There are plenty of torrent trackers that are exclusively free/legal content, they aren't being prosecuted
Untrue.
The RIAA presses suits against indie bands distributing their own music they made for a price they choose (Torrents and free respectively), for copyright violations.
Even though I own my own smartphone,...where I work (a very large IT company) there is an increasingly lengthy list
of requirements and checks for any device connected to the corporate network...
This is the big issue with ownership & management - requirements for devices to utilize company resources (and whether or not the device needs to utilize company network resources). If the device will connect to the company network, the IT department has a very good case for managing (and/or owning) the device. It really comes down to network security, and disallowing rogue devices from connecting to the network. In a large company with many IT resources (and many to protect), it's far easier to say that the company owns and manages the device. In a small or mid-sized company, where there is less IT infrastructure to protect, or less need to weigh security against usability/ease-of-management, there is a better case to be made for user owned and managed devices.
I've done plenty of track days, and I've been to quite a few driver schools as well, and participated in some sanctioned amateur racing events. While on track, I prefer a car with no driving aids, and I also prefer a car with a manual tranny. I do know the reality that a well designed ABS and stability control system -- as well as a well designed semi-automatic clutchless shift system is faster...but as a driver, I prefer to be directly connected, and in full control. That being said, I disagree with your assessment of what driving aids can (or can't) do for you, and that your own skill is greater than what these can do. Frankly, I think that you're overestimating your skills...unless you possess super-human abilities, which are beyond those of most professional racers.
Can you deliver (or reduce) braking power to a specific wheel? (ABS and stability control systems can)
What about deliver (or reduce) torque to a specific wheel? (stability control systems can)
If your threshold braking is so much better than ABS, why was it banned in F1 racing over 15 years ago?
Why are traction control systems both included in and heavily regulated in racing (e.g. F1)?
If a trained driver can do better than a computer, why are active differentials (which are essentially modified traction/stability control systems) fitted in professional rally cars (WRC & IRC)?
Are you suggesting that you're a better driver than the professionals at the highest levels of racing?
Also remember that stability control systems do not drive the car. The driver does. The system will not out drive you, but consider that a trained driver with the right traction control system can. I'll grant that not all stability control systems are created equal, some will just make a car understeer, some are "performance" oriented, and there are outright racing systems which can do very impressive things, in the right hands. These certainly can make a car go around a track (again in the right hands).
Finally, consider that you are in the 95th percentile of drivers. There may be a few manufacturers out there who design a model or two for people like you. However, most drivers do not have the training that you do. They have no clue about things like car control and vehicle dynamics beyond knowing that the wheelie thing in the middle makes the car turn, the pedal on the left makes the car go, and the pedal on the right makes the car stop. As far as mass-market cars go; they're designed for the rest of the drivers. These drivers will never go do any advanced training. They don't care, and never will; that's the reality around us. Car geeks like us have to share the road with those people. If this technology makes those drivers safer, they make people like you and I safer...and the roads have never been safer than they are today.
Yes - you've probably seen rear fog lights. They're required on card in certain Scandinavian countries and are thus standard on many European cars. When on, rear fog lights look like one of the taillights is very bright (they're usually red).
Yes please; I'll take one. The aftermarket applications are pretty cool, as well. I'm imagining a standardized API where third-party developers can build their own add-ons. For example, GPS manufacturers and use this for an enhanced lane-assist technology, indicating what lane a driver is in, and what lane a driver needs to be in. Or even for something as basic as sending information from the car's "infotainment" system to keep the driver focused on the road. (Reality check: auto manufacturers are notoriously bad at developing/using standardized interfaces - except when forced, as in the example of OBD II...but hey, I'm just imagining.) I can also see applications for police & emergency service vehicles; tie it in with license plate recognition, multiple target vehicle speed displays, etc.
However, since this appears limited perspective of the driver, how annoying will this be for passengers? Passengers will see lines projected onto the windshield that don't match up with the road from their perspective. I wonder if polarization technology can be used to limit the projected lines to the driver's perspective only.
You have an interesting account of American history. I also find it interesting that you use the terms "we" and "us" so much. Unless you're very, very old; you were not alive during the Civil War. Reconstruction was a very long time ago, we're all Americans again. Why do you write about the Civil War as if it happened to you, and you were personally persecuted?
