Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10th Annual Wacky Warning Labels Out

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the hot-coffee-in-crotch dept.

445

autophile writes "It's official: M-Law's 10th Annual Wacky Warning Label Contest is over. First prize has gone to a washing machine label urging not to put people in washers. Started to promote awareness of excessive litigation, the contest highlights common sense warning labels, such as the one that warns not to dry cellphones in microwave ovens. Companies find it necessary to stick crazy warnings on their products because of previous insane lawsuits: 'A front loader (washing machine) is just at the right height — speaking now as a mother and not a corporate spokeswoman — for a four-year-old,' said Patti Andresen Shew of Alliance Laundry Systems. Personally, I think a four-year-old precocious enough to read and understand all the warning labels hidden all over a product probably doesn't need those labels."

cancel ×

445 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well she has a point... (3, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488404)

The labels are pretty rediculous but they are for the parents not the kids. Nobody thinks a 4 year old is going to read the labels and to make it sounds like thats what the company thinks is going to happen is silly. You don't need to be deceptive to make your point that the label to not put people in the washer is silly.

Re:Well she has a point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488442)

The labels are pretty rediculous

WARNING: Execessive use of Slashdot may impair your spelling skills.

Re:Well she has a point... (1)

21st Century Peon (812997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489194)

SP: Excessive.
(Oh, sweet irony!)

bash.org says: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488458)

Oblig. bash.org quote:
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Re:bash.org says: (2, Funny)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489252)

I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Because the product would be recalled due to absence of a warning label saying "warning: this product has no warning labels".

Re:Well she has a point... (1)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488546)

I stopped reading after the word "wacky"

Re:Well she has a point... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488736)

>The labels are pretty rediculous...

so are you, learn to spell you fucking retard.

Re:Well she has a point... (5, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488864)

The labels are pretty rediculous but they are for the parents


Well, actually the labels are there for the manufacturers. They don't give a crap what you do with their product, if there's a warning label then your chances of successfully suing them are minimal.

Labels for the manufacturers (5, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489188)

Parent has a good point.

The most extreme example I've seen is a box of Q-tips. So far, most of the labels menioned have been to prevent stupid use of a product. In this case, the manufacturer puts on a label to allegedly prevent the intended use.
Everybody knows what Q-tips are used for: to clean the ear canal. They were designed for that. Yet the box currently has a warning in bold block letters: DO NOT USE SWAB IN EAR CANAL. The label also lists - with pictures! - all the things that their lawers think they should be used for: removing makeup, cleaning your keyboard, etc.
This is all done just to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Re:Labels for the manufacturers (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489296)

Well, you shouldn't use a Q-tip to clean your ear. It shoves the earwax further in, and does far more damage than good. No doctor would ever recommend Q-tips for ear cleaning. Yes, it's probably the originally intended use, but good intentions don't always give good results. Q-tips are still kind of neat for other uses, though.

Re:Well she has a point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488952)

Any parent that needs a label to know you shouldn't put a person in a washing machine doesn't deserve to reproduce.

Re:Well she has a point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488962)

Oh my God, will you people learn how to fucking spell "ridiculous"?

Re:Well she has a point... (5, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489098)

These warning labels are a social curiosity found in USA.

When I first moved here I was totally cracking up at all the stupid warnings you have on everything. Why are they there? Because of a horrible justice system and not because you want to warn people about the obvious but to avoid paying millions and millions to idiots.

Your justice system is long overdue for a total overhaul, it is horrific at best.

Re:Well she has a point... (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489286)

I'm going to regret posting this to slashdot as its hosted at home so i'm posting it through the corel cdn, but i noticed this on a Pineapple:

Suitable for vegetarians

Is this seriously necessary!?

DugUK

Re:Well she has a point... (2, Funny)

legirons (809082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489352)

but i noticed this on a Pineapple: "Suitable for vegetarians"

In Tesco supermarkets in the UK, the red peppers have a label "as seen on TV"

Excessive litigation better than the alternative (2, Interesting)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488418)

Although a few libertarian Slashdotters seem to want Social Darwinism.

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (1)

larien (5608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488578)

Anyone who needs a warning label to tell them not to go into a washing machine and turn it on deserves to be removed from the gene pool for gross stupidity. People need to learn common sense and they'll be able to deal with life better than if they rely on warning labels all the time.

