> personal responsibility can only go so far. For instance, since it is up
> to the individual to drive safely, then why bother having seat belts and
> airbags in cars. Moreover to use a logical extension of your arguments
> as it applies to cars and traffic laws, then why have traffic laws at
> all. All hail Libertarianism!
Airbags and seