What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[fastbilly1]

And our accountant apparently lost one of our 1098s...specifically the one that was used for 11 of the months last year. The fact that this did not red flag him that we only paid our mortgage for one month, is distressing.

[Luke]

Another grey area in the law:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... using.html

[Luke]

The video is a tribute to some of the benefits of simpler times - a time when we didn't blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on ourselves.

Uh-huh:

[s1mplehumar]

Smile: I got a raise today.

[Flake]

Smile: I got a raise today.

Remind me to sell you more stuff.

Smile: I got my official offer and start date for Rackspace. Traffic is going to be a beast but if my fiancee and I can get the step kid into the school we're hoping for, we should be moving to a better side of town in the not too distant future.

Frown: Tomorrow evening I'll be seeing a lot of my friends that I went to class and competed with for my job. I know it's silly but I feel kind of bad that I got hired and many of them didn't. Survivor's guilt, maybe?

Another Smile: The article that Omerta and Prfsnl_gmr helped me with got posted. http://www.racketboy.com/retro/nintendo ... o-gamecube

Frown: Just noticed each and every one of my typos that made it through like three rounds of editing. *rushes off to email updates to Nick*

[prfsnl_gmr]

A time when we didn't blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on ourselves.

The hot coffee lawsuit is an easy target, but the facts of the case are misunderstood. The plaintiff in that case suffered third-degree burns on six-percent of her skin and lesser burns on another 16 percent. She was hospitalized for eight days, required extensive skin grafts, and required follow-up treatment for two years. McDonald's had the opportunity to settle the lawsuit for an amout equal to the plaintiff's medical bills, but it received terrible counsel, took the case all the way to trial, and lost spectacularly. Finally, it ultimately paid significantly less than the plaintiff was awarded, and I suspect that the Plaintiff - after paying her legal and medical bills - took home just over $100K.

Another Smile: The article that Omerta and I helped prfsnl_gmr with got posted. http://www.racketboy.com/retro/nintendo ... o-gamecube

FTFY

[Flake]

A time when we didn't blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on ourselves.

The hot coffee lawsuit is an easy target, but the facts of the case are misunderstood. The plaintiff in that case suffered third-degree burns on six-percent of her skin and lesser burns on another 16 percent. She was hospitalized for eight days, required extensive skin grafts, and required follow-up treatment for two years. McDonald's had the opportunity to settle the lawsuit for an amout equal to the plaintiff's medical bills, but it received terrible counsel, took the case all the way to trial, and lost spectacularly. Finally, it ultimately paid significantly less than the plaintiff was awarded, and I suspect that the Plaintiff - after paying her legal and medical bills - took home just over $100K.

Agree with Prfsnl on this. The food and beverage industry did an absolutely amazing job destroying that woman in the press and media - enough that most people don't have a clue that the coffee that burnt her would have likely killed her if she'd swallowed it. It was THAT hot, way hotter than there was any reason for it to be.

[fastbilly1]

It was THAT hot, way hotter than there was any reason for it to be.

The coffee in that lawsuit was stated to be 180–190f (79-85c) per the Plaintiff. Which is the same temperature that most big coffee chains, ej Starbucks, sells their coffee at right now. Granted the packaging is much better now than then.

[prfsnl_gmr]

It was THAT hot, way hotter than there was any reason for it to be.

The coffee in that lawsuit was stated to be 180–190f (79-85c) per the Plaintiff. Which is the same temperature that most big coffee chains, ej Starbucks, sells their coffee at right now. Granted the packaging is much better now than then.

I think that this is the case. When you are going to sell coffee that hot, however, you need to take precautions so that no one is injured by it. (Similar to how manufacturers of lawn mowers place guards over the blades.) Safer packaging and mixing cream and sugar for drive-through customers are two easy, inexpensive methods that will prevent injuries like this. McDonalds did not take those precautions at the time, and its litigation counsel was terrible (which is the primary reason it was hit with such a large verdict).

[MrPopo]

It was THAT hot, way hotter than there was any reason for it to be.

The coffee in that lawsuit was stated to be 180–190f (79-85c) per the Plaintiff. Which is the same temperature that most big coffee chains, ej Starbucks, sells their coffee at right now. Granted the packaging is much better now than then.

I think that this is the case. When you are going to sell coffee that hot, however, you need to take precautions so that no one is injured by it. (Similar to how manufacturers of lawn mowers place guards over the blades.) Safer packaging and mixing cream and sugar for drive-through customers are two easy, inexpensive methods that will prevent injuries like this. McDonalds did not take those precautions at the time, and its litigation counsel was terrible (which is the primary reason it was hit with such a large verdict).

If people are hurting themselves that's just nature at work. Who are you to play God by keeping people uninjured who were supposed to get injured?