• 2016-04-20跟新 - [薛定谔的猫]

    最近申请H1b.

    申请不到我就会回杭州了。有时候一个强制的旅行也是需要的 :)

    回家我要吃川味观!

    Category: 薛定谔的猫
  • 2016-01-252016了 - [奋斗在美国]

    试了好几次密码才登陆进来。

     

    已经没人留在大巴了吗。

    Category: 奋斗在美国
  •  博客大巴白名单通过了 那我就不移步了吧。大巴从2011年写到现在 也写出感情了。

     

    我的商业课请了本地的一位成功商人来演讲

    该商人做婚戒业。 他开口第一句话就是: I sell things nobody really needs. 接着给我们讲他赚了多少钱。。。。

     

    大实话。 说真的人为什么有这么多形式上的东西要满足?

    换句话说  我卖块亮晶晶的石头给你 你要嘛?你每几年还要花钱请人清理这块石头。你要是住在治安不好的区 还要怕被打劫。 做饭,洗碗还要把它拿下来 再戴回去。而且这块石头有可能是剥削别人换来的。(不知道我在说什么的同学可以参考电影血钻)

    大部分人买戒指跟随大众。另外一部分是宣誓主权。但有个戒指就能保证爱情常在了嘛?我爸妈,没有婚戒。到现在还是结的好好的。爱情, 和戒指有半毛钱关系。我要是哪天真的结婚了,我不要男友给我买婚戒。我要他用相同的钱给我个买个mutual fund.(金融教授旁白:真是没白教你啊!)或者珍珠的戒指。因为珍珠是从大海里出来的。 :) 看到珍珠我就想到探险和海底世界。

     

     人生短短那么几十年。我真的没有时间去讨好身边的每个人。

    做让自己和家人开心的事情才是最重要。

     

     

    Category: 薛定谔的猫
  • 2014-09-30投资 - [薛定谔的猫]

    最近iwatch iphone6热潮刚过

    乔布斯过世后 苹果还是一样惹人关注。

     

    但是同志们!你们买苹果的股票已经晚了啊!苹果已经红了多少年了?

    现在的股票价格都是靠投资者的信心在撑着。真正苹果的利润就算算上了通膨率也赚不了这么多。

     

     

    从最近耐克的手腕,Google glass趋势看来,可穿戴式科技一定会是下5年的趋势。

    穿戴式科技一定都是越做越轻越做越小。所以相应的,它们的屏幕也会越做越小。

    那么 我们可以推测,触摸屏幕会逐渐推出历史舞台。因为我们的手指不会越来越小。

    所以人机交互。例如语音控制系统会越来越重要。

    还有一个趋势是,iwatch会根据你的地理位置推测出你需要的功能。例如,如果它侦测到你在一个高尔夫场。它就会自动为你提供你周边的天气,以及周边的餐馆等。所以,地理位置的芯片。

     

    但是做芯片这些公司很多?要怎么选呢?

    首先地理位置。 1)硅谷的公司人脉多。苹果已经周边各种三星啊 做科技的公司

    接着,2)芯片公司的老板阶层很重要。他们有没有能力做创新。首选PHD+商界人事联合的组合。

            3) 老板自己在自己的公司投资多少?老板在自己的公司投资超过百分之十(IPO之后)是一个正面的指标。说明老板对自己股票有信心。但是如果老板在自己公司投资比例太多,比如超过百分之五十,证明股票卖不出去。

    4) 拿到各家公司的数据具体分析。

     

     

    当然,真正专业搞投资的人下班都不会再写投资的博了。

    就像歌星下班了不去KTV一样。

    你就当我飘过吧 

    Category: 薛定谔的猫
  • McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors  Say, In Case of Burned Woman

     

    How Hot Do You Like It?

     

     by Andrea Gerlin

     Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

     September 1, 1994

     The Wall Street Journal

     (© 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)

     

     ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - When a law firm here found itself  defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that  claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee,  it hired a law student to take temperatures at other  local restaurants for comparison.

     

     After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about  180 degrees.

     

     It should have been a warning.

     

     But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced  that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee  the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's  temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion  cups a year.

     

     But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million  to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee  - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I  drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest  coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense  attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the  office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's  going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself.  And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot.  I mean, man, it hurts."

     

     McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of  coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot  temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor  during brewing.

     

     Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer  its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held  at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Since the  verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment,  as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company,  whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are  hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

     

     Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America  has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly  board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin'  Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of  coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict  to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it  makes coffee.

     

     Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine  maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication,  industry settings may be too low - some customers like  it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee  is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and  I would hope that this is an isolated incident."

     

     Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably  the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics  are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate,  that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure  to drink."

     

     Public opinion is squarely on the side of  McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of  Americans - including many who typically support the  little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio  talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining  to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had  received angry calls from citizens around the country.

     

     It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says  he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there  to settle a coffee spill."

     

     At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in  window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing  the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing  third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.  Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed  the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

     

     What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the  matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell  my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car,  at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

     

     Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's  had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents  showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received  at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild  to third degree, and had settled claims arising from  scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

     

     Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years  of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one  to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic  figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department  store clerk who said under oath that she had never  filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would  have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed  her requests for compensation for pain and medical  bills with an offer of $800.

     

     Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney.  While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe  home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet  a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston  attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit  against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever  since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee  is too hot.

     

     For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree  burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken  at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and  Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's,  his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12  hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed  Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance  manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had  no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan.  McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

     

     Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned  to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries  and those of a California woman who suffered second-  and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee  spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case  that was settled out of court for $230,000.

     

     Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb,  the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person  accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have  been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy  of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge  Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of  law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor  the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan  could mention the cases.

     

     As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined  to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered  to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept  half that amount.

     

     But McDonald's didn't bite.

     

     Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator,  a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

     

     Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that  she may have contributed to her injuries by holding  the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing  immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's  age may have caused her injuries to have been worse  than they might have been in a younger individual," since  older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

     

     The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days.  Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee  causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's  argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could  produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether  Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying  on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the  serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make  a big difference, because it takes less than three  seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees,  about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20  seconds at 160 degrees.

     

     The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive,  didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified  that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious  burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it.  He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to  warn customers about the possibility of severe burns,  even though most people wouldn't think it possible.  Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend  to change any of its coffee policies or procedures,  saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

     

     Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

     

     Next for the defense came P. Robert  Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000  in fees from the case and who, several jurors said  later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told  the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically  insignificant when compared to the billion cups of  coffee McDonald's sells annually.

     

    To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns  didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a  person behind every number and I don't think the corporation  was attaching enough importance to that," says juror  Betty Farnham.

     

     When the panel reached the jury room,  it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's  was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against  the company," says  Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

     

     Then the six  men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with  Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

     

     The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested  penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two  days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated  at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation,  a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6  million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury  settled on $2.7 million.

     

     McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial.  Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator  to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's  request. The judge also has the authority to disregard  the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

     

     One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested  the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck  and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees.  But industry officials say they doubt that this signals  any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus  groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee  at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal  taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point  of steaming.

     

    __________________________

     

    POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive  damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called  McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This  reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal  system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed  to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be  much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective  feature.

     

     ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati  had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

     

    Critics of civil justice and juries have pounced on the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it.

     

    Facts About the Case

    Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.

     

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

     

    Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

    A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.

     

    Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.

     

     She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

     

    Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

    Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

     

    McDonald's Attitude

    During discovery, McDonald's 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 Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

     

    McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.

     

      Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.

     

       Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

     

     

    Damaging Testimony

    McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

     

    The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at

    Category: 奋斗在美国