Concord was loud taking off because it had 50 year old reheated turboramjet engines that were amazingly advanced for its day, but really shouldn't have been on a commercial airplane.
And what engine would you have used to achieve supersonic speed in the Concorde?
Also the researchers acknowledged it too. However, with 110+ samples and a 99% positive rate, it would credence that there is definitely a link. Now another study in the rates of CTE in non-football players as a comparison might bolster the claim. I would suspect that comparison study would find CTE is rare in people who don't play football.
You're trying to have a logic debate, I'm trying to explain how courts work in the real world, the two don't always match up.
So you're saying a court would not rule on the side of manufacturer that says a 3rd party part was the cause of a problem and that absolves them of liability? Have you been to court recently? Have you been to a car dealership? If you put in a 3rd party part in your Ford and then try to sue Ford, Ford would quickly (and has done so) have the case dismissed. You used a 3rd party part. They have no liability in that case. The courts would tell you to sue the 3rd party manufacturer.
I don't think I'd have a very hard time finding a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty who would blame Apple for this.
I would talk to a lawyer before you make that claim. A good lawyer would make sure it never gets to a trial.
That's kinda like saying 99% of coal miners have black lung disease. Clearly that means only people who have a propensity for getting black lung disease become coal miners. How much evidence would you require?
The problem isn't just that supersonic travel creates sonic booms that the public doesn't like. The problem is also that any new airplane has to be fuel efficient and economically viable to make the airlines interested. If we look at the difference between the Airbus 380 and the Boeing 787, it was two different approaches to economic viability. Airbus put more passengers in a plane while Boeing focuses on more fuel efficiency through lighter materials and better engines.
The 380 also bet on the hub-and-spoke system which turns out to be the wrong bet. It simply could not fly to enough airports which limited the use by airlines. The Boeing 787 could function in both hub-and-spoke and point to point.
You absolutely could sue the makers of the circuit breakers. Winning would be up to a court, but you would have standing to sue.
You can file a suit; but that's not the question presented. The question is whether your case has merit. In the case of a lightning strike, it'll get dismissed.
No, it would not. It could be shown that Apple could or should have known that could happen and design the phone to not work with such chargers.
So you are putting the responsibility on Apple to design their hardware around the faultiness of other hardware they did not manufacture. Is that what you're stating? Should Ford design their cars around faulty after market car parts? Should Dell design their computers to handle faulty power supplies?
The liability might be split between the maker of the charger and the maker of the phone, or both could be liable.
And if one of them failed basic safety tests and one did not, you would make them both pay?
My point is that knowing the model would narrow down when the phone was originally sold and if the plaintiff bought the phone used. If in 2014 the plaintiff bought a phone which was already discontinued, did he or she buy it from Apple.
The point that was being made is that the phone isn't new. It's used. You can't testify to anything that happened to the phone like how it was treated. Unlike the Samsung incidents where the phones were very new and the cause unlikely to be wear, this is an older, used phone. And you do know that no manufacturer warranties their products forever.
Why wasn't charging shut off/disabled if it noticed a spike in incoming power. There is no reason for the battery to explode from a faulty charger unless the phone did not fail safely.
You are asserting that Apple should design a phone to handle every single condition and fault of a charger they didn't make. Let me ask you a simple question: If lightning struck your home would there be a fire? Why didn't your circuit breakers handle the spike in incoming power? There's no reason for a fire to start in your house unless your wiring did not fail safely.
Specifically the iPhone 4S 8GB was discontinued in Sept 2014. The iPhone 4S 16GB was discontinued by Sept 2013. I'm guessing that is what OP is referring. It would be helpful to know which model the plaintiff had.
The thing is, neither the authors nor doubters like me can be provably wrong which makes the paper more a declaration of faith than real science.
Your problem is that in science, you must prove your claim. It is not the responsibility of others to prove your claim. The authors made a claim and have evidence. You can try to disprove it with evidence; however, you can't also claim something and at the same time shift the burden onto other that they must disprove your claim. At that point you are guilty of doing worse than what the authors did. Your claims would be a pure declaration of faith you decried about the authors.
Yes, if it was supposed to withstand more than one point of damage. In a battery, the limiting and safety need to be built into the battery and prevent overcharging. Of course you want a smart, working charger as well, but the battery needs protection built in.
