Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Norman West Rants: Stella Liebeck

Hey guys. It's Norman West here. I told Mr. Battle I'd like to have something on the blag today, and while I haven't really got anything that I've been working on recently, here's something I wrote a while ago that I've never published, and is pretty much timeless. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it pisses a couple people off. Ah well. Here it is: The Stella Liebeck Rant

It's one of the most notorious lawsuits, if not THE most notorious lawsuit of the past 20 years. Often regarded as absurd and frivolous, the 1994 lawsuit in which 79-year-old Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds and WON after spilling hot coffee onto HERSELF is still cited today in online discussions about ridiculous lawsuits. People with sense know how fucking stupid it is to place an open, piping hot container of liquid in between one's legs. Despite this, at some point in every internet conversation, some smug-ass motherfucker will chime in and say something to the effect of "DERRRRRRPPPP BUT THE COFFE WAZ 40 DEGREEZ 2 HAWT AND SHE SUFRD 3RD DEGREE BURNZ AND HAD 2 GET SKIN GRAFS. MCD'S IZ TEH EEVUL!1!!11!!1!!" They'll proceed to link to the Wikipedia page for the case and act as though they've won an argument.


These people think they're so clever for taking a contrarian viewpoint and for going up against the major corporation. But y'know what? They're fucking morons. While I'm not particularly fond of the McDonald's Corporation, it's foolish to blame them for this incident. Ms. Liebeck spilled the coffee on HERSELF. She PERFORMED THE ACTION THAT CAUSED HER OWN HARM.

"The coffee was too hot," they say. So? Why does the fucking TEMPERATURE matter? Coffee is HOT. Even if it were just 40 degrees cooler, it probably would've still caused burning. It might not have been as bad, but it's commonly understood that hot coffee WILL FUCKING BURN YOU. Even if the temperature DID matter, it's not like someone working at the McDonald's spilled the coffee on her. It was her own clumsiness that caused her injuries.


That all being said, McDonald's did handle the case with douchiness. When Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover various expenses as a result of the incident, McDonald's offered only $800. Goddamn, McDonald's. You're not exactly shedding your "evil corporate empire" image by offering such a paltry amount. $800 probably wouldn't even cover hospital food. Shit, it would've been less douchey to offer nothing at all.


In conclusion, I'm an asshole who supports an evil corporation and thinks that a little old lady didn't deserve anything after she did something stupid that ended up injuring herself.



