the friend who was driving briefly gunned it to pass someone
Now, it's been quite a while since I last took a driving course, but "briefly gunned it to pass" and "passed somebody who slammed on their brakes just in front of you" are not in anyway shape or form equivilent. Furthermore, there are very very few incidents where in order to avoid an accident one must "gun it" and last I checked someone slamming on their brakes in front of you is not one of them.
If your friend was indeed avoiding an accident, a simple "yes officer I realize I broke the law but the guy in front of me slammed his brakes, and I was just trying to avoid an accident. Sorry, I'll be more careful." would have more likely than not avoided any tickets. Based on your attitude, however, I can assume this was not what your friend did.
No, you missed the point. In regards to enforcement of laws, it's entirely appropriate to nitpick over the little things. By nature, humans will always try to push the boundies and go beyond (see the fact that no one drives the speed limit for an example), as a result of this, the more boundries they are allowed to pass, the more they will attempt to pass further boundries too. There's a highway near where I live that is a speed trap and always patroled by cops. However, it's also one of the nicest roads to drive on because people don't tailgate you, people don't drive like assholes, they actualy use their turn signals and don't cut you off trying to beat you to the lane shift. It's also one of the safest roads in the area in terms of both accidents and general safety if you break down.
Furthermore, I'm shifting the blame to where it belongs. Your friend broke the law did he not? It doesn't matter how small, he broke the law, and the cop clearly felt it was important enough to let him know this fact. Remember, you get pulled over for standing out, not doing what everyone else is doing. Don't be an asshole and the cop will 9 times out of 10 let you off with a warning. Act like an asswipe and you better believe the cop is going to use the law to it's fullest extent. You commited a crime, period. It doesn't matter how minor, you comitted it.
Tell me, should cops not stop people who steal less that $10 worth of stuff? It's minor, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. How about $50? Less than $100?
The question I always had ws what was,8,1? My memory vaguely recalls a few programs that loaded with just,8 and would not load with,8,1 which leads me to believe that there was a difference, but what was it?
Did he go over the speed limit? Then her broke the law. See here's the thing. Cops are there to enforce the law. Ask any behavioral psychologist and they will tell you that enforcing the small laws is what makes the big laws easier to enforce. If a cop pulls you over and you have indeed done something wrong, no matter how minor, don't be a fucking asshole. Cops know about the grand scheme too and if you're not an asswipe, they will usualy let you off with a warning for a minor thing because as you point out, it's minor and not worth making a big deal out of. But as soon as you start being an asshole, they have no reason to not make a big deal out of it other than their own laziness. You broke the clearly defined and posted law, and there are clearly defined punishments.
No, people don't know what "no support" means. Ask any apple store employee what the average customer reaction to the fact that they could get no support from Apple for their HP iPod (despite it being clearly spelled out in the manual) was. I've seen it myself (was unfortunate to be stuck in line with one of these people) it's not a pretty sight.
There's a general rule in life. When thousands of people are doing something and not having a problem, and you are having a problem, most likely the problem is with you. You said you were a laptop repair tech. If a customer came in to you with a screen that was cracked and said all they did was hold it under their arm for 30 seconds would you have believed them? Seriously think about that. Also keep in mind the types of people that repair techs see each day. The ones that bring in laptops and computers that look like they played football with them and then claim that the damage just happened magically while it was sitting on the desk. If it reall was a defect, it sucks that you have to be that one in a thousand, but to be fair, if the tech had implied that if you bought apple care they could help you, and the laptop really was 5 weeks old, you should have asked to speak with a manager and taken it up from there.
I would think most people would think twice about having to type in their password to open a picture, but maybe I'm just too optimistic. Of course, for people like that, no ammount of protection short of a knowledgeable human looking over their shoulder 24/7 will save them.
Indeed, which is why I said teach the lesson more than once. Because kids don't really pay all that much attention. But you grind it through their skulls that they never ever point it at a cop and they'll at least get one part of it down. I know I did.
If you're using Linux, the question then becomes why you're buying the macbook rather than any other of the core duo systems out there?
