From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-07 16:06:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!agilent.com!not-for-mail From: Eric The Read Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Followup-To: poster Date: 07 Jun 2001 17:06:50 -0600 Organization: hardly any to speak of Sender: erics@valdemar.cos.agilent.com Message-ID: References: <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: goodnews.cos.agilent.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: cswtrans.cos.agilent.com 991955211 904 130.29.64.134 (7 Jun 2001 23:06:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@cswtrans.cos.agilent.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:06:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Arches" Cache-Post-Path: goodnews.cos.agilent.com!unknown@valdemar.cos.agilent.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8370 comp.lang.awk:2868 comp.lang.clarion:21372 comp.lang.java.programmer:74550 comp.lang.pl1:876 comp.lang.vrml:3615 Date: 2001-06-07T17:06:50-06:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" writes: > When I was in kindergarden, the teacher gave us these sage words of advice: > "Hot things burn. Sharp things cut." You *expect* coffee to be hot - that's > the point. If it was cold, you would complain. Through your own > carelessness, a thing expected to be what it is is actually what it is and > it does you harm. That is the fault of McDonalds? I don't know why I expect computer professionals to be more informed about this sort of thing than the average person (more web-literacy, maybe? I don't know...) but you might wish to educate yourself a bit more on the actual facts of the case. * McDonald's had paid more than 700 claims of exactly that type at the point Ms. Leibeck sued them. They knew the nature and severity of the injuries their coffee had caused. * Ms Leibeck suffered full-thickness (or third-degree) burns over 6 percent of her body, and was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing (rather painful, I might editorialize here) skin grafts and debridement treatments. * McDonald's served their coffee 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the industry norm. The consultant who advocated this to them admitted he'd never done any safety analysis of that temperature. * McDonald's QA manager admitted that company policy required coffee to be served at 185 degrees, +/- 5 degrees, and that burning hazards existed at temperatures above 140. He further testified that McDonald's knew there was a risk of burns, but wasn't going to do anything about it. * At the temperatures the coffee was served, a full thickness burn of human skin will only take about 2 to 7 seconds. If it had been served even at 155 degrees, likely Ms. Liebeck would not have been seriously injured. (A survey of Alberquerque McDonalds' afterward found coffee served at an average of 158 degrees.) * The car Liebeck was in was stopped when she spilled the coffee, and she was not in the driver's seat. * Leibeck originally sued for only $20,000, roughly her hospital costs. The jury awarded her $160k, plus $2.7M for punitive damages, which latter award the judge later reduced to a mere $480k (three times compensatory damages). Source: > OTOH, One *expects* > software to work just like one expects their car to work or their TV to > work. (O.K. We all know better, but why do we stand for it?) When it doesn't > do what it is expected to do, we let the manufacturer off the hook - even > when there are proven methods for making software more reliable and they are > not followed? That's the real problem, and the main obstacle, I think, is that nobody has seriously tried to sue a software manufacturer for providing useless, buggy, crap. At least, not that I'm aware of (corrections welcome). Until we see consumers start caring about quality, feature creep will win the day, I fear. Followups set to 'poster' for OT content; if you want to reply to the last para, feel free. -=Eric -- The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. -- Albert Einstein