Take care,

Norman West

China 2010



The Fast Castor

Malasia 2010



The Fast Castor

Australia 2010



The Fast Castor

Bahrein 2010



The Fast Castor

Formula 1 teams agree to abandon 2013 rules revolution


Formula 1 teams have agreed to abandon plans to make radical changes to cars for the 2013 season.
Technical chiefs voted to reject a move by governing body the FIA to bring back'ground-effect' underbody aerodynamics.
The teams want to pursue a less radical package of changes that will keep cars similar to current ones but still reduce drag and cut fuel consumption.
The FIA has until the end of June to decide whether to force through its plans against the teams' wishes.
The FIA commissioned respected engineers Patrick Head, director of engineering at Williams, and Rory Byrne, former chief designer of Ferrari, to come up with a new set of car regulations.
The aims were to help reduce fuel consumption by 35% in tandem with a switch from the current 2.4-litre V8s to 1.6-litre turbo engines with 'green' technology and for the cars to be more challenging to drive while being no more than five seconds slower per lap.
The initial plan was to reintroduce shaped underfloorsas a more efficient way of reducing drag while retaining high levels of aerodynamic downforce.
The biggest concern [about a 'ground effect' underbody] was that it's a massive amount of investment for the teams; it's quite a big departure
Sam Michael Williams technical director
But the teams, through their umbrella organisation Fota, felt this would require a lot of work and expense and that the aims of the FIA could be achieved in a way that, as one insider put it, required "less pain".
Instead, a number of detailed aerodynamic restrictions will be introduced to reduce drag, but the current design of the underside of the car, with a stepped but flat floor, would be retained.
These changes, it is felt, will achieve the same targets as those set by the FIA, but the cars will not be as aerodynamically efficient as had initially been hoped.
The so-called Fota rules - which were drafted by Byrne - were agreed at a meeting at the Turkish Grand Prixand then approved last week by F1's technical working group, which comprises top engineers from the teams and the FIA's race director Charlie Whiting.
The changes agreed will include:
* a front wing of reduced width, down from from 1800mm to 1650mm
* a much shallower rear wing, similar to those used at the high-speed Monza track
* significantly lower noses on the cars to improve safety, although the exact maximum height has still to be determined
* the retention of the moveable rear wing - or drag-reduction system (DRS) - that was introduced this season to make overtaking a little easier
* a restriction on all the extra pieces of bodywork that have sprouted in front of the sidepods of the cars
* a restriction on the design of front-wing endplates, to limit the intricate designs seen today
* a plan to increase wheel diameter from 13 inches to 18 inches has been delayed until at least 2014
We think the DRS has been effective and if we decide not to continue, it's easy to go back on it
Sam Michael Williams technical director
In theory, the agreement at the sport's Technical Working Group (TWG) means these are the rules that will be adopted after they go through the various stages of F1's regulatory process.
But it remains to be seen whether FIA president Jean Todt will want to accept the Fota rules.
He has been determined to make F1 much more sustainable and efficient with rules changes from 2013.
If the Fota rules are adopted, the cars will be less efficient - with a higher drag - than if F1 plumped for shaped underfloors.
The cars' drag co-efficient will reduce from existing levels of 0.9Cd to about 0.7Cd, while the FIA's initial hope had been to cut it to 0.5Cd.
The teams believe they can still achieve the FIA's objectives at a much lower expense with the revised rules - and the FIA is already introducing a fuel restriction for 2013, so can control consumption that way.
But if Todt wants to make a statement about sustainability, he may feel that he would prefer the teams to be using more efficient cars with less drag.
Todt has generally taken a consensual approach to F1 since becoming FIA president in October 2009.
However, he said at the Turkish GP that he was determined to push through the adoption of the new engines despite growing opposition from the manufacturers, including powerful Ferrari.
The FIA, which can impose rules for 2013 without the teams' agreement if it acts before the end of June, was unavailable for comment.
Todt is expected to have discussions on the subject with key figures at this weekend's Spanish Grand Prix.
Williams technical director Sam Michael said the teams had been reluctant to go down the route of a shaped floor because it involved a lot of work and expense and there were uncertainties over the outcome.
"The only point of contention between Fota and the FIA has been on the tunnelled floor, having a shaped undertray," Michael said.
"Everything else is pretty much the FIA proposal, or pretty close to it with just some tweaks.
"The biggest concern was that it's a massive amount of investment for the teams. It's quite a big departure.
The wide front wings and big rear wings of this year's car will go in 2013
"If you were going to go down that route and have a very different set of drag and lift coefficients that you couldn't achieve with the current rules, fine, that's different.
"But the teams saw it as a massive amount of investment and work for something we don't really understand.
"We're not scared of that but if you do spend all that money, why do that and not something you can get to very quickly and cheaply with the current floor. The FIA understood that in the end.
"There's the budget effect of doing the tunnelled floor, a shaped undertray, but there's also the fact that it's unknown.
"So you could predict the downforce you'll get from it, but you could easily achieve double. Whereas if we stay with the current floor, you can be controlled where the downforce and drag are going to be."
The inclusion of the DRS in the 2013 rules reflects a feeling that the device has been successful since its introduction this season.
Michael said: "We think it's been effective. And if we decide not to continue, it's easy to go back on it.
"If all the teams decided later it wasn't useful, we could easily get rid of it. It's not a fundamental design, whereas something like the curved floor is."

Monday, May 16, 2011

Expectations: L.A. Noire [Xbox 360]

In case you haven't heard, Rockstar Games is coming out with a new movie-I-mean-video-game tomorrow, L.A. Noire. I don't want to put pressure on Rockstar or anything, but I have a feeling that this gaming experience will change everything.

After their last game, Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar better be presenting something that can at least stand up next to their last, arguable best work. To say the least, Redemption is (in this fat bastards humble opinion) one of the greatest games ever created. Fantastic story and dark/witty humor collide with ridiculously stunning visuals of the southwest and enjoyable gameplay to create a beastly game.

I believe that L.A. Noire is going to take things to the next level and possibly change the gaming world forever. The realism derived in L.A. Noire will not come from the purity and crispness of the environment, the pixel count, the frames per second, or the color, but the characters themselves. You may recognize the protagonist, that's because he's an actor. I can't believe I get to say this about a video game, but so are the rest of the cast members.

In this game you play a detective, and as a detective it's your job to find clues and string them together. A key part of learning these clues is from interrogation and questioning. For this reason, Rockstar uses a system to accurately and VERY realistically capture and animate facial expressions of the actors. The point is to make their faces look as real as possible so that reading them will be as easy (or as hard) as reading a real persons face.

Adding this to the reputation Rockstar has gained for story, I'd say L.A Noire is going to be less video game and more interactive film. For this reason, I think it will change everything. It won't be an overnight sensationalist change, but in 10 years I think we'll look back and see Rockstar's L.A. Noire as the precursor, the grand daddy, and the originator of interactive film.

I'm expecting big things Rockstar, please don't let me down.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...