Oh, please.... someone remove this knife from my heart. I.... I.... I don't know how I can go on after that biting retort.
Oh, wait. You thought you thought you were being sarcastic by turning my own words on me? No, sorry. Just dull and imaginative since the words weren't even directed at you in the first place. Please, do try again, however. I'm always game for a challenge, though I doubt you can provide it.
Give it a rest you penguin-humping retard. The virus spreads through user action. Stupid users spread the virus. What the fuck is so complicated about that? Virus writers have started sending zipped viruses with attached installation instructions and these dipshits are STILL getting infected. You think if someone wrote a virus and instructed the stupid users to set the execution bit they wouldn't do it? History says you're wrong. History shows that people will follow even more complex instructions than that in order to run a virus.
Maybe if you religious rejects would spend a little more time fixing user space threats like the crufty old X system or finishing up your little game of desktop catch up that Microsoft has so sorely outpaced you in, you'd actually have a desktop system now instead of a kludged together ball of shit that wants to pretend it's UNIX while it tries to play with Windows. Pick a fucking goal and stop spending so much time and wasted breath bashing Microsoft. Christ. You little Linux and Windows zealots have got to be the stupidest subsets of all of the computer holy wars... you get on my fucking nerves. At least the BSD people have the decency to keep it to infighting that I can just ignore.
Yea yea, whatever. I'm a troll because I'm not felating your stupid little penguin. Give it a rest and just use your fucking system. You sound like a total dumbass when you sit there and blame "micro$oft" (please, spare me the droll attempt at witicism that wasn't even witty the first time someone used the dollar sign) for a problem that's clearly perpetuated by explicit user action.
If it happens on a Microsoft system, even if it would work just as well on any other system because the entire problem is that the user has the overall cognitive capability of a shriveled prune (as is the case here), it's Microsoft's fault. Microsoft filled the world with idiots, after all. Everyone was above average intelligence before them. See? SEE how evil Microsoft is? BEFORE THEM EVERYONE WAS ABOVE THE AVERAGE!
Filter on dirty language. People who use dirty language can't express themselves anyway so trying to understand what they say is mostly hopeless.
You could also filter on illogical nonsense like that. Just because your ability to parse different types of communication is lacking doesn't mean other people have a problem.
In fact, let's filter on people who have strong religious beliefs. Those people can't think for themselves anyway, so listening to anything they have to say is mostly hopeless.
Oh... wait... you mean that INDIVIDIUALS are more important than groupings in point to point communication, so throwing blanket statements over entire chunks of society based on the rotten eggs in the group is a mark of stupidity? Gee... learn something new everyday...
I think you're missing the point. If you're carrying 5 units of clean water, and you have 5000 units of dirty water available, and it doesn't matter which one you use on your food, it makes much more sense to use the dirty water on the food and save the clean water for straight ingestion. The packets can filter the 1 unit of dirty water it takes to hydrate the food into clean water in the food, which gives you one "free" unit of water without you having to use any of what you're carrying.
And John Kerry has..... what... exactly... to do with this?
"Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position. Apparently, in modern America, it's more important to stubbornly plod along a known destructive path than to turn around and try to get off of it. Whether this applies to Hatch or not, I couldn't say, because, frankly, I don't think he has any convictions. He's just another one of the many politicians that moves in whichever direction the wind blows since that's most convenient for his political career.
Years of FBI investigations, plea bargains, convictions, internal squabbling, one-ups-manship, etc. have seriously torn the mob apart and left them with true low lifes incapable of the true leadership required for a mob.
And people complain that there are no opportunities for a young entrepreneur these days...
Do you have reliable demographic research to show otherwise?
You're a total, fucking idiot. Why don't you explain to me what claim I'm making in my post so that I can provide demographic research to back it up, because... gee... I searched the entire two lines I posted, and not once did I make a solid claim that would require backup. Here's the entire thing in case you have trouble manipulating the complex tool that is your mouse to get back to it:
Isn't it amazing how stupid people sound when they boil things down to such simple terms?
I suppose you have reliable demographic research to back that statement up, right?
There aren't even any declarations in the post, moron, so there's no way there could be anything in there that would indicate I'm making any claims that would need backed up. Or, are you another one of those modern marvels of the public education system that doesn't understand that if you make a claim, it's on YOUR shoulders to prove it, not everyone else's to disprove it?