I wouldn't expect it to be good for distance. Who would want to fly 2 hours in that thing? As of now I'm sure the majority of people consider it a luxury toy.
The automobile used to be considered a luxury toy by the majority of people, good only for short hops, uncomfortable, and horribly unreliable. It is now a ubiquitous and reliable form of transportation.
I'm not saying that this device will be the replacement for the car, but I'm not so quick to dismiss it, either.
This is different. The equivalent would be for the car to come with a free lifetime subscription to OnStar. This subscription would not be transferable (or possible only with a transfer fee).
This only has to do with an associated online service, hosted by Sony. The IP is still licensed to you for offline use. I'm not saying that I like the policy, I'm just saying that I don't think that it's as nefarious as your analogy.
As of oct 09 38% of jail broken iPhones had pirated apps on them. The number is rising. It's more or less a case that the pirates ruined it for the free software folks.
Citation requested (or in wiki's less polite terms, [citation needed])
I cannot believe Apple did not learn this lesson the last time in the 80s. They were in the drivers seat with the PC and they refused to let anyone develop any software for it. Well, everyone gave them the finger and now almost everyone uses a Microsoft OS (although I am glad that is finally changing). Looks like Apple's need to control every thing and try to sell all the software themselves is catching up with them now that Android is out.
Perhaps I don't understand you right, but when did Apple refuse to allow anyone to develop software for their PC's?
Well, IANAL, but I would guess the very moment I was granted the right to pursue happiness. You see, putting my name on a list to prevent me from purchasing something is an obstruction to my pursuit of happiness, and would thus be unconstitutional, and thus illegal.
Where in the Constitution were you guaranteed the right to pursue happiness? The only US document that I know of with those words are in the Declaration of Independence, which does not grant any rights.
Cool.
Does it have damage modelling? And a wide assortment of cars from most manufacturers?
Not much and no. The goal of iRacing is to create a realistic online racing experience - damage modeling is weak, and the car selection is limited (but the cars are equal, and represent real-world race cars). Check out some of the reviews for more information - there are plenty out there. The physics are extremely realistic - among the best that I've ever seen. The graphics are clearly not the focus of this game - if you're looking for the best eye candy out there, this game isn't for you. One of the problems with other online sims is that the stakes are low - crashing into other cars carries no penalties. On other sims (e.g. Race, rFactor, etc), many racers who spin on the first lap will sit at the end of the track and try to crash everyone out and ruin their races. iRacing does a very good job of curbing this behavior by enforcing a stringent safety rating system. I still get butterflies in my stomach at the starting grid of a race.
Not only are the extra streaming titles a bonus, but I think that it's probably a smart business decision by Netflix. I don't know the any specifics of the economics behind customer utilization of streaming versus mailing DVD's...but it's pretty easy to surmise that it's cheaper to stream video than mail it. Further, if Netflix can offer a greater proportion of their catalog via network streaming, it's going to make for happier customers. Personally, I think that this is the future or Netflix - and being forward-thinking is good business; provided that the timing is right.
...now, if Netflix would only allow high definition streaming to my PC.
Tobacco smoke residue is less of a bio-hazard than the keyboard of any computer, which contain all kinds of pathogens from people touching it.
Cite your source, or you're just making stuff up.
How about this: The American Cancer Society says:"Though unknown, the cancer-causing effects would likely be very small compared with direct exposure to secondhand smoke, such as living in a house with a smoker.". According to the CDC, the seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans per year. If you want, you can perform a peer-reviewed study on this.
In any case, it's not up to me to prove this. It's up to Apple to prove that thirdhand smoke is a bio-hazard worthy of voiding a warranty. My spider-senses tell me that this would not hold up in any court of law.
I'm referring less to the idea of model citizenry, and more towards the right of people to enter into contracts voluntarily. This includes the right to leave contracts as well. Because it is impossible to foresee every eventuality, contracts have limited scope. When the cost to remain in the contract exceeds the cost of exiting the contract, the contract ends. Apple is saying -- we don't need the business of smokers that badly. That's their right. As to the cost of ending their contract with smokers, I can only suppose they have good-will to lose since it is unlikely that anyone will have legal recourse to challenge them. It would be a class-action lawsuit if someone believes otherwise.