On top of that, while you're complaint about lack of built in is somewhat valid, it has it's own questions like when will you be using a modem and a wan card at the same time? How often are you using smartcards and CF at the same time?
Finaly, do you really think that just because the current state of things leaves you will little to put in teh express slot that it will remain that way? Recall the USB periphrial market before the iMac. Look at it now. Heck, look at it 6 months after the realease of the iMac.
Certainly telling your 4 year old not to stick a bead up their nose is not necessarily something you would tell your kid, but one would think that a lesson you always teach your kid (and more often than once) is never to point a toy gun at anyone, and especialy never at a cop. Sure raising a kid is complex as hell. Teaching them basics like not pointing guns at people should be common place though.
Because every holiday and celebation of an event alway occurs on the exact day and time that the original event occured on right? Must suck to be born feb 29 you're only allowed to celebrate your birthday every 4 years.
Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.
And the evidence that inert matter became alive is where? This is the key driving point for some people. The is evidence to suggest that a species can adapt to new conditions and potentialy give rise to new species from there, but so far, there has been no evidence (that I'm aware of) to indicate that inert matter can become alive.
ID has it's holes, Evolution has it's holes. The key is filling in those holes. Evolution does not preclude ID, ID does not preclude evolution.
Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it. With all this time and effort, you guys haven't come up with a single scrap of evidence suggesting a creator. No crashed spaceships, no magical holy grails, not even an encoded message or signature or user's manual. In the relatively little time evolution has been around there have been numerous discoveries in fossil evidence that support the framework. I'm sorry, but your faith should be just that: faith. Leave the science to those who can practice it objectively.
Well there is that whole life thing. I mean, we know what makes up most organisms, and we know what makes up the cells of that organism. What we don't know and can't figure out so far is what exactly makes life. We can take all the compenents of a cell and put them together but that doesn't mean we have a living cell. And we certainly haven't been able to build a mouse yet. Evolution does not preclude the existance of a god or creator.
Furthermore, something like and encoded message for signature or user's manual would be mostly out of the question as language has and does change over time and even if such a thing were found, people would continue to ignore or deny it on the basis that the particular message just became that way through natural processes. In order for such a signature to exist, it would need to exist somewhere where the eart has not changed since it's creation.
If you spend hundreds of dollars buying songs from itunes, it becomes a massive inconvenience (not to mention the forced quality degradation and dubious legality) to convert the itunes songs from iTunes to WAV to mp3
Kind of like when you had to go from tapes to CDs huh?
The OS will be safe from attacks because it only accepts code signed by company X or me, and neither of us are going to share our private keys with the hackers.
Which will work about as well as Microsofts attempt at code signing ("This code is node signed by microsoft or a trusted vendor do you want to run it anyway?") which the user always agrees too. In this case, it's just a matter of taking the dialouge one step further to "This software is signed by an untrusted vendor, are you sure you want to run the software and add the vendor to your trusted vendors list?"
Re:Let me pretend to be a mac fanboy for a second.
on
Songbird Flies Today
·
· Score: 1
Were one a mac fanboy, one would have to accept or dismiss it without downloading it because it's windows only. Not exactly the best way to win over the fans.
Hmm, ad hominem attacks, repetition of the same statements without supporting evidence, dishonest statements, and refusing to answer previously posed questions. Yep, I'd say you've run out of defenses for your position. If you feel like actualy debating, please participate, otherwise this discussion is over.
What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off.
I gave you links to various sites in regards to proper brewing and serving temperatures of coffee. I gave you links to medical sites supporting my claims. I used your own evidence (the one site you linked to in your entire argument) to show that McDonalds coffee was succesfully and safely consumed by 99.999997% of 10 billion people. Further more, coffee enthusists elsewhere in this thread have backed up my claims. You in the mean time have linked to one site total which was a break down of the prosecution's arguments point by point and continued to scream "3rd degree burn" at the top of your lungs while failing to realize you can sustain a 3rd degree burn from 130 degree water.
The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot.
The United States Supreme Court (the highest court in the US BTW) once ruled that black people weren't real people and were instead property. Courts can be and often are wrong. According to a court in texas, it's illegal for you to have oral sex. Recently a court ruled that burning a copy of porn was equivilent to manufacture and production of porn. Excuse me if I don't put 100% faith into the courts.
