or one of thousands of other government jobs.
everyone who volunteered for combat service, and served, got to vote. No exceptions.
Actually, everyone who did "Federal Service" got to vote. The military was only one part of Federal Service.
Personally, I like the idea of making people do, say, 2 years of federal service. Assuming the 300 million people in the USA are equally distributed across ages 1-100, that means roughly 3 million people aged 18-19, and 3 million more 19-20. That's 6 million people!
Imagine a person approaching their 18th birthday. They take an aptitude test, and get assigned as a police officer. First they get (as do all of the teens, no matter what their field) 6 months military training. Boot camp, basically. Give them some purpose, some knowledge of weaponry and strategy. This means that ALL citizens will have this knowledge, therefore, if the shit hits the fan, ANY citizen can step up and fight. The number of teens in this 6 month program at any given time will be about 1.5 million, approximately the size of the current US Military.
Then they get 6 months (full time) training in law, use of weapons and other equipment, police policies, procedures, etc. They then hit the streets for the next 12 months. They are teamed with and supervised by the previous years cops. Upper ranked police ("management") are 'lifers', people who liked being cops so much they made it their career. Of course, they were carefully observed during their 2 years, and any who showed signs of abusing their power were not hired.
The same holds for any other government position. Let the 'grunt work' be handled by the kids doing their two years, and have them managed by career men/women.
Misfits from future Earth society escape six millions years into the past through a one-way time gate...
Not to threadjack, but I always thought that was an interesting thought experiment. Imagine, if you will a "Stargate"-like gateway that leads not to other planets, but to other times. Now, imagine you're about to step through that 'timegate' on a one-way trip to the past. You can end up anywhere on earth, and anywhere from roughly 120 years ago to about 12000 years ago. (The gateway is built to avoid paradox, so you will not step thru into a more recent time period, because then, as you live your life, you risk interacting with someone who will later interact with yourself before you stepped thru.... Oh, okay! it's just a way to make sure you end up far enough back that it's interesting.)
You can take anything you want with you on your trip, with the following conditions: It must exist (no phasers or tricorders), or be reasonably manufacturable (you want a stack of DVDs containing the text of the Library of Congress? Okay!), and, you MUST carry it through the time gate. You can put it down after you step through, but you must be carrying it when you step through.
A few additional points: the grandfather paradox doesn't come into effect, because you are actually being transported into a parallel universe exactly like ours (up to the point where you appear out of thin air in the past). Or our universe splits in two when you step through into the past. You weren't quite sure which the scientists meant (if indeed the two are different). In any case, you can muck about all you want, and not have to worry about making yourself never having had existed.
Oh, and even though our planet is 3/4 covered in water, you will step through onto land. And there will be a reasonably-sized group of humans nearby, but you will not be spotted stepping through the gate. You might wind up in the Sahara desert, with a caravan a few dunes away, or in a middle of a Nor'easter with a tribe of native Americans at the other end of the valley. Or monsoon season in India with Alexander the Great attacking. Or a small Pacific ocean island with a native village nearby. You get the drift.
So, what's the point of all this? To decide what you would bring with you. Do you want to try to survive all on your own? (bring plenty of food, and instructions how to catch and preserve more) Or will you try to assimilate into the local culture? (language lessons, a good history text, maybe makeup?) Will you try to set yourself up as a God? (Fireworks? Guns? Devices with flashing LEDs to awe the natives)? Or maybe set yourself up as a craftsman (knowledge of various engineering techniques, chemical and physical properties of various substances needed)
Anyway, I think it's an interesting thought experiment to play around with when you have a few minutes to waste. Now, let's see, should I take a handgun, or a crossbow? I would easily run out of ammo for the handgun, but it's small size would be good for personal defense, but if I go back far enough, I could sell the design for the crossbow....
Someone needs to create a 'add-on' for torrent programs that allows users to share their connections. A kind of open proxy, I guess.
When your BT client connects to the file seeder, it would also connect to a 'proxy seeder', which lists all the other users who are sharing their bandwidth thru a proxy. Then, your download/upload goes thru one (or more) of those open proxies. No logs means no way to trace the 'end user' who actually is DLing the files, so no one can be sued. (They could try suing the proxy owners, but I don't think that'd go anywhere.)
Yes, it would result in decreased bandwidth for the owner of the proxy. But, lots of people do nothing with theirs anyway most of the time. For instance, they can turn on the proxy overnight, while they're sleeping (assuming they don't have a DL going themselves), or even during the day during work hours. I mean, really, who needs 30down/5up all the time??
