[Eriamjh]

I know all the about the "decimal" vs. "Binary" Gigabyte measurements. I think its a load of crap that they have been calling a 10GB drive 10,000,000,000 bytes and not 1024X1024x1024 bytes.

http://news.com.com/2100-1015_3-5078...tag=macintouch

Sue their asses, I say. It's just like the 15" monitor = 13.5" visible crap.

What say you, MacNN community?

[benb]

I say sue the manufacturers not the people who make the computers.

[Sherwin]

Yeah. Sue them.

Next up: Microsoft, for calling their product an operating system.

[starman]

Sue their asses, I say. It's just like the 15" monitor = 13.5" visible crap.

Well, it IS a 15" monitor, and they DO say that there's a different visible area.

I think it's bullshit. There IS an unformatted and formatted capacity on these drives. Different OS's and file systems yield different results. So...what do you do? List all the different OS/file system yields on the box? Be serious. If I buy a 120 GB drive, I know I'm going to get 114 GB out of it on one OS, and maybe 116 GB on another. The only thing these manufacturers CAN do is just say, "look, here's the unformatted capactiy, you do your own math".

Mike

[Eriamjh]

Actually, the capacity is NOT referring to the formatted vs. the unforamtted (that's a whole 'nother lawsuit), but the confusion caused by binary vs. decimal Gigabytes and Megabytes.

And I agree. They should sue the HD manufacturers, not the computer sellers.

[MindFad]

They need Nutrition Facts on the boxes, too. Really. The last one I had was awfully high in magnesium.

[willed]

Originally posted by starman:
Well, it IS a 15" monitor, and they DO say that there's a different visible area.

I think it's bullshit. There IS an unformatted and formatted capacity on these drives. Different OS's and file systems yield different results. So...what do you do? List all the different OS/file system yields on the box? Be serious. If I buy a 120 GB drive, I know I'm going to get 114 GB out of it on one OS, and maybe 116 GB on another. The only thing these manufacturers CAN do is just say, "look, here's the unformatted capactiy, you do your own math".

Mike

You may know the difference, as you are a nerd. However, most people don't - I was nastily surprised when I found that my 10G HD was only 9.3G in reality. I thought it was a manufacturing error until I found out about the whole binary thing. It is confusing for consumers, but I don't think they're going to win their lawsuit.

[Eug]

I say suing over this is lame. BTW, if you actually read the fine print on drive descriptions, this is mentioned.

Are they going to sue over DVD-R sizes too?

I say when this class-action suit is thrown out, then those starting the suit should be given a hefty fine for wasting everyone's time with such a frivolous lawsuit.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by benb:
I say sue the manufacturers not the people who make the computers.

This is the kind of class action lawsuit that will end with the lawyers making an insane amount of money and consumers getting small refunds.

But, I do think that if this makes it to court, the computer makers should also be named since they also list the "wrong" size in their marketing materials with the formatted size in small print (if it's there at all).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by willed:
You may know the difference, as you are a nerd. However, most people don't - I was nastily surprised when I found that my 10G HD was only 9.3G in reality. I thought it was a manufacturing error until I found out about the whole binary thing. It is confusing for consumers, but I don't think they're going to win their lawsuit.

two words...

TORT REFORM

Litigious idiots. Stupid s*** like this makes products cost more.

"The more I think about it, old Billy was right. Let's kill all the lawyers, kill `em tonight.
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king,
but the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing "

[memento]

this is nuckin futs. Put this lawsuit right up there with "I spilled my McDonalds coffee on me while I was driving and it was hot. You didn't tell me that my coffee was hot so I'm going to sue you" and "I'm morbidly obese because I don't have the willpower to stop eating your unhealthy fast-food crap. I'm going to sue you for making me like this". These lawyers are out of hand. Educate yourself on the technology you're buying before you buy it.

[starman]

You may know the difference, as you are a nerd.

And someone buying a hard drive isn't?



Mike

[mishap]

Originally posted by starman:
And someone buying a hard drive isn't?