Some nutcase on/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
For burning a woman? Tell me, which McDonalds employee burned this woman? Which one poured the coffee into her lap? Which one forced her to place the cup in her lap? Which McDonalds employee acted maliciously and purposefuly to directly cause her to spill the coffee in her lap? Which McDonalds employee was fired for this? Wait, you mean to tell me she was the one that took the coffee. She was the one that placed it in her lap? She was the one that tried to open the coffe while it was in her lap in the car? She was the one that caused the coffee to spill on herself? So remind me again how McDonalds burned her?
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
you do that, I'll stick with the facts.
PS: How's that experiment with the ice cubes going?
You do realize that 3rd degree burns can be caused by anything right? A hot liquid that normaly causes 2nd degree burns can cause 3rd degree burns if it remains in contact with the skin for a long period of time (boiling oil or hot coffee spilled on to sweat pants for example), or if the liquid comes in contact with weak skin (like the skin of an old or young person) steam can also cause very severe burns and much more quickly than water would. A 3rd degree burn is not nessesarily a reflection of the heat of something and more often than not a reflection of how long you were exposed to that heat. In the case of this woman it is no suprise at all that she would have recieved 3rd degree burns to anyone familiar with burns. Let's look at the factors:
1) Liquid in excess of 120 degrees (it is recomended to avoid scalding your children to keep your water heaters set at 120 or below, note that you can cause 3rd degree burns with 120 degree water on someone with weak skin or with long exposure to such water)
2) The liquid was susequently trapped in the burn area by clothing and pressed against the skin with nowhere else to go.
3) Steam from the liquid that spilled into the seat under the woman would have caused their own burns and greatly intensified the severity of the burns already caused by the hot liquid being forced against the skin
4) The woman was practicaly 80. Anyone will tell you that as you age your skin becomes more fragile and more prone to damage and more severe damage than normal.
5) The liquid was spilled on her crotch. Here's a little experiment for you to try. Take 3 ice cubes. Place one in your mouth, tape the other to your arm, and place the last in your underwear, be sure to secure it tightly to your crotch. Tell me which area sustains the most damage from ice cubes that are all the same temperature. Do not reply until you have sucessfuly completed this experiement.
It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures, but that your own facts and statements show that 99.9999997% of people manage to successfully consume the SAME EXACT COFFEE without problem AND that this very woman had also previously consumed the same coffee without problem.
The coffee was fine. The woman was stupid. The blame rests with the woman.
It doesn't traditionaly cause 3rd degree burns becuase it's sipped not guzzled like a beer. It doesn't traditionaly cause burns because it's a minimal amount and you don't normaly pour coffee in your lap while in the car (well, maybe you do but that's not exactly standard operating procedure ya know?). On top of that, your mouth is more resiliant to hot temperatures than other parts of your body like say, your crotch. As a sort of experiment in this, place an ice cube in your mouth and one in your crotch, see which experiences more pain and or negative side effects from such an experiment.
Finaly, the optimum serving temperature of coffee is a MINIMUM of 170. McDonalds was serving at 180, or exactly where they they should have been.
True, coffee is best made when made between 195 and 205 or just below boiling. It's also best served at a MINIMUM of 170. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that coffee served would be anywhere between 170 and 205. McDonalds was keeping their coffee at or about 180-185 in other words about 15 over the MINIMUM serving temperature and 15 under the average brewing temperature, or EXACTLY where one might expect a company producing coffee "best made" to serve their coffee at.
Just face the facts, the coffee was not TOO hot. It was HOT, like coffee is SUPOSSED TO BE. If we're going to be pedantic and say that coffee is best served without boiling water, then we can be pedantic and talk about the optimum serving temperatures too which is what McDonalds was using. If we're going to assume that McDonalds serves swill and that it's customers are not coffee snobs then we would also assume that McDonalds uses boiling water to make their coffee and that any reasonable person would treat such a cup of coffee as boiling until proven otherwise. Safety and personal responsibility is about minimizing risks. The lady in question did NOTHING to minimize her risks and did many things to maximize her risk (i.e. sticking a cup of HOT liquids of unknown temperatures in her god damned crotch).