This article IS about Arizona, and DOES mention restaurants (well, a "business that serves alcohol": http://www.gazette.com/articles/bill-57730-gun-alcohol.html "carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol" "The measure would ban drinking while packing and allow restaurants to deny entry to gun-toting citizens by posting a sign next to their liquor license."
Recently there has been a big debate over the push to allow guns in bars. This means, bar patrons would be allowed to bring guns into a bar and then drink. Something to think about if you ever accidentally bump into a drunken bar patron.
"If this bill is enacted, it would still be a felony for a CHL holder to consume alcohol in the restaurant. Concealed carry in such restaurants would only be legal if the CHL holder is not drinking."
Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose
Incorrect. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered.
Now, what they bullet Does (hits the ground, hits a target, injures/kills an animal, injures/kills a person) depends on where it's pointed, which is entirely up to the person that triggers it.
In any case, you have still not addressed my point, which is that guns allow someone who is not physically capable of defending themselves to... defend themselves. Are guns perfect? Nope. Do they always work? Nope. But not having them mean that any punk with a few muscles (or a few friends) can do anything they want to you. And your wife. And daughter.
Please compare then murders in Japan (where honest citizens are not allowed to carry weapons) to those of Texas (where honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons).
Yeah, because there are no other differences between Japan and Texas.
I know crime rates tend to low when we as a society allow our citizenship to grow as honest people and -just in case, lethal weapons are not easily gotten, neither by honest nor by dishonest citizens.
Go outside. pick of a good-sized rock. That's a lethal weapon. Pick up a branch. Lethal weapon. Etc, etc. Almost ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used by the right person. Sure, granny might not able to kill you with a rock, but a muscular 20-year old could easily do so. Guns, on the other hand, even the playing field. Yes, a muscular 20-year old might shoot you, but granny can use the gun to protect herself, too.
Each receipt has on it enough detail to cross reference to a specific vote (ie: location, voting machine number, and time to the minute. It's unlikely that 2 people will vote on the same machine during the same minute. If it's a problem, use seconds, too.) And the receipt has the results of the vote.
What it does NOT have is any link to the voter. So any 'Vote this way or else' schemes will fail, as the voter can simply pick a receipt out of the trash (you know most people will just throw them away), and present that as their vote. So, who will waste time bribing someone to do something they cannot verify?
I had a 5 hour coding session to fix a data transfer problem they were having (sneakernetting a couple floppies back & forth), wanted to make it 'secretary-proof', which I did at 4 AM one night, saved them 120 man-hours a week, and billed them for the 5 hours I spent at my place on my computer. Their beancounter disallowed it because I 'wasn't in the office' for it, thus, nobody saw me code the app.
Simple solution: they don't pay you, they can't use the app you wrote. Uninstall it. If they question you, ask "What app? I was never paid to write an app for you. See [beancounter] for proof."
Yes, you would get a "fair" hearing. Exactly as "fair" as you would expect for claiming to have invented a machine that violates a cherished principle of physics, one that has withstood every theoretical and experimental test that humanity has been able to throw at it in the last 500+ years.
Reminds me of a short-short (1 page) SF story I once read. It is in the form of a letter from a Respectable Science Journal to an inventor. It explains very clearly that his recent paper submission is rejected, as anti-gravity is impossible, and would he please stop hovering outside their editor's windows yelling at them....
Repeat after me: You cannot demonstrate that you are not a criminal by performing a criminal act
But I can demonstrate that I am innocent of crime 'A' by performing crime 'B'.
Besides, there are specific circumstances where you are allowed (even required) to do something that, under different circumstances, would be illegal. If I walk down the street naked, I get arrested. If I get sentenced to prison for that crime, I may very well be forced to strip naked so I can be searched for weapons/contraband. A little less extreme example, try the movie 'Porkys'. The boys stick their dicks thru holes in the wall of the girls shower, and a women sees them. Later, there is a 'line-up', where the guys have to show their dicks to her so she can pick the ones she saw earlier. Showing their dicks was against the rules, but later they were forced to do it.
A demonstration of how easily the IDs can be cloned is a quite reasonable response to the governments claim that the system is foolproof. The demonstration would have to be done with an ID from a third party- can't use someone from your side due to the possibility of cheating, can't use someone on the other side due to the possibility of it being considered intimidation. The Judge, being on neither side, makes a good candidate.
Okay, I thought you were referring to the ten commandments (you might like to cite a reference to be clearer).