Re:Similarities between democrat party, communists
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
Actually, you ought to be modded down for being an imbecile and a lunatic with the critical thinking skills of a gerbil. Step away from the X-Files...
And two years before, the senate candidate running against John Ashcroft, probably the most conservative candidate to run for office since the 1800's, mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Interestingly enough, several of Clinton's associates have died in plan crashes since he was elected.
And? I just did some rudimentary calculations. In the last year, almost 12% of the family members/friends I see at least once a year, and more than 20% of them that I see on a regular basis, died. Oh no! Quick! Conspiracy theory! I must be killing of my family!
Oh wait.. that's right. That works out to two people, both of which died of cancer, and the "conspiracies" invovling political figures always focus on people with a MUCH larger network than the one I used, and the QUANTITY of people who died rather than the relative percentages. It's funny how you can skew things to confuse stupid people if you pick your numbering scheme and sample pool carefully enough, isn't it gerbil-boy? Toss in a couple of make-believe stories about a stupid X-Ray (what, they shot him on the plane, jumped out, and crashed it? Why wouldn't they just crash the plane, dumbass? He wasn't gonna survive hitting the ground - no need to shoot him and leave extra evidence..) and some wild theories with absolutely no logical foundation, much less evidence, and you get people like you who post this sort of hulking mental shit as if it wasn't just the random ravings of a borderline hallucinatory goon with too much spare time.
If you want to boil it down to simple terms, Republicans would rather keep all of their money, while Democrats don't mind giving up a bit to help the less fortunate.
Isn't it amazing how stupid people sound when they boil things down to such simple terms?
I suppose you have reliable demographic research to back that statement up, right?
Blackhole ads.osdn.com in your hosts file. When I'm banned from posting for no reason that I can find, I point the ads server to 127.0.0.1 . Then, when I post via proxy, I see the ad that pops up when I post, switch the proxy off, and I no longer see ads. When I notice the ban is lifted, I comment out the blackhole line in my hosts file and I see ads again (until the block comes back on..).
That way, they get an ad view when I circumvent the block, but while I'm blocked for no reason, they get nothing.
I checked off "unwilling" some time ago as well, but I was banned from M and M2 before that (no idea why..).
Not only is this offtopic, it is also redundant. However, since we're airing grievances, maybe it will help bash the point into their heads that we're more concerned about site usability and a fair stance on moderation and posting than on some stupid war between the little pissants in the gnaa and/.'s crew.
Oh, and... lest we forget:
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
I checked off "unwilling" some time ago as well, but I was banned from M and M2 before that (no idea why..).
Not only is this offtopic, it is also redundant. However, since we're airing grievances, maybe it will help bash the point into their heads that we're more concerned about site usability and a fair stance on moderation and posting than on some stupid war between the little pissants in the gnaa and/.'s crew.
You do realize, I assume, that none of us will ever see mod points again? Of course... some of use have been banned from mod and metamod for months... so it's not a big deal.
Go ahead... mod me down to hell and back. I'm already banned from posting with Excellent karma and no recent downmods to speak of. As you can see, it hurts me a great deal.
If you do something negligent and your injured accidently as a result, you are responsible for the consequences.
Uh. No. Again, negligence on the consumer's part does not excuse negligence on the corporation's part. If all of the consequences are entirely a result of your own negligence, you're responsible for all of the consequences. If part of the consequences - such as receiving 3rd degree burns from a served cup of coffee - are the result of someone ELSE'S negligence, they're responsible for that no matter how the problem started. It's NOT an all or nothing deal which is how you're painting it, it's a balance of responsibility. Had McDonald's not been knowningly serving coffee, without a clear warning, that could cause severe injury, the woman wouldn't have been severely injured. Since it's not unreasonable to expect that you'll only receive a self-treatable injury from fresh coffee if it touches your skin, McDonald's is entirely at fault for causing all of the additional damage. Therefore, the woman is responsible for being injured, but McDonald's is responsible for the unreasonable extent of those injuries that sent her to the hospital. McDonald's paid the medical bills, because McDonald's caused them by knowningly providing a product, without warning, that was unexpectedly dangerous.
In addition, the judge didn't actually do anything particularly interesting. It's fairly common for awards in this sort of case to start out obscene and then get slashed by the judge to a reasonable level.