Mike

Exatly. Looks like someone said... hmm... this looks like a good opportunity to get money. No one is really shocked at finding a few GB less on their drive now days are they?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Next up: Microsoft, for calling their product an operating system.

[Sherwin]

It's actually somewhat misleading to the average punter to tell them that a HD is such and such a size when it clearly won't be once it's formatted.

We know the score, but we're not the only people that HDs are marketed to. Why should consumers learn new terminology to be able to purchase new consumer goodies without getting ripped off? (and it's not just geeks buying HDs either - wrong HD size is quoted to Joe Punter buying a complete system).

This is clearly nothing like the McDonalds coffee thing - unless that McDonalds coffee was only 320 ml instead of the 330 ml advertised ("it's only 320 ml because the bottom of the cup takes up 10 ml").

Manufacturers (and makers) should label their product clearly. A simple change of ad terminology should suffice: Instead of an 80 Gb HD it's a 73-78 Gb HD.

The use of "maximum marketing figures" is clearly at fault and the consumer needs protecting from them (and yes, these are the same "maximum marketing figures" which lead Joe Punter to believe the megahertz myth, so don't even try and argue ).

[AB^2=BCxAC]

People who sue about HD's having misleading numbers ought to sue their high schools for letting them graduate.

[Phanguye]

"I spilled my McDonalds coffee on me while I was driving and it was hot. You didn't tell me that my coffee was hot so I'm going to sue you"

know your facts

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

[mishap]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

The use of "maximum marketing figures" is clearly at fault and the consumer needs protecting from them (and yes, these are the same "maximum marketing figures" which lead Joe Punter to believe the megahertz myth, so don't even try and argue ).

People need to become less sensitive and start becoming smarter consumers.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by mishap:
People need to become less sensitive and start becoming smarter consumers.

Clearly not going to happen, else we'd have 95% market share by now.

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
This is the kind of class action lawsuit that will end with the lawyers making an insane amount of money and consumers getting small refunds.

I thought that was happened in ALL class action lawsuits...

[typoon]

Originally posted by benb:
I say sue the manufacturers not the people who make the computers.

Agreed

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
know your facts

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

Yes, it's stupidity... what kind of an idiot puts their cup between their knees to pry off the lid, in a car? IMO, the judge, jury, and plaintiff are morons. Like she couldn't feel how hot the coffee was through a styrofoam cup? That's BS.

There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility today and everyone wants in on the litigation "gravy train".

"I don't wanna work, I'll just sue someone and let the rest of society pay my way." Damned parasites.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by typoon:
Agreed

No not "Agreed", just greed.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, it's stupidity... what kind of an idiot puts their cup between their knees to pry off the lid, in a car? IMO, the judge, jury, and plaintiff are morons. Like she couldn't feel how hot the coffee was through a styrofoam cup? That's BS.

There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility today and everyone wants in on the litigation "gravy train".

"I don't wanna work, I'll just sue someone and let the rest of society pay my way." Damned parasites.

that doesnt change the fact that they were serving their coffee at 180 degrees minimum... yes their needs to be responisbility on both sides, the jury found the plaintiff 20% at fault but if the coffee had been served at a safe temp, then it would have just been a uncomfortable burn for a couple weeks instead of the horrible burns she recieved.

anyway i wasnt debating whether or not you think it was right, i was just saying that people should know the facts about the case before they call people morons

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
that doesnt change the fact that they were serving their coffee at 180 degrees minimum... yes their needs to be responisbility on both sides, the jury found the plaintiff 20% at fault but if the coffee had been served at a safe temp, then it would have just been a uncomfortable burn for a couple weeks instead of the horrible burns she recieved.

anyway i wasnt debating whether or not you think it was right, i was just saying that people should know the facts about the case before they call people morons

That doesn't change the fact that poor judgement got this woman injured, not McDonalds. Fault? Try 95% plaintiff, 5% defendant in that case. No doubt the jury was emotionally swayed, and it's easy to reach into a large corporation"s pockets.

