13 ms·
Craig Zucker: What Happens When a Man Takes on the Feds
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kanja 13y agoHome of the brave, land of the free
- justanother 13y agoCan I admit this? I used to admire this one aspect of the Federal government: The way they'd calmly and objectively state their case, without emotion, in indictments, in tax notices, in diplomatic letters. It was a model I strove to emulate in my correspondance in times of personal conflict. No longer. They are increasingly vindictive and flighty. Perhaps it was always this way, and we have the Internet to thank for giving us (as Paul Harvey would say) the rest of the story. At any rate, the loss of the calm, emotionless appeal indicates a loss of pack-leader, Alpha behavior, and among apes and most other orders of mammals, will lead directly to a loss of respect.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- x0x0 13y agoI don't know the particulars of the claims, but I do know that: 1 - the wsj is barely distinguishable from anti-government propaganda, so they're worthless: any claims they make need to be verified with first party sources before belief; 2 - this happened: Pediatric gastroenterology specialists responding to the survey reported more than 80 children with magnet ingestion. Most patients required endoscopy to remove the magnets or surgery to repair damage to the bowels. Twenty-six children had bowel perforation; three needed major surgery to remove a section of damaged intestine. [1] [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904100844.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904100844.ht...
- alextingle 13y ago> I don't know the particulars of the claims... You confess that you don't know anything about the subject at hand, > but I do know that... the wsj is barely distinguishable from anti-government propaganda but you're happy to throw around an ad hominem attack on the site that published the story. Right.
- x0x0 13y agoad hominem : rolleyes : known liars make all their analyses useless: you can't tell what crucial facts they elided or what quotes they selectively quoted; it's worse than uninformative, because you have to question every fact presented and go dig, as I said, for a first-party source to verify.
- graeme 13y agoThe WSJ's rep, last time I checked, was a solid newsroom, and a insane, frothing at the mouth editorial team, with a strict wall between the two. Any evidence for the idea that the news section of the WSJ is corrupted so absolutely that they cannot be relied on in any story?
- azm 13y agoUnfortunately this is in the Opinion section which has been known to be reliably frothing at the mouth, anti-goverment, ayn randian propaganda machine.
- graeme 13y agoOh, that does make a very big difference. I think it's trite to say 'ad hominem' in cases like this. Ad hominem refers to the quality of the reasoning. Here, we depend on the WSJ for the facts as well. If they are an untrustworthy source, that's very relevant.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- fennecfoxen 13y agoWell, I tried to have something about buckyball magnets in there when I submitted it, but apparently this title is so much more informative. Who knew?
- shmageggy 13y agoI'd like to see some blogger that's popular on HN start titling posts with non-sequiturs just to troll the absurd submission policy.
- gojomo 13y agoOr a title that changes per visitor... which could eventually even show optimized titles to the moderators' IPs or HN referrer-URLs?
- tzs 13y agoCurrent HN policy seems to be that the title from the article itself should be used, no matter how generic and uninformative they are, and no matter how much more useful and descriptive the submitter's chosen title is. This used to not bug me, because I read via Google Reader, which kept the original title. Now I use Feedly, and it updates if the title changes, meaning I often see a title, make a mental note to read it later, and then when latter becomes now I don't see it anymore. Grrrr. If I ever get around to blogging and write something that is likely to get submitted here, I'm going to give it a totally useless title like "As The Yaks Go, So Go The Wombats" [1] that the submitter will surely replace with something better, just to see if the HN mods would opt for the article title even when it is absolutely dreadful. :-) [1] Does anyone know where the phrase "as the yaks go, so go the wombats" comes from? I used it exactly twice as a signature line on Usenet in the early or mid '80s, but do not remember where I got it. The only hits Google shows are a hit on my site and me asking a few years ago if anyone knew where it came from.
- simcop2387 13y agoMy solution to this is to have the title randomly permute for each user so no user sees the same title. That way there is no consistent title for the mods to set it to.
- ballard 13y agoThe product may well have been redesigned to been safer, that's beside the point. The allegation of lack of process portrays the CPSC as unable to interact with manufacturers in a civil manner that addresses concerns constructively. If the US continues scaring off entrepreneurs, the US will be weaker, less competitive and more boring as a result of bad policies. The larger concern is that US-based thought-leaders are leaving in droves (Woz, et al) as well as the thousand and change that queue up to relinquish their passports every year is swelling; this may be only the beginning of the flickering flame of American exceptionalism. [1] PS: I also feel that fair reporting on this piece would give the CPSC the opportunity to comment and share its views, if even to say the token "no comment." (One side does not make a complete story.) [1] How to relinquish citizenship http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5), obviously be certain to secure other citizenship arrangements first)
- tzs 13y agoWoz plans to become an Australian citizen, but he has said he is NOT going to give up US citizenship.
- dangero 13y agoThis is his side of the story. Some of it does seem shady on the side of CPSC, but my perspective is, Craig Zucker was making tons of money. Am I supposed to believe that the money he was making didn't override his better judgement at all? Sounds like what happened at the end after his campaign failed was that instead of complying and executing the full recall, he terminated the company; taking all of the profits with him, and leaving the CPSC to clean up the mess while he laid on a beach somewhere. Now he's complaining that didn't pan out and he might have to give the money back.
- avoutthere 13y agoWhat mess? The mess created by the Commission themselves? Why should he be on the hook for their highly-questionable actions?
- gamblor956 13y agoCraig Zucker created a product that harmed upwards of 80 children. He created the mess, not the Commission. They were doing their job, which is to make sure that products sold in the US are safe for use. Buckyballs were most definitely not safe, and should never have been marketed as toys for children.
- Scramblejams 13y agoHe claims in the article that they were specifically not marketed as toys for children, and went to great trouble to ensure his retailers didn't do it either.
- gamblor956 13y agoCraig Zucker says a lot of things that don't correspond with reality. There's a reason that this interview is posted under the Opinion section of the WSJ and not the News section--factually, it wouldn't pass muster. I saw Buckyballs when they were on sale in stores--at Brookstone and at the Discovery Store. (I own 2 sets, they are great office toys, especially if you have metal desks.) They were definitely marketed to children--they were in the children's toy section of both stores, sold alongside other children's toys. Indeed, up until a few months ago, they were even still on sale at the LA Natural History Museuem's gift shop...in the children's toy section. There was a child playing with Buckyballs on the in-store display. The "13+" warning, assuming it was actually on the box art, was in text small enough that it was not visible without the box right up to your face.
- shrnky 13y agoSo what happens when they come for your Legos? Bottom line: Nanny State = Risk averse Entrepreneur = Risk Taker
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- D9u 13y agoAlcohol is dangerous, cars are dangerous, etc, etc... This appears to be another double standard...
- jotm 13y agoSeems to me that someone powerful on the commission had a personal issue with the owner or the product itself. Look for the parent whose child has swallowed one of these magnets and had surgery (or worse, had complications and died), then it all makes sense. That doesn't make it right, of course...
- Qantourisc 13y agoIn the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product. Why? They are shipped in plastic bags suitable for international usage. And each bag has printed on it on or more: "This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag." "Immediately dispose of this bag." So each time we receive a product, we chuckle at the US, because they need to be told this. (Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it.)
- lutusp 13y ago> In the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product. And you should. The U.S. system is ruled by the fear of -- not harm to consumers -- but lawsuits. > "This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag." "Immediately dispose of this bag." The purpose of those warnings is to guard against predatory lawyers. The risk to consumers is only a smokescreen. Here's a story from the U.S.: A robber was escaping the police by sprinting across a rooftop. He stepped onto a painted-over glass skylight, fell through, and was injured. He successfully sued the building's owners for painting over the skylight. True story. > Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it. Exactly right. But the legal system isn't about protecting consumers, it's about defending against liability lawyers.
