2) it's only $40 or so if that's the price the rights-holders sell it for. If they think they can make more money by pricing it higher, they will. If they want to price it higher for any other reason - say, to protect another offering that's already priced higher - they will.
It's not 20 years old yet but Stargate SG-1 is available in a large box, for well north of $100.
What I want is smaller boxes. For stuff that was originally recorded in a way that makes "DVD-quality" as good as you are going to get, I'd rather buy "collections" on Blue-Ray disks in a smaller box than DVDs in a box 2-3 times as big. Give me a 100GB or 300GB disk and I can fit more stuff on my bookshelf. Yes, I am one of those luddites that doesn't want to rely ONLY on spinning metal or silicon to hold my stuff.
... and give anyone who requests a slot within TIMEPERIOD of it becoming available a shot at it.
Whether you give everyone an equal shot lottery-style or give preference to select customers, to new customers, or whatever is up to you.
Bonus points if you make it easier by incorporating the waiting list into the system, or simply not advertising the vacancy if there is someone on the waiting list who is available to take the canceled reservation. After all, that's what waiting lists are for, right?
1) Charge a payroll tax on non-permanent-resident foreign workers based on the HIGHER of actual salary or market salary. The tax should be high enough to deter hiring foreigners unless there is a specific person you want to hire or there is a genuine labor shortage, but not so high as to make it impossible to deal with labor shortages or hire a specifically recruited individual. Say, 20-40% unless there are good reasons why it should be higher or lower.
2) Apply this to all wage levels, from minimum wage jobs on up. Cap the tax at some level, say, the level paid on a $100,000 salary (in today's dollars). This would make the tax pretty meaningless for highly-paid executives, entertainers, professional athletes, etc. but frankly, Americans with those kinds of skills don't need much protection from foreign competition.
3) Grant liberal employment visas to anyone who has a sponsoring employer who will post a bond guaranteeing 30 days of living expenses beyond the termination of the job, a salary that is at least the local "living wage" for one person, and guaranteeing a return plane or bus ticket home. Family-in-tow visas would be granted only if the living and return-ticket expenses for the family members were covered in some way, with the "last" 30 days of living expenses and the return ticket being covered by a bond or other guarantee. Once here, allow the person to change jobs providing the new employer will assume sponsorship obligations. Yes, this means no more "HB-1 captivity" in the job market.
What this would mean:
On the low end, minimum wage jobs would cost employers another $1.45-$2.90/hour for everyone they hired on a temporary work permit.
On the medium end, a job with a market salary of $60K would cost employers at least another $12K-$24K/year for every temporary-worker they hired. The worker COULD agree to work for that much less, but wages wouldn't be driven down due to foreign workers being willing to take less unless they were willing to take a LOT less, and on a large scale.
On the higher end, for jobs over $100K, employers would face a $20K-$40K tax on temporary workers.
Political bonus points if the taxes were directed towards post-secondary education rather than general revenue, but ONLY if the weren't offset by reductions elsewhere (no political points for shell games!).
That may not be the best example: Some of the horrors of Nazi Germany were so bad that killing someone before they were old enough to form lasting memories might have been the most merciful thing a conscripted prison guard could do.
The question becomes: Did the guard kill the baby out of mercy for the baby? That's mercy-based action. Did the guard do it out of fear of his own life, wishing to God he could think of another way out? That's fear-based action. Did the guard do it "because it was his job." That might be Stockholm Syndrome, resignation to one's fate, escaping into an emotional shell, or something else that doesn't indicate that the person is evil as much as just being unable to handle the circumstance he was in. Did the guard do it because he enjoyed it, a la Joseph Mengele? That's either a severe mental illness, evil, or some combination of both.
One can sympathize with the victims of one's actions, and yet still consider the actions to be necessary to prevent a greater harm.
True, but for some it's emotionally easier to de-humanize or otherwise stop empathizing whoever you are hurting.
