I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'. They allow people that want to use them to filter content and for those who don't care don't have to. I think it is quite useful actually. Without these controls you can't even do an image search for anything on Google without getting porn. So these content filtering features can even aid someone in finding useful information rather than just porn. (Even though we all know that is all the internet was made for.)
Or is it that people can't stand to have what they look at labeled as 'explicit' or 'mature'?
I am not sure but I just don't see how, as pointed out in the parent, allowing the USER to filter content doesn't anything other than help the user.
The iPhone is great for time killing. I use the iPod Touch, but its the same experience. If you have 15 minutes to burn sit down for a couple of rounds of online poker, play an action game or a puzzle game. The device isn't a hardcore gamer device, but then again most of the population are not hardcore gamers so maybe its good to cater to the masses. The Wii worked well and this seems to be going along the same path.
I really do think the iPhone has potential to kick ass in the games area if they add just a couple of physical buttons to the device. Sometimes you need the tactile response you get from physical buttons to play games. Also my fingers get in the way of the screen on some action games, making it nearly impossible to play them.
It wasn't designed to be a pure gaming device but with a few changes it has the power to begin dominating the market... if those changes are implemented.
Even under that claim (involuntary manslaughter) proximate cause must be established. It not about intent to kill someone, it is all about if the virus writer could have seen his negligent behavior as causing harm, specifically death. I know I am not explaining it very well but here is an unrelated example to maybe help what I am saying:
Lets say I kick a rock off the top of a cliff for fun. I don't see anyone below but that rock cause an avalanche that blocked a road causing accidents that later resulted in death. I didn't intend to kill anyone yet I can be linked to all of the deaths.
The idea of proximate cause would say I am likely not legally responsible for the deaths because it would have been too hard for me to have foreseen that kicking this rock (when no one was directly below) could cause the death of someone in an automobile accident. Kicking of rocks off a cliff could be seen as negligent behavior and this negligent behavior resulted in death but the rock kicker is likely not going to be responsible.
These same principles can be applied to the virus case. It's not a matter of if the virus writer wanted to kill people, its if he could have know that releasing this virus could kill people in the same way that the rock kicker could have known his rock kicking would have killed people.
This doesn't even take into consideration the possible negligence of the hospital and various other parties.
Bingo. Proximate cause and negligence on the hospitals part would definitely create a low probability that the virus writer could be charged with the manslaughter successfully. Basically the virus writer could not have reasonably foreseen the writing of this virus as causing someones death due to the huge time, distance, and number of events involved before someone died. Also if any internal policy is set so that these computers are not supposed to be connected to the internet then it pretty much absolves the virus writer and puts the liability on the hospital.
Someone could certainly take it to court but I don't think the virus writer would lose.
Now if the virus was written to fuck with only medical software and then the virus writer attempted to get it on medical computers you have a different case.
Under the current system in the US you vote in a booth where no one can see your vote. Thus it is impossible to confirm the vote you made was the one someone bribed/forced you to take. In other words someone could pay me $100 to vote for X and I can walk into the booth, vote for Y and tell that person I voted for X. So it is 'possible' but for the person buying the vote it is a lose-lose situation.
I neglected to mention this in my OP but this problem isn't so much about X candidate buying the election but more about how it undermines the system. Its not so far fetched to say that a husband might ask a wife to vote a certain way. Under the current system she can say she voted for who he said to but then go vote differently. Same with many other relationships such as parent child and even friends.
When your vote is no longer closed to the public it becomes risky to vote how you want.
ps. I am not saying there is no solution to this problem but as far as I know there is no solution.
Even if you could transport that vote 100% of the time securely and accurately you still have a huge problem. The problem with any system where you can vote in plain sight of other people will lead to all sorts of complications. Mainly the creation of a new market, the votes market. People will probably buy votes. Even if its not enough to change an election it is still going to be considered far more important to ensure this isn't happening than to let people vote from home.
