"So while there are a small number of users purchasing their computers with Windows pre-installed and migrating to Linux, that number is effectively buried by businesses doing just the opposite."
MOST users running linux don't purchase a computer with it preinstalled. Since linux requires far less in terms of hardware to get the same or better performance usually they put a little memory in the computer they have and install linux on it. That includes businesses.
But what dwarfs the linux factors one way or another is the windows site licenses. For every desktop that an alternative OS was purchased on there are hundreds in which it was not, where they simply paid the MS tax despite their site license (like they've always done before).
Of course the difference in the numbers should be obvious, this could well constitute a pretty big chunk of the market, significantly reducing what is believed to the size of the market. This means x number of sales is really a larger percentage of the market than it is portrayed to be.
When it comes down to it, compared to legitimate copies, there really aren't that many pirated copies of windows... there just aren't. While they are common among techs, giving us the impression they are rampant, in reality I'd be surprised if techs and their families amount to even 1% of the market.
The kid/teenager of the house isn't an OS installer anymore than his parents or grandparents. He is wise in that he can successfully work the mouse and install most programs... a far cry from a pirated OS installation.
With linux on the other hand, there is a strong prevalance of technically literate users (the reasons for this are debatable and not the issue here). Almost every linux user can install the OS. Couple this with the fact that companies normally act as if linux is a "cheap and inferior" solution. Normally the pc's that come with linux preinstalled are in the $200-300 range and worth more like $150, they are usually crap a literate user wouldn't touch.
Aside from the price on the pc's, I fully admit I'm educated guessing the numbers. But from what I've seen... well I've never actually seen a system with linux preinstalled on it. I've seen lots of linux systems mind, many I've setup and have lots of friends using linux. Most of their computers are homebuilt (but not all). All in all, among desktop users I'd guesstimate about 200 linux pc's. Not a single one of them would be counted in these numbers.
In the businessworld it's much the same. Support contracts are an issue for obscure software only in small businessland. Corporations want accountability, small business wants it to work and wants someone to call to fix it when it's broke, they don't care about fingerpointing.
On the business side I've setup countless workstations and several hundred linux servers. Out of all of them only one was even a purchased license, all the rest were download editions of the software. A support contract would be pointless, if they have a support contract it's still us they call if they have a problem, we are local and can fix the problem before they finish holding.
You also don't need to buy a boxed version for updates. Really using the vendor update mechnism is probably the last thing I'd recommend to a customer. With redhat distros in particular, redhat drops support too fast and is slow on the updates in comparison with well known and trusted 3rd parties (*cough*freshrpms*cough*) who still provide updates for redhat version 6.2 last I checked.
5% of the desktop market, I doubt it's that low. 5% of oem preinstalls, perhaps. As for whether it had that OS on it when it hit the desktop, if you consider that, you have to consider all the rest I've mentioned above and more and the result is the desktop market, not the OEM preinstall numbers gartner is claiming.
Improving gameplay doesn't mean reducing T&A, male designers could just have easily added gameplay once they wrapped up the T&A.
Now there are games that shouldn't have nude dancing women contortionists on every screen, but if's a playboy game there damn well better be or it's a flop.
Distributing copies of the software is something else altogether.
Distributing the source when requested by someone who has recieved a binary is something else altogether. And the GPL says under that circumstance they can charge no more for the source than the cost of physically reproducing it.
This is the loophole, companies can add enough BS charges in to inflate 5 cents to $50 easily enough.
Aye, which they can get away with, the wording is vague enough that nobody would challenge them on whether the $0.05 cd (cost) they sold for $50 constituted reasonable.
Why? These are terms of service for your subscription service. The gpl entitles you to the source for the binary that was distributed to you, it does NOT entitle you to the source of future versions.
The ONLY thing giving you the right to future versions is your subscription, which is subject to the terms of service. The only thing you lose if you don't follow the terms that subscription, and the right to future versions that comes with it.
The TOS themselves can be pretty much anything which isn't illegal in itself. They can require that you when you put your shoes on you tie the left shoe first each time, they can make it whatever they want.
"If I do something negligent, and I'm injured accidentally as a result"
Your extra condition exists only in your own mind. If you do something negligent and your injured accidently as a result, you are responsible for the consequences. Your being aware of the consequences ahead of time is not a pre-requisite.
Sentimentality is why the jury ruled the way they did, they felt sorry because the evil corporation hurt the innocent old lady. The just on the other hand looked at it in reasonable fashion and although he couldn't throw out their decision, he severely gimp'd the damages.