"Jeez, Cletus, look at this here warning label - 'do not iron clothes whilst being worn'. Just as well that was there or I'd have gone done that..."

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488730)

I'm talking mostly about the litigation, which is the fake "problem" this and the fucking stupid Stella Awards are trying to "solve". Now there are problems with the court system but the problems which cause the Stella Awards cases are much less important than the fact that the actual problems with McDonalds coffee which have caused third-degree burns to the people who tried to drink them are all shuffled away with out-of-court settlements.

Why do we only hear about the cases stupidly decided in favor of the plantiff? Hearing about the cases stupidly decided in favor of the defendant doesn't help the case of the people supporting corporacracy and Social Darwinism, that's why. McDonalds and the corporate media only want a lawsuit shown in the media if it's like the Stella case where the plantiff did something stupid. How else can they convince the common man to want a more corporate court, working against their interests?

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488800)

I'm glad you brought up the hot coffee suit. I have something you'll need to agree to. A plaintiff sued McDonald's for selling him a milkshake, which he placed between his legs while driving (sound familiar?) Because of this, he temporarialy lost his ability to drive (so he testifies) and crashed his car, causing injuries and costs to the plaintiff. Now, he never won the case, but it seems to me anyone who is in beleif of hot coffee lady needs to write that judge RIGHT NOW and explain their absolute disappointment with him for not awarding several million dollars to the plaintiff for his injuries.

After all, the situation is identical to hot coffee lady, except this time the drink is too cold.

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488902)

McDonalds coffee has caused people who tried to drink it to get third-degree burns on their mouth and stomach. The Stella Awards site gives some bullshit about how that's how hot you're supposed to have it, which is bullshit unless you're Starbucks and you need to have all your coffee tasting like shit instead of only some of it, but even Starbucks lets it cool down for a bit before giving you coffee hot enough to hospitalize you. I think that lawsuits like that should have a certain amount given to the defendant and then a punitive amount funneled into the government so that the companies will have an incentive to actually do things the fucking right way.

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488958)

Yep, the Stella Awards people have been backpedalling: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html [stellaawards.com] lays out some of the facts ... then in order to justify the continued use of their cheeky eponym, they throw out some of their own justifications afterward. It's still slanted (basically says nothing about McD's conduct that lead to the high punitive damages), but not quite as egregiously now.

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (4, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489004)

I'm glad you brought up the hot coffee suit. I have something you'll need to agree to. A plaintiff sued McDonald's for selling him a milkshake, which he placed between his legs while driving (sound familiar?) Because of this, he temporarialy lost his ability to drive (so he testifies) and crashed his car, causing injuries and costs to the plaintiff. Now, he never won the case, but it seems to me anyone who is in beleif of hot coffee lady needs to write that judge RIGHT NOW and explain their absolute disappointment with him for not awarding several million dollars to the plaintiff for his injuries.

After all, the situation is identical to hot coffee lady, except this time the drink is too cold.


Hardly. The plaintiff was not driving, nor was the car moving when she got burned. She held the cup between her legs and was opening it to put in sweetener when it spilled.

McDonald's had reports of injuries before this event; they even knew it was being served too hot to be consumed. McD's refuised to settle, and eventually lost to the tune of $500,000 - then they settled.

This case is not, despite the FUD, a stellar example of lawsuit abuse; rather it highlights what the court system should do - hold people accountable on both sides. (The award was reduced 20% due to the plaintiffs actions being viewed as partly responsible)

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (0, Flamebait)

bouis (198138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489368)

And now nobody can buy hot coffee! Aren't you glad we have an army of lawyers defending us [and making themselves rich in the process]?

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (1)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488926)

Bravo! While I personally fear that someone is going to trip on the stairs in my house and sue me -- it happens, some people are jerks -- I'm not blind to the fact that corporate interests have a vested interest in demonizing personal injury attorneys. What are the potential avenues for justice when a large, powerful, and well-funded entity (corporation, government, or whatever) actually injures you in some way?

1. The NRA claims that just having a handgun in your house is going to protect you. But, try and "overthrow the tyranny of McDonalds" and you'll quickly see where you stand in the eyes of the law.
2. You can write to your congressperson -- who was elected with contributions from those corporations and works for the government -- and try and get a law passed. Good luck with that.
3. or, you can try to sue for redress in civil court.