The witness testifying against an alleged murderer may think "I'm sorry I have to testify against you, but telling the truth and ensuring justice is done is for the greater good even if it means you will get life in prison" or he may think "you worthless scum, I hope you never see daylight again." In the short term at least, the second reaction probably takes less mental effort.
How about we make people pass this test to screen for psycopaths? You're flagged positive, you can't hold any job that will give you power over anyone. No politics, no police, no health care, no teaching, etc.
BAD IDEA - DO NOT WANT.
If there is a test for psychopathy with an acceptably low false-positive rate and it's used for such high-stakes as you propose, sooner or later someone will figure out a way to train people to test "negative."
It's already possible for many if not most people to learn to "defeat" a polygraph. It's just not worth most people's effort because outside of careers needing security clearances and some other highly-sensitive jobs, most people don't find themselves in a situation where not taking one or failing one would cost them anything.
You're flagged positive, you can't hold any job that will give you power over anyone.
That's just about any job. Even if my job is to clean up trash in the park, my boss doesn't expect me to be perfect. I have the power to do things like spending more effort in low-traffic areas than high-traffic areas, thereby making tomorrow's visitors' experience less enjoyable, or to focus on high-traffic areas to make their experience more enjoyable. If you say that's not having power over someone, you are mistaken. It's petty power, but it is power.
20 year old woman gets knifed on the street - we all feel bad for her.
20 year old woman convicted of torturing her kids gets knifed a few weeks into her lifetime prison sentence - many of us think "good, she got what she deserved."
The take-away is that some, perhaps most, psychopaths can be rehabilitated AND some, perhaps most, non-psychopaths can, through brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome, or just being in the wrong environment (e.g. being a prison guard or soldier in a despotic regime) see their empathy for others in certain situations erode to the point that they will do unspeakable things without feeling guilty about it.
The difference between an "average" of 8.6 and 10.9 isn't that big of a deal.
The "bigger deal" are the very high speed countries like Japan and South Korea and the underlying reasons for the gap in the United States.
Some things we can't control or wouldn't want to if we could: Less-dense populations, the fact that many customers are satisfied with the speeds they got during the "digital cable rollouts" and "DSL rollouts" of the early 2000s and don't want to pay more, the fact that many voters don't want to heavily subsidize communication beyond "the basics" with tax money, etc.
The take-aways from charts like this are:
* What are other countries doing that we COULD do? * SHOULD we do those things? * Does the voting/taxpaying public WANT to do those things and if not, SHOULD we honor that or should proponents of higher speed access try to change their hearts and minds?
I for one don't want to live in a city as dense as Tokyo or Seoul or force my 300M fellow Americans to do the same just so we can have 50+% faster possibly-cheaper Internet.
--
I bet if The Vatican wanted to, it could get uber-fast Internet to all the residents and offices and jump to the top of the list very quickly assuming there was a high-speed provider in the area. But I for one don't want to live in a teeny-tiny country.
Maybe, then it is time to redefine child abuse and child porn?
Some states in the USA are already doing this.
Most states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws and most are extending this to "child porn" so a person who offers a photo of himself to his close-in-age girlfriend or who asks her for a photo of herself doesn't wind up with both of them spending years in prison with sex-offense felony records. Some states are also looking at "graduated penalties" based on ages and age differences even if the individuals are charged as adults. Others require charges to be made in juvenile court if the acts were consensual and the defendant is under 18.
Personally, I would love to see the laws changed so arguably-consensual sex involving people who are not in a "power relationship" other than the one inherent in an age difference face consequences that are limited based on the age and age difference of the people involved:
If the younger party is under 18 and the older party is only a few years older (where "a few" is, say, 3 for a preteen or younger victim and ramping up to 6 if the younger party is 17) or if the older person is too young to be tried in juvenile court, the only remedies would be 1) if any parent complained, a court order for them to keep apart except as needed for school, and to be supervised when together at school, and 2) if either the police or any parent insisted, court-ordered counseling for both parties.