No. While Apple might have some fault tolerance built into their phones, it doesn't mean they can design it to withstand all faults. To anticipate every scenario isn't realistic. Also there is no responsibility on Apple's part (or any manufacturer) to insure that their product must exceed operating conditions. From this article, some of these chargers fail basic safety tests and were damaged after one use. Are you saying Apple should have taken into account these faulty chargers in their design? That's like saying Ford must make sure my car must withstand all 3rd party after market parts.
Well if Apple could show that the plaintiff wasn't the original purchaser, it would strengthen their case. Also if they could show that the battery wasn't original. But we'll have to wait for more details.
Using a faulty charger wouldn't absolve Apple of liability? If the phone was previously damaged that may have contributed to battery damage wouldn't absolve Apple?
I would say a main difference is that the Samsung phones had battery issues very shortly after the product was first launched. This is phone (at best) was 2 years old before any battery issue occurred.
No what the GP is insinuating is that it may have been purchased used and not new. It it was "new" it may not have been newly manufactured and could have been sitting in inventory for a few years. If used, then there are more questions about what may have been done to the phone before the plaintiff purchased it (like change the battery). More details will be needed.
By Sept 2014, Apple had stop selling the 4S as new phones. It could have been purchased through other retailers and maybe refurbished but it would not have been sold new through Apple. It also matters which model and where it was purchased.
The lawsuit specifically states "Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
According to the lawsuit the plaintiff bought the phone in 2014. But that brings up a point that the battery was at least 2 years old if it was new. If it was used, it could have been 6 years old. By then the phone was discontinued by Apple; however, it could still have been new if someone was selling out old inventory.
Also, the fire happened in April 2016, and the suit was filed last Thursday. The wheels of justice turn slowly... but I'll be curious to see what additional information comes out. Does the phone still exist in a form Apple can even examine?
It may have taken time to figure out the cause of the fire. Also this is a civil matter so there are different rules for how timely a suit can be brought. A delay of over a year isn't unusual here.
It is possible it was still new; it might have been on sale as the phone was discontinued as someone was clearing out their inventory. There are a lot of questions about this case which have not been answered.
Slashdot Mirror
Concord was loud taking off because it had 50 year old reheated turboramjet engines that were amazingly advanced for its day, but really shouldn't have been on a commercial airplane.
And what engine would you have used to achieve supersonic speed in the Concorde?
Also the researchers acknowledged it too. However, with 110+ samples and a 99% positive rate, it would credence that there is definitely a link. Now another study in the rates of CTE in non-football players as a comparison might bolster the claim. I would suspect that comparison study would find CTE is rare in people who don't play football.
So if Ive has been busy designing the HQ, does that explain why there hasn't been any new radically new designs of Apple stuff for a while?
And you've failed to note that Dell uses the same factories yet their HQ looks terrible.
You're trying to have a logic debate, I'm trying to explain how courts work in the real world, the two don't always match up.
So you're saying a court would not rule on the side of manufacturer that says a 3rd party part was the cause of a problem and that absolves them of liability? Have you been to court recently? Have you been to a car dealership? If you put in a 3rd party part in your Ford and then try to sue Ford, Ford would quickly (and has done so) have the case dismissed. You used a 3rd party part. They have no liability in that case. The courts would tell you to sue the 3rd party manufacturer.
I don't think I'd have a very hard time finding a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty who would blame Apple for this.
I would talk to a lawyer before you make that claim. A good lawyer would make sure it never gets to a trial.
Force majeure would certainly be cited if you tried to sue the circuit breaker manufacturer.
That's kinda like saying 99% of coal miners have black lung disease. Clearly that means only people who have a propensity for getting black lung disease become coal miners. How much evidence would you require?
The problem isn't just that supersonic travel creates sonic booms that the public doesn't like. The problem is also that any new airplane has to be fuel efficient and economically viable to make the airlines interested. If we look at the difference between the Airbus 380 and the Boeing 787, it was two different approaches to economic viability. Airbus put more passengers in a plane while Boeing focuses on more fuel efficiency through lighter materials and better engines.
The 380 also bet on the hub-and-spoke system which turns out to be the wrong bet. It simply could not fly to enough airports which limited the use by airlines. The Boeing 787 could function in both hub-and-spoke and point to point.
You absolutely could sue the makers of the circuit breakers. Winning would be up to a court, but you would have standing to sue.
You can file a suit; but that's not the question presented. The question is whether your case has merit. In the case of a lightning strike, it'll get dismissed.
No, it would not. It could be shown that Apple could or should have known that could happen and design the phone to not work with such chargers.