[Eug]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, it's stupidity... what kind of an idiot puts their cup between their knees to pry off the lid, in a car? IMO, the judge, jury, and plaintiff are morons. Like she couldn't feel how hot the coffee was through a styrofoam cup? That's BS.

There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility today and everyone wants in on the litigation "gravy train".

"I don't wanna work, I'll just sue someone and let the rest of society pay my way." Damned parasites.

Agreed. The woman is simply a ID10T. She deserved to pay a fine for such a stupid lawsuit IMO.

BTW, 180 degrees is not even close to the boiling temp by the way. One buys hot coffee to get hot coffee, not lukewarm coffee.

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, it's stupidity... what kind of an idiot puts their cup between their knees to pry off the lid, in a car? IMO, the judge, jury, and plaintiff are morons. Like she couldn't feel how hot the coffee was through a styrofoam cup? That's BS.

There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility today and everyone wants in on the litigation "gravy train".

"I don't wanna work, I'll just sue someone and let the rest of society pay my way." Damned parasites.

Thats not completly fair. McDonnalds coffee IS ludicrously hot, and styrofoam cups are very good at insulation.

[starman]

If someone came up with an OS that allowed HDs to be used with their complete capacity, would the size of the disk be misleading?

I agree - there should be some education when you get under the hood of anything.

Look, if HD manufacturers are made to advertize their HD space as Formatted(x) instead of Unformatted(x), and someone comes around and allows better capacity NewFormatted(y) > Formatted(x), the HD manufacturers are going to get all pissed off since they've been forced to use the older-type number because of this lawsuit.

Mike

[Beewee]

Ya my 120GB is only 111GB its a load of crap.

[boardsurfer]

What do you mean FINALLY a lawsuit about HD sizes. This is lame. The whole thing gets a big from me. The McDonalds read was interesting though.

These people are wasting their time and others. And on top of that, shouldn't they be naming the HD makers?

[Cipher13]

Should Intel be sued for selling high-MHz, lower-performance processors?

It's a similar thing. It's all about the units in which you measure something.

120 GB is still bigger than 100 GB.

It's not as if you're losing out or being ripped off.

[nobitacu]

It's about damn time someone is finally going to try to do something about this issue. The companies has been lying to us with false advertisement for years and years now, still don't know to this day why and how they were getting away with this.

Ming

[NYCFarmboy]

Oh Boo Hoo...

Pitty everyone, lets sue for everything.

People need to grow up.

The ONLY result of this lawsuit against computer makers will be a fat check to some @#$% creepo scumbag lawyers, paid for by HIGHER computer prices for EVERYONE in the future.

[starman]

Originally posted by nobitacu:
It's about damn time someone is finally going to try to do something about this issue. The companies has been lying to us with false advertisement for years and years now, still don't know to this day why and how they were getting away with this.

Ming

How is it false? I've seen ads that say:

*Unformatted capacity

Mike

[Eug]

For the last time people it's not just formatting, but the fact that 1 GB here means 1000000000 bytes, not 1073741824 bytes.

Therefore a 100 GB drive in hard-drive speak means 93 GB when using multiples of 2 to the 10th power for kilo, mega, giga, etc.

This convention has been that way ever since hard drives came out, and indeed, it is the standard way of reporting the space by ALL hard drive companies. Using this convention, the hard drive companies are correct.

The only reason we're seeing lawsuits now are:

1) People realize they can get away with frivolous lawsuits these days sometimes.
2) People are too lazy to read the fine print.
3) People are too lazy (stupid?) to calculate what it means, even if they read the fine print.
4) People realize they can get away with frivolous lawsuits these days sometimes.

Similarly, 4.7 GB DVD-R discs hold less than 4.4 GB with the latter definition, but you don't see any lawsuits about that. Hopefully we never will, but stupid minds sometimes prevail.

[MindFad]

Despite the argument about how hot the coffee was, and the temperature it was at.... I still say she's a dumbass who spilled coffee on herself. 20 percent at fault? 100 percent at fault. McDonald's should have had to cover the medical bills and made the coffee cooler. McD's is the devil anyway, so never mind.