"Had she crashed the car because she spilled regular coffee on herself, that's one thing. However, because the coffee injured her severely, and because there was no warning that you needed to handle it much more carefully than you would expect."
It is regular coffee, maintained a temperature standard in the industry and the recommeneded temperature of the National coffee something or other. But as I said before, the temp of the coffee is irrelevant in this case. It's ALL about why the coffee was spilled.
"I have a cup of coffee right here next to me. If I spill it on my lap, I'm not going to get third degree burns, and I handle it in a manner more appropriate to avoiding staining my clothes."
That would be your fault, coffee is SUPPOSED to be HOT not warm, it is ALWAYS supposed to be hot enough to burn. And if it's next to you, your not doing what this woman was, she was holding the coffee between her legs in a pressure sensitive cup. This is not safe with any disposable cup used in the industry, which is why mcdonalds provides drink carriers. Just because it's common for people to ignore those precautions doesn't mean it's not their fault if something happens as a result.
"This coffee needed to be handled more like molten plastic. McDonald's didn't tell anybody that."
You have to be told to handle a known hot substance with caution because it will burn you?
"That's like saying that if I were to create a box spring matress with spikes in it"
That's silly, the product is designed to be used properly, not improperly. No company can guarantee a product will be safe if handled in a manner it's not supposed to be handled in, and many are not.
THEY have a reasonable expectation that YOU won't be jumping on the box spring. Just as a window manafacturer has a reasonable expectation you won't be punching your hand through it.
Or a construction company has a resonable expectation that you won't be punching your hand through a wall and that no harm will come of leaving nails in studs INSIDE the wall.
"The problem isn't that she spilled it"
No the problem IS that she spilled it, and the only reason she spilled it was that she was negligent in her handling of the beverage. If she spilled a soft drink under the same circumstances on her $5000 dress, she would be responsible as well.
The temp of McDonalds and other industry leaders coffee was an issue, and there are plenty of legitimate cases regarding it. But this isn't one of them, this is a case of someone spilling something on herself through her own negligence.
First you determine who's fault it was that a substance known to cause injury (whether this severe or not, coffee IS supposed to be hot enough to burn) was spilled. Hers or McDonalds. If she was responsible, there is no case.
If they were responsible THEN you consider the issue of whether the coffee was unduly hot for damages.
What's next, the family of a jump victim claiming my building was unduly high?
It would be a case of who's fault it is that she went off the building in the first place, only if it's my fault does it matter how high my building is.
"Well, maybe not. Many of the complaints allege that the shock of burning their mouths caused them to drop the cup. I don't recall immedeately if SHE was one of those that allegeded that, because I'm getting the details between the original lawsuit with the lady and the copycat lawsuit with the man confused in my head."
No, she wasn't one who spilled it on herself because it was hot. That would be different.
"I'm still not entirely sure that I agree with your premise, though, that a company is only liable for the safety of their product if you use it on their premises."
The coffee is perfectly safe with handled with reasonable caution. As demonstrated by the fact only 1 in 30,000,000 cups purchased resulted in someone being burned. But the temperature isn't the issue here.
I'm not saying a company is only liable on their premise. They aren't even always responsible ON THEIR PREMISE. A company is only responsible if their recommeneded safty procedures are kept, or if it is a representative of the company who isn't keeping them.
McDonalds has drink holders which she should have been using rather than her lap. These are provided so that people won't keep their cups between their legs because the design of those cups (as well as all cups used by the fast food/disposable cup industry) have a design which is pressure sensitive and should NEVER be kept between the legs.
I know I've spilled beverages on myself if I put them between my legs because at some point I applied too much pressure and the lid poppped off, that is nobodies fault but my own.
While you could argue the coffee was dangerously hot, that isn't the issue. Coffee is supposed to be hot enough to burn, it's common knowledge you handle with care because it is hot.
If the cup leaked, or the bottom fell out, or melted, or she was burned when drinking it, that would all be something which McDonalds could control. Her improper handling of the cup was not, therefore they aren't responsible for it. If she improperly handled the cup ON their premises that wouldn't be in their control either.
It doesn't default to McDonalds being responsible after all, the default responsibility is on her. Even if she wasn't negligent in some way that doesn't matter (although she was), the point is McDonalds wasn't.
By the way, the temperature at which they maintain their coffee is NOT above standard in the industry. It's also the recommended temperature for drinking and storing coffee by the National coffee something or other.
If this only blocked port 25 it would be useless, you can send spam on any port you like, It would have to block all non-standard ports as well.
