The reason she got third degree burns has less to do with how hot the coffee is and more to do with the environment the spill was in. She spilled the coffee into her lap, a small enclosed area from which the heat can not escape. On top of this, she was wearing sweat pants which means as soon as the fabric got soaked it clung to her skin (think like hot oil rather than hot water). Finaly she was sitting in a car which mean she couldn't get up easily which meant she also would have suffered steam burns from the coffee that wound up in the seat. Furthermore she was an old woman and to quote from a med site on burns:
Anyone can get a third-degree burn. Children and the elderly are more likely to experience complications from burns.
The fault for the injuries lies SOLEY with the woman as I said because she was careless and irresponsible. Again it's one of two situations. She was either a regular customer and knew how hot the coffe was or she was a new customer and chose to treat a hot liquid of unknown temperatures as she does liquids of known temperatures. Either way, it was her stupidity that lead to the burns.
By the way, why is coffee that can cause 3rd degree burns considered unsafe but coffee that can cause 2nd degree burns considered safe?
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
Getting dragged through the courts and having their image tarnished by a fucking moron was payment enough from McDonalds don't you think?
I have never ever in my entire life had a cup of cofee which gave me third degree burns when tried to drink it. There is such a thing as too hot. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
That's because presumeably you aren't stupid enough to attempt to drink coffe that was freshly made. Here's the deal, if coffe is supposed to be at or near boiling for brewing, then until YOU PERSONALY verify that it is not, it should be treated as boiling. No, I can't concieve of a liquid that is too hot when we are talking about a product that is made with BOILING water. She got 3rd degree burns because she spilled the shit into her lap in a closed setting. Simple physics the severity of the burns had more to do with setting than the temperature of the coffe.
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Personal responsibility is what you as a member of society must take. You must take all nessesary precautions that you control to prevent injury to yourself. Putting a HOT cup of coffe at UNKNOWN temperatures BETWEEN YOUR LEGS is not reducing risk.
And why pray tell are the people who made or served this coffe responsible for this lady taking a HOT cup of coffe that she either knew for a fact to be very hot (if she was a regular customer) or had no clue what temperature it was served at (if she wasn't) and sticking it between her legs in a car and attempting to open it there? HOW ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUPID ACTIONS OF THE LADY?
Drinking coffee in the car is not reasonable either. It creates an unessesary hazzard on the road. Doesn't prevent people (like this lady) from doing it. When you engage in risky behavior you assume responsibility for the risks you take.
It is unreasonable to accept relatively frequent 3rd degree burns due to coffee spills.
700 out of 10 BILLION is relatively frequent? We're talking a rate of 70 burns per year here. Do you know how many places would KILL to have a product with a 99.999993 safety rate?
The best solution is to stop the hazard at its source, clearly here the scalding coffee.
The hazzard is quite CLEARLY the people consuming the coffee if 99.999993% of the people manage to sucessfuly manage to consume coffe without burning themselves.
No, see you already started a list of qualifiers in the first place when you said 35 and born in the US so it's anyone who falls into a certain catagory. Wikipedia specifies no limitations at the outset. Their front page should say: The Free encyclopedia that anyone who follows the rules can edit.
Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE. Until you are aware of the relative temperature of a HOT liquid, you should be doing everything possible to minimize the risk of BURNING yourself so as to minimize the SEVERITY of an accidental BURN. In this case, putting a HOT liquid of unknown temperature between your fucking legs is NOT minimizing risks. She was a god damned moron. I'm sorry she was hurt, I'm sorry she was hurt badly but SHIT HAPPENS. Next time she'll think twice about doing stupid things with HOT liquids. And don't give me any bullshit about it being served higher than the industry standard because it comes down to one of two senarios:
1) She buys coffe at MD all the time and is thus aware of the temperature that MD serves their coffe at, in which case she has no one to blame except herself for spilling a KNOW VERY HOT liquid on her lap.
OR
2) She bought coffe from a place she has never bought coffe from and assumed that the coffe would be served at the same temperature as her normal coffe hut. In this case she has no one to blame but herself for assuming that coffe was served at the same temperature no matter where it's served.
I don't listen to rush sean of bill as I find all of them to be just as stupid as this lady. It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT.
No. It would be Ferrari's fault if their cars did something you would never expect given your previous experience with cars. Say, if they exploded if you went over 60mph. You expect that you could be injured in a Ferrari because you know you can be injured in any car, but you would not expect it to turn into a shrapnel-filled fireball at 60mph.
And any normal person (i.e. a person capable of driving a car to MD and ordering a coffe) would expect that they would be BURNED by the coffe. And personaly, I don't know about you, but if I'm handed a hot beverage I assume that it will burn me severely until I know otherwise.
2) Cars can go 120 MPH + should we sue the manufacturers?
3) Common sense dictates that when you create a product you design it so that normal operation is not approching the products limitations, this extends product life (part of why your car can go up to 120 MPH)
MD serve coffee at drive thrus, they must expect people will drink it in cars, they must provide safe food and drinks, it's as simple as that.
They must provide food that is safe to consume they are under NO obligation to satisfy or secure YOUR eating habits. IOW MD is under no responsibility to serve me coffe that I can drink while hanging upside down.
OMG 700 Complaints. According to the site you linked McDonalds sells a BILLION cups of coffe per year. The 700 complaints were over the course of a decade which means they recieved a complaint, rady for this: 0.000007% of the time. HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES, McDonalds coffe is 0.000007% unsafe.
If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?
It certainly can though. The problem with spilling hot liquids on clothing is that the clothing then clings to the skin keeping the liquid in place, and causing more severe burns than if the liquid just spilled on you. That's part of why boiling oil burns so much worse than boiling water, because the oil sticks to your skin better.
No. See there is the marvolous invention we have. It's called language. In a language we have these things called words. Each word has a specific meaning, and that meaning when used in conjunction with other words form ideas and thoughts.
So, let us look at the meaning of wal-mart's slogan:
Always Low Prices. Always.
According to our handy dandy dictionary we find (emphisis added):
always P Pronunciation Key (ôlwz, -wz, -wz) adv. At all times; invariably: always late. For all time; forever: They will always be friends. At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you're unhappy.
low1 P Pronunciation Key (l) adj. lower, lowest Having little relative height; not high or tall. Rising only slightly above surrounding surfaces. Situated or placed below normal height: a low lighting fixture. Situated below the surrounding surfaces: water standing in low spots. Dead and buried. Cut to show the wearer's neck and chest; décolleté: a low neckline. Near or at the horizon: The sun is low in the sky. Close or closer to a reference point: was low in the offensive zone, near the goal. Linguistics. Produced with part or all of the tongue depressed, as a, pronounced (ä), in father. Used of vowels. Of less than usual or average depth; shallow: The river is low. Humble in status or character; lowly: of low birth. Biology. Of relatively simple structure in the scale of living organisms. Unrefined; coarse: low humor. Violating standards of morality or decency; base: a low stunt to pull. See Synonyms at mean2. Lacking strength or vigor; weak. Lacking liveliness or good spirits; discouraged or dejected. Below average in degree, intensity, or amount: a low temperature. Below an average or a standard: low wages; a low level of communication. Ranked near the beginning of an ascending series or scale: a low number; a low grade of oil. Relating to or being latitudes nearest to the equator. Relatively small. Used of a cost, price, or other value: a low fee; a low income. Having a pitch corresponding to a relatively small number of sound-wave cycles per second. Not loud; soft: a low murmur. Being near total depletion: My savings account is low. Not adequately provided or equipped; short: low on supplies. Depreciatory; disparaging: a low opinion of him. Brought down or reduced in health or wealth: in a low state. Of, relating to, or being the gear configuration or setting, as in an automotive transmission, that produces the least vehicular speed with respect to engine speed.
and finaly
price P Pronunciation Key (prs) n. The amount as of money or goods, asked for or given in exchange for something else. The cost at which something is obtained: believes that the price of success is hard work. The cost of bribing someone: maintained that every person has a price. A reward offered for the capture or killing of a person: a felon with a price on his head. Archaic. Value or worth.
So, from this we can gather that wal-mart's slogan has the meaning or a meaning very similar to:
"At all times [always] Relatively small [low] cost at which something is obtained [prices]. For all time [always]"
Nowhere in any of this is it implied that you will never find a lower price someplace else, merely that you will find low prices at wal-mart.
Now do I really need to go into the meaning of the words which form Wikipedia's slogan?
Ah, but truth is more than just cold hard facts my friend. Truth is perception as well. Which is true? "George W Bush started a costly war in Iraq during his term as president" or "George W Bush actively and wisely used the military to protect american interests both foreign and domestic during his term as president"?