So maybe we can transport a vote safely, but without some way to make sure that a vote is a 'real' vote and not a product of bribery or criminal behavior is still in question.
That is not the experience I have seen. In fact lots of people I know refuse to go through the hassle of switching over to wifi when available because they are perfectly happy with the 3G speeds.
Maybe certain areas are different but I have never experienced what you are describing.
Could also be that consumers were making claims on warranty and Dell wants to recoup the cost of repairing these computers. I doubt this was really based on protecting customers if you look at how Dell's warranty is set up in the first place to cause this problem.
I have been to a lots of geocities pages that provided useful information. These pages were ranked high on the google search engine. I think it is a 'loss' but really the only thing that will happen is lots of old pages will be lost forever while some of the ewer ones will be transferred to one of the other free hosting providers that now exist.
Which further proves m point that low slashdot id numbers mean nothing. I was recently 'flamed' for having such a high one and told simply because of my high id number that my post was worthless.
Yes but clapping also doesn't compare well with this. Clapping is "free".
This setup cost $100+ in parts to charge a cell phone and that is assuming you have a heat source to use to keep your phone charged all the time. I have not done the calculations but I am not quite sure this pays off.
Plus putting these things on anything moving can't be efficient. You are adding tons of weight(requires a heatsink) to a vehicle in order to save energy?
Because a UID on slashdot is just about as useful a metric of a comments worth as one's social security number yet somehow you think it means so much more.
Have you checked prices for PC parts lately? I would not say it's cheaper to PC game than XBox but you can build a powerful enough PC to play all modern games for about $700 if you are getting the right parts and keep your system clean.
Keep in mind you also probably need a computer for other things so spending an extra $200 can make that shitty workstation you were going to buy into a gaming PC.
Slashdot Mirror
I know! Why does everyone have a problem with 'parental controls'. They allow people that want to use them to filter content and for those who don't care don't have to. I think it is quite useful actually. Without these controls you can't even do an image search for anything on Google without getting porn. So these content filtering features can even aid someone in finding useful information rather than just porn. (Even though we all know that is all the internet was made for.)
Or is it that people can't stand to have what they look at labeled as 'explicit' or 'mature'?
I am not sure but I just don't see how, as pointed out in the parent, allowing the USER to filter content doesn't anything other than help the user.
The iPhone is great for time killing. I use the iPod Touch, but its the same experience. If you have 15 minutes to burn sit down for a couple of rounds of online poker, play an action game or a puzzle game. The device isn't a hardcore gamer device, but then again most of the population are not hardcore gamers so maybe its good to cater to the masses. The Wii worked well and this seems to be going along the same path.
I really do think the iPhone has potential to kick ass in the games area if they add just a couple of physical buttons to the device. Sometimes you need the tactile response you get from physical buttons to play games. Also my fingers get in the way of the screen on some action games, making it nearly impossible to play them.
It wasn't designed to be a pure gaming device but with a few changes it has the power to begin dominating the market... if those changes are implemented.
Even under that claim (involuntary manslaughter) proximate cause must be established. It not about intent to kill someone, it is all about if the virus writer could have seen his negligent behavior as causing harm, specifically death. I know I am not explaining it very well but here is an unrelated example to maybe help what I am saying:
Lets say I kick a rock off the top of a cliff for fun. I don't see anyone below but that rock cause an avalanche that blocked a road causing accidents that later resulted in death. I didn't intend to kill anyone yet I can be linked to all of the deaths.
The idea of proximate cause would say I am likely not legally responsible for the deaths because it would have been too hard for me to have foreseen that kicking this rock (when no one was directly below) could cause the death of someone in an automobile accident. Kicking of rocks off a cliff could be seen as negligent behavior and this negligent behavior resulted in death but the rock kicker is likely not going to be responsible.