Like I said, it's more a matter of there not being an option to turn off in most products. And in the case of modems rather than routers, pretty much never an option since their not end user configurable.
As for willy nilly connecting to your mailserver, when you set it to allow random connections on the web on a certain port, using a certain protocol. You gave up any claims you had to discriminating on who connects to it. Your public to the web and that is the way it is.
Personally I believe the outgoing mailserver should be included in the distro, already configured out of the box.
"Experienced users who are more adept at internet security are more liekly to have the knowledge to disable the reverse firewal, or even change its parameters."
Not in the modem they aren't or at least not without violating their TOS. In the router sure, but the modem is configured and usually owned by the ISP.
My argument isn't against this at all, in fact I think ALL uncommon outbound ports should be blocked by default, in addition to 25. But NOT by the ISP and NOT in the modem.
After all, everyone should be sending mail from their own system and not the ISP's mailserver anyway. It distributes the load for starters, and it allows for granular blacklisting rather than blocking entire IP ranges. That is why superior systems like linux distro's include this capability by default.
It's not like it's presence makes things easier for the spammers. A smtp daemon is a trivial thing (as the spammers have already proven). If the system already has one it doesn't make it much easier for the spammer... in fact it will cost them a great deal of cash and time to remove it recode their exploits to use it instead.
Although that is all this solution would result in as well, after all the spammers would just use the port of a common service that is needed enough to leave open on your typical firewall but not enough that most users would notice it usurped. The ports for realplayer would be good, or vnc. Especially since these aren't always in use and should cause any problem with the spamamatic relay port already being in use.
Their proposing doing this in the modem, NOT in the router. Generally the ISP controls how the router is configured, not the user. My ISP doesn't even allow you to purchase a modem from someone other than them.
Computer experts? Most linux users use their own system to send email, ignorant and expert alike, since the capability is builtin and configured by default. Further, this is a good thing, taking the load off the ISP's central servers. If all computers were setup this way by default blocking lists would be far superior, allowing grainular blocking of spammers and zombies rather than whole ISP blocks.
No this is a seperate hardware device, it's no more configurable than it's interface allows. They are already hardly configurable in routers.
This actually proposes putting blocking of outgoing ports into the MODEM, which in most cases is provided by the ISP and not user configurable at all.
In the router, it's likely the consumer affordable (read under $50) model is unlikely to provide the option to turn this off, the vendors will reserve that for more expensive models. Even if the option is there in the web interface, your average user would not be competent to turn it off. And even he was competent to turn it off, he still wouldn't be competent enough to know it existed and therefore to look for a way to turn it off in the first place.
Please ALWAYS remember, the average user who controls the fashions of the industry (like providing the option to turn things off) is computer ignorant, and usually stupid besides.
If every device includes the feature on by default, your average user IS forced. Law isn't the only method of force you know, it's one of many.
The average user doesn't have the knowhow to turn this off, he is in reality not capable of distinguishing between products that will or won't give the option to turn it off, or even being aware this exists before it causes a problem for him.
And it's inevitable, the cheaper products the average consumer will be purchasing will NOT allow you to turn it off.
Not to mention, the coffee in question and it's temperature are completely irrelevant. That's what the defense wants you to discuss because that is the only avenue under which they may have had a case.
But the real issue was whether or not a beverage vendor is responsible when someone has purchased a beverage, left their establishment with it, and spills it on themselves due to their own negligence or any other factor which is completely outside the vendor's control.
Of course the answer SHOULD BE no.
If the container was faulty in some fashion... maybe. If the accident occured within the establishment, aggrevated by something the vendor did or didn't do (like an employee bumping into the customer, or a wet floor, or trash on the floor, etc) yes.
If the customer was hit by a semi, no, the accident and coffee injury would be the fault of whoever was at fault for the accident.
The only way I could see the temp of the coffee mattering whatsoever in THIS case would be if the defendant were burned by the coffee while drinking it.
After all it wasn't the temperature of the coffee which made her spill it.
That all has to do with the temperature of the coffee which is another issue altogether.
What does the temperature have to do with whether or not the individual or the vendor is responsible when a beverage is purchased and then the purchasee spills it? What beverage is spilled is irrelvent,
I don't care if McDonalds sold her battery acid for coffee they aren't responsible for her spilling it on herself. Perhaps if she was burned drinking said coffee it would be another matter and the beverage not being consumable would come into play but that's not what happened, what happened is she spilled the coffee, her spilling the coffee was in no way caused by the coffee being hot and was in no way due to McDonalds being negligent in any fashion.