Because they served coffee that was too hot. Too hot for human consumption. Hot enough to cause third degree burns.
You know, too hot. Not just hot, but too hot. Excessively hot. Hotter then usual. More hot. Much more hot. Not just hot. Too hot.
You would not be so cavalier if you have been received a 3rd degree burn due to lack of care.
Whose lack of care? 99.99993% of McDonalds customers manage to drink their coffee without burns (700 burn complaints over a decade, 1 billlion cups of coffee per year) of those 700 how many do you think were 3rd degree burns? Here's a hint, when you do something stupid that 99.999993% of billions of people don't do that causes you harm, the lack of care was on your part.
It would be childish to sue companies for spilled coffee at a reasonable temperature. A normal temperature spillage is treated with running cold water and you move on with life.
A normal spillage also doesn't occur in a small enclosed area with no quick escape that leads to clothing with hot liquid clinging (think like oil rather than water) and steam burns and doesn't occur on 80 year old ladies laps because they're too god damn stupid to not fuck with hot coffee in the god damn car.
t is childish to insist that 3rd degree burns are somehow the fault of a person spilling coffee that is clearly not fit for human consumption. That can't be treated easily and your life does not just move on if you are unofrtunate to experience this.
Oddly enough, BILLIONS of people manage to consume said coffee with nary a complaint.Obviously it IS fit for human consumption. What it isn't, is fit for consumption by a moron who doesn't know that a HOT liquid will fucking BURN you.
Because just because there is a law to prevent some people from harm does not mean that all people need to be prevented from that harm.
Just because france thinks that people need to be forced to turn the volume down rather than doing it voluntarily does not mean that everyone should have to do it. Is ebay negligent if they allow the sale of nazi memorabilia in other countries but don't in germany because of a german law? Why not, obviously since it's illegal in germany, it's dangerous and people should be kept away from it rather than choosing for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You said and I quote:
the friend who was driving briefly gunned it to pass someone
Now, it's been quite a while since I last took a driving course, but "briefly gunned it to pass" and "passed somebody who slammed on their brakes just in front of you" are not in anyway shape or form equivilent. Furthermore, there are very very few incidents where in order to avoid an accident one must "gun it" and last I checked someone slamming on their brakes in front of you is not one of them.
If your friend was indeed avoiding an accident, a simple "yes officer I realize I broke the law but the guy in front of me slammed his brakes, and I was just trying to avoid an accident. Sorry, I'll be more careful." would have more likely than not avoided any tickets. Based on your attitude, however, I can assume this was not what your friend did.
No, you missed the point. In regards to enforcement of laws, it's entirely appropriate to nitpick over the little things. By nature, humans will always try to push the boundies and go beyond (see the fact that no one drives the speed limit for an example), as a result of this, the more boundries they are allowed to pass, the more they will attempt to pass further boundries too. There's a highway near where I live that is a speed trap and always patroled by cops. However, it's also one of the nicest roads to drive on because people don't tailgate you, people don't drive like assholes, they actualy use their turn signals and don't cut you off trying to beat you to the lane shift. It's also one of the safest roads in the area in terms of both accidents and general safety if you break down.
Furthermore, I'm shifting the blame to where it belongs. Your friend broke the law did he not? It doesn't matter how small, he broke the law, and the cop clearly felt it was important enough to let him know this fact. Remember, you get pulled over for standing out, not doing what everyone else is doing. Don't be an asshole and the cop will 9 times out of 10 let you off with a warning. Act like an asswipe and you better believe the cop is going to use the law to it's fullest extent. You commited a crime, period. It doesn't matter how minor, you comitted it.
Tell me, should cops not stop people who steal less that $10 worth of stuff? It's minor, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. How about $50? Less than $100?
The question I always had ws what was ,8,1? My memory vaguely recalls a few programs that loaded with just ,8 and would not load with ,8,1 which leads me to believe that there was a difference, but what was it?
Did he go over the speed limit? Then her broke the law. See here's the thing. Cops are there to enforce the law. Ask any behavioral psychologist and they will tell you that enforcing the small laws is what makes the big laws easier to enforce. If a cop pulls you over and you have indeed done something wrong, no matter how minor, don't be a fucking asshole. Cops know about the grand scheme too and if you're not an asswipe, they will usualy let you off with a warning for a minor thing because as you point out, it's minor and not worth making a big deal out of. But as soon as you start being an asshole, they have no reason to not make a big deal out of it other than their own laziness. You broke the clearly defined and posted law, and there are clearly defined punishments.
No, people don't know what "no support" means. Ask any apple store employee what the average customer reaction to the fact that they could get no support from Apple for their HP iPod (despite it being clearly spelled out in the manual) was. I've seen it myself (was unfortunate to be stuck in line with one of these people) it's not a pretty sight.
In general, the public while interacting with cops, are assholes.
There's a general rule in life. When thousands of people are doing something and not having a problem, and you are having a problem, most likely the problem is with you. You said you were a laptop repair tech. If a customer came in to you with a screen that was cracked and said all they did was hold it under their arm for 30 seconds would you have believed them? Seriously think about that. Also keep in mind the types of people that repair techs see each day. The ones that bring in laptops and computers that look like they played football with them and then claim that the damage just happened magically while it was sitting on the desk. If it reall was a defect, it sucks that you have to be that one in a thousand, but to be fair, if the tech had implied that if you bought apple care they could help you, and the laptop really was 5 weeks old, you should have asked to speak with a manager and taken it up from there.
I would think most people would think twice about having to type in their password to open a picture, but maybe I'm just too optimistic. Of course, for people like that, no ammount of protection short of a knowledgeable human looking over their shoulder 24/7 will save them.
Indeed, which is why I said teach the lesson more than once. Because kids don't really pay all that much attention. But you grind it through their skulls that they never ever point it at a cop and they'll at least get one part of it down. I know I did.
If you're using Linux, the question then becomes why you're buying the macbook rather than any other of the core duo systems out there?
On top of that, while you're complaint about lack of built in is somewhat valid, it has it's own questions like when will you be using a modem and a wan card at the same time? How often are you using smartcards and CF at the same time?
Finaly, do you really think that just because the current state of things leaves you will little to put in teh express slot that it will remain that way? Recall the USB periphrial market before the iMac. Look at it now. Heck, look at it 6 months after the realease of the iMac.
Certainly telling your 4 year old not to stick a bead up their nose is not necessarily something you would tell your kid, but one would think that a lesson you always teach your kid (and more often than once) is never to point a toy gun at anyone, and especialy never at a cop. Sure raising a kid is complex as hell. Teaching them basics like not pointing guns at people should be common place though.
None if the parents teach the kid not to be a dumbass.
Because every holiday and celebation of an event alway occurs on the exact day and time that the original event occured on right? Must suck to be born feb 29 you're only allowed to celebrate your birthday every 4 years.
Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.
And the evidence that inert matter became alive is where? This is the key driving point for some people. The is evidence to suggest that a species can adapt to new conditions and potentialy give rise to new species from there, but so far, there has been no evidence (that I'm aware of) to indicate that inert matter can become alive.
ID has it's holes, Evolution has it's holes. The key is filling in those holes. Evolution does not preclude ID, ID does not preclude evolution.
Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it. With all this time and effort, you guys haven't come up with a single scrap of evidence suggesting a creator. No crashed spaceships, no magical holy grails, not even an encoded message or signature or user's manual. In the relatively little time evolution has been around there have been numerous discoveries in fossil evidence that support the framework. I'm sorry, but your faith should be just that: faith. Leave the science to those who can practice it objectively.
Well there is that whole life thing. I mean, we know what makes up most organisms, and we know what makes up the cells of that organism. What we don't know and can't figure out so far is what exactly makes life. We can take all the compenents of a cell and put them together but that doesn't mean we have a living cell. And we certainly haven't been able to build a mouse yet. Evolution does not preclude the existance of a god or creator.
Furthermore, something like and encoded message for signature or user's manual would be mostly out of the question as language has and does change over time and even if such a thing were found, people would continue to ignore or deny it on the basis that the particular message just became that way through natural processes. In order for such a signature to exist, it would need to exist somewhere where the eart has not changed since it's creation.
If you spend hundreds of dollars buying songs from itunes, it becomes a massive inconvenience (not to mention the forced quality degradation and dubious legality) to convert the itunes songs from iTunes to WAV to mp3
Kind of like when you had to go from tapes to CDs huh?
The OS will be safe from attacks because it only accepts code signed by company X or me, and neither of us are going to share our private keys with the hackers.
Which will work about as well as Microsofts attempt at code signing ("This code is node signed by microsoft or a trusted vendor do you want to run it anyway?") which the user always agrees too. In this case, it's just a matter of taking the dialouge one step further to "This software is signed by an untrusted vendor, are you sure you want to run the software and add the vendor to your trusted vendors list?"
Were one a mac fanboy, one would have to accept or dismiss it without downloading it because it's windows only. Not exactly the best way to win over the fans.
Hmm, ad hominem attacks, repetition of the same statements without supporting evidence, dishonest statements, and refusing to answer previously posed questions. Yep, I'd say you've run out of defenses for your position. If you feel like actualy debating, please participate, otherwise this discussion is over.
What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off.
/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
I gave you links to various sites in regards to proper brewing and serving temperatures of coffee. I gave you links to medical sites supporting my claims. I used your own evidence (the one site you linked to in your entire argument) to show that McDonalds coffee was succesfully and safely consumed by 99.999997% of 10 billion people. Further more, coffee enthusists elsewhere in this thread have backed up my claims. You in the mean time have linked to one site total which was a break down of the prosecution's arguments point by point and continued to scream "3rd degree burn" at the top of your lungs while failing to realize you can sustain a 3rd degree burn from 130 degree water.
The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot.
The United States Supreme Court (the highest court in the US BTW) once ruled that black people weren't real people and were instead property. Courts can be and often are wrong. According to a court in texas, it's illegal for you to have oral sex. Recently a court ruled that burning a copy of porn was equivilent to manufacture and production of porn. Excuse me if I don't put 100% faith into the courts.
Some nutcase on
For burning a woman? Tell me, which McDonalds employee burned this woman? Which one poured the coffee into her lap? Which one forced her to place the cup in her lap? Which McDonalds employee acted maliciously and purposefuly to directly cause her to spill the coffee in her lap? Which McDonalds employee was fired for this? Wait, you mean to tell me she was the one that took the coffee. She was the one that placed it in her lap? She was the one that tried to open the coffe while it was in her lap in the car? She was the one that caused the coffee to spill on herself? So remind me again how McDonalds burned her?
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
you do that, I'll stick with the facts.
PS: How's that experiment with the ice cubes going?
You do realize that 3rd degree burns can be caused by anything right? A hot liquid that normaly causes 2nd degree burns can cause 3rd degree burns if it remains in contact with the skin for a long period of time (boiling oil or hot coffee spilled on to sweat pants for example), or if the liquid comes in contact with weak skin (like the skin of an old or young person) steam can also cause very severe burns and much more quickly than water would. A 3rd degree burn is not nessesarily a reflection of the heat of something and more often than not a reflection of how long you were exposed to that heat. In the case of this woman it is no suprise at all that she would have recieved 3rd degree burns to anyone familiar with burns. Let's look at the factors:
1) Liquid in excess of 120 degrees (it is recomended to avoid scalding your children to keep your water heaters set at 120 or below, note that you can cause 3rd degree burns with 120 degree water on someone with weak skin or with long exposure to such water)
2) The liquid was susequently trapped in the burn area by clothing and pressed against the skin with nowhere else to go.
3) Steam from the liquid that spilled into the seat under the woman would have caused their own burns and greatly intensified the severity of the burns already caused by the hot liquid being forced against the skin
4) The woman was practicaly 80. Anyone will tell you that as you age your skin becomes more fragile and more prone to damage and more severe damage than normal.
5) The liquid was spilled on her crotch. Here's a little experiment for you to try. Take 3 ice cubes. Place one in your mouth, tape the other to your arm, and place the last in your underwear, be sure to secure it tightly to your crotch. Tell me which area sustains the most damage from ice cubes that are all the same temperature. Do not reply until you have sucessfuly completed this experiement.
It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures, but that your own facts and statements show that 99.9999997% of people manage to successfully consume the SAME EXACT COFFEE without problem AND that this very woman had also previously consumed the same coffee without problem.
The coffee was fine. The woman was stupid. The blame rests with the woman.
It doesn't traditionaly cause 3rd degree burns becuase it's sipped not guzzled like a beer. It doesn't traditionaly cause burns because it's a minimal amount and you don't normaly pour coffee in your lap while in the car (well, maybe you do but that's not exactly standard operating procedure ya know?). On top of that, your mouth is more resiliant to hot temperatures than other parts of your body like say, your crotch. As a sort of experiment in this, place an ice cube in your mouth and one in your crotch, see which experiences more pain and or negative side effects from such an experiment.
Finaly, the optimum serving temperature of coffee is a MINIMUM of 170. McDonalds was serving at 180, or exactly where they they should have been.
http://thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html#besttemp
Coffee is best when not made with boiling water.
True, coffee is best made when made between 195 and 205 or just below boiling. It's also best served at a MINIMUM of 170. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that coffee served would be anywhere between 170 and 205. McDonalds was keeping their coffee at or about 180-185 in other words about 15 over the MINIMUM serving temperature and 15 under the average brewing temperature, or EXACTLY where one might expect a company producing coffee "best made" to serve their coffee at.
http://thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html#besttemp
Just face the facts, the coffee was not TOO hot. It was HOT, like coffee is SUPOSSED TO BE. If we're going to be pedantic and say that coffee is best served without boiling water, then we can be pedantic and talk about the optimum serving temperatures too which is what McDonalds was using. If we're going to assume that McDonalds serves swill and that it's customers are not coffee snobs then we would also assume that McDonalds uses boiling water to make their coffee and that any reasonable person would treat such a cup of coffee as boiling until proven otherwise. Safety and personal responsibility is about minimizing risks. The lady in question did NOTHING to minimize her risks and did many things to maximize her risk (i.e. sticking a cup of HOT liquids of unknown temperatures in her god damned crotch).
Because they served coffee that was too hot. Too hot for human consumption. Hot enough to cause third degree burns.
You know, too hot. Not just hot, but too hot. Excessively hot. Hotter then usual. More hot. Much more hot. Not just hot. Too hot.
Got it?
The coffee was not "too hot". Proof above. QED.
You would not be so cavalier if you have been received a 3rd degree burn due to lack of care.
Whose lack of care? 99.99993% of McDonalds customers manage to drink their coffee without burns (700 burn complaints over a decade, 1 billlion cups of coffee per year) of those 700 how many do you think were 3rd degree burns? Here's a hint, when you do something stupid that 99.999993% of billions of people don't do that causes you harm, the lack of care was on your part.
It would be childish to sue companies for spilled coffee at a reasonable temperature. A normal temperature spillage is treated with running cold water and you move on with life.
A normal spillage also doesn't occur in a small enclosed area with no quick escape that leads to clothing with hot liquid clinging (think like oil rather than water) and steam burns and doesn't occur on 80 year old ladies laps because they're too god damn stupid to not fuck with hot coffee in the god damn car.
t is childish to insist that 3rd degree burns are somehow the fault of a person spilling coffee that is clearly not fit for human consumption. That can't be treated easily and your life does not just move on if you are unofrtunate to experience this.
Oddly enough, BILLIONS of people manage to consume said coffee with nary a complaint.Obviously it IS fit for human consumption. What it isn't, is fit for consumption by a moron who doesn't know that a HOT liquid will fucking BURN you.
Because just because there is a law to prevent some people from harm does not mean that all people need to be prevented from that harm.
Just because france thinks that people need to be forced to turn the volume down rather than doing it voluntarily does not mean that everyone should have to do it. Is ebay negligent if they allow the sale of nazi memorabilia in other countries but don't in germany because of a german law? Why not, obviously since it's illegal in germany, it's dangerous and people should be kept away from it rather than choosing for themselves.