They are three pretty sucky options but #3 is the way our system works.

What these warning labels display is not a legal system run amok but a severe case of corporate Cover My Ass syndrome that also happens to serve the corporate interest in making people believe that personal injury attorneys are the problem.

Re: Practicality better than litigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489330)

> Anyone who needs a warning label to tell them not to go into a washing machine and turn it on deserves to be removed from the gene pool for gross stupidity.

Yes, how about doing something PRACTICAL to solve the problem, like, say, putting a LOCK on the machine. Of course it should open from the inside without a key.

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488630)

How is excess litigation better than common sense and lower priced goods that do not include the cost of previous frivolous damage awards passed on to the consumer?

Re:Excessive litigation better than the alternativ (2, Interesting)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488848)

s/lower priced/dangerous/
That's how. Think asbestos and tobacco being sold as recommended by doctors. (Yes, that second one really happened--there used to be cigarette commercials saying "4 out of 5 doctors recommend [brand] cigarettes")
I guess you want anybody who doesn't research every single fucking product they buy for seven years to die.

Slashdot... (3, Funny)

SeanMac (648938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488456)

Slashdot: Remove Intellect Before Posting

My personal favourite (5, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488462)

My first bike (a ten year old Honda CM400T) had the warning, prominently placed on the tank, not to engage the steering lock while you're riding it.

The steering lock itself was located to the left and below the trunk bundle of wires going to the front panel and instrumentation, and needed the key that presumably is in the ignition (or you would not be driving it) or the backup key. Fair enough.

But the steering lock would only engage when the front wheel was engaged fully in one direction or the other. Which was a seriously tight turning radius. If you are able to actually keep your balance and keep the bike moving while gong full tilt to the right, and at the same time find and push-twist the key sitting under a bundle of cables below your line of sight and to the left then you do not need a warning label - you need a contract to perform at a motor circus, as you have just found your true calling.

Re:My personal favourite (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488626)

You have obviously never watched an inspector from a workman's safety organization inspect a machine to ensure the workman's safety.

Re:My personal favourite (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488680)

My old Honda CD200 had a warning label beside the ignition unit warning you not to remove the spark plug leads with the engine running.

Re:My personal favourite (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489104)

Maybe they meant it was only forbidden during wheelies!

Knowledge is Power (4, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488478)

stupid people + clever lawyers = trouble

Should there be warning labels? Of course.
Should there be warning labels as a replacement for a basic level of education? Of course not.

Crowbar (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488486)

Many crowbars today are printed with the warning label: "Do not use to pry."

Re:Crowbar (5, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488766)

Many crowbars today are printed with the warning label: "Do not use to pry."

Does that mean we're only supposed to use them for their other intended purpose, to beat?

Prying with a Crowbar (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489282)

Perhaps they meant "Do not use to be nosey", as in "Me and my crowbar Guido would likes to know when yous'll be giving Mr. Angelino his money back.".

Warning: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488502)

Don't have children if you are not prepared to be responsible for them for a couple of decades.

Re:Warning: (2, Funny)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488690)

Don't have children if you are not prepared to be responsible for them for a couple of decades.
And just exactly WHERE do you propose to place that warning label? And once you've got that idea, HOW do you plan to make sure that every device that would be used to produce children has the label?

Good Luck!

Re:Warning: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488784)

Make special pubic hair trimmers ;)

On your next 1040 (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489220)

Warning: from this year forward there will no longer be public subsidization of the results of your libido. No more tax exemptions for children. $9000 will be added to your tax bill for each child you have from next year forward to cover public education expenses. If you want them educated somewhere else, provide receipts for deduction up to $9000 maximum per child. Uncompensated instructors (home schoolers) will be compensated at a rate of current federal minimum wage divided by 25 (for theoretical average public class size) times 5.5 hours (school day) x 180 days schooling, currently $204 per child per year. Note: uncompensated instructors claiming the $204 per child will be subject to 15% self-empoyment taxes. Fees will be subject to increases each year to keep up with cost of education, and will be added until such child reaches 18 years old. If you can't keep your kids in school 'til they're 18, consider the tax a parental penalty for truancy.

