Here's the relevant bit you're sort of referencing from my link:
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
The lawsuit wasn't focused on McDonalds' liability for her spill (clumsy, but who hasn't spilled in a car?), it was regarding the temperature of the coffee. Too hot for human consumption. You might disagree with the results of the lawsuit, but I don't think it's by any means frivolous.
Part of the problem we have with this situation (and, imho, most discussions on slashdot) is that unneccessary analogies are constantly being introduced. A person has installed an access point that:
1) broadcasts its availability and
2) hands out connections to all comers.
There is a trivial method for securing this access point, and it's covered in detail in the manual.
It's not like anything. It's a literal invitation to use a service. Adding car/house/girlfriend analogies only serves to confuse.
We have done the rounds on this many times, and someone always provides a link showing that this was a reasonable lawsuit. I'm not sure why there are always a few people who misremember.
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
Between evolution and global warming, I'm getting awfully sick of zealots proclaiming the science is settled and that any skeptic is irrational.
Are you truly skeptical of global warming, or have you been told to be skeptical?
Do you see weaknesses in data, or have you been told there are weaknesses?
Have you been getting your information from sources that have much to lose if the status quo changes?
Are your sources known for their rigorous scientific reporting, or do they only talk about evolution and global warming?
THAT would be a good start on the road to skepticism.
For all the hysteria about the failure of the US educational system, going back at least to Sputnik and probably long before, it continues to generate the most creative, innovative people in the world.
Yeah, it has to be "the right-wing media." We all have to choose sides. It amazes me that for all the talk about thinking for yourself and letting the facts speak it all comes down to which side are you on.
Well, you've got to consider that one 'side' has been vomiting bullshit for eight solid years. You can't support a camp that's rabidly anti-intellectual and then be surprised that nobody buys their science.
Aah, for the days when computing was a gentleman's pursuit -- back before every Joe Sweatsock could wedge himself behind a keyboard and jet off to msn.com.
Because no one leaves the Board of a Directors of a company that they think is going to be successful and does a HUGE favor like this, and receives nothing in the end. [SNIP] Even without direct proof[...]
You can't make a blanket statement like that and then back it up with "and I have no proof". It makes you look foolish.
Ahh, the voice of inexperience. Guess what? The boss knew it was a bad idea when he passed it down. Why would he do such a thing? You have a project that needs to be done securely and quickly. You will be rewarded for quickness but not security. You will be most definitely punished for slowness, but chances are slim that anyone would find out about a lack of security. Solution? Pass the job downstream and tell the peon to hurry it up, but be sure you mention security in an offhand manner at some point.
This is how all governments and most large corps work. Your "well, I'd do it differently" approach is endearing in it's innocence and naivete.
The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.
I'm a Washington State taxpayer and I totally endorse this use of my tax funds. Let's see what your 'guarantee' is worth, Mr. Earl.
I was just about to make this point myself. Microsoft isn't concerned about supporting their OS now, why are they suddenly concerned about supporting virtualized versions?
How hard would it be for the indian support rep to add 'virtual' to their instructions? "Have you restarted your virtual computer?" "I'd like you please to reinstall your virtual operating system now."
A public TV station should not use taxpayers money to promote a particular party or a politician.
I'm starting to wonder about that... What is the rationale behind avoiding a position? Unbiased and impartial coverage shouldn't drive news networks, accuracy and truth should. If your party is on the wrong side of the truth you shouldn't expect equal treatment.
For example, Bush and Gonzales are currently raping the constitution. Merely stating this fact would be seen as taking sides. Should they soft pedal it? Should they offer equal time for the pro-rape perspective?
I'm just not sure that constant impartiality serves the public interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Please respond with "unsubscribe" in the message body to be removed from this news aggregator.
Just grow up. It's that simple. Grow up and take responsibility for your choices and actions.
Your old paradigm falls before our gift economy. Your tears are like milk. Sink or swim.
Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die.
- Mel Brooks
Here's the relevant bit you're sort of referencing from my link:
The lawsuit wasn't focused on McDonalds' liability for her spill (clumsy, but who hasn't spilled in a car?), it was regarding the temperature of the coffee. Too hot for human consumption. You might disagree with the results of the lawsuit, but I don't think it's by any means frivolous.
Part of the problem we have with this situation (and, imho, most discussions on slashdot) is that unneccessary analogies are constantly being introduced. A person has installed an access point that:
1) broadcasts its availability and
2) hands out connections to all comers.