I'm not the original poster.
It doesn't seem to be talking about "talking back to parents" at all,
You're right. Those words do not appear. However, I think it's a reasonable paraphrase. A little exaggerated, but....
You will find stonings of women, burning "enemies" alive in homes and so on in these books. They may be part of the bible, but Christians see this as a historical tale, featuring God. The part to be respected in the pentateuch are the ten commandments, and even then only insofar they match this little carpenter's representation of them, the rest is merely taken to be laws of the land of Caanaan. Those are certainly not taken to be divine revelation (again, except for the ten commandments).
Ah, yes. The Bible is the Word of God, and should be obeyed... except for this part, and this part, and -oh yes- this part here....
Slashdot Mirror
You left out the rest like 16% 3rd degree burns, but oh well you must be a manager at McDonald's or something?
And As I've pointed out before, the severity of the injuries is irrelevant. If I try to juggle a chainsaw and chop off my leg, that's horrible, too. But it's my fault for not handling the chainsaw correctly. Just because it's a horrible injury doesn't suddenly make it the fault of the chainsaw manufacturer.
And, NO, I don't work for McDonalds. Never have.
So the real deal is this is was partly her fault and partly(mostly) McDonald's.
I disagree. It was Stella's careless handling of the coffee that caused the spill, and the spill caused the injury. Therefore, it was her fault.
Now if (for example) the McDonalds employee failed to properly secure the lid, and it spilled and cause Stella's injuries, then I would agree it was the employees fault. (Not necessarily "McDonalds" fault, unless they failed to properly train the employee.)
Either way the lawsuit was probably figured in as a risk worth taking. $2.7 million was a bargain for them if a better cup for elderly people cost them just 0.02 cents to produce.
Right. Then let's design and build a cup for left-handed people. And a cup for one-handed people. And a cup for clumsy people. And a cup for....
The standard cup was fine. IS fine. Only ONE person in 24 MILLION burned themselves with it. That was 70 people a year. For comparison, look at this: http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html site : "On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning." yes, that's right- you have a bigger chance of getting killed by lightning than of getting burned by McDonalds coffee.
So, please shut up about the coffee being too hot/dangerous.
You didn't answer the question. If this was such an unsafe thing to do, why did only one person in 24,000,000 have a problem with it?
Using numbers and statistics doesn't really matter with one specific case where the coffee may have been hotter than what is normally served for some reason.
That particular cup was no hotter than any other cup they served.
I think I would read the case history. It's public record and I'm sure you can look at it, but I think there was more to that particular case than user error.
From WIkipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Read that again: "She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her".
What about that isn't "user error"?
Brewing coffee at a high temperature is different that drinking it at that temperature.
Do some research. Coffee is supposed to be brewed at 200, held at 185, as per the National Coffee Association.
The woman in the famous coffee case wasn't just burned. Her vagina was scalded off. Gone. She had to have several skin grafts over several years before she could control her urination.
The severity of her injuries is irrelevant. She caused them herself by mis-handling the coffee. Bringing up how horrible the injuries were is a blatant appeal to people's emotions. "Pity the poor poor women with the burned crotch. Just look at the horrible, horrible burns. Let's give her lots of [other people's] money!"
Also, as you state, the coffee should be hot enough in the pot so that it cools down to about 140 when poured.
No, it still needs to be hot after the car (this was a drive thru, after all) reached it's destination. And after cream and sugar (if any) are added.
The problem with McDonalds coffee at that particular location was that it was still brewing temperature after being poured.
Incorrect. Brew at 200, hold at 185. This is standard for coffee.
It's like you're doing freelance astroturfing for McDonalds or something.
If McDonalds had done anything wrong, I'd be all over them. Brewing coffee at the right temperature is not wrong.
McDonalds sold a product for consumption within a car that was horrendously unsafe for said scenario by being too hot for that scenario.
THis is completely untrue. Did you miss the part where, for every idiot that burned themselves, 23,999,999 didn't?? How does one burn for every 24 million cups sold equal "horrendously unsafe"??!?
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature,
And market research shows customers want it HOT. ::shrug::
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries.
"Shares the blame". No, she IS to blame.
But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was.
If she never spills it, the temperature is irrelevant. It is the mis-handling that made it cause injury.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product.
1) McDonalds DID have a warning on the cup.
2) Every idiot knows coffee is hot. But plates are not necessarily hot. It's a bad analogy.