Re:Warning: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489260)

Tattoo parlor in every deliver ward. Tattoo it onto genitals of all newborn.

The publicity and outrage alone would probably be effective (HA!) for 20-30 years.

Nice (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488510)

My current sig line came from one of these I read a couple of years ago. It was a label for a holiday light set.

I also wanted to submit one I saw on an Arm & Hammer box of cat litter that said: "This product safe for use around animals". One would hope so!

Re:Nice (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488620)

Animal un-safe kitty litter!

Rectum?! Damn near killed him!

I don't iron my lottery tickets (1)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488526)

I follow the rules and I still dont win, wtf?

Re:I don't iron my lottery tickets (2, Informative)

TheQwe (795209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488894)

It looks like to me that the lottery ticket is printed on thermal transfer paper- in which case ironing it would turn the side with the number on it completely black. That one makes the most sense to me- I could almost see someone trying to iron out a crumpled ticket.

Caution (1, Funny)

Dude163299 (906461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488540)

Caution:

Junk food may make you fat.

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488658)

Why not be more explicit about the dangers?

Caution: Excessive junk food consumption can kill you.

Lawyers aren't the entire problem (5, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488552)

The law generally is that the company must warn against unintended uses that a reasonable person would forsee. The problem is the reasonable person standard is determined by a jury. If juries would stop awarding such verdicts, then lawyers would stop suing. As long as juries continue to say a reasonable person would forsee someone putting a wet cell phone in a microwave, lawyers will continue to file suit. Talking to one juror about a malpractice case, they said they really didn't see that the doctor was negligent, but the plaintiff was suffering, the insurance was the only one who was going to pay, the insurance company had money, so why not give the plaintiff $400,000? The thing they didn't see (other than their conduct being against the law) was that everyone pays increased medical costs to cover the increase in malpractice insurance that the doctor must pay. If jurors were more responsible and more intelligent as to the consequences of their actions, the legal culture would have to change. Don't expect the lawyers to change the system, they have too much of a vested interest, and they are legally bound to look after their client's best interests within the law. People need to change the system.

Re:Lawyers aren't the entire problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488960)

Talking to one juror about a malpractice case, they said they really didn't see that the doctor was negligent, but the plaintiff was suffering, the insurance was the only one who was going to pay, the insurance company had money, so why not give the plaintiff $400,000?
Just like there are lazy, lousy sysadmins that cause more damage than good, there are lazy, lousy doctors that cause more damage than good. Fortunately, bad doctors become uninsurable, limiting their ability to do damage. The best looking uninsurable doctors end up on late-night infomercials, touting anti-aging creams.

Re:Lawyers aren't the entire problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489118)

So are you saying the people are asking for better health care implementation in the USA. Have you heard from anyone not in a health care case.

How to prove evolution works. (-1, Redundant)

unformed (225214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488570)

Remove all warning labels.

We've had this for a while ... (4, Funny)

richg74 (650636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488610)

Personally, I think a four-year-old precocious enough to read and understand all the warning labels hidden all over a product probably doesn't need those labels.

About twenty years ago, I bought an electric pencil sharpener for my office. It came with a set of safety warnings, prominently including "Do not attempt to sharpen ball-point pens." My thought at the time was that someone stupid enough to do that most likely had a problem that wasn't going to be solved by reading warning labels.

Re:We've had this for a while ... (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488698)

...My thought at the time was that someone stupid enough to do that most likely had a problem that wasn't going to be solved by reading warning labels.
The warning isn't put there to solve the problem... they're there to absolve the producer from responsibility for stupid people.

Re:We've had this for a while ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489344)

I somehow doubt that. What's the worst that happens if they don't put on that warning? Someone sues them for the cost of a ballpoint pen?

Re:We've had this for a while ... (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489376)

Then perhaps we need a sanity test: if people of average intelligence would know not to do X, Y does X and then sues Z, Y should instantly be required to pay up twice the amount sued for, plus a fine to the court for wasting their time.

-uso.

Re:We've had this for a while ... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488756)

As a child, that warning label only perked my interest on putting pens and various other non-pencils into the electric pencil sharpener.