What part of "they were providing a dangerous product without the appropriate warnings" is confusing you? If you mishandle an item, it's your responsibility to accept the consequences. However, if the consequences are far beyond reasonable because the person providing the item is doing something dangerous with it without warning you, THEY are responsible for the additional harm that is caused. McDonald's was serving coffee WELL beyond the temperature that any reasonable person would expect it to be. They were serving coffee that was being preserved just slightly below the boiling point. I have NEVER seen another place that serves coffee that hot. In order to sustain the damages that she did, I would have to boil water, then dump it directly into my lap. To say that anyone should expect prepared coffee to be that hot is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you were to pour yourself a cup of instant coffee and then immediately pour it from the cup to your lap, you would not suffer near the level of damage that this woman did.
She sued McDonald's for causing her injury due to their negligence. Because McDonald's repeatedly ignored dozens, if not hundreds, of prior reports that their coffee was causing serious injuries, and because the coffee was served at an unreasonably high temperature (you STORE coffee at a high temperature, you do not SERVE it at that temperature), they lost the case. She didn't sue because the coffee burned her, she sued because it burned her far worse than should have been expected. If McDonald's had warned that the coffee was being served at a temperature that could cause serious burns, that would be one thing. If it had merely been hot enough to give her first degree burns like any reasonable person would expect (and anyone who's ever spilled their coffee on themself has seen), that would be one thing. However, McDonald's lost the case solely because they knew they were serving an unexpectedly dangerous product and did nothing about it. It's that simple.
I'm a big fan of making people responsible for their own ignorance, but that goes the other way too when it comes to corporations. You can't just say that people are indemnified for damages they cause because the victim did something dumb. That's why civil cases are decided on the preponderance of evidence and not reasonable doubt. That's why awards are flexible. You have to assign a certain amount of blame to each party within reason. If I poured scalding hot coffee on my head of my own volition, then I'd say that 100% of the results are my fault. If I do something negligent, and I'm injured accidentally as a result, and the injury is par for the course based on whatever I did, I'd say that's 100% my responsibility. If, however, such as the case was here, I do something negligent and I'm injured accidentally as a result, but the injuries I sustain are FAR worse than the normal injuries sustained for that sort of action, I'd have to say - and the jury in this case agreed with me here - that whoever is at fault for the additional injury is responsible for compensating me for whatever loss I suffer beyond the normal expectation. You can't just give compananies and individuals a free pass on technicalities in a civil case and say things like "well, yea, your daughter was killed when the air bag deployed, but the seat is supposed to be set at least 14 inches from the air bag and our forensic discovered you set it at 13.9997 inches... so too bad for you, you were misusing it so we're not responsible".
Are you kidding me? I'll bet even if you got acquitted it would still ruin your life. I've always figured that if I ever wanted to really get revenge on somebody, planting something like that would be the way to go.
That's one of the many things that people don't respond rationally too. It's really sad, actually, because responding irrationally isn't going to help convict anyone who actually is guilty, but it WILL help blow things out of proportion, cause a rash of witchhunts and erroneous convictions, and ruin the overall credibility of the accustations so that future victims who make those accusations are more likely to be viewed with suspicion.
After all it wasn't the temperature of the coffee which made her spill it.
WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING?
The coffee was SIGNFICANTLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DID NOT WARN ANYONE ABOUT THAT FACT. Had she crashed the car because she spilled regular coffee on herself, that's one thing. However, because the coffee injured her severely, and because there was no warning that you needed to handle it much more carefully than you would expect, McDonald's is quite at fault for injuries. I have a cup of coffee right here next to me. If I spill it on my lap, I'm not going to get third degree burns, and I handle it in a manner more appropriate to avoiding staining my clothes. This coffee needed to be handled more like molten plastic. McDonald's didn't tell anybody that. You can't blame her for being severely injured by a product that you wouldn't normally associate with anything more than mild discomfort. That's like saying that if I were to create a box spring matress with spikes in it, it's not my fault if someone gets impaled when they jump on the bed. Sure, it's a box spring and you shouldn't jump on it, but if you do jump on it, it's not unreasonable to not expect impalement. The problem isn't that she spilled it, it's that she spilled it and the consequences were, without warning, WAY beyond what any reasonable person would expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please.... someone remove this knife from my heart. I.... I.... I don't know how I can go on after that biting retort.
Oh, wait. You thought you thought you were being sarcastic by turning my own words on me? No, sorry. Just dull and imaginative since the words weren't even directed at you in the first place. Please, do try again, however. I'm always game for a challenge, though I doubt you can provide it.