If the parties were more than a few years apart but less than about twice that much apart (i.e. 3 to 6 years age difference if the younger person was a preteen or younger, ramping up to 6 to 12 years if the younger person was 17) and the older person is old enough to be tried in juvenile court, the older person could be charged with a misdemeanor, be ordered into a psych evaluation and if deemed dangerous to others besides the existing "victim," possible non-public/sealed-record sex-offender registration or special probation/parole/supervision requirements for no more than a few years. The younger person would be offered counseling as would his or her parents. If the older person was a minor or living at home, his parents would be offered counseling as well. If the crime occurred in a state where misdemeanors committed by young adults or by minors convicted in adult court were routinely pardoned or the record sealed after a period of time of good behavior, the person would be treated the same as other young misdemeanor offenders when he asked for a pardon or asked for his record to be sealed. In other words, if you are 15 messing around with a 12 year old or are 23 messing around with a 17 year old, expect to spend a few months in juvenile detention or jail for it and if you are deemed to be a danger to others, expect to have to register with the police for the next few years, but you will not be on any public sex-offender registry.
If the parties were between twice and three times "a few years" (6 to 9 year age difference with a preteen or younger victim, ramping up to a 12 to 18 year age difference with a 17 year old victim) OR if the older person was still a minor and old enough to be tried in juvenile court, then the maximum penalty would be a low-level felony with only at most few years on a private (or, if he was 18 or older when the crime was committed, public) sex offender registry. If the crime occurred in a state where low-level felonies committed by young adults or by minors convicted in adult court were routinely pardoned or the record sealed after a period of time of good behavior, the person would be treated the same as other young low-level felons when he asked for a pardon or asked for his record to be sealed. In other words, if you are 18 messing around with a 12 year old or 29 messing around with a 17 year old, expect a felony sex offender conviction but expect to be out of prison in 2-3 years and expect to be off the sex offender registry a few years after that.
It's illegal to possess a self-made underaged-porn pic.
I would argue that possessing self-made underaged porn by the photographer (or by his parents, if "stored on his behalf until he is 18" - i.e. not used for viewing) or possessed by anyone after he turns 18 with his permission is morally equivalent to possessing a photo of a legal homicide or suicide (yeah, I know, suicide is illegal, but pretend it's not), assuming the photo was taken with the permission of all parties in the photo, that all living parties of the photo do not object to the person who is possessing it having it, and that prior to death, the homicide/suicide victim expressly said it was okay for the image to be either distributed or be in the hands of the person who possesses it.
Having said that, the "permission" should be given freely and without any financial or similar reward that turns it from "free speech" to "commercial speech." In other words, no signing a big contract to sell the rights of that photo you made of yourself when you were 14 and no selling of that suicide photo of your next-of-kin, and no "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" bartering.
The exceptional "no crime committed" child porn are probably morally equivalent to filming an execution, self-defense-related death, war-related death, legal euthanasia/assisted suicide, or any other other legal homicide.
there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other)
Generally true but not always.
The newly-married under-18 teenagers filming their honeymoon "in detail" are creating child pornography if they do it in America.
Ditto the 13 year old guy playing with himself in front of a mirror with a camera, purely for his own amusement.
Granted, these examples should never justify "making child porn legal" but they do justify creating the "it was my own body, I have a right to record it" absolute defense and an "it was my boy/girlfriend and he/she said yes" mitigation-defense for people close in age that would turn the charge into a non-sex-crime misdemeanor.
I don't like people who have certain bumpy patterns on their heads.
Phrenology is a great way to find such people.
It's also about the only thing Phrenology is good at, besides maybe keeping Phrenologists employed.
/s/Phrenology/any_bogus_measuring_tool/g /s/certain bumpy patterns on their heads/actual_thing_bogus_measuring_tool_measures/g /s/Phrenologists/users_of_bogus_tool/g
Provide a "strikes" setup for those who use automated DMCA processing:
* If you send in an automated request for something you clearly should have known was bogus, that's a strike. If you send in an automated request for something that was "okay, yeah, I can see how you might have been confused by that," it's a large or small fraction of a strike, based on the circumstances. * After you get above 1 strike, you get 24 hours to promise it won't happen again. This is your "free strike." You also get a pass for errors in the next 24 hours, just because change doesn't happen instantaneously.