I was in a washing machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488664)

When I was about 4 or 5, my older brother and sister (about 10 years older) used to take turns hiding me someplace in the house while the other would look for me. One of them put me in the washing machine once, and my mother found me in there. She wasn't too happy.

What happens when the warning negates the purpose? (1)

Vormav (1047650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488724)

I bought a cheap, full-suspension mountain bike a few years back, and in the accompanying manual, it stated, "This bicycle is not intended for off-road purposes". So...what was it that I bought??

It's all CYA still (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489000)

If the manufacturers were smart, the warning label would read -WARNING -do not use this product for anything, and please leave it in it's original packaging.

That way anything that the buyer does is their own fault.

Re:What happens when the warning negates the purpo (2, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489100)

what was it that I bought??

You bought a cheap bike for an activity that would need good, heavy-duty gear (i.e., not cheap)

Re:What happens when the warning negates the purpo (2, Interesting)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489308)

Well, Suzuki markets the R-1000 with "own the racetrack". But they refuse any warranty if you indeed use it on for racing. KTM also refuses any warranty if you use their competition-ready enduros (and they are) in competition.

Crazy...or not? (2, Funny)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488732)

Before you think how these warning labels - such as "Do not use iron on clothes you are wearing", a couple of years ago, a Slashdotter admitted to have burned himself while ironing the shirt he was wearing.

My favorite warning label is on a set of fairy lights: "For indoor or outdoor use only".

So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave? (4, Interesting)

notthepainter (759494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488750)

Yes, that is a rehtorical question because if you read /. you know why.

The real question is, how would an average person know? Most look like they are made of plastic which is of course microwave safe. If you've immersed your phone, drying it out with heat can fix it. (I know, I baked a friend phone in my oven at 150 degrees to bring it back to life.)

So no, I don't think we need labels, there are so many they aren't read anyhow.

How can we make it obvious that this is a bad idea? Or better yet, how can we make it possible that no damage will occur to either device then this happens?

This is one of the challenges that engineers face. How do you make your products work well, be bulletproof, be easy to use, do what the customer needs doing, and yet not cost a fortune.

Re:So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488860)

AFAIK, it's not really possible, as the oven will induce currents in the circuitry and fry it. Like what happens when you put something metallic inside.

Re:So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave (1)

notthepainter (759494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489108)

Of course it isn't possible. That isn't the point.

How do we make my Mom for example, know that that this isn't safe?

A label won't cut it.

Re:So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488884)

Yes, that is a rehtorical question because if you read /. you know why.
I've learned many things on slashdot. That is not one of them.

The real question is, how would an average person know? Most look like they are made of plastic which is of course microwave safe.
If the average person doesn't know that pretty much every electronic device contains metals, then he's even dumber than I thought.

How can we make it obvious that this is a bad idea? Or better yet, how can we make it possible that no damage will occur to either device then this happens?
While you're in the business of pandering to morons, why don't you figure out how to make gasoline that doesn't burn, knives that don't cut, etc? Or maybe, just maybe, we should assume that the average person isn't a complete dumbass, eh?

How do you make your products work well, be bulletproof, be easy to use, do what the customer needs doing, and yet not cost a fortune.
The phrase you're looking for is "idiot-proof", however I grant you that bulletproof is synonymous with that a lot more often than one might expect.

Re:So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488966)

If the average person doesn't know that pretty much every electronic device contains metals, then he's even dumber than I thought.
A microwave oven is the only method of heating things that you can't put metals in. Not everybody studies the internals of every system they use and they might not know that metals reflect microwaves.

Re:So why is it bad to put a cell in the microwave (1)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489264)

They might not know it, but if they don't, they have to educate themselves before they do something. Microwave ovens are marketed as "for heating food". If they go with "I just try it" ( = experiment ), they have to live with the negative consequences, if they are any.

Reason for this kind of warning (5, Informative)

DavidV (167283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488774)

An under-evolved hairless ape recently put an infant in the clothes dryer in Sydney because he thought it would be fun for the child. It may have been for the few seconds before the 3rd degree burns started developing. This kind of cretin is the reason for this kind of warning.

Powered by luck, Driven by prayers (1)

TheCybernator (996224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488786)

...thats a modified punch line used by employees of a big outsourcing co.

another interesting one on an electric cutter

"This product not intended for use as a dental drill."