I really don't understand your point that a contract should end when the cost to remain in a contract exceeds the cost of exit. Does that mean that if the machine breaks and requires replacement, the $300 paid for an extended warranty will exceed the cost to stay in, and Apple can end it? The terms of the contract don't even remotely suggest that. If Apple wants to say that they don't need the business of smokers, it should be stated in the original service contract; in a termination clause, misuse not covered clause, or anywhere. If not, Apple (or any other vendor) can't use "smells like cigarette smoke" as an out. I'm not sure if I'm reading you right. If I am, (and IANAL), legally speaking, you're just wrong.
At this point, I think that I'm gonna just put my hands out, back away from you, and say oh-kaaaay.
I didn't detect a word of facetiousness here.
Smokers have no rights outside of their natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
If you smoke and no one wants to be near you, work with you, or enter into a contract with you, then that's morally and ethically sound for both parties.
Same goes for parents with obnoxious children, people who cannot keep their pets from defecating in their neighbors yards, etc.
Responsible people don't take equipment back to the manufacturer and expect service for items that has been accumulating chemicals from a hazardous environment.
Personal responsibility would solve most of this problem.
I see your point, and still respectfully disagree. If I do not practice good hygiene, do you have a right to not be near me in a public place because I smell bad? Do that give you right to break a legal contract to work with me or fix my equipment? This has nothing to do with personal responsibility and more to do with your sense of entitlement.
The same goes for your argument about obnoxious children in public, or even on an airplane. As much as they suck to be around, as long as they're not invading your space, they can be obnoxious all day long. The argument about a dog defecating on a neighbor's lawn is entirely different and inapplicable as well. That is a case of trespassing (and dumping) on private property.
Why? The vast majority of documented and peer-reviewed studies are all about second-hand smoke, not second-hand smoke residue. It's not like the computer is smoking cigarettes and blowing smoke in technicians faces. The fact that the user could have left cold, H1N1, typhoid, or any other pathogens on the machine is a far greater hazard to any technician. The body of evidence regarding the hazards of occasional exposure to third-hand smoke is weak (and remember that the second-hand smoke studies are all based on repeated exposure, such as food service workers, or children living in a smokers home). Besides, would you really want to pay more for a warranty because manufacturers have to go out and hire smokers to fix computers for other smokers? If it is really as hazardous as the pathogens left on computers by users, would it make more sense for technicians to wear exposure protection, like latex/nitrile gloves? It would sure be cheaper for the end-user if this were a standard practice.
Really, it seems to me that this comes down the fact that the technician felt that the computer smelled bad, and did not want to fix it because of this, which has little to do with legitimate health concerns. This isn't about a smokers sense of entitlement, in my opinion, it's the reverse. What if it was a warranty claim from a person who wore bad perfume or cologne? Do you think that it would be appropriate for the technician say that the computer's smell was too offensive for them to work on it? If the technician suffered from MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity), should the end-user be forced to not wear perfume? Or perhaps that Apple should screen technicians and put them into groups that don't mind working on computers with perfume smells, too? Have you honestly thought about what you're suggesting?
This isn't about outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants so that food service workers don't have to work for 8 hours a day in potentially hazardous conditions.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of cigarette smoke, and am a non-smoker.
its because second-hand smoke is bad for the Apple workers
But there isn't any "second-hand smoke" actually in the computer. There's the residue that you get from smoke, but that's not actually smoke. It's not particularly harmful unless you breath in a big cloud of it, but that's true of any kind of dust. If you're poking about inside dusty equipment, you should be wearing appropriate PPE anyway.
Exactly. Tobacco smoke residue is less of a bio-hazard than the keyboard of any computer, which contain all kinds of pathogens from people touching it.
What amazes me is that smokers believe that their right to smoke trumps everybody else's right to breath fresh, clean air.
I am, clearly, a non-smoker and I personally take offense to cigarette smoke. If a computer came into my possession that reeked of cigarette smoke, I'd refuse to work on it, too. Give it to a smoker to fix...in a separate building.
Let's get serious here. Whose upset that these computers, besides their owners, are not being fixed? Cigarette smokers. If smokers want to fix computers that were in smoker's houses, let the smokers fix them. I mean, God Damn, people! Listen to yourselves! Smokers are actually offended that non-smokers do not want to fix their smelly, second-hand hazardous smoke-filled PCs. What a misdirected sense of entitlement smokers have.
