A classic example that springs to mind is the BMW iDrive, which has caused new Bimmer owners no end of frustration
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/10690272 58226.html?from=storyrhs
Not wanting to be left behind, Mercedes Benz went ahead and designed a similar system. So you have a situation where two companies are competing vigorously against eachother without taking into consideration the needs and wants of their customers.
In this case, it has been reported that the consolidation of function controls onto one device have caused accidents.
That's beside the point tho - When you fork out the extra for a Merc or Bimmer you expect to get extra buttons to play with! Otherwise you'd just buy a Lada.
I think both points are valid. I agree that there was common public perception that she exaggerated her injuries. I hold the belief that the truth lies somewhere between "hot coffee woman's" version and McDonalds' legal teams version.
Ok this next bit is off the point a little but I wanted to highlight a fact used in the woman's defence to prove negligence.
According to the site there were 700 scalding coffee reports in the previous ten years. It goes on to say McDonald's earned $1.35 million per day in coffee revenues. Multiplying that figure by 365 to take it to annual revenue the number comes to $492,750,000. Multiplying that number by 10 gives you $4,927,500,000 which is their coffee revenue over a decade.
Now McDonalds charges 49 cents for a coffee so we can work out how many coffees they sold over a ten year period. That number comes to: 10,056,122,449 (>10 billion)! So for over 10 billion cups of coffee sold over a 10 year period there were only 700 reports of coffee burns. Expressed as a ratio that's 1 burn for every 14.36 million cups of coffee (1:14,365,889.21).
Doesn't seem to be excessive to me - thoughts?
Wow that is pretty aweful regardless of how careless she was.
I followed the link to "hot coffee woman" and saw that she recieved $2.7 million in punitive damages. Wow! That's quite excessive for a scald even if it was reduced to just under 1/2 a million dollars.
What baffles me are comments on the site like: "$480,000 is the money McDonald's takes in for coffee sales in 8.5 hours" This is a typical left wing statistic designed to tug on our heart strings and justify the obscene amount of money she received.
In left wing terms that amounts to 320,000 cups of scalding hot coffee. I wonder what that amounts to in World Vision Famine Packs?:P
In the spirit of "hot coffee woman's" dislike of greed (Corporate in this case) I'm sure she gave all the money left over from her injuries to charity...
Perhaps the woman should have used a balm for her horrible injuries. Lucky she lived to sue!:p
So you claim the woman suffered more than just a burn? So besides her burn and lack mental horsepower to realise the coffee could scald her, what else did she suffer?
Seriously though, like you said a coffee is made with boiling water. Then why would you expect it to be served at 60c? (or 140f - I wish I was debating with someone from outside the USA so I didn't have to go and convert the temps but that's cool) Isn't it therefore logical to expect the water to be up to 100c? 60c (140f) is less hot than the water from my hot water tap.
As for the subtlety of my joke to send people to an, it must have been lost on you (I won't blame this on you being a Yank because some of the finest subtle and sarcastic humour I know of has come from the USA [Simpsons : The Onion) So I guess it's your ego not being able to cope with disagreement. As for the buffoon comment, you're either Brazilian or a child. A Brazilian Child living the USA?:P
Your inability to grasp sarcasm reminds me of a joke I heard recently:
An American is in London on a typical rainy day when a local man walks past him, tips his hat and says "Lovely Day Isn't it?"
The American looked puzzled for a moment thinking "Hang on, it's not a lovely day at all". Then it dawned on him that this was that British sarcasm he'd heard about and proceeded to chuckle at the English Gents comment.
So the American went home thinking that he'd try some sarcasm of his own.
After he returned he had a BBQ with his friends and accidentally burned the sausages. He thought to himself that this was a perfect opportunity to try some sarcasm on his friends so he turned to everybody holding up a burnt sausage and said, "Lovely Day Isn't it?"
Boom cha!
My understanding is that it takes a great deal of energy to heat water beyond 100c. A normal coffee machine or hot water jug will only heat water to boiling point. The only way I can think of being able to heat water beyond 100c in a kitchen would be to give it a darn good zap with a microwave.
My point here is that it's safe to assume the water in the coffee was 100c as it was made using a coffee machine, not a microwave.
Nowadays, when I buy a coffee from McDonalds it's not enough bcs some moron spilled a piping hot coffee on herself (himself?), successfully sued and ruined the chance for everyone else to get a sufficiently hot coffee.
I really fail to see how selling a coffee with freshly boiled water amounts to negligence on the part of the vendor. I believe this is a classic example of people needed to take responsibility for their own actions. You spill a coffee on yourself and of course its going to burn. Clumsy arsed gits like this need to be sent to an Island so they can't contaminate the rest of the gene pool.