And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
She was in a PARKED CAR. Who the hell keeps their seatbelts on while parked? In any case, that's not McDonalds fault.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
No, the jury was emotionally swayed by pictures of the ...ladies... injuries. They let their feelings overrule their logic.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure. ::sigh::
.
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
If you don't believe the national Coffee Association (I mean, what do they know about coffee, Right?) , How about Bunn? Their website (http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html) says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200." and another page (http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html) mentions "water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)" and further down the page that say "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F ", which means it has to be above that temperature to be served.
Still not convinced? How about a judge?
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Why should they help her? The spill (and therefore the injury the spill caused) was her fault, not theirs.
Oh, and she asked for $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Hmmm.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
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.
Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts
'Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants' does fine, thank you.
No thank you, there's little enough time to get through all the things I want to learn, investigate and use without wasting two years learning ( through routine degradation ) how to effectively kill other human beings without questioning the reason and/or be the instrument of a system I can see the need for but don't always agree with the letter of.
No one said you would have to "waste two years...learning to kill". Six months (or four, maybe three. It's a rough idea in progress) learning basic military stuff. Weapons, strategy, tactics, law, history, and how to apply all that when you need it. After that, you go on to learn your assigned work. My example was 'police', but it might be 'DMV worker' or 'construction worker' or 'road worker' or 'building inspector', or 'social worker' or 'computer tech', or one of thousands of other government jobs.
everyone who volunteered for combat service, and served, got to vote. No exceptions.
Actually, everyone who did "Federal Service" got to vote. The military was only one part of Federal Service.
Personally, I like the idea of making people do, say, 2 years of federal service. Assuming the 300 million people in the USA are equally distributed across ages 1-100, that means roughly 3 million people aged 18-19, and 3 million more 19-20. That's 6 million people!
Imagine a person approaching their 18th birthday. They take an aptitude test, and get assigned as a police officer. First they get (as do all of the teens, no matter what their field) 6 months military training. Boot camp, basically. Give them some purpose, some knowledge of weaponry and strategy. This means that ALL citizens will have this knowledge, therefore, if the shit hits the fan, ANY citizen can step up and fight. The number of teens in this 6 month program at any given time will be about 1.5 million, approximately the size of the current US Military.
Then they get 6 months (full time) training in law, use of weapons and other equipment, police policies, procedures, etc. They then hit the streets for the next 12 months. They are teamed with and supervised by the previous years cops. Upper ranked police ("management") are 'lifers', people who liked being cops so much they made it their career. Of course, they were carefully observed during their 2 years, and any who showed signs of abusing their power were not hired.
The same holds for any other government position. Let the 'grunt work' be handled by the kids doing their two years, and have them managed by career men/women.
It's an interesting idea.
Misfits from future Earth society escape six millions years into the past through a one-way time gate...
Not to threadjack, but I always thought that was an interesting thought experiment. Imagine, if you will a "Stargate"-like gateway that leads not to other planets, but to other times. Now, imagine you're about to step through that 'timegate' on a one-way trip to the past. You can end up anywhere on earth, and anywhere from roughly 120 years ago to about 12000 years ago. (The gateway is built to avoid paradox, so you will not step thru into a more recent time period, because then, as you live your life, you risk interacting with someone who will later interact with yourself before you stepped thru.... Oh, okay! it's just a way to make sure you end up far enough back that it's interesting.)
You can take anything you want with you on your trip, with the following conditions: It must exist (no phasers or tricorders), or be reasonably manufacturable (you want a stack of DVDs containing the text of the Library of Congress? Okay!), and, you MUST carry it through the time gate. You can put it down after you step through, but you must be carrying it when you step through.
A few additional points: the grandfather paradox doesn't come into effect, because you are actually being transported into a parallel universe exactly like ours (up to the point where you appear out of thin air in the past). Or our universe splits in two when you step through into the past. You weren't quite sure which the scientists meant (if indeed the two are different). In any case, you can muck about all you want, and not have to worry about making yourself never having had existed.
Oh, and even though our planet is 3/4 covered in water, you will step through onto land. And there will be a reasonably-sized group of humans nearby, but you will not be spotted stepping through the gate. You might wind up in the Sahara desert, with a caravan a few dunes away, or in a middle of a Nor'easter with a tribe of native Americans at the other end of the valley. Or monsoon season in India with Alexander the Great attacking. Or a small Pacific ocean island with a native village nearby. You get the drift.