These same principles can be applied to the virus case. It's not a matter of if the virus writer wanted to kill people, its if he could have know that releasing this virus could kill people in the same way that the rock kicker could have known his rock kicking would have killed people.
This doesn't even take into consideration the possible negligence of the hospital and various other parties.
Bingo. Proximate cause and negligence on the hospitals part would definitely create a low probability that the virus writer could be charged with the manslaughter successfully. Basically the virus writer could not have reasonably foreseen the writing of this virus as causing someones death due to the huge time, distance, and number of events involved before someone died. Also if any internal policy is set so that these computers are not supposed to be connected to the internet then it pretty much absolves the virus writer and puts the liability on the hospital.
Someone could certainly take it to court but I don't think the virus writer would lose.
Now if the virus was written to fuck with only medical software and then the virus writer attempted to get it on medical computers you have a different case.
p.s. I am not a lawyer.
Under the current system in the US you vote in a booth where no one can see your vote. Thus it is impossible to confirm the vote you made was the one someone bribed/forced you to take. In other words someone could pay me $100 to vote for X and I can walk into the booth, vote for Y and tell that person I voted for X. So it is 'possible' but for the person buying the vote it is a lose-lose situation.
I neglected to mention this in my OP but this problem isn't so much about X candidate buying the election but more about how it undermines the system. Its not so far fetched to say that a husband might ask a wife to vote a certain way. Under the current system she can say she voted for who he said to but then go vote differently. Same with many other relationships such as parent child and even friends.
When your vote is no longer closed to the public it becomes risky to vote how you want.
ps. I am not saying there is no solution to this problem but as far as I know there is no solution.
Even if you could transport that vote 100% of the time securely and accurately you still have a huge problem. The problem with any system where you can vote in plain sight of other people will lead to all sorts of complications. Mainly the creation of a new market, the votes market. People will probably buy votes. Even if its not enough to change an election it is still going to be considered far more important to ensure this isn't happening than to let people vote from home.
So maybe we can transport a vote safely, but without some way to make sure that a vote is a 'real' vote and not a product of bribery or criminal behavior is still in question.
Unless a bad system admin loses your body and forgot to make backups.
Well this flu does have an avian part to it already. So I think the next one will be even crazier. Maybe we can get some sort of fish flu?
That is not the experience I have seen. In fact lots of people I know refuse to go through the hassle of switching over to wifi when available because they are perfectly happy with the 3G speeds. Maybe certain areas are different but I have never experienced what you are describing.
Could also be that consumers were making claims on warranty and Dell wants to recoup the cost of repairing these computers. I doubt this was really based on protecting customers if you look at how Dell's warranty is set up in the first place to cause this problem.
I have been to a lots of geocities pages that provided useful information. These pages were ranked high on the google search engine. I think it is a 'loss' but really the only thing that will happen is lots of old pages will be lost forever while some of the ewer ones will be transferred to one of the other free hosting providers that now exist.
Which further proves m point that low slashdot id numbers mean nothing. I was recently 'flamed' for having such a high one and told simply because of my high id number that my post was worthless.
Yes but clapping also doesn't compare well with this. Clapping is "free". This setup cost $100+ in parts to charge a cell phone and that is assuming you have a heat source to use to keep your phone charged all the time. I have not done the calculations but I am not quite sure this pays off. Plus putting these things on anything moving can't be efficient. You are adding tons of weight(requires a heatsink) to a vehicle in order to save energy?
Because a UID on slashdot is just about as useful a metric of a comments worth as one's social security number yet somehow you think it means so much more.
Why does Microsoft think they can tell other people how to market their products? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
With all the errors I suspect it was translated to English by someone who isn't quite qualified.
Have you checked prices for PC parts lately? I would not say it's cheaper to PC game than XBox but you can build a powerful enough PC to play all modern games for about $700 if you are getting the right parts and keep your system clean. Keep in mind you also probably need a computer for other things so spending an extra $200 can make that shitty workstation you were going to buy into a gaming PC.