McDonalds coffee sux anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
A classic example that springs to mind is the BMW iDrive, which has caused new Bimmer owners no end of frustration2 58226.html?from=storyrhs
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027
Not wanting to be left behind, Mercedes Benz went ahead and designed a similar system. So you have a situation where two companies are competing vigorously against eachother without taking into consideration the needs and wants of their customers.
In this case, it has been reported that the consolidation of function controls onto one device have caused accidents.
That's beside the point tho - When you fork out the extra for a Merc or Bimmer you expect to get extra buttons to play with! Otherwise you'd just buy a Lada.
I think both points are valid. I agree that there was common public perception that she exaggerated her injuries. I hold the belief that the truth lies somewhere between "hot coffee woman's" version and McDonalds' legal teams version. Ok this next bit is off the point a little but I wanted to highlight a fact used in the woman's defence to prove negligence. According to the site there were 700 scalding coffee reports in the previous ten years. It goes on to say McDonald's earned $1.35 million per day in coffee revenues. Multiplying that figure by 365 to take it to annual revenue the number comes to $492,750,000. Multiplying that number by 10 gives you $4,927,500,000 which is their coffee revenue over a decade. Now McDonalds charges 49 cents for a coffee so we can work out how many coffees they sold over a ten year period. That number comes to: 10,056,122,449 (>10 billion)! So for over 10 billion cups of coffee sold over a 10 year period there were only 700 reports of coffee burns. Expressed as a ratio that's 1 burn for every 14.36 million cups of coffee (1:14,365,889.21). Doesn't seem to be excessive to me - thoughts?
Wow that is pretty aweful regardless of how careless she was. I followed the link to "hot coffee woman" and saw that she recieved $2.7 million in punitive damages. Wow! That's quite excessive for a scald even if it was reduced to just under 1/2 a million dollars. What baffles me are comments on the site like: "$480,000 is the money McDonald's takes in for coffee sales in 8.5 hours" This is a typical left wing statistic designed to tug on our heart strings and justify the obscene amount of money she received. In left wing terms that amounts to 320,000 cups of scalding hot coffee. I wonder what that amounts to in World Vision Famine Packs? :P
In the spirit of "hot coffee woman's" dislike of greed (Corporate in this case) I'm sure she gave all the money left over from her injuries to charity...
Perhaps the woman should have used a balm for her horrible injuries. Lucky she lived to sue! :p
So you claim the woman suffered more than just a burn? So besides her burn and lack mental horsepower to realise the coffee could scald her, what else did she suffer?
Seriously though, like you said a coffee is made with boiling water. Then why would you expect it to be served at 60c? (or 140f - I wish I was debating with someone from outside the USA so I didn't have to go and convert the temps but that's cool) Isn't it therefore logical to expect the water to be up to 100c? 60c (140f) is less hot than the water from my hot water tap.
As for the subtlety of my joke to send people to an, it must have been lost on you (I won't blame this on you being a Yank because some of the finest subtle and sarcastic humour I know of has come from the USA [Simpsons : The Onion) So I guess it's your ego not being able to cope with disagreement. As for the buffoon comment, you're either Brazilian or a child. A Brazilian Child living the USA? :P
Your inability to grasp sarcasm reminds me of a joke I heard recently:
An American is in London on a typical rainy day when a local man walks past him, tips his hat and says "Lovely Day Isn't it?"
The American looked puzzled for a moment thinking "Hang on, it's not a lovely day at all". Then it dawned on him that this was that British sarcasm he'd heard about and proceeded to chuckle at the English Gents comment.
So the American went home thinking that he'd try some sarcasm of his own.
After he returned he had a BBQ with his friends and accidentally burned the sausages. He thought to himself that this was a perfect opportunity to try some sarcasm on his friends so he turned to everybody holding up a burnt sausage and said, "Lovely Day Isn't it?"
Boom cha!
My understanding is that it takes a great deal of energy to heat water beyond 100c. A normal coffee machine or hot water jug will only heat water to boiling point. The only way I can think of being able to heat water beyond 100c in a kitchen would be to give it a darn good zap with a microwave. My point here is that it's safe to assume the water in the coffee was 100c as it was made using a coffee machine, not a microwave. Nowadays, when I buy a coffee from McDonalds it's not enough bcs some moron spilled a piping hot coffee on herself (himself?), successfully sued and ruined the chance for everyone else to get a sufficiently hot coffee. I really fail to see how selling a coffee with freshly boiled water amounts to negligence on the part of the vendor. I believe this is a classic example of people needed to take responsibility for their own actions. You spill a coffee on yourself and of course its going to burn. Clumsy arsed gits like this need to be sent to an Island so they can't contaminate the rest of the gene pool. McDonalds coffee sux anyway...