Give it a rest you penguin-humping retard. The virus spreads through user action. Stupid users spread the virus. What the fuck is so complicated about that? Virus writers have started sending zipped viruses with attached installation instructions and these dipshits are STILL getting infected. You think if someone wrote a virus and instructed the stupid users to set the execution bit they wouldn't do it? History says you're wrong. History shows that people will follow even more complex instructions than that in order to run a virus.
Maybe if you religious rejects would spend a little more time fixing user space threats like the crufty old X system or finishing up your little game of desktop catch up that Microsoft has so sorely outpaced you in, you'd actually have a desktop system now instead of a kludged together ball of shit that wants to pretend it's UNIX while it tries to play with Windows. Pick a fucking goal and stop spending so much time and wasted breath bashing Microsoft. Christ. You little Linux and Windows zealots have got to be the stupidest subsets of all of the computer holy wars... you get on my fucking nerves. At least the BSD people have the decency to keep it to infighting that I can just ignore.
Yea yea, whatever. I'm a troll because I'm not felating your stupid little penguin. Give it a rest and just use your fucking system. You sound like a total dumbass when you sit there and blame "micro$oft" (please, spare me the droll attempt at witicism that wasn't even witty the first time someone used the dollar sign) for a problem that's clearly perpetuated by explicit user action.
If it happens on a Microsoft system, even if it would work just as well on any other system because the entire problem is that the user has the overall cognitive capability of a shriveled prune (as is the case here), it's Microsoft's fault. Microsoft filled the world with idiots, after all. Everyone was above average intelligence before them. See? SEE how evil Microsoft is? BEFORE THEM EVERYONE WAS ABOVE THE AVERAGE!
I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo.
I admire your ability to stubbornly repeat a joke that wasn't funny the first eighty two million times some upity, nationalistic yutz used it either.
Now, if you want to pick on CANADA....
Filter on dirty language. People who use dirty language can't express themselves anyway so trying to understand what they say is mostly hopeless.
You could also filter on illogical nonsense like that. Just because your ability to parse different types of communication is lacking doesn't mean other people have a problem.
In fact, let's filter on people who have strong religious beliefs. Those people can't think for themselves anyway, so listening to anything they have to say is mostly hopeless.
Oh... wait... you mean that INDIVIDIUALS are more important than groupings in point to point communication, so throwing blanket statements over entire chunks of society based on the rotten eggs in the group is a mark of stupidity? Gee... learn something new everyday...
I think you're missing the point. If you're carrying 5 units of clean water, and you have 5000 units of dirty water available, and it doesn't matter which one you use on your food, it makes much more sense to use the dirty water on the food and save the clean water for straight ingestion. The packets can filter the 1 unit of dirty water it takes to hydrate the food into clean water in the food, which gives you one "free" unit of water without you having to use any of what you're carrying.
And John Kerry has..... what... exactly... to do with this?
"Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position. Apparently, in modern America, it's more important to stubbornly plod along a known destructive path than to turn around and try to get off of it. Whether this applies to Hatch or not, I couldn't say, because, frankly, I don't think he has any convictions. He's just another one of the many politicians that moves in whichever direction the wind blows since that's most convenient for his political career.
I'm sure the bandwidth is great, but given the latency.... uh... yea, probably.
Note how some moron wasted a point stupidly modding this post down instead of using it wisely to mod the original post up...
... speaking of brain-damaged primates...
Years of FBI investigations, plea bargains, convictions, internal squabbling, one-ups-manship, etc. have seriously torn the mob apart and left them with true low lifes incapable of the true leadership required for a mob.
And people complain that there are no opportunities for a young entrepreneur these days...
Do you have reliable demographic research to show otherwise?
You're a total, fucking idiot. Why don't you explain to me what claim I'm making in my post so that I can provide demographic research to back it up, because ... gee... I searched the entire two lines I posted, and not once did I make a solid claim that would require backup. Here's the entire thing in case you have trouble manipulating the complex tool that is your mouse to get back to it:
Isn't it amazing how stupid people sound when they boil things down to such simple terms?
I suppose you have reliable demographic research to back that statement up, right?
There aren't even any declarations in the post, moron, so there's no way there could be anything in there that would indicate I'm making any claims that would need backed up. Or, are you another one of those modern marvels of the public education system that doesn't understand that if you make a claim, it's on YOUR shoulders to prove it, not everyone else's to disprove it?