* Starting 24 hours after your first warning, the stakes get raised: * If you have more than 1 full strike in the last 7 days not counting those strikes that were "forgiven," 10% of your automated takedown requests are processed manually. More than 2, 20%, more than 3, 30%, more than 4, 40%, and after that, Google sues you for a declaration that your DMCA takedown notices are too error-filled to be considered reliable, and asking the court to allow future notices only if the company sending them pays the full labor cost of manually processing all of the requests and declaring that Google is in compliance if it makes "good faith" efforts even if it is humanly impossible to process all of the requests in a timely manner. The court order would be in effect until the company had gone 30 days without sending in any questionable takedown requests.
Is apple specifically marketing to people with porn problems? To people with self-control issues? To kids? To demographics groups known to have high rates of porn- or self-control problems?
If not, their only "duties to protect the user from harm when using the product as designed" are
those which either the general public shouldn't be expected to protect themselves against, like batteries catching fire, and
those things which significant numbers the general public might do if they weren't either warned not to do it or prevented from doing it by technical measures AND which TYPICALLY have "high cost" results, like running their battery down so low that it won't recharge without a technician's help
If Apple used shoddy batteries that caught fire on more than a very infrequent basis or if they didn't cause the device to shut off well before the battery was drained to the point of requiring a service call, then it would be reasonable for the government or courts to strong-arm them into changing their design.
But allowing a user to go astray through a typo while web-browsing is TYPICALLY not a high-cost failure. In fact, the cost of preventing such failures is, on the whole, higher than the cost of the occasional typo.
--
Regarding legal liability for porn: If Apple starts encouraging employees start hanging around Junior High Schools offering "no blocking, and we won't tell your parents" iPhones out of their trenchcoats then we'll have a problem. Until then, carry on.
If a previous user had visited that URL, and "facebook" was never visited on that phone, I would expect the auto-fill to do that.
I've accidentally gone to site "A" instead of site "B" in my web browser if my most recent visit was to site "A" and they both start with the same letter and I'm not paying attention.
In any case, it's not the web browser publisher's fault, it's mine for not watching what I'm doing.
Blaming a device maker for your actions with it shows a complete lack of self-responsibility
In this case, yes, absolutely, a bazillion times over, but please don't over-generalize.
Blaming my computer for my greatly-increased productivity compared to pencil, paper, and abacus does not show a complete lack of self-responsibility.
I can see this guy testifying before Congress or whomever in favor of legal requirements
No, I can see this guy being invited to testify, seeing the microphone, grabbing it, and, well, let's just say CSPAN will be glad they put in a few-second delay or if they didn't, they'll wish they had.
Slashdot Mirror
1) but it's a big box and
2) it's only $40 or so if that's the price the rights-holders sell it for. If they think they can make more money by pricing it higher, they will. If they want to price it higher for any other reason - say, to protect another offering that's already priced higher - they will.
It's not 20 years old yet but Stargate SG-1 is available in a large box, for well north of $100.
What I want is smaller boxes. For stuff that was originally recorded in a way that makes "DVD-quality" as good as you are going to get, I'd rather buy "collections" on Blue-Ray disks in a smaller box than DVDs in a box 2-3 times as big. Give me a 100GB or 300GB disk and I can fit more stuff on my bookshelf. Yes, I am one of those luddites that doesn't want to rely ONLY on spinning metal or silicon to hold my stuff.
There are people who don't have fast internet.
There are people who PREFER to view content on non-Internet-connected devices to avoid tracking.
Er, make that 3 platters. It was a long-running show.
... and give anyone who requests a slot within TIMEPERIOD of it becoming available a shot at it.
Whether you give everyone an equal shot lottery-style or give preference to select customers, to new customers, or whatever is up to you.
Bonus points if you make it easier by incorporating the waiting list into the system, or simply not advertising the vacancy if there is someone on the waiting list who is available to take the canceled reservation. After all, that's what waiting lists are for, right?
Try this instead: http://www.reuters.com/search?blob=barnaby+jack
1) Charge a payroll tax on non-permanent-resident foreign workers based on the HIGHER of actual salary or market salary. The tax should be high enough to deter hiring foreigners unless there is a specific person you want to hire or there is a genuine labor shortage, but not so high as to make it impossible to deal with labor shortages or hire a specifically recruited individual. Say, 20-40% unless there are good reasons why it should be higher or lower.
2) Apply this to all wage levels, from minimum wage jobs on up. Cap the tax at some level, say, the level paid on a $100,000 salary (in today's dollars). This would make the tax pretty meaningless for highly-paid executives, entertainers, professional athletes, etc. but frankly, Americans with those kinds of skills don't need much protection from foreign competition.
3) Grant liberal employment visas to anyone who has a sponsoring employer who will post a bond guaranteeing 30 days of living expenses beyond the termination of the job, a salary that is at least the local "living wage" for one person, and guaranteeing a return plane or bus ticket home. Family-in-tow visas would be granted only if the living and return-ticket expenses for the family members were covered in some way, with the "last" 30 days of living expenses and the return ticket being covered by a bond or other guarantee. Once here, allow the person to change jobs providing the new employer will assume sponsorship obligations. Yes, this means no more "HB-1 captivity" in the job market.
What this would mean:
On the low end, minimum wage jobs would cost employers another $1.45-$2.90/hour for everyone they hired on a temporary work permit.
On the medium end, a job with a market salary of $60K would cost employers at least another $12K-$24K/year for every temporary-worker they hired. The worker COULD agree to work for that much less, but wages wouldn't be driven down due to foreign workers being willing to take less unless they were willing to take a LOT less, and on a large scale.
On the higher end, for jobs over $100K, employers would face a $20K-$40K tax on temporary workers.
Political bonus points if the taxes were directed towards post-secondary education rather than general revenue, but ONLY if the weren't offset by reductions elsewhere (no political points for shell games!).
Why would anyone ever voluntarily suffer on behalf of another?
Why? Love.
A vast majority of parents in Western cultures (and possibly world-wide) would gladly give their life to save the life of their child.
That may not be the best example: Some of the horrors of Nazi Germany were so bad that killing someone before they were old enough to form lasting memories might have been the most merciful thing a conscripted prison guard could do.
The question becomes:
Did the guard kill the baby out of mercy for the baby? That's mercy-based action.
Did the guard do it out of fear of his own life, wishing to God he could think of another way out? That's fear-based action.
Did the guard do it "because it was his job." That might be Stockholm Syndrome, resignation to one's fate, escaping into an emotional shell, or something else that doesn't indicate that the person is evil as much as just being unable to handle the circumstance he was in.
Did the guard do it because he enjoyed it, a la Joseph Mengele? That's either a severe mental illness, evil, or some combination of both.
One can sympathize with the victims of one's actions, and yet still consider the actions to be necessary to prevent a greater harm.
True, but for some it's emotionally easier to de-humanize or otherwise stop empathizing whoever you are hurting.
The witness testifying against an alleged murderer may think "I'm sorry I have to testify against you, but telling the truth and ensuring justice is done is for the greater good even if it means you will get life in prison" or he may think "you worthless scum, I hope you never see daylight again." In the short term at least, the second reaction probably takes less mental effort.
How about we make people pass this test to screen for psycopaths? You're flagged positive, you can't hold any job that will give you power over anyone. No politics, no police, no health care, no teaching, etc.
BAD IDEA - DO NOT WANT.
If there is a test for psychopathy with an acceptably low false-positive rate and it's used for such high-stakes as you propose, sooner or later someone will figure out a way to train people to test "negative."
It's already possible for many if not most people to learn to "defeat" a polygraph. It's just not worth most people's effort because outside of careers needing security clearances and some other highly-sensitive jobs, most people don't find themselves in a situation where not taking one or failing one would cost them anything.