If there is enough of it to kill you, perhaps you DESERVE to be killed?
"I suppose it's possible that consumers will demand this sort of accountability, but in practice, they'd have no mechanism by which to do so."
Sure they do, why we can't sack the servers of every corporation suspected, we can make this illegal and impose fines that would essentially mean instant bankruptcy for any business of any size ($500 bil is no more or less a consequence to Microsoft as it is to joe blow's garage, either way it's instant bankruptcy.).
Once it's illegal that's at least a deterrant (I propose the fine for non-disclosure, not being infected itself). If there are reports from consumers that are legitimate indication you may be infected, but have not announced such and taken down those servers... THEN we sack your servers. If you are infected there is no way to prove you knew, if there are logs indicating you WERE infected your fined.
If there is any indication there WERE logs indicating your infection and they've been tampered with you AND the IT staff, as well as the coporate officers are personally fined.
Yes I believe in extremely harsh one shot punishments. Leinent punishments and second chances encourage needing them. Most coporate officers have this extremely crazy idea that fines should be reasonable and their amount something they weigh against the gain of commiting the offense!!!
I've actually had people argue this failing to see there are something wrong with business considering commiting crimes a simple expense. The biggest example I've seen of having this happen is with breach of contracts.
There is this crazy idea that contracts shouldn't be binding and the penalties small so there are times when when it's beneficial to lie and break them rather than to honor them!
I suppose next we should change every criminal punishment to a fixed reasonable fine. So that it's sometimes profitable to mug little old ladies and kill those who have willed up funds. After all it's a business decision and we have a right to make a profit.
If your running an IIS webserver how can you possibly claim "bad luck", that's like playing Russian roulette every morning and claiming bad luck when one day you get the bullet.
But more importantly, how you claim no responsibility if you did get infected, were aware of it, and you didn't take your servers down immediately and advise customers.
Yes they'd blame you and in this case they should, your running a webserver FAMOUS for one thing and one thing only, it's notorious security record!
It doesn't matter so long as it wasn't hot enough to melt the cup. There is no degree of hot that justifies blaming someone else when you spill hot liquid (which is in YOUR keeping, under conditions YOU set, being safeguarded by precautions YOU set) on yourself.
She might not have known how severe the consequences could be, but surely she knew the coffee was in fact hot and not something she wanted to go spilling on her lap.
Her suffering is not a legitimate fact in the case and shouldn't have been considered in making the decision, only whether or not handling a cup of coffee purchased is the responsibility of the one purchasing, or the outlet selling. And once it has been sold it is out of the control of the seller.
If a McDonalds EMPLOYEE on the other hand was burned by the coffee while following McDonalds safety procedures that would be different.
It's all about who is responsible for the safe handling of the substance, and once bought, the purchaser is responsible.
Nobody is saying send in the inspection squads. Only that it be illegal to know and hide it. And it's the webserver, not the website which gets infected. Your homepage on tripod doesn't qualify you to publically admit anything, tripod on the other hand owes the world a self imposed quanantine if infected.
If nothing else it would at least advise the discriminating consumer that X site or hosting company is using Microsoft servers so be aware. And hopefully help to stop some people from being infected by those servers.
Well that would be the fault of the police, who exist only for the purpose of insuring there are NO wrong parts of town. Thus they aren't doing their job.
It would also be the fault of the criminal who insures we need police.
But it wouldn't be the fault of the victim, who's duty is to be taken advantage of and herded as the ignorant cattle they are by either the government (police) or it's opposition (crooks).
You win by having increased brain activity, just of a different type. The more Alpha and Theta waves your brain emits the better off you are. So the grandparent was right, the dreamer would win.
Since when was cheap standardized hardware created by windows??? You are mistaken sir, the cheap standardized hardware is what made windows, not the other way around. MS rode on the back of the cheap pc clone that took the market by storm.
But that really doesn't matter, I only debate it because it wasn't windows which created cheap hardware, and the cheap hardware certainly wouldn't go anywhere without windows.
Unless you mean to imply the death of the the low end computer. Because quite honestly I'd be hard pressed to name a general computing device that DOESN'T run linux.
There may be those who run linux because it doesn't require expensive hardware. But certainly the days are gone when you could claim a commercial unix was in any fashion a SUPERIOR operating system to linux, if that is what you mean?
Truely though, clusters and the like are really probably the least significant thing linux is used for.
Slashdot Mirror
"So while there are a small number of users purchasing their computers with Windows pre-installed and migrating to Linux, that number is effectively buried by businesses doing just the opposite."