There isn't a compelling reason for non-smokers to place their health at risk because of a group of people who will not heed medical advice to stop smoking.
Are you serious, or being facetious? I really can't tell.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of torrent trackers that are exclusively free/legal content, they aren't being prosecuted
Untrue.
The RIAA presses suits against indie bands distributing their own music they made for a price they choose (Torrents and free respectively), for copyright violations.
Citation requested, please.
Even though I own my own smartphone, ...where I work (a very large IT company) there is an increasingly lengthy list
of requirements and checks for any device connected to the corporate network...
This is the big issue with ownership & management - requirements for devices to utilize company resources (and whether or not the device needs to utilize company network resources). If the device will connect to the company network, the IT department has a very good case for managing (and/or owning) the device. It really comes down to network security, and disallowing rogue devices from connecting to the network. In a large company with many IT resources (and many to protect), it's far easier to say that the company owns and manages the device. In a small or mid-sized company, where there is less IT infrastructure to protect, or less need to weigh security against usability/ease-of-management, there is a better case to be made for user owned and managed devices.
obligatory link to Google study/data.
I've done plenty of track days, and I've been to quite a few driver schools as well, and participated in some sanctioned amateur racing events. While on track, I prefer a car with no driving aids, and I also prefer a car with a manual tranny. I do know the reality that a well designed ABS and stability control system -- as well as a well designed semi-automatic clutchless shift system is faster...but as a driver, I prefer to be directly connected, and in full control. That being said, I disagree with your assessment of what driving aids can (or can't) do for you, and that your own skill is greater than what these can do. Frankly, I think that you're overestimating your skills...unless you possess super-human abilities, which are beyond those of most professional racers.
Can you deliver (or reduce) braking power to a specific wheel? (ABS and stability control systems can)
What about deliver (or reduce) torque to a specific wheel? (stability control systems can)
If your threshold braking is so much better than ABS, why was it banned in F1 racing over 15 years ago?
Why are traction control systems both included in and heavily regulated in racing (e.g. F1)?
If a trained driver can do better than a computer, why are active differentials (which are essentially modified traction/stability control systems) fitted in professional rally cars (WRC & IRC)?
Are you suggesting that you're a better driver than the professionals at the highest levels of racing?
Also remember that stability control systems do not drive the car. The driver does. The system will not out drive you, but consider that a trained driver with the right traction control system can. I'll grant that not all stability control systems are created equal, some will just make a car understeer, some are "performance" oriented, and there are outright racing systems which can do very impressive things, in the right hands. These certainly can make a car go around a track (again in the right hands).
Finally, consider that you are in the 95th percentile of drivers. There may be a few manufacturers out there who design a model or two for people like you. However, most drivers do not have the training that you do. They have no clue about things like car control and vehicle dynamics beyond knowing that the wheelie thing in the middle makes the car turn, the pedal on the left makes the car go, and the pedal on the right makes the car stop. As far as mass-market cars go; they're designed for the rest of the drivers. These drivers will never go do any advanced training. They don't care, and never will; that's the reality around us. Car geeks like us have to share the road with those people. If this technology makes those drivers safer, they make people like you and I safer...and the roads have never been safer than they are today.
Yes - you've probably seen rear fog lights. They're required on card in certain Scandinavian countries and are thus standard on many European cars. When on, rear fog lights look like one of the taillights is very bright (they're usually red).
However, since this appears limited perspective of the driver, how annoying will this be for passengers? Passengers will see lines projected onto the windshield that don't match up with the road from their perspective. I wonder if polarization technology can be used to limit the projected lines to the driver's perspective only.
You have an interesting account of American history. I also find it interesting that you use the terms "we" and "us" so much. Unless you're very, very old; you were not alive during the Civil War. Reconstruction was a very long time ago, we're all Americans again. Why do you write about the Civil War as if it happened to you, and you were personally persecuted?
I wouldn't expect it to be good for distance. Who would want to fly 2 hours in that thing? As of now I'm sure the majority of people consider it a luxury toy.
The automobile used to be considered a luxury toy by the majority of people, good only for short hops, uncomfortable, and horribly unreliable. It is now a ubiquitous and reliable form of transportation.
I'm not saying that this device will be the replacement for the car, but I'm not so quick to dismiss it, either.