Now, you can argue that the banning is unwarranted. But policies are policies. When you break policies in the real world there are very real punishments. Or are you arguing that people can ignore policies if they don't agree with them?
I never said that at all, but if out and out deletion of contested material (regardless of reason for contesting the material as I said not all truths are a matter of cold hard facts) then why is it an option at all? If it's an option so that knowledgeable people can correct the oversights or mischaracterizations of others, why then are we banning people for doing that, regardless of your perception of what they did.
Either content is freely editable by all, or it's not.
It never ceases to amaze me that all these years later the only people still pissed off about the whole thing between jobs and woz are people who weren't involved and have no emotional stake in it whatsoever except their need to vilify steve jobs.
Doing a shit ton of work with nothing to show for it is the equivilent of doing no work. If you don't believe me, just shift the same papers arround all day at work tomorrow and then tell your boss that you're actualy doing work and that this is inherrently better than you doing no work at all.
Yes. Think about all the people working on Firefox. Now imagine all of those people instead of working on Firefox working on their own personal browser. The end result is less is accomplished and less work overall is done.
Your analogy falls apart in that my house is not supposed to be "enterable by all" yet that is the ultimate goal of wiki is it not? From the front page:
Without having looked to deeply into the depth of his methods an increase in the volume of new open source projects does not nessesarily imply that the overall ammount of work being fed into the communal pool is increasing. If everyone is writing their own web browser from scratch, that would be less work overall than everyone working on a few web browsers. Tragedy of the Commons must be applied to an individual common, that is any one project at a time.
Part of entrapment is intent. That is, it's entrapment if you had no intention of comiting the illegal act but the cop provided incentive to coerce you into commiting the act. It would be pretty tough to argue that after having sold the source once, and then saying "I don't have it anymore" that he was unwilling to comit the crime. IANAL/IANALEO/IANAPL/YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
The reason she got third degree burns has less to do with how hot the coffee is and more to do with the environment the spill was in. She spilled the coffee into her lap, a small enclosed area from which the heat can not escape. On top of this, she was wearing sweat pants which means as soon as the fabric got soaked it clung to her skin (think like hot oil rather than hot water). Finaly she was sitting in a car which mean she couldn't get up easily which meant she also would have suffered steam burns from the coffee that wound up in the seat. Furthermore she was an old woman and to quote from a med site on burns:
Anyone can get a third-degree burn. Children and the elderly are more likely to experience complications from burns.
The fault for the injuries lies SOLEY with the woman as I said because she was careless and irresponsible. Again it's one of two situations. She was either a regular customer and knew how hot the coffe was or she was a new customer and chose to treat a hot liquid of unknown temperatures as she does liquids of known temperatures. Either way, it was her stupidity that lead to the burns.
By the way, why is coffee that can cause 3rd degree burns considered unsafe but coffee that can cause 2nd degree burns considered safe?
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
Getting dragged through the courts and having their image tarnished by a fucking moron was payment enough from McDonalds don't you think?
I have never ever in my entire life had a cup of cofee which gave me third degree burns when tried to drink it. There is such a thing as too hot. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
That's because presumeably you aren't stupid enough to attempt to drink coffe that was freshly made. Here's the deal, if coffe is supposed to be at or near boiling for brewing, then until YOU PERSONALY verify that it is not, it should be treated as boiling. No, I can't concieve of a liquid that is too hot when we are talking about a product that is made with BOILING water. She got 3rd degree burns because she spilled the shit into her lap in a closed setting. Simple physics the severity of the burns had more to do with setting than the temperature of the coffe.
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Personal responsibility is what you as a member of society must take. You must take all nessesary precautions that you control to prevent injury to yourself. Putting a HOT cup of coffe at UNKNOWN temperatures BETWEEN YOUR LEGS is not reducing risk.
And why pray tell are the people who made or served this coffe responsible for this lady taking a HOT cup of coffe that she either knew for a fact to be very hot (if she was a regular customer) or had no clue what temperature it was served at (if she wasn't) and sticking it between her legs in a car and attempting to open it there? HOW ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUPID ACTIONS OF THE LADY?
Drinking coffee in the car is not reasonable either. It creates an unessesary hazzard on the road. Doesn't prevent people (like this lady) from doing it. When you engage in risky behavior you assume responsibility for the risks you take.
It is unreasonable to accept relatively frequent 3rd degree burns due to coffee spills.