MOST users running linux don't purchase a computer with it preinstalled. Since linux requires far less in terms of hardware to get the same or better performance usually they put a little memory in the computer they have and install linux on it. That includes businesses.
But what dwarfs the linux factors one way or another is the windows site licenses. For every desktop that an alternative OS was purchased on there are hundreds in which it was not, where they simply paid the MS tax despite their site license (like they've always done before).
Of course the difference in the numbers should be obvious, this could well constitute a pretty big chunk of the market, significantly reducing what is believed to the size of the market. This means x number of sales is really a larger percentage of the market than it is portrayed to be.
When it comes down to it, compared to legitimate copies, there really aren't that many pirated copies of windows... there just aren't. While they are common among techs, giving us the impression they are rampant, in reality I'd be surprised if techs and their families amount to even 1% of the market.
The kid/teenager of the house isn't an OS installer anymore than his parents or grandparents. He is wise in that he can successfully work the mouse and install most programs... a far cry from a pirated OS installation.
With linux on the other hand, there is a strong prevalance of technically literate users (the reasons for this are debatable and not the issue here). Almost every linux user can install the OS. Couple this with the fact that companies normally act as if linux is a "cheap and inferior" solution. Normally the pc's that come with linux preinstalled are in the $200-300 range and worth more like $150, they are usually crap a literate user wouldn't touch.
Aside from the price on the pc's, I fully admit I'm educated guessing the numbers. But from what I've seen... well I've never actually seen a system with linux preinstalled on it. I've seen lots of linux systems mind, many I've setup and have lots of friends using linux. Most of their computers are homebuilt (but not all). All in all, among desktop users I'd guesstimate about 200 linux pc's. Not a single one of them would be counted in these numbers.
In the businessworld it's much the same. Support contracts are an issue for obscure software only in small businessland. Corporations want accountability, small business wants it to work and wants someone to call to fix it when it's broke, they don't care about fingerpointing.
On the business side I've setup countless workstations and several hundred linux servers. Out of all of them only one was even a purchased license, all the rest were download editions of the software. A support contract would be pointless, if they have a support contract it's still us they call if they have a problem, we are local and can fix the problem before they finish holding.
You also don't need to buy a boxed version for updates. Really using the vendor update mechnism is probably the last thing I'd recommend to a customer. With redhat distros in particular, redhat drops support too fast and is slow on the updates in comparison with well known and trusted 3rd parties (*cough*freshrpms*cough*) who still provide updates for redhat version 6.2 last I checked.
5% of the desktop market, I doubt it's that low. 5% of oem preinstalls, perhaps. As for whether it had that OS on it when it hit the desktop, if you consider that, you have to consider all the rest I've mentioned above and more and the result is the desktop market, not the OEM preinstall numbers gartner is claiming.
I wouldn't care if it was the best game on earth. It's the principle of the thing.
Improving gameplay doesn't mean reducing T&A, male designers could just have easily added gameplay once they wrapped up the T&A.
Now there are games that shouldn't have nude dancing women contortionists on every screen, but if's a playboy game there damn well better be or it's a flop.
Brilliant, put a woman in charge to cut down on the T&A in a game where nobody wants anything but T&A.
Distributing copies of the software is something else altogether.
Distributing the source when requested by someone who has recieved a binary is something else altogether. And the GPL says under that circumstance they can charge no more for the source than the cost of physically reproducing it.
This is the loophole, companies can add enough BS charges in to inflate 5 cents to $50 easily enough.
Aye, which they can get away with, the wording is vague enough that nobody would challenge them on whether the $0.05 cd (cost) they sold for $50 constituted reasonable.
Why? These are terms of service for your subscription service. The gpl entitles you to the source for the binary that was distributed to you, it does NOT entitle you to the source of future versions.
The ONLY thing giving you the right to future versions is your subscription, which is subject to the terms of service. The only thing you lose if you don't follow the terms that subscription, and the right to future versions that comes with it.
The TOS themselves can be pretty much anything which isn't illegal in itself. They can require that you when you put your shoes on you tie the left shoe first each time, they can make it whatever they want.
"If I do something negligent, and I'm injured accidentally as a result"
Your extra condition exists only in your own mind. If you do something negligent and your injured accidently as a result, you are responsible for the consequences. Your being aware of the consequences ahead of time is not a pre-requisite.
Sentimentality is why the jury ruled the way they did, they felt sorry because the evil corporation hurt the innocent old lady. The just on the other hand looked at it in reasonable fashion and although he couldn't throw out their decision, he severely gimp'd the damages.