Those California legislators are totally un-politically correct. This bill is insensitive to people with Tourette syndrome.
This is different. The equivalent would be for the car to come with a free lifetime subscription to OnStar. This subscription would not be transferable (or possible only with a transfer fee).
This only has to do with an associated online service, hosted by Sony. The IP is still licensed to you for offline use. I'm not saying that I like the policy, I'm just saying that I don't think that it's as nefarious as your analogy.
Thanks!
Yeah - did that. As far as I could tell, anyone could develop software for the mac.
As of oct 09 38% of jail broken iPhones had pirated apps on them. The number is rising. It's more or less a case that the pirates ruined it for the free software folks.
Citation requested (or in wiki's less polite terms, [citation needed])
I cannot believe Apple did not learn this lesson the last time in the 80s. They were in the drivers seat with the PC and they refused to let anyone develop any software for it. Well, everyone gave them the finger and now almost everyone uses a Microsoft OS (although I am glad that is finally changing). Looks like Apple's need to control every thing and try to sell all the software themselves is catching up with them now that Android is out.
Perhaps I don't understand you right, but when did Apple refuse to allow anyone to develop software for their PC's?
When did it become illegal?
Well, IANAL, but I would guess the very moment I was granted the right to pursue happiness. You see, putting my name on a list to prevent me from purchasing something is an obstruction to my pursuit of happiness, and would thus be unconstitutional, and thus illegal.
Where in the Constitution were you guaranteed the right to pursue happiness? The only US document that I know of with those words are in the Declaration of Independence, which does not grant any rights.
Cool. Does it have damage modelling? And a wide assortment of cars from most manufacturers?
Not much and no. The goal of iRacing is to create a realistic online racing experience - damage modeling is weak, and the car selection is limited (but the cars are equal, and represent real-world race cars). Check out some of the reviews for more information - there are plenty out there. The physics are extremely realistic - among the best that I've ever seen. The graphics are clearly not the focus of this game - if you're looking for the best eye candy out there, this game isn't for you. One of the problems with other online sims is that the stakes are low - crashing into other cars carries no penalties. On other sims (e.g. Race, rFactor, etc), many racers who spin on the first lap will sit at the end of the track and try to crash everyone out and ruin their races. iRacing does a very good job of curbing this behavior by enforcing a stringent safety rating system. I still get butterflies in my stomach at the starting grid of a race.
Not only are the extra streaming titles a bonus, but I think that it's probably a smart business decision by Netflix. I don't know the any specifics of the economics behind customer utilization of streaming versus mailing DVD's...but it's pretty easy to surmise that it's cheaper to stream video than mail it. Further, if Netflix can offer a greater proportion of their catalog via network streaming, it's going to make for happier customers. Personally, I think that this is the future or Netflix - and being forward-thinking is good business; provided that the timing is right.
What are you talking about? Rights are something that are easier to take away than to add...
I fixed that for you.
How about Tyhpoid, or any other pathogen that lives in fecal remnants?
Cite your source, or you're just making stuff up.
How about this: The American Cancer Society says:"Though unknown, the cancer-causing effects would likely be very small compared with direct exposure to secondhand smoke, such as living in a house with a smoker.". According to the CDC, the seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans per year. If you want, you can perform a peer-reviewed study on this.
In any case, it's not up to me to prove this. It's up to Apple to prove that thirdhand smoke is a bio-hazard worthy of voiding a warranty. My spider-senses tell me that this would not hold up in any court of law.
I'm referring less to the idea of model citizenry, and more towards the right of people to enter into contracts voluntarily. This includes the right to leave contracts as well. Because it is impossible to foresee every eventuality, contracts have limited scope. When the cost to remain in the contract exceeds the cost of exiting the contract, the contract ends. Apple is saying -- we don't need the business of smokers that badly. That's their right. As to the cost of ending their contract with smokers, I can only suppose they have good-will to lose since it is unlikely that anyone will have legal recourse to challenge them. It would be a class-action lawsuit if someone believes otherwise.