So you are putting the responsibility on Apple to design their hardware around the faultiness of other hardware they did not manufacture. Is that what you're stating? Should Ford design their cars around faulty after market car parts? Should Dell design their computers to handle faulty power supplies?
The liability might be split between the maker of the charger and the maker of the phone, or both could be liable.
And if one of them failed basic safety tests and one did not, you would make them both pay?
My point is that knowing the model would narrow down when the phone was originally sold and if the plaintiff bought the phone used. If in 2014 the plaintiff bought a phone which was already discontinued, did he or she buy it from Apple.
The point that was being made is that the phone isn't new. It's used. You can't testify to anything that happened to the phone like how it was treated. Unlike the Samsung incidents where the phones were very new and the cause unlikely to be wear, this is an older, used phone. And you do know that no manufacturer warranties their products forever.
Yes retailers might have been selling them in 2016 but Apple stopped selling (and manufacturing) them by 2014.
Could be worse. It could transform into a maid.
Why wasn't charging shut off/disabled if it noticed a spike in incoming power. There is no reason for the battery to explode from a faulty charger unless the phone did not fail safely.
You are asserting that Apple should design a phone to handle every single condition and fault of a charger they didn't make. Let me ask you a simple question: If lightning struck your home would there be a fire? Why didn't your circuit breakers handle the spike in incoming power? There's no reason for a fire to start in your house unless your wiring did not fail safely.
Specifically the iPhone 4S 8GB was discontinued in Sept 2014. The iPhone 4S 16GB was discontinued by Sept 2013. I'm guessing that is what OP is referring. It would be helpful to know which model the plaintiff had.
The thing is, neither the authors nor doubters like me can be provably wrong which makes the paper more a declaration of faith than real science.
Your problem is that in science, you must prove your claim. It is not the responsibility of others to prove your claim. The authors made a claim and have evidence. You can try to disprove it with evidence; however, you can't also claim something and at the same time shift the burden onto other that they must disprove your claim. At that point you are guilty of doing worse than what the authors did. Your claims would be a pure declaration of faith you decried about the authors.
Yes, if it was supposed to withstand more than one point of damage. In a battery, the limiting and safety need to be built into the battery and prevent overcharging. Of course you want a smart, working charger as well, but the battery needs protection built in.
No. While Apple might have some fault tolerance built into their phones, it doesn't mean they can design it to withstand all faults. To anticipate every scenario isn't realistic. Also there is no responsibility on Apple's part (or any manufacturer) to insure that their product must exceed operating conditions. From this article, some of these chargers fail basic safety tests and were damaged after one use. Are you saying Apple should have taken into account these faulty chargers in their design? That's like saying Ford must make sure my car must withstand all 3rd party after market parts.
Well if Apple could show that the plaintiff wasn't the original purchaser, it would strengthen their case. Also if they could show that the battery wasn't original. But we'll have to wait for more details.
Using a faulty charger wouldn't absolve Apple of liability? If the phone was previously damaged that may have contributed to battery damage wouldn't absolve Apple?
I would say a main difference is that the Samsung phones had battery issues very shortly after the product was first launched. This is phone (at best) was 2 years old before any battery issue occurred.
No what the GP is insinuating is that it may have been purchased used and not new. It it was "new" it may not have been newly manufactured and could have been sitting in inventory for a few years. If used, then there are more questions about what may have been done to the phone before the plaintiff purchased it (like change the battery). More details will be needed.
By Sept 2014, Apple had stop selling the 4S as new phones. It could have been purchased through other retailers and maybe refurbished but it would not have been sold new through Apple. It also matters which model and where it was purchased.
The lawsuit specifically states "Neither Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone", which is interestingly certain given the vintage and purchase date.
According to the lawsuit the plaintiff bought the phone in 2014. But that brings up a point that the battery was at least 2 years old if it was new. If it was used, it could have been 6 years old. By then the phone was discontinued by Apple; however, it could still have been new if someone was selling out old inventory.
Also, the fire happened in April 2016, and the suit was filed last Thursday. The wheels of justice turn slowly... but I'll be curious to see what additional information comes out. Does the phone still exist in a form Apple can even examine?
It may have taken time to figure out the cause of the fire. Also this is a civil matter so there are different rules for how timely a suit can be brought. A delay of over a year isn't unusual here.
It is possible it was still new; it might have been on sale as the phone was discontinued as someone was clearing out their inventory. There are a lot of questions about this case which have not been answered.