Actually, you ought to be modded down for being an imbecile and a lunatic with the critical thinking skills of a gerbil. Step away from the X-Files...
And two years before, the senate candidate running against John Ashcroft, probably the most conservative candidate to run for office since the 1800's, mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Interestingly enough, several of Clinton's associates have died in plan crashes since he was elected.
And? I just did some rudimentary calculations. In the last year, almost 12% of the family members/friends I see at least once a year, and more than 20% of them that I see on a regular basis, died. Oh no! Quick! Conspiracy theory! I must be killing of my family!
Oh wait.. that's right. That works out to two people, both of which died of cancer, and the "conspiracies" invovling political figures always focus on people with a MUCH larger network than the one I used, and the QUANTITY of people who died rather than the relative percentages. It's funny how you can skew things to confuse stupid people if you pick your numbering scheme and sample pool carefully enough, isn't it gerbil-boy? Toss in a couple of make-believe stories about a stupid X-Ray (what, they shot him on the plane, jumped out, and crashed it? Why wouldn't they just crash the plane, dumbass? He wasn't gonna survive hitting the ground - no need to shoot him and leave extra evidence..) and some wild theories with absolutely no logical foundation, much less evidence, and you get people like you who post this sort of hulking mental shit as if it wasn't just the random ravings of a borderline hallucinatory goon with too much spare time.
If you want to boil it down to simple terms, Republicans would rather keep all of their money, while Democrats don't mind giving up a bit to help the less fortunate.
Isn't it amazing how stupid people sound when they boil things down to such simple terms?
I suppose you have reliable demographic research to back that statement up, right?
WTF am I doing here on Slashdot!?
Having hallucinations, apparently.
Heh heh.. welcome back to the fold...
Blackhole ads.osdn.com in your hosts file. When I'm banned from posting for no reason that I can find, I point the ads server to 127.0.0.1 . Then, when I post via proxy, I see the ad that pops up when I post, switch the proxy off, and I no longer see ads. When I notice the ban is lifted, I comment out the blackhole line in my hosts file and I see ads again (until the block comes back on..).
That way, they get an ad view when I circumvent the block, but while I'm blocked for no reason, they get nothing.
I checked off "unwilling" some time ago as well, but I was banned from M and M2 before that (no idea why..).
Not only is this offtopic, it is also redundant. However, since we're airing grievances, maybe it will help bash the point into their heads that we're more concerned about site usability and a fair stance on moderation and posting than on some stupid war between the little pissants in the gnaa and /.'s crew.
Oh, and... lest we forget:
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
I checked off "unwilling" some time ago as well, but I was banned from M and M2 before that (no idea why..).
Not only is this offtopic, it is also redundant. However, since we're airing grievances, maybe it will help bash the point into their heads that we're more concerned about site usability and a fair stance on moderation and posting than on some stupid war between the little pissants in the gnaa and /.'s crew.
Not flamebait at all. He seeks the truth.
You do realize, I assume, that none of us will ever see mod points again? Of course... some of use have been banned from mod and metamod for months... so it's not a big deal.
Go ahead... mod me down to hell and back. I'm already banned from posting with Excellent karma and no recent downmods to speak of. As you can see, it hurts me a great deal.
If you do something negligent and your injured accidently as a result, you are responsible for the consequences.
Uh. No. Again, negligence on the consumer's part does not excuse negligence on the corporation's part. If all of the consequences are entirely a result of your own negligence, you're responsible for all of the consequences. If part of the consequences - such as receiving 3rd degree burns from a served cup of coffee - are the result of someone ELSE'S negligence, they're responsible for that no matter how the problem started. It's NOT an all or nothing deal which is how you're painting it, it's a balance of responsibility. Had McDonald's not been knowningly serving coffee, without a clear warning, that could cause severe injury, the woman wouldn't have been severely injured. Since it's not unreasonable to expect that you'll only receive a self-treatable injury from fresh coffee if it touches your skin, McDonald's is entirely at fault for causing all of the additional damage. Therefore, the woman is responsible for being injured, but McDonald's is responsible for the unreasonable extent of those injuries that sent her to the hospital. McDonald's paid the medical bills, because McDonald's caused them by knowningly providing a product, without warning, that was unexpectedly dangerous.