There is a trivial method for securing this access point, and it's covered in detail in the manual.
It's not like anything. It's a literal invitation to use a service. Adding car/house/girlfriend analogies only serves to confuse.
We have done the rounds on this many times, and someone always provides a link showing that this was a reasonable lawsuit. I'm not sure why there are always a few people who misremember.
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
Got it?
Between evolution and global warming, I'm getting awfully sick of zealots proclaiming the science is settled and that any skeptic is irrational.
Are you truly skeptical of global warming, or have you been told to be skeptical?
Do you see weaknesses in data, or have you been told there are weaknesses?
Have you been getting your information from sources that have much to lose if the status quo changes?
Are your sources known for their rigorous scientific reporting, or do they only talk about evolution and global warming?
THAT would be a good start on the road to skepticism.
For all the hysteria about the failure of the US educational system, going back at least to Sputnik and probably long before, it continues to generate the most creative, innovative people in the world.
[Citation Needed]
Yeah, it has to be "the right-wing media." We all have to choose sides. It amazes me that for all the talk about thinking for yourself and letting the facts speak it all comes down to which side are you on.
Well, you've got to consider that one 'side' has been vomiting bullshit for eight solid years. You can't support a camp that's rabidly anti-intellectual and then be surprised that nobody buys their science.
What makes you think we give a toss about either the entertainment industry or it's consumers? Our gift economy will destroy your way of life.
Your tears are like milk.
Aah, for the days when computing was a gentleman's pursuit -- back before every Joe Sweatsock could wedge himself behind a keyboard and jet off to msn.com.
Because no one leaves the Board of a Directors of a company that they think is going to be successful and does a HUGE favor like this, and receives nothing in the end. [SNIP] Even without direct proof[...]
You can't make a blanket statement like that and then back it up with "and I have no proof". It makes you look foolish.
So if you don't use something you shouldn't be taxed for it? Sounds good to me! Can't wait for my first Op. Enduring Weasel refund.
The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.
Playing devil's advocate here, I'd assume that the response would be "Fuck them, fuck you and fuck the horse y'all rode in on."
This is a legitimate point of view, but one I rarely if ever see championed anymore. Money can buy morality, after all.
Wrong. You own the media. You have a license to use the software. I don't think that's complicated enough to warrant an analogy.
I'd buy it if THEY based it on THEY LIVE! and I get to play as Robertson Piper, esq.
Ahh, the voice of inexperience. Guess what? The boss knew it was a bad idea when he passed it down. Why would he do such a thing? You have a project that needs to be done securely and quickly. You will be rewarded for quickness but not security. You will be most definitely punished for slowness, but chances are slim that anyone would find out about a lack of security. Solution? Pass the job downstream and tell the peon to hurry it up, but be sure you mention security in an offhand manner at some point.
This is how all governments and most large corps work. Your "well, I'd do it differently" approach is endearing in it's innocence and naivete.
The students aren't paying for bandwidth, taxpayers are paying for bandwidth, and I can guarantee you that they aren't paying for the bandwidth so that college students can distribute the latest pop albums.
I'm a Washington State taxpayer and I totally endorse this use of my tax funds. Let's see what your 'guarantee' is worth, Mr. Earl.
I was just about to make this point myself. Microsoft isn't concerned about supporting their OS now, why are they suddenly concerned about supporting virtualized versions?
How hard would it be for the indian support rep to add 'virtual' to their instructions? "Have you restarted your virtual computer?" "I'd like you please to reinstall your virtual operating system now."
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
OT I know, but I'm wondering where that Orwell quote comes from. I'm reading a collection of his essays right now and find him pretty fascinating.
That is, hands down, the best one-paragraph summary of the situation I've seen yet.
The ant.
A public TV station should not use taxpayers money to promote a particular party or a politician.
I'm starting to wonder about that... What is the rationale behind avoiding a position? Unbiased and impartial coverage shouldn't drive news networks, accuracy and truth should. If your party is on the wrong side of the truth you shouldn't expect equal treatment.
For example, Bush and Gonzales are currently raping the constitution. Merely stating this fact would be seen as taking sides. Should they soft pedal it? Should they offer equal time for the pro-rape perspective?
I'm just not sure that constant impartiality serves the public interest.
You don't actually know anything about X, do you? Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on X?
I've seen that line in one form or another for a little bit now, and I just have to say it's not a very compelling way to start your argument.
sorry if i'm not so simpleminded and propagandized as other people
That's ok, your lack of historical knowledge more than makes up for it.