As for the HDs, what Eug just said. This is nothing new. It says so on the boxes even. And probably on the manufacturers' web sites.

[memento]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
know your facts...

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap...

...During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992...

1) Temerature is irrelevant to stupidity. 140deg, 180deg, 212deg... whatever... IT'S HOT. Jam your hand into a fresh brewed put of coffee in your home (presumably then at 140deg) and it HURTS - probably pretty bad. Does everybody with half a brain know this? I sure hope so! So don't put it between your legs and attempt to remove the lid. How freakin simple is that?

2. How many cups of coffee were sold between 1982 and 1992? If, as you say, McDonalds does $2.7M in 2 days for coffee alone, then assuming a cup is $1, that's 1.35M cups a day. For 10 years that's over 4.9 billion cups of coffee. 700 complaints on 4.9 billion? That's a damn small number of complaints! I'm not going to run statistics on it, but that may even be below noise level (that would mean that it is statistically insignificant). 1 in 7 million. What sigma is that?

[Synotic]

Originally posted by Eug:
For the last time people it's not just formatting, but the fact that 1 GB here means 1000000000 bytes, not 1073741824 bytes.

Therefore a 100 GB drive in hard-drive speak means 93 GB when using multiples of 2 to the 10th power for kilo, mega, giga, etc.

This convention has been that way ever since hard drives came out, and indeed, it is the standard way of reporting the space by ALL hard drive companies. Using this convention, the hard drive companies are correct.

The only reason we're seeing lawsuits now are:

1) People realize they can get away with frivolous lawsuits these days sometimes.
2) People are too lazy to read the fine print.
3) People are too lazy (stupid?) to calculate what it means, even if they read the fine print.
4) People realize they can get away with frivolous lawsuits these days sometimes.

Similarly, 4.7 GB DVD-R discs hold less than 4.4 GB with the latter definition, but you don't see any lawsuits about that. Hopefully we never will, but stupid minds sometimes prevail.

Thank you, it was already explained earlier yet people are still arguing about formatted/unformatted sizes. That has nothing to do with it. Like you said if an advertised GB of 100GB means 93GB then formatted is even less like 89GB... But that's not the point. You really are not getting what's advertised regardless of whether it's formatted or not.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Synotic:
You really are not getting what's advertised regardless of whether it's formatted or not.

You are getting exactly what is advertised. Maybe the advertising is confusing because they were liberal in the definition of the word way back when, but that's the way it's been ever since. That has been the standard adhered to by all companies in the business. The definition has never changed, and indeed, some of us who actually read the info knew that 15 years ago. It's not as one rogue company last year started changing things.

If people would actually stop to read what the specs actually say, maybe they'd get a clue.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Despite the argument about how hot the coffee was, and the temperature it was at.... I still say she's a dumbass who spilled coffee on herself. 20 percent at fault? 100 percent at fault. McDonald's should have had to cover the medical bills and made the coffee cooler. McD's is the devil anyway, so never mind.

And the final result is more expensive food at McDonalds for everyone because of that lawsuit.

McD's feeds millions of people every day and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. To even jokingly call them the devil is unfair.

Are you going to cook for these millions of people instead?

[Sherwin]

Ok... Did a little more looking (it's a slow night).

On the Dell UK website there's a disclaimer: 1 Gb = 1,000,000,000 bytes.

On the Dell US website, there's a pop-up: 1 Gb = 1,000 Mb.

[starman]

Dear Hard Drive Owner,
It has come to our attention that you have been affected by the Incredibly Frivilous Hard Drive Lawsuit (tm). Since you are a hard drive owner, you are entitled to $0.02 for each GB of your hard drive's capactiy. Please let us know if you choose to partake in the money(s) owed to you.



Mike

[Earth Mk. II]

This capacity is reported using the decimal numbering system (1 MB = 1,000,000 bytes and 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes). Both Windows and Macintosh operating systems use the binary numbering system, which results in a lower reported capacity.