- dalke 13y agoDo you know where the court judgement can be found? It's likely "Bodine v. Enterprise High School", but all I can find are people commenting about the case, and they aren't all consistent. For example, according to most accounts, the robber was not being chased by the police but instead was trying to steal a (or several) light fixture(s), and the police weren't involved until after the thief fell. Actually, researching further, it doesn't seem that there is a court judgement. It looks like the suit was settled out of court, so it's "successful" only in the sense that the plaintiff received money, and not in the sense of being awarded that money. So, I'm not sure what lesson there is from that case. Can you elaborate? After all, no matter how many labels there might be, anyone can file a lawsuit. Also, that court case was during the 1980s, and deals with specifics of California law which have since changed. How does this 30 year old non-case affect business decisions now?
- shalmanese 13y agoI own several sets of buckyballs and did quite a bit of research on the issue when it was being litigated. I have no opinions on the CPUC's later personal litigations but I would like to note that the Buckyball corporation did a wonderful job fanning unfair populist outrage against the CPUC and that the story is significantly more complicated. I have no dog in this fight but in the interest of fairness, here are points presented from the other side: * The risk from buckyballs is highly non-obvious and hard to intuit. I, personally, did not perceive the risk until I read about it. Most items should not be swallowed because they're a choking hazard, they have sharp edges or they contain toxic chemicals. Buckballs are small spheres of stainless steel which present none of those risks. Instead, the risk is if two balls attract each other through layers of your intestine, eventually causing gangrene and sepsis. That's not something I had ever thought about when playing with them. * The severity of harm was far greater than other swallowing hazards. Treatment for people who improperly swallowed buckyballs involved major surgery and the removal of sections of their intestines. This is orders of magnitudes more severe than most swallowing related injuries, something which also does not fit most people's naive threat models. * Injury happens days after the event, making cause and effect hard to pin down. The usual response to a child swallowing something improper is to monitor closely for 6 - 24 hours and only seek medical attention if something untoward is happening. Because buckyball injuries occur days after the event, it's hard to pin a stomachache problem on Thursday with swallowing on Monday and treat it with the severity it deserves. * The design of the toy makes it intrinsically impossible to keep the warnings intact with use. It doesn't matter how dire the warnings may be on an attached sheet of paper because the toy could be sold, given away or played with second hand and there was no way to guarantee transmission that information to the 2nd party. With larger toys, the CPUC could have mandated that warnings be injection moulded into the plastic for example but there was no such recourse with buckyballs. * There's a finite number of compelling uses of buckyballs and one of them was to make fake studs by attaching them together through a thin fold of skin. On the face, there are only 4 places where this is possible: The earlobe, the nasal cavity, the lip fold and the tongue. 3 of the 4 places allow for a swallowing hazard and magnets are very easy to make fall apart with just the wrong nudge. This greatly increased the likelihood that this toy would be swallowed compared to similar toys. * Swallowing a single buckyball is harmless, potentially giving people a false sense of security after accidentally swallowing one and having nothing bad happen. This would make them subsequently less careful in the future. I'm pretty libertarian but I can certainly see the CPUC's rationale in banning these things. Yes, they're incredibly fun to play with and I still tinker with them to this day but the safety risks shouldn't be trivialized either.
- triplesec 13y agoI don't know Zucker's current relationship with former CEO of Buckyballs Jake Bronstein (they may be hiding him becaus of his bad PR, see below), but from the VM in this video the company didn't necessarily represent the most stable kind of businesspeople... and incidentally they made huge blusterings as to their lawyering. http://boingboing.net/2010/09/24/buckyballs-magnet-ma.html http://boingboing.net/2010/09/24/buckyballs-magnet-ma.html
- Spooky23 13y agoTo me the issue here isn't the safety issue, which I think is legit. It's the way the government seems to be behaving. The product is dead, company out of business. Let it go.