You're flagged positive, you can't hold any job that will give you power over anyone.
That's just about any job. Even if my job is to clean up trash in the park, my boss doesn't expect me to be perfect. I have the power to do things like spending more effort in low-traffic areas than high-traffic areas, thereby making tomorrow's visitors' experience less enjoyable, or to focus on high-traffic areas to make their experience more enjoyable. If you say that's not having power over someone, you are mistaken. It's petty power, but it is power.
20 year old woman gets knifed on the street - we all feel bad for her.
20 year old woman convicted of torturing her kids gets knifed a few weeks into her lifetime prison sentence - many of us think "good, she got what she deserved."
The take-away is that some, perhaps most, psychopaths can be rehabilitated AND some, perhaps most, non-psychopaths can, through brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome, or just being in the wrong environment (e.g. being a prison guard or soldier in a despotic regime) see their empathy for others in certain situations erode to the point that they will do unspeakable things without feeling guilty about it.
The difference between an "average" of 8.6 and 10.9 isn't that big of a deal.
The "bigger deal" are the very high speed countries like Japan and South Korea and the underlying reasons for the gap in the United States.
Some things we can't control or wouldn't want to if we could: Less-dense populations, the fact that many customers are satisfied with the speeds they got during the "digital cable rollouts" and "DSL rollouts" of the early 2000s and don't want to pay more, the fact that many voters don't want to heavily subsidize communication beyond "the basics" with tax money, etc.
The take-aways from charts like this are:
* What are other countries doing that we COULD do?
* SHOULD we do those things?
* Does the voting/taxpaying public WANT to do those things and if not, SHOULD we honor that or should proponents of higher speed access try to change their hearts and minds?
I for one don't want to live in a city as dense as Tokyo or Seoul or force my 300M fellow Americans to do the same just so we can have 50+% faster possibly-cheaper Internet.
--
I bet if The Vatican wanted to, it could get uber-fast Internet to all the residents and offices and jump to the top of the list very quickly assuming there was a high-speed provider in the area. But I for one don't want to live in a teeny-tiny country.
Maybe, then it is time to redefine child abuse and child porn?
Some states in the USA are already doing this.
Most states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws and most are extending this to "child porn" so a person who offers a photo of himself to his close-in-age girlfriend or who asks her for a photo of herself doesn't wind up with both of them spending years in prison with sex-offense felony records. Some states are also looking at "graduated penalties" based on ages and age differences even if the individuals are charged as adults. Others require charges to be made in juvenile court if the acts were consensual and the defendant is under 18.
Personally, I would love to see the laws changed so arguably-consensual sex involving people who are not in a "power relationship" other than the one inherent in an age difference face consequences that are limited based on the age and age difference of the people involved:
It's illegal to possess a self-made underaged-porn pic.
I would argue that possessing self-made underaged porn by the photographer (or by his parents, if "stored on his behalf until he is 18" - i.e. not used for viewing) or possessed by anyone after he turns 18 with his permission is morally equivalent to possessing a photo of a legal homicide or suicide (yeah, I know, suicide is illegal, but pretend it's not), assuming the photo was taken with the permission of all parties in the photo, that all living parties of the photo do not object to the person who is possessing it having it, and that prior to death, the homicide/suicide victim expressly said it was okay for the image to be either distributed or be in the hands of the person who possesses it.
Having said that, the "permission" should be given freely and without any financial or similar reward that turns it from "free speech" to "commercial speech." In other words, no signing a big contract to sell the rights of that photo you made of yourself when you were 14 and no selling of that suicide photo of your next-of-kin, and no "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" bartering.
The exceptional "no crime committed" child porn are probably morally equivalent to filming an execution, self-defense-related death, war-related death, legal euthanasia/assisted suicide, or any other other legal homicide.
there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other)
Generally true but not always.
The newly-married under-18 teenagers filming their honeymoon "in detail" are creating child pornography if they do it in America.
Ditto the 13 year old guy playing with himself in front of a mirror with a camera, purely for his own amusement.