So, what's the point of all this? To decide what you would bring with you. Do you want to try to survive all on your own? (bring plenty of food, and instructions how to catch and preserve more) Or will you try to assimilate into the local culture? (language lessons, a good history text, maybe makeup?) Will you try to set yourself up as a God? (Fireworks? Guns? Devices with flashing LEDs to awe the natives)? Or maybe set yourself up as a craftsman (knowledge of various engineering techniques, chemical and physical properties of various substances needed)
Anyway, I think it's an interesting thought experiment to play around with when you have a few minutes to waste. Now, let's see, should I take a handgun, or a crossbow? I would easily run out of ammo for the handgun, but it's small size would be good for personal defense, but if I go back far enough, I could sell the design for the crossbow....
Someone needs to create a 'add-on' for torrent programs that allows users to share their connections. A kind of open proxy, I guess.
When your BT client connects to the file seeder, it would also connect to a 'proxy seeder', which lists all the other users who are sharing their bandwidth thru a proxy. Then, your download/upload goes thru one (or more) of those open proxies. No logs means no way to trace the 'end user' who actually is DLing the files, so no one can be sued. (They could try suing the proxy owners, but I don't think that'd go anywhere.)
Yes, it would result in decreased bandwidth for the owner of the proxy. But, lots of people do nothing with theirs anyway most of the time. For instance, they can turn on the proxy overnight, while they're sleeping (assuming they don't have a DL going themselves), or even during the day during work hours. I mean, really, who needs 30down/5up all the time??
It's the beginning of the end for all freedom, real and perceived.
More like the beginning of the Borg.
This article IS about Arizona, and DOES mention restaurants (well, a "business that serves alcohol":
http://www.gazette.com/articles/bill-57730-gun-alcohol.html
"carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol"
"The measure would ban drinking while packing and allow restaurants to deny entry to gun-toting citizens by posting a sign next to their liquor license."
As does this one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-13-arizona-guns_N.htm
"into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol "
"Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal."
and this one:
http://azccw.net/2009/06/09/senate-considers-allowing-guns-near-alcohol/
"concealed weapons in restaurants that sell alcohol. "
"People carrying a weapon would not be allowed to drink."
Sheesh. You really need to know the facts better.
Recently there has been a big debate over the push to allow guns in bars. This means, bar patrons would be allowed to bring guns into a bar and then drink. Something to think about if you ever accidentally bump into a drunken bar patron.
You are either misinformed, or lying.
Check out this article:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Bill-to-remove-Ohios-ban-on-selfdefense-while-dining-introduced
"If this bill is enacted, it would still be a felony for a CHL holder to consume alcohol in the restaurant. Concealed carry in such restaurants would only be legal if the CHL holder is not drinking."
Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose
Incorrect. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered.
Now, what they bullet Does (hits the ground, hits a target, injures/kills an animal, injures/kills a person) depends on where it's pointed, which is entirely up to the person that triggers it.
In any case, you have still not addressed my point, which is that guns allow someone who is not physically capable of defending themselves to... defend themselves. Are guns perfect? Nope. Do they always work? Nope. But not having them mean that any punk with a few muscles (or a few friends) can do anything they want to you. And your wife. And daughter.
Please compare then murders in Japan (where honest citizens are not allowed to carry weapons) to those of Texas (where honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons).
Yeah, because there are no other differences between Japan and Texas.
I know crime rates tend to low when we as a society allow our citizenship to grow as honest people and -just in case, lethal weapons are not easily gotten, neither by honest nor by dishonest citizens.
Go outside. pick of a good-sized rock. That's a lethal weapon. Pick up a branch. Lethal weapon. Etc, etc. Almost ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used by the right person. Sure, granny might not able to kill you with a rock, but a muscular 20-year old could easily do so.
Guns, on the other hand, even the playing field. Yes, a muscular 20-year old might shoot you, but granny can use the gun to protect herself, too.
This is trivial to solve.
Each receipt has on it enough detail to cross reference to a specific vote (ie: location, voting machine number, and time to the minute. It's unlikely that 2 people will vote on the same machine during the same minute. If it's a problem, use seconds, too.) And the receipt has the results of the vote.
What it does NOT have is any link to the voter. So any 'Vote this way or else' schemes will fail, as the voter can simply pick a receipt out of the trash (you know most people will just throw them away), and present that as their vote. So, who will waste time bribing someone to do something they cannot verify?