700 out of 10 BILLION is relatively frequent? We're talking a rate of 70 burns per year here. Do you know how many places would KILL to have a product with a 99.999993 safety rate?
The best solution is to stop the hazard at its source, clearly here the scalding coffee.
The hazzard is quite CLEARLY the people consuming the coffee if 99.999993% of the people manage to sucessfuly manage to consume coffe without burning themselves.
No, see you already started a list of qualifiers in the first place when you said 35 and born in the US so it's anyone who falls into a certain catagory. Wikipedia specifies no limitations at the outset. Their front page should say: The Free encyclopedia that anyone who follows the rules can edit.
Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE. Until you are aware of the relative temperature of a HOT liquid, you should be doing everything possible to minimize the risk of BURNING yourself so as to minimize the SEVERITY of an accidental BURN. In this case, putting a HOT liquid of unknown temperature between your fucking legs is NOT minimizing risks. She was a god damned moron. I'm sorry she was hurt, I'm sorry she was hurt badly but SHIT HAPPENS. Next time she'll think twice about doing stupid things with HOT liquids. And don't give me any bullshit about it being served higher than the industry standard because it comes down to one of two senarios:
1) She buys coffe at MD all the time and is thus aware of the temperature that MD serves their coffe at, in which case she has no one to blame except herself for spilling a KNOW VERY HOT liquid on her lap.
OR
2) She bought coffe from a place she has never bought coffe from and assumed that the coffe would be served at the same temperature as her normal coffe hut. In this case she has no one to blame but herself for assuming that coffe was served at the same temperature no matter where it's served.
I don't listen to rush sean of bill as I find all of them to be just as stupid as this lady. It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT.
No. It would be Ferrari's fault if their cars did something you would never expect given your previous experience with cars. Say, if they exploded if you went over 60mph. You expect that you could be injured in a Ferrari because you know you can be injured in any car, but you would not expect it to turn into a shrapnel-filled fireball at 60mph.
And any normal person (i.e. a person capable of driving a car to MD and ordering a coffe) would expect that they would be BURNED by the coffe. And personaly, I don't know about you, but if I'm handed a hot beverage I assume that it will burn me severely until I know otherwise.
1) Frances laws != US Laws (thank god)
2) Cars can go 120 MPH + should we sue the manufacturers?
3) Common sense dictates that when you create a product you design it so that normal operation is not approching the products limitations, this extends product life (part of why your car can go up to 120 MPH)
MD serve coffee at drive thrus, they must expect people will drink it in cars, they must provide safe food and drinks, it's as simple as that.
They must provide food that is safe to consume they are under NO obligation to satisfy or secure YOUR eating habits. IOW MD is under no responsibility to serve me coffe that I can drink while hanging upside down.
OMG 700 Complaints. According to the site you linked McDonalds sells a BILLION cups of coffe per year. The 700 complaints were over the course of a decade which means they recieved a complaint, rady for this: 0.000007% of the time. HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES, McDonalds coffe is 0.000007% unsafe.
If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?
It certainly can though. The problem with spilling hot liquids on clothing is that the clothing then clings to the skin keeping the liquid in place, and causing more severe burns than if the liquid just spilled on you. That's part of why boiling oil burns so much worse than boiling water, because the oil sticks to your skin better.
No. See there is the marvolous invention we have. It's called language. In a language we have these things called words. Each word has a specific meaning, and that meaning when used in conjunction with other words form ideas and thoughts.
So, let us look at the meaning of wal-mart's slogan:
Always Low Prices. Always.
According to our handy dandy dictionary we find (emphisis added):
always P Pronunciation Key (ôlwz, -wz, -wz)
adv.
At all times; invariably: always late.
For all time; forever: They will always be friends.
At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you're unhappy.
low1 P Pronunciation Key (l)
adj. lower, lowest
Having little relative height; not high or tall.
Rising only slightly above surrounding surfaces.
Situated or placed below normal height: a low lighting fixture.
Situated below the surrounding surfaces: water standing in low spots.
Dead and buried.
Cut to show the wearer's neck and chest; décolleté: a low neckline.
Near or at the horizon: The sun is low in the sky.
Close or closer to a reference point: was low in the offensive zone, near the goal.
Linguistics. Produced with part or all of the tongue depressed, as a, pronounced (ä), in father. Used of vowels.
Of less than usual or average depth; shallow: The river is low.