Just how hard is it to read an entire product specification's page/sheet or to just read the friggen' box?

I just don't wanna go to a store and look at their selection of 74.5 GB drives. Now, you try and do the mental arithmetic turning 74.5 GB into a dollar value per MB or GB as opposed to a nice round 80.

Besides, wouldn't it be common sense to educate yourself about a product if you're in the market for one? I'd think a $100 HDD is expensive enough to expect someone to research their purchase and comparison shop before they buy the thing.

Should HD manufacturers report the number of available bits on their HD's as well?

[version]

Originally posted by memento:
1) Temerature is irrelevant to stupidity. 140deg, 180deg, 212deg... whatever... IT'S HOT. Jam your hand into a fresh brewed put of coffee in your home (presumably then at 140deg) and it HURTS - probably pretty bad. Does everybody with half a brain know this? I sure hope so! So don't put it between your legs and attempt to remove the lid. How freakin simple is that?

Americans , a breed apart. lol


Flame suit now on.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
And the final result is more expensive food at McDonalds for everyone because of that lawsuit.

McD's feeds millions of people every day and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. To even jokingly call them the devil is unfair.

Are you going to cook for these millions of people instead?

No, those people should learn to cook for themselves. I think they are a big evil, just as bad as the tobacco industry, if not worse, so IMO it's fair. But society stands for it. This is a whole other thread and argument, of course. Back to hard drives, and enough about the evil that is McDonald's.

[entrox]

This is the kind of thing that really cracks me up. You know what? The hard drive manufacturers are F*CKING RIGHT! 1 KiloByte is exactly 10^3 Bytes NOT 2^10, 1 MegaByte is exactly 10^6 Bytes NOT 2^20 and 1 GigaByte is exactly 10^9 Bytes NOT 2^30! This whole mess got started when idiot computer "scientists" conceived the mental abortion that 1024 approximates 1000 and should be called "Kilo".

But hey, why heed standards when we can make up our own 80% solutions? After all, there's not too much difference (only 2,4%, 4,86% and 7,37% respectively), so we will be redefining the term "Kilo" to mean 2^10 in the computer world. Those pesky engineers, scientists and mathematicians won't notice anyway!

But they noticed. And they standardized prefixes for base 2 - exactly what was needed. But seemingly nobody of the million idiots in the computer industry seems to care! They even do one of the most American things to do: sue 'em! Yes, that's right: the idiots who shouldn't have been allowed to even touch a computer are suing those who are following the standard SI units. "But it's so confusing for the consumer!". Confusing my ass - if you are that stupid, you shouldn't be allowed to procreate anyway.

[macroy]

Lame.

This reminds me of that 60 Minutes segment a few years ago when Andy Roony when around to gas stations, filled up exactly 1 gallon of fuel, and tried to get the 1/10 of a cent change back.

That was funny. This, however, is just stupid.

[::maroma::]

My 2 cents:

There are so many other things in this world that deserve more attention than this "issue" with hard drive sizes.

I sincerely hope these people get screwed when this is over. I hope the case gets drawn out, and then thrown out. Then the plaintiffs will have to pay a ton in legal fees (right?).

Some people just need to call it a day and off themselves for the better of us all.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yeah. Sue them.

Next up: Microsoft, for calling their product an operating system.

They were already sued and had their ads pulled for claiming it was "secure."

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::


I sincerely hope these people get screwed when this is over. I hope the case gets drawn out, and then thrown out. Then the plaintiffs will have to pay a ton in legal fees (right?).

Probably not. And that's the problem.

These "ambulance chaser" type lawyers will oftentake it on a contigency basis. If you win, they get paid. If you lose, they don't. But, there is no penalty involved in bringing these frivolous cases to court. The lawyers figure, bring enough of these to court and all you have to do is win one big case and you're set. (The Lottery Legal system).

Put a monetary penalty to the lawyers and the plantiffs who bring up frivolous cases, and you would see only a fraction of these kind of cases in the future.