I really don't understand your point that a contract should end when the cost to remain in a contract exceeds the cost of exit. Does that mean that if the machine breaks and requires replacement, the $300 paid for an extended warranty will exceed the cost to stay in, and Apple can end it? The terms of the contract don't even remotely suggest that. If Apple wants to say that they don't need the business of smokers, it should be stated in the original service contract; in a termination clause, misuse not covered clause, or anywhere. If not, Apple (or any other vendor) can't use "smells like cigarette smoke" as an out. I'm not sure if I'm reading you right. If I am, (and IANAL), legally speaking, you're just wrong.
At this point, I think that I'm gonna just put my hands out, back away from you, and say oh-kaaaay.
I didn't detect a word of facetiousness here. Smokers have no rights outside of their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. If you smoke and no one wants to be near you, work with you, or enter into a contract with you, then that's morally and ethically sound for both parties. Same goes for parents with obnoxious children, people who cannot keep their pets from defecating in their neighbors yards, etc. Responsible people don't take equipment back to the manufacturer and expect service for items that has been accumulating chemicals from a hazardous environment. Personal responsibility would solve most of this problem.
I see your point, and still respectfully disagree. If I do not practice good hygiene, do you have a right to not be near me in a public place because I smell bad? Do that give you right to break a legal contract to work with me or fix my equipment? This has nothing to do with personal responsibility and more to do with your sense of entitlement.
The same goes for your argument about obnoxious children in public, or even on an airplane. As much as they suck to be around, as long as they're not invading your space, they can be obnoxious all day long. The argument about a dog defecating on a neighbor's lawn is entirely different and inapplicable as well. That is a case of trespassing (and dumping) on private property.
Why? The vast majority of documented and peer-reviewed studies are all about second-hand smoke, not second-hand smoke residue. It's not like the computer is smoking cigarettes and blowing smoke in technicians faces. The fact that the user could have left cold, H1N1, typhoid, or any other pathogens on the machine is a far greater hazard to any technician. The body of evidence regarding the hazards of occasional exposure to third-hand smoke is weak (and remember that the second-hand smoke studies are all based on repeated exposure, such as food service workers, or children living in a smokers home). Besides, would you really want to pay more for a warranty because manufacturers have to go out and hire smokers to fix computers for other smokers? If it is really as hazardous as the pathogens left on computers by users, would it make more sense for technicians to wear exposure protection, like latex/nitrile gloves? It would sure be cheaper for the end-user if this were a standard practice.
Really, it seems to me that this comes down the fact that the technician felt that the computer smelled bad, and did not want to fix it because of this, which has little to do with legitimate health concerns. This isn't about a smokers sense of entitlement, in my opinion, it's the reverse. What if it was a warranty claim from a person who wore bad perfume or cologne? Do you think that it would be appropriate for the technician say that the computer's smell was too offensive for them to work on it? If the technician suffered from MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity), should the end-user be forced to not wear perfume? Or perhaps that Apple should screen technicians and put them into groups that don't mind working on computers with perfume smells, too? Have you honestly thought about what you're suggesting?
This isn't about outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants so that food service workers don't have to work for 8 hours a day in potentially hazardous conditions.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of cigarette smoke, and am a non-smoker.
its because second-hand smoke is bad for the Apple workers
But there isn't any "second-hand smoke" actually in the computer. There's the residue that you get from smoke, but that's not actually smoke. It's not particularly harmful unless you breath in a big cloud of it, but that's true of any kind of dust. If you're poking about inside dusty equipment, you should be wearing appropriate PPE anyway.
Exactly. Tobacco smoke residue is less of a bio-hazard than the keyboard of any computer, which contain all kinds of pathogens from people touching it.
What amazes me is that smokers believe that their right to smoke trumps everybody else's right to breath fresh, clean air.
I am, clearly, a non-smoker and I personally take offense to cigarette smoke. If a computer came into my possession that reeked of cigarette smoke, I'd refuse to work on it, too. Give it to a smoker to fix...in a separate building.
Let's get serious here. Whose upset that these computers, besides their owners, are not being fixed? Cigarette smokers. If smokers want to fix computers that were in smoker's houses, let the smokers fix them. I mean, God Damn, people! Listen to yourselves! Smokers are actually offended that non-smokers do not want to fix their smelly, second-hand hazardous smoke-filled PCs. What a misdirected sense of entitlement smokers have.
There isn't a compelling reason for non-smokers to place their health at risk because of a group of people who will not heed medical advice to stop smoking.
Are you serious, or being facetious? I really can't tell.