Granted, these examples should never justify "making child porn legal" but they do justify creating the "it was my own body, I have a right to record it" absolute defense and an "it was my boy/girlfriend and he/she said yes" mitigation-defense for people close in age that would turn the charge into a non-sex-crime misdemeanor.
See also: Category:Geographic coordinate systems.
I don't like people who have certain bumpy patterns on their heads.
Phrenology is a great way to find such people.
It's also about the only thing Phrenology is good at, besides maybe keeping Phrenologists employed.
I'm sure major entities already re-route things like .com, .net, and .org to "internal" sites on an as-needed basis.
Let the Balkanization of the Internet begin^H^H^H^H^Hcontinue.
Scissors to cut the cord, and glue to glue the USB ports and glue the CD-drives shut.
Oh wait, you wanted the computer to be more than a paperweight? Better hurry up, April 2014 is coming.
Seriously, some of the other answers are realistic, but only until Microsoft ends support.
Provide a "strikes" setup for those who use automated DMCA processing:
* If you send in an automated request for something you clearly should have known was bogus, that's a strike. If you send in an automated request for something that was "okay, yeah, I can see how you might have been confused by that," it's a large or small fraction of a strike, based on the circumstances.
* After you get above 1 strike, you get 24 hours to promise it won't happen again. This is your "free strike." You also get a pass for errors in the next 24 hours, just because change doesn't happen instantaneously.
* Starting 24 hours after your first warning, the stakes get raised:
* If you have more than 1 full strike in the last 7 days not counting those strikes that were "forgiven," 10% of your automated takedown requests are processed manually. More than 2, 20%, more than 3, 30%, more than 4, 40%, and after that, Google sues you for a declaration that your DMCA takedown notices are too error-filled to be considered reliable, and asking the court to allow future notices only if the company sending them pays the full labor cost of manually processing all of the requests and declaring that Google is in compliance if it makes "good faith" efforts even if it is humanly impossible to process all of the requests in a timely manner. The court order would be in effect until the company had gone 30 days without sending in any questionable takedown requests.
Is apple specifically marketing to people with porn problems? To people with self-control issues? To kids? To demographics groups known to have high rates of porn- or self-control problems?
If not, their only "duties to protect the user from harm when using the product as designed" are
If Apple used shoddy batteries that caught fire on more than a very infrequent basis or if they didn't cause the device to shut off well before the battery was drained to the point of requiring a service call, then it would be reasonable for the government or courts to strong-arm them into changing their design.
But allowing a user to go astray through a typo while web-browsing is TYPICALLY not a high-cost failure. In fact, the cost of preventing such failures is, on the whole, higher than the cost of the occasional typo.
--
Regarding legal liability for porn: If Apple starts encouraging employees start hanging around Junior High Schools offering "no blocking, and we won't tell your parents" iPhones out of their trenchcoats then we'll have a problem. Until then, carry on.
If a previous user had visited that URL, and "facebook" was never visited on that phone, I would expect the auto-fill to do that.
I've accidentally gone to site "A" instead of site "B" in my web browser if my most recent visit was to site "A" and they both start with the same letter and I'm not paying attention.
In any case, it's not the web browser publisher's fault, it's mine for not watching what I'm doing.
The following are also sensible headlines for other stories:
Man's gambling addiction
Teenager's porn addiction
Man's porn collection
So, as you can see, the following headlines would not be as specific as "Man's porn addiction":
Man's addiction
Porn addiction
Man's porn
Blaming a device maker for your actions with it shows a complete lack of self-responsibility
In this case, yes, absolutely, a bazillion times over, but please don't over-generalize.
Blaming my computer for my greatly-increased productivity compared to pencil, paper, and abacus does not show a complete lack of self-responsibility.
I can see this guy testifying before Congress or whomever in favor of legal requirements
No, I can see this guy being invited to testify, seeing the microphone, grabbing it, and, well, let's just say CSPAN will be glad they put in a few-second delay or if they didn't, they'll wish they had.