No danger! (1)

butterberg (1046750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488826)

'A front loader (washing machine) is just at the right height [...] for a four-year-old,' [...] I think a four-year-old precocious enough to read and understand all the warning labels hidden all over a product probably doesn't need those labels.
Yep, no danger here! Well, at least as long as the label isn't put inside the machine.

Do not iron? Good idea! (3, Insightful)

adenied (120700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488878)

The do not iron warning on the lottery ticket makes a lot of sense. How many people (outside of computer geeks) really know that most lottery tickets are printed on thermal paper? Get that warm and all of a sudden you have a black ticket that's pretty much ruined. Combine that with the fact that some people like to iron their crumpled up money and I can totally see how some people might need this warning.

Not ironing the lotto ticket is borderline useful (1)

fejwuzhere-X (1047744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488880)

The warning on the lotto ticket is there because the tickets are printed on thermal printers using thermal paper.

If one were to iron the ticket it would become completely black. The printer only turns selected parts (the letters) black. The label probably should contain a warning not to leave in the sun as well.

The legal purpose probably is there so no one can claim a winning ticket after they left it in their shirt pocket and had the shirt ironed.

Need a label for microwave ovens... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488882)

First prize has gone to a washing machine label urging not to put people in washers.

Seriously, they need a label not to put babies into a microwave oven. There were several reports last year of babies dying from mysterious internal burns because their mothers put them in the microwave on high. I don't think the mothers mistaken their baby for a coffee cup.

Re:Need a label for microwave ovens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489028)

> There were several reports last year of babies dying from mysterious internal burns because their mothers put them in the microwave on high.

Yes, and there were several reports of demon possession and alien encounters as well. How about verified sources?

Not your usual warning label... (4, Funny)

IpSo_ (21711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488886)

This isn't your usual warning label on a pair of jeans [rock103.com] .

Most Redundant Warning Label (1)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488896)

A few years ago, I bought a packet of peanuts. As I had to watch my fat and salt levels I was looking over the packaging for the nutritional information, when I found Warning: Contains peanuts. Um, like the fact that it says peanuts on the front of the packet isn't enough of a clue for someone with a peanut allergy?

Re:Most Redundant Warning Label (1)

splodus (655932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489090)

No offence, but this is a pet peeve of mine; Given that the manufacturer has a policy of putting a warning 'Contains peanuts' on the packaging of food products that contain peanuts, it would strike me as very odd indeed if they missed the warning off a food product containing almost nothing BUT peanuts!!

Re:Most Redundant Warning Label (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489288)

Chunky peanut butter: May contain peanuts.

Well, I certainly hope so.

I really like (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488938)

these warnings [lepow.com] .

bash. org (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488976)

Bash said it best http://bash.org/?4753 [bash.org] :)

I thank you for your tim$e (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17488978)

anything can disgust, or been superior to slow, words, don'T get 'first post' as to which *BSD

Not so fast (1)

rinkjustice (24156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17488994)

Personally, I think a four-year-old precocious enough to read and understand all the warning labels hidden all over a product probably doesn't need those labels

Um, when I was nine years old and my brother was at the tender age of seven, we dared each other to sit in a moving dryer. First it was my turn to go in. My brother closed the door (as per agreement) and started a cycle for about 5 seconds. Then it was my brothers turn to go in the dryer, which he did. He tumbled in there for substantially longer, about 20-30 seconds, screaming all the way (and I can only imagine the evil grin I had on my face). It was a while before he trusted me again.

Then there was the time I zipped him up in a suitcase. Ah, them the days.

Re:Not so fast (1)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489180)

And I am sure a warning label would have stopped you from doing it :-)

Lotto ticket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489052)

Ah, but the one on the lotto ticket actually makes sense. The ticket is printed on thermo paper -- so if you ironed it, it would turn all black and become unreadable. This may not be immediately obvious to the general public (which may not be familiar with the details of modern printing technologies.) Of course, were the ticket crumpled up enough to warrant ironing, you probably wouldn't be able to read the warning label either.

felix.