I had a 5 hour coding session to fix a data transfer problem they were having (sneakernetting a couple floppies back & forth), wanted to make it 'secretary-proof', which I did at 4 AM one night, saved them 120 man-hours a week, and billed them for the 5 hours I spent at my place on my computer. Their beancounter disallowed it because I 'wasn't in the office' for it, thus, nobody saw me code the app.
Simple solution: they don't pay you, they can't use the app you wrote. Uninstall it. If they question you, ask "What app? I was never paid to write an app for you. See [beancounter] for proof."
Yes, you would get a "fair" hearing. Exactly as "fair" as you would expect for claiming to have invented a machine that violates a cherished principle of physics, one that has withstood every theoretical and experimental test that humanity has been able to throw at it in the last 500+ years.
Reminds me of a short-short (1 page) SF story I once read. It is in the form of a letter from a Respectable Science Journal to an inventor. It explains very clearly that his recent paper submission is rejected, as anti-gravity is impossible, and would he please stop hovering outside their editor's windows yelling at them....
Repeat after me: You cannot demonstrate that you are not a criminal by performing a criminal act
But I can demonstrate that I am innocent of crime 'A' by performing crime 'B'.
Besides, there are specific circumstances where you are allowed (even required) to do something that, under different circumstances, would be illegal. If I walk down the street naked, I get arrested. If I get sentenced to prison for that crime, I may very well be forced to strip naked so I can be searched for weapons/contraband. A little less extreme example, try the movie 'Porkys'. The boys stick their dicks thru holes in the wall of the girls shower, and a women sees them. Later, there is a 'line-up', where the guys have to show their dicks to her so she can pick the ones she saw earlier. Showing their dicks was against the rules, but later they were forced to do it.
A demonstration of how easily the IDs can be cloned is a quite reasonable response to the governments claim that the system is foolproof. The demonstration would have to be done with an ID from a third party- can't use someone from your side due to the possibility of cheating, can't use someone on the other side due to the possibility of it being considered intimidation. The Judge, being on neither side, makes a good candidate.
Oh- and 5 out of 19 is not "nearly half".
SMITE:
1: to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand
2 a: to kill or severely injure by smiting
b: to attack or afflict suddenly and injuriously
3: to cause to strike
4: to affect as if by striking 5: captivate, take
Again, only one reference to killing, and again, in an "or" statement: "kill OR severely injure"
*sigh* this is tiring
Whoever strikes his father or mother dead shall be put to death.
You left out a little part. Is it really necessary to lie ?
Seems you lie yourself.hits
Exodus 21:15 (New International Version)
15 "Anyone who attacks [a] his father or his mother must be put to death.
Footnotes:
1. Exodus 21:15 Or kills
Exodus 21:15 (New American Standard Bible)
15"He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (The Message)
15 "If someone hits father or mother, the penalty is death.
Exodus 21:15 (Amplified Bible)
15Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (New Living Translation)
15 âoeAnyone who strikes father or mother must be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (King James Version)
15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (English Standard Version)
15"Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (Contemporary English Version)
15Death is the punishment for attacking your father or mother.
Exodus 21:15 (New King James Version)
15 âoeAnd he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (New Century Version)
15 "Anyone who hits his father or his mother must be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (21st Century King James Version)
15"And he that smiteth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (American Standard Version)
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
15`And he who smiteth his father or his mother is certainly put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (Darby Translation)
15And he that striketh his father, or his mother, shall certainly be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
15 "Whoever strikes his father or his mother must be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (New International Reader's Version)
15 "If anyone attacks his father or mother, he will be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 (New International Version - UK)
15 Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
So, we have:
Attack OR kill
strikes
hits
strikes
strikes
hits
Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
strikes
strikes
smiteth
strikes
attacking
strikes
hits
Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
smiteth
smiteth
smiteth
striketh
strikes
attacks
Sorry, only one reference to killing, and it's in an OR statement.
Okay, I thought you were referring to the ten commandments (you might like to cite a reference to be clearer).
I'm not the original poster.
It doesn't seem to be talking about "talking back to parents" at all,
You're right. Those words do not appear. However, I think it's a reasonable paraphrase. A little exaggerated, but....
You will find stonings of women, burning "enemies" alive in homes and so on in these books. They may be part of the bible, but Christians see this as a historical tale, featuring God. The part to be respected in the pentateuch are the ten commandments, and even then only insofar they match this little carpenter's representation of them, the rest is merely taken to be laws of the land of Caanaan. Those are certainly not taken to be divine revelation (again, except for the ten commandments).
Ah, yes. The Bible is the Word of God, and should be obeyed... except for this part, and this part, and -oh yes- this part here....