Funeral services for teen killed at SFOG and a problem.

---

bunky666 said:
An infant or toddler shouldn't be left unsupervised in bathtubs or near huge buckets of water, right?

---

Which is why there is a warning. If there is a 5 gallon bucket around with an inch of water in the bottom a young kid can easily over end himself and not be able to tip it back over because of how these particular buckets are shaped. It's not exactly the most obvious, intuitive way for a kid to die. Faced with the option of either just putting the bucket away in a safe place, or keeping my eye on my kid for ever single second of every single day, I think I'd take the option of putting away the bucket.

It's no different from baby-proofing electrical outlets or keeping cleaning chemicals in a kid-proof cabinet. Is a simple warning on a bucket such an affront? *** Edited 7/9/2008 9:10:56 PM UTC by matt.***

Well, if that's the case, we should have warning labels on ANY saying that the cat/dog/ferret/snake/ect may bite if treated wrong.

As for the back-up cameras, If UPS is putting 'em on all their trucks, they must be worth the money.

I found a couple of good stupid ones while surfing today.

"Caution: Shoots rubber bands." -- On a product called "Rubber Band Shooter."

"Do not put in mouth." -- On a box of bottle rockets.

"Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.

On a fireplace log -- "Caution: Risk of Fire."
Makes you wonder how stupid people really are. *** Edited 7/9/2008 9:36:22 PM UTC by Hopman***

---

matt. said:

Faced with the option of either just putting the bucket away in a safe place, or keeping my eye on my kid for ever single second of every single day, I think I'd take the option of putting away the bucket.

---

But did you need a warning on the bucket itself for you to come to the conclusion that you'd keep babies away from a bucket of water?

---

It's no different from baby-proofing electrical outlets or keeping cleaning chemicals in a kid-proof cabinet. Is a simple warning on a bucket such an affront?

---

None of the electrical outlets in my house have a specific warning label on them. However, I still plan on 'baby-proofing' them once the kids come. I figured out that there was a risk without the need for a warning label.

I dont see warning labels as a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. I just think that the vast majority of them are superfluous.

lata, jeremy

---

2Hostyl said:
But did you need a warning on the bucket itself for you to come to the conclusion that you'd keep babies away from a bucket of water?

---

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5006.html

According to this, 275 kids have drowned in these specific buckets since 1984.

How many dead kids does it take before a simple warning on a bucket is worth it? 500? 1000?

Consider me absolutely, 100% astonished we're even having this conversation.

What we need is Federal oversight of bucket usage. Each time you use a bucket, you'll first have to get in touch with OSHA, who will ensure that you use the bucket only in a way that is safe for fellow workers and area infants.

We ought to get Markey on that right away.

Yeah. Markey's spent time an TAXPAYER $$$$ on such stupid stuff as investigation the NE Pats using cameras. Gimme a break. Maybe we should put a lable on him saying "This person is a drain a resources and should not be listen to.!"

---

Hopman said:
Makes you wonder how stupid people really are. \\

---

Wonder? I don't wonder how stupid people really are, I KNOW how stupid some people really are and/or can be.

Human intelligence is normally distributed, but a normal distribution has a *long tail*. ;)

^Thank goodness for that long tail....otherwise, our country might end up being run by a 'C' student...LOL! ;)

---

matt. said:
According to this, 275 kids have drowned in these specific buckets since 1984.

---

Not interested enough to find out myself, but I'm wondering how many have drowned before and after the warnings were put on the buckets. Did the rate of incident drop or stay the same? Do people heed these warnings or ignore them anyway?

For the record, I'm in the camp of these guys that think things have gone too far and the warnings are ridiculous, but I do wonder in if they make a significant difference. (and don't tell me, "If we save just one life it was worth it")

The way I see it, it's lose/lose. If the rate of incident does go down then people really are that stupid. If it stays the same then it really is a waste of time and effort. Not sure there's a bright side here. ;)

^ Probably if nothing else, the company that manufactures the product can somewhat reduce its liability. The customer after all was warned about a potential hazard.

Soooo...

Bear, I should be warned of ANY hazard from the product, even if it's not intended to be use in that way, i.e. "Do not use the curnling iron as a suppository, either on or off!"

Or for example on a new Camero: "This car does not transform (Bumblebee) or drive on it's own."

Thanks to idiots like this kid. We are going to be forced to live in a nanny state where the government has to hold our hands to prevent us from getting hurt. The fact is what the kid was stupid and dangerous, it cost him his life. When are we going to grow up and accept personal responsbility for our own actions without running to the government everytime something like this happens. There are cases where the ride malfunctions which can't be prevented and in some where it can be.

/\ Hes not an idiot, he might have seen Iron Man or something before going to the park, he believed he was invincible DUH! Movies and media always do that to kids. How do you know he didn't ride Superman earlier that day? How do you know he didn't have dreams of flying? I'm sure Marvel Entertainment or DC Comics are somehow to blame for this!!

*** Edited 7/11/2008 5:02:08 AM UTC by P18***

P18, are you actually DEFENDING the kid's actions? Are you saying "the comics made him do it?"

As for the nanny state, I think we're already there, mostly. We've got warning lables on everything and a gerenation that needs to pull the earbuds out and actually LISTEN to the world around them. Ipods are a whole different issue that doesn't pertain here.

Sar-chasm.

^ Exactly ;) I thought that was such a load of BS/Sarcasm that it might not even need the winky, alas I was wrong. You took my post as I was serious, showing how it wouldn't be THAT far fetched or unlikely for someone to say that and actually believe it and be completely serious. It leads to how we have grown to expect some people to be so thick or naive, because some people ARE. :) *** Edited 7/11/2008 3:41:03 PM UTC by P18***

We've become a society that believes people are absolutely entitled to live a life where nothing goes wrong. If something bad should happen, it's obviously because of negligence or malice on someone's part-- usually someone who has a lot of money.

Therefore, people who have bad things happen to them are entitled to be compensated for having their expectation of a perfect life disrupted. Whether it be a person who has to wait too long in a supermarket checkout, or a kid who steps in front of a roller coaster going 55 mph-- somebody is to blame for every major tragedy or minor inconvenience.

^There's a better one I saw on the news today: A man is sueing a CHURCH becuase he lost his faith. Now that's low. What's next? A suit against Jesus, Zeus, Vishnu, and Budda becuase somebody prayed to them and didn't win the lotto?

I'd like to see the odds on collecting damages from any of those figures.