"Had she crashed the car because she spilled regular coffee on herself, that's one thing. However, because the coffee injured her severely, and because there was no warning that you needed to handle it much more carefully than you would expect."
It is regular coffee, maintained a temperature standard in the industry and the recommeneded temperature of the National coffee something or other. But as I said before, the temp of the coffee is irrelevant in this case. It's ALL about why the coffee was spilled.
"I have a cup of coffee right here next to me. If I spill it on my lap, I'm not going to get third degree burns, and I handle it in a manner more appropriate to avoiding staining my clothes."
That would be your fault, coffee is SUPPOSED to be HOT not warm, it is ALWAYS supposed to be hot enough to burn. And if it's next to you, your not doing what this woman was, she was holding the coffee between her legs in a pressure sensitive cup. This is not safe with any disposable cup used in the industry, which is why mcdonalds provides drink carriers. Just because it's common for people to ignore those precautions doesn't mean it's not their fault if something happens as a result.
"This coffee needed to be handled more like molten plastic. McDonald's didn't tell anybody that."
You have to be told to handle a known hot substance with caution because it will burn you?
"That's like saying that if I were to create a box spring matress with spikes in it"
That's silly, the product is designed to be used properly, not improperly. No company can guarantee a product will be safe if handled in a manner it's not supposed to be handled in, and many are not.
THEY have a reasonable expectation that YOU won't be jumping on the box spring. Just as a window manafacturer has a reasonable expectation you won't be punching your hand through it.
Or a construction company has a resonable expectation that you won't be punching your hand through a wall and that no harm will come of leaving nails in studs INSIDE the wall.
"The problem isn't that she spilled it"
No the problem IS that she spilled it, and the only reason she spilled it was that she was negligent in her handling of the beverage. If she spilled a soft drink under the same circumstances on her $5000 dress, she would be responsible as well.
The temp of McDonalds and other industry leaders coffee was an issue, and there are plenty of legitimate cases regarding it. But this isn't one of them, this is a case of someone spilling something on herself through her own negligence.
First you determine who's fault it was that a substance known to cause injury (whether this severe or not, coffee IS supposed to be hot enough to burn) was spilled. Hers or McDonalds. If she was responsible, there is no case.
If they were responsible THEN you consider the issue of whether the coffee was unduly hot for damages.
What's next, the family of a jump victim claiming my building was unduly high?
It would be a case of who's fault it is that she went off the building in the first place, only if it's my fault does it matter how high my building is.
"Well, maybe not. Many of the complaints allege that the shock of burning their mouths caused them to drop the cup. I don't recall immedeately if SHE was one of those that allegeded that, because I'm getting the details between the original lawsuit with the lady and the copycat lawsuit with the man confused in my head."
No, she wasn't one who spilled it on herself because it was hot. That would be different.
"I'm still not entirely sure that I agree with your premise, though, that a company is only liable for the safety of their product if you use it on their premises."
The coffee is perfectly safe with handled with reasonable caution. As demonstrated by the fact only 1 in 30,000,000 cups purchased resulted in someone being burned. But the temperature isn't the issue here.
I'm not saying a company is only liable on their premise. They aren't even always responsible ON THEIR PREMISE. A company is only responsible if their recommeneded safty procedures are kept, or if it is a representative of the company who isn't keeping them.
McDonalds has drink holders which she should have been using rather than her lap. These are provided so that people won't keep their cups between their legs because the design of those cups (as well as all cups used by the fast food/disposable cup industry) have a design which is pressure sensitive and should NEVER be kept between the legs.
I know I've spilled beverages on myself if I put them between my legs because at some point I applied too much pressure and the lid poppped off, that is nobodies fault but my own.
While you could argue the coffee was dangerously hot, that isn't the issue. Coffee is supposed to be hot enough to burn, it's common knowledge you handle with care because it is hot.
If the cup leaked, or the bottom fell out, or melted, or she was burned when drinking it, that would all be something which McDonalds could control. Her improper handling of the cup was not, therefore they aren't responsible for it. If she improperly handled the cup ON their premises that wouldn't be in their control either.
It doesn't default to McDonalds being responsible after all, the default responsibility is on her. Even if she wasn't negligent in some way that doesn't matter (although she was), the point is McDonalds wasn't.
By the way, the temperature at which they maintain their coffee is NOT above standard in the industry. It's also the recommended temperature for drinking and storing coffee by the National coffee something or other.
If this only blocked port 25 it would be useless, you can send spam on any port you like, It would have to block all non-standard ports as well.