Humble in status or character; lowly: of low birth.
Biology. Of relatively simple structure in the scale of living organisms.
Unrefined; coarse: low humor.
Violating standards of morality or decency; base: a low stunt to pull. See Synonyms at mean2.
Lacking strength or vigor; weak.
Lacking liveliness or good spirits; discouraged or dejected.
Below average in degree, intensity, or amount: a low temperature.
Below an average or a standard: low wages; a low level of communication.
Ranked near the beginning of an ascending series or scale: a low number; a low grade of oil.
Relating to or being latitudes nearest to the equator.
Relatively small. Used of a cost, price, or other value: a low fee; a low income.
Having a pitch corresponding to a relatively small number of sound-wave cycles per second.
Not loud; soft: a low murmur.
Being near total depletion: My savings account is low.
Not adequately provided or equipped; short: low on supplies.
Depreciatory; disparaging: a low opinion of him.
Brought down or reduced in health or wealth: in a low state.
Of, relating to, or being the gear configuration or setting, as in an automotive transmission, that produces the least vehicular speed with respect to engine speed.
and finaly
price P Pronunciation Key (prs)
n.
The amount as of money or goods, asked for or given in exchange for something else.
The cost at which something is obtained: believes that the price of success is hard work.
The cost of bribing someone: maintained that every person has a price.
A reward offered for the capture or killing of a person: a felon with a price on his head.
Archaic. Value or worth.
So, from this we can gather that wal-mart's slogan has the meaning or a meaning very similar to:
"At all times [always] Relatively small [low] cost at which something is obtained [prices]. For all time [always]"
Nowhere in any of this is it implied that you will never find a lower price someplace else, merely that you will find low prices at wal-mart.
Now do I really need to go into the meaning of the words which form Wikipedia's slogan?
Ah, but truth is more than just cold hard facts my friend. Truth is perception as well. Which is true? "George W Bush started a costly war in Iraq during his term as president" or "George W Bush actively and wisely used the military to protect american interests both foreign and domestic during his term as president"?
Now, you can argue that the banning is unwarranted. But policies are policies. When you break policies in the real world there are very real punishments. Or are you arguing that people can ignore policies if they don't agree with them?
I never said that at all, but if out and out deletion of contested material (regardless of reason for contesting the material as I said not all truths are a matter of cold hard facts) then why is it an option at all? If it's an option so that knowledgeable people can correct the oversights or mischaracterizations of others, why then are we banning people for doing that, regardless of your perception of what they did.
Either content is freely editable by all, or it's not.
It never ceases to amaze me that all these years later the only people still pissed off about the whole thing between jobs and woz are people who weren't involved and have no emotional stake in it whatsoever except their need to vilify steve jobs.
That's not what they say on their site. To quote:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
While I do not question wkipedia's right to restrict access to their private project, such a restriction means that only some can edit, not anyone.
Really. Excellent, then surely you have solved all conflict in the world as truths are the same for all people.
Doing a shit ton of work with nothing to show for it is the equivilent of doing no work. If you don't believe me, just shift the same papers arround all day at work tomorrow and then tell your boss that you're actualy doing work and that this is inherrently better than you doing no work at all.
Yes. Think about all the people working on Firefox. Now imagine all of those people instead of working on Firefox working on their own personal browser. The end result is less is accomplished and less work overall is done.
Your analogy falls apart in that my house is not supposed to be "enterable by all" yet that is the ultimate goal of wiki is it not? From the front page:
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
From the dictionary:
anyone P Pronunciation Key (n-wn, -wn)
pron.
Any person.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia editable by some.
We all have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
Without having looked to deeply into the depth of his methods an increase in the volume of new open source projects does not nessesarily imply that the overall ammount of work being fed into the communal pool is increasing. If everyone is writing their own web browser from scratch, that would be less work overall than everyone working on a few web browsers. Tragedy of the Commons must be applied to an individual common, that is any one project at a time.
Nope, it would be illegal for you, not because it's entrapment but because you paid someone to comit a crime on your behalf.
Part of entrapment is intent. That is, it's entrapment if you had no intention of comiting the illegal act but the cop provided incentive to coerce you into commiting the act. It would be pretty tough to argue that after having sold the source once, and then saying "I don't have it anymore" that he was unwilling to comit the crime. IANAL/IANALEO/IANAPL/YMMV
When has the motivation of any online project or person been anything other than selfish?