In addition, the judge didn't actually do anything particularly interesting. It's fairly common for awards in this sort of case to start out obscene and then get slashed by the judge to a reasonable level.
What part of "they were providing a dangerous product without the appropriate warnings" is confusing you? If you mishandle an item, it's your responsibility to accept the consequences. However, if the consequences are far beyond reasonable because the person providing the item is doing something dangerous with it without warning you, THEY are responsible for the additional harm that is caused. McDonald's was serving coffee WELL beyond the temperature that any reasonable person would expect it to be. They were serving coffee that was being preserved just slightly below the boiling point. I have NEVER seen another place that serves coffee that hot. In order to sustain the damages that she did, I would have to boil water, then dump it directly into my lap. To say that anyone should expect prepared coffee to be that hot is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you were to pour yourself a cup of instant coffee and then immediately pour it from the cup to your lap, you would not suffer near the level of damage that this woman did.
She sued McDonald's for causing her injury due to their negligence. Because McDonald's repeatedly ignored dozens, if not hundreds, of prior reports that their coffee was causing serious injuries, and because the coffee was served at an unreasonably high temperature (you STORE coffee at a high temperature, you do not SERVE it at that temperature), they lost the case. She didn't sue because the coffee burned her, she sued because it burned her far worse than should have been expected. If McDonald's had warned that the coffee was being served at a temperature that could cause serious burns, that would be one thing. If it had merely been hot enough to give her first degree burns like any reasonable person would expect (and anyone who's ever spilled their coffee on themself has seen), that would be one thing. However, McDonald's lost the case solely because they knew they were serving an unexpectedly dangerous product and did nothing about it. It's that simple.
I'm a big fan of making people responsible for their own ignorance, but that goes the other way too when it comes to corporations. You can't just say that people are indemnified for damages they cause because the victim did something dumb. That's why civil cases are decided on the preponderance of evidence and not reasonable doubt. That's why awards are flexible. You have to assign a certain amount of blame to each party within reason. If I poured scalding hot coffee on my head of my own volition, then I'd say that 100% of the results are my fault. If I do something negligent, and I'm injured accidentally as a result, and the injury is par for the course based on whatever I did, I'd say that's 100% my responsibility. If, however, such as the case was here, I do something negligent and I'm injured accidentally as a result, but the injuries I sustain are FAR worse than the normal injuries sustained for that sort of action, I'd have to say - and the jury in this case agreed with me here - that whoever is at fault for the additional injury is responsible for compensating me for whatever loss I suffer beyond the normal expectation. You can't just give compananies and individuals a free pass on technicalities in a civil case and say things like "well, yea, your daughter was killed when the air bag deployed, but the seat is supposed to be set at least 14 inches from the air bag and our forensic discovered you set it at 13.9997 inches... so too bad for you, you were misusing it so we're not responsible".
Are you kidding me? I'll bet even if you got acquitted it would still ruin your life. I've always figured that if I ever wanted to really get revenge on somebody, planting something like that would be the way to go.
That's one of the many things that people don't respond rationally too. It's really sad, actually, because responding irrationally isn't going to help convict anyone who actually is guilty, but it WILL help blow things out of proportion, cause a rash of witchhunts and erroneous convictions, and ruin the overall credibility of the accustations so that future victims who make those accusations are more likely to be viewed with suspicion.
People are too stupid to have a justice system...
After all it wasn't the temperature of the coffee which made her spill it.
WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING?
The coffee was SIGNFICANTLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DID NOT WARN ANYONE ABOUT THAT FACT. Had she crashed the car because she spilled regular coffee on herself, that's one thing. However, because the coffee injured her severely, and because there was no warning that you needed to handle it much more carefully than you would expect, McDonald's is quite at fault for injuries. I have a cup of coffee right here next to me. If I spill it on my lap, I'm not going to get third degree burns, and I handle it in a manner more appropriate to avoiding staining my clothes. This coffee needed to be handled more like molten plastic. McDonald's didn't tell anybody that. You can't blame her for being severely injured by a product that you wouldn't normally associate with anything more than mild discomfort. That's like saying that if I were to create a box spring matress with spikes in it, it's not my fault if someone gets impaled when they jump on the bed. Sure, it's a box spring and you shouldn't jump on it, but if you do jump on it, it's not unreasonable to not expect impalement. The problem isn't that she spilled it, it's that she spilled it and the consequences were, without warning, WAY beyond what any reasonable person would expect.