What it should have said is... (1)

ripnet (541583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489068)

It should have read something along the lines of "Warning: A Child recently died after climbing into this hole".

mo83 up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489084)

ffel an obligation contributed code triumphs would soon distended. All I minutes. At home, u5e the sling. Centralized Slashdot 'BSD is

My favorite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489170)

When I was working as an auto technician I found the following warning on the package of a Goodyear fanbelt. "Do not install belt while engine is running". My second favorite was a coffee pot I owned which had the following warning printed on the glass carafe. "Do no use as a weapon".

It's a warning sign rather than a label... (5, Interesting)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489174)

...but it is the funniest one ever [livejournal.com] .

Not heard of thumbnails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17489204)

Maybe there should some sort of rule against submitting links to sites run be people who don't understand the concept of thumbnails and providing a link to the larger version of the image. I'm talking about this page http://www.mlaw.org/wwl/photos.html [mlaw.org]

Perhaps some labels aren't for real. (1)

Catmeat (20653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489240)

Perhaps some of the labels aren't for real, it's just lawyers trolling.

There's an urban legend of a Superman costume with the lable "Warning, does not enable user to fly." If I was on the legal team of a company, I'd have great fun tacking on nonsense warnings like this. It would be kind've the legal equivalent of an Easter Egg.

How to make stupid lawsuits go away. (2, Interesting)

andol221 (947550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489356)

The problem in America is that the plaintiff is awarded what the respondent able to pay. In Sweden there are almost the same possibilities to sue as in the US, but practically no lawsuits of "I burnt my self on Mc Donald's coffee, they must pay me $$$$$" because the courts only award whats the injury is supposed to be worth, in a by law established way. In this reasoning a burning your self on a cup of coffee is probably worth $2 or $3, but not more. Law suite problem gone!

Spin cycle=120 G's (3, Informative)

theonetruekeebler (60888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489358)

A friend of mine's father was an E.R. doctor who occasionally worked with the county coroner's office. More than once, he told me, he's had to deal with the remains of a six-year-old boy who evidently thought something along the line of,
  1. Spinning is fun
  2. The washing machine spins
  3. I should go for a ride.
So they set the dial, climb in and close the lid. Within seconds the G-forces are so intense they can't move their arms to open the lid. Seconds later they can't breathe. Seconds after that the blood is forced out of their brain and they're unconscious. This is an incredible blessing because in less than a minute the skin on their back has ruptured and all the blood and bile and lymph is being flung out of their bodies and pumped away by the washer. The sixty pound unbalanced load is chump change compared to the hundred and sixty pounds of water a washer usually has to spin out. And those sixty pound boys, he told me, get spun down to about thirty pounds of bones and mush.

18 G's is fatal. Washers subject their load to several minutes G's forces comparable to driving into a concrete wall at 100MPH. So yeah, a little label reminding the grownups that a washing machine will kill the shit out of anything or anybody put in it is a bad idea.

Why Corporations Hate Warning Lables (1)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17489378)

The underlying reason why businesses and corporations hate and despise warning labels is that they dislike the fact that they can be held liable under the law for injuries and damages NOT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE, but simply by putting a product out on the market.

Why is this so? Because the manufacturer of a product is in a better position than the consumer to know of its particular dangers. Therefore it is more reasonable to impose the burden of finding and correcting such dangers upon the manufacturer than imposing the burden of finding and avoiding unsafe products upon the consumer.

For every bad example of warning labels you can pull out of your hat, I can name ten good examples of warning labels that are absolutely necessary. For example, "Don't try to remove grass clogging lawn mower before turning off" and "buckle your seat belt" and "do not step on top step of ladder" and "do not use hair dryer in bathtub". These are all things that ordinary prudent people think are safe to do, but really aren't.

"Never use a lit match or open flame to check fuel level" seems pretty silly, but I have seen a number of people do this, seemingly unaware that gas fumes can ignite.

The whole point of allowing people to recover in strict liability for the failure to warn of a danger is that both parties are at fault, and someone has to pay for the injuries and damages. Our society has decided that it should be the corporation or business with big pockets, not the consumer. Maybe we could change this policy choice by making the State pay for all of our medical expenses instead...but of course, no one wants that. Or do they? Either way, we all pay the cost for stupid people, stupid designs, and defective products. The real question is who pays. Corporations want the consumers to pay. Consumers want anyone but them to pay. So, whats the solution? Making fun of warning labels isn't the answer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>