Like I said, it's more a matter of there not being an option to turn off in most products. And in the case of modems rather than routers, pretty much never an option since their not end user configurable.
As for willy nilly connecting to your mailserver, when you set it to allow random connections on the web on a certain port, using a certain protocol. You gave up any claims you had to discriminating on who connects to it. Your public to the web and that is the way it is.
Personally I believe the outgoing mailserver should be included in the distro, already configured out of the box.
"Experienced users who are more adept at internet security are more liekly to have the knowledge to disable the reverse firewal, or even change its parameters."
Not in the modem they aren't or at least not without violating their TOS. In the router sure, but the modem is configured and usually owned by the ISP.
My argument isn't against this at all, in fact I think ALL uncommon outbound ports should be blocked by default, in addition to 25. But NOT by the ISP and NOT in the modem.
After all, everyone should be sending mail from their own system and not the ISP's mailserver anyway. It distributes the load for starters, and it allows for granular blacklisting rather than blocking entire IP ranges. That is why superior systems like linux distro's include this capability by default.
It's not like it's presence makes things easier for the spammers. A smtp daemon is a trivial thing (as the spammers have already proven). If the system already has one it doesn't make it much easier for the spammer... in fact it will cost them a great deal of cash and time to remove it recode their exploits to use it instead.
Although that is all this solution would result in as well, after all the spammers would just use the port of a common service that is needed enough to leave open on your typical firewall but not enough that most users would notice it usurped. The ports for realplayer would be good, or vnc. Especially since these aren't always in use and should cause any problem with the spamamatic relay port already being in use.
"i'm shure that you could easily open it"
Their proposing doing this in the modem, NOT in the router. Generally the ISP controls how the router is configured, not the user. My ISP doesn't even allow you to purchase a modem from someone other than them.
Computer experts? Most linux users use their own system to send email, ignorant and expert alike, since the capability is builtin and configured by default. Further, this is a good thing, taking the load off the ISP's central servers. If all computers were setup this way by default blocking lists would be far superior, allowing grainular blocking of spammers and zombies rather than whole ISP blocks.
No this is a seperate hardware device, it's no more configurable than it's interface allows. They are already hardly configurable in routers.
This actually proposes putting blocking of outgoing ports into the MODEM, which in most cases is provided by the ISP and not user configurable at all.
In the router, it's likely the consumer affordable (read under $50) model is unlikely to provide the option to turn this off, the vendors will reserve that for more expensive models. Even if the option is there in the web interface, your average user would not be competent to turn it off. And even he was competent to turn it off, he still wouldn't be competent enough to know it existed and therefore to look for a way to turn it off in the first place.
Please ALWAYS remember, the average user who controls the fashions of the industry (like providing the option to turn things off) is computer ignorant, and usually stupid besides.
If every device includes the feature on by default, your average user IS forced. Law isn't the only method of force you know, it's one of many.
The average user doesn't have the knowhow to turn this off, he is in reality not capable of distinguishing between products that will or won't give the option to turn it off, or even being aware this exists before it causes a problem for him.
And it's inevitable, the cheaper products the average consumer will be purchasing will NOT allow you to turn it off.
Not to mention, the coffee in question and it's temperature are completely irrelevant. That's what the defense wants you to discuss because that is the only avenue under which they may have had a case.
But the real issue was whether or not a beverage vendor is responsible when someone has purchased a beverage, left their establishment with it, and spills it on themselves due to their own negligence or any other factor which is completely outside the vendor's control.
Of course the answer SHOULD BE no.
If the container was faulty in some fashion... maybe. If the accident occured within the establishment, aggrevated by something the vendor did or didn't do (like an employee bumping into the customer, or a wet floor, or trash on the floor, etc) yes.
If the customer was hit by a semi, no, the accident and coffee injury would be the fault of whoever was at fault for the accident.
The only way I could see the temp of the coffee mattering whatsoever in THIS case would be if the defendant were burned by the coffee while drinking it.
After all it wasn't the temperature of the coffee which made her spill it.
That all has to do with the temperature of the coffee which is another issue altogether.
What does the temperature have to do with whether or not the individual or the vendor is responsible when a beverage is purchased and then the purchasee spills it? What beverage is spilled is irrelvent,
I don't care if McDonalds sold her battery acid for coffee they aren't responsible for her spilling it on herself. Perhaps if she was burned drinking said coffee it would be another matter and the beverage not being consumable would come into play but that's not what happened, what happened is she spilled the coffee, her spilling the coffee was in no way caused by the coffee being hot and was in no way due to McDonalds being negligent in any fashion.
"but in practice, that stuff will kill you."
If there is enough of it to kill you, perhaps you DESERVE to be killed?
"I suppose it's possible that consumers will demand this sort of accountability, but in practice, they'd have no mechanism by which to do so."
Sure they do, why we can't sack the servers of every corporation suspected, we can make this illegal and impose fines that would essentially mean instant bankruptcy for any business of any size ($500 bil is no more or less a consequence to Microsoft as it is to joe blow's garage, either way it's instant bankruptcy.).
Once it's illegal that's at least a deterrant (I propose the fine for non-disclosure, not being infected itself). If there are reports from consumers that are legitimate indication you may be infected, but have not announced such and taken down those servers... THEN we sack your servers. If you are infected there is no way to prove you knew, if there are logs indicating you WERE infected your fined.
If there is any indication there WERE logs indicating your infection and they've been tampered with you AND the IT staff, as well as the coporate officers are personally fined.
Yes I believe in extremely harsh one shot punishments. Leinent punishments and second chances encourage needing them. Most coporate officers have this extremely crazy idea that fines should be reasonable and their amount something they weigh against the gain of commiting the offense!!!
I've actually had people argue this failing to see there are something wrong with business considering commiting crimes a simple expense. The biggest example I've seen of having this happen is with breach of contracts.
There is this crazy idea that contracts shouldn't be binding and the penalties small so there are times when when it's beneficial to lie and break them rather than to honor them!
I suppose next we should change every criminal punishment to a fixed reasonable fine. So that it's sometimes profitable to mug little old ladies and kill those who have willed up funds. After all it's a business decision and we have a right to make a profit.
If your running an IIS webserver how can you possibly claim "bad luck", that's like playing Russian roulette every morning and claiming bad luck when one day you get the bullet.
But more importantly, how you claim no responsibility if you did get infected, were aware of it, and you didn't take your servers down immediately and advise customers.
Yes they'd blame you and in this case they should, your running a webserver FAMOUS for one thing and one thing only, it's notorious security record!
It doesn't matter so long as it wasn't hot enough to melt the cup. There is no degree of hot that justifies blaming someone else when you spill hot liquid (which is in YOUR keeping, under conditions YOU set, being safeguarded by precautions YOU set) on yourself.
She might not have known how severe the consequences could be, but surely she knew the coffee was in fact hot and not something she wanted to go spilling on her lap.
Her suffering is not a legitimate fact in the case and shouldn't have been considered in making the decision, only whether or not handling a cup of coffee purchased is the responsibility of the one purchasing, or the outlet selling. And once it has been sold it is out of the control of the seller.
If a McDonalds EMPLOYEE on the other hand was burned by the coffee while following McDonalds safety procedures that would be different.
It's all about who is responsible for the safe handling of the substance, and once bought, the purchaser is responsible.
Nobody is saying send in the inspection squads. Only that it be illegal to know and hide it. And it's the webserver, not the website which gets infected. Your homepage on tripod doesn't qualify you to publically admit anything, tripod on the other hand owes the world a self imposed quanantine if infected.
If nothing else it would at least advise the discriminating consumer that X site or hosting company is using Microsoft servers so be aware. And hopefully help to stop some people from being infected by those servers.
Well that would be the fault of the police, who exist only for the purpose of insuring there are NO wrong parts of town. Thus they aren't doing their job.
It would also be the fault of the criminal who insures we need police.
But it wouldn't be the fault of the victim, who's duty is to be taken advantage of and herded as the ignorant cattle they are by either the government (police) or it's opposition (crooks).
You win by having increased brain activity, just of a different type. The more Alpha and Theta waves your brain emits the better off you are. So the grandparent was right, the dreamer would win.
More importantly is the state of things now. The death of the pc would not be the death of linux.
"cheap standardized hardware"
Since when was cheap standardized hardware created by windows??? You are mistaken sir, the cheap standardized hardware is what made windows, not the other way around. MS rode on the back of the cheap pc clone that took the market by storm.
But that really doesn't matter, I only debate it because it wasn't windows which created cheap hardware, and the cheap hardware certainly wouldn't go anywhere without windows.
Unless you mean to imply the death of the the low end computer. Because quite honestly I'd be hard pressed to name a general computing device that DOESN'T run linux.
There may be those who run linux because it doesn't require expensive hardware. But certainly the days are gone when you could claim a commercial unix was in any fashion a SUPERIOR operating system to linux, if that is what you mean?
Truely though, clusters and the like are really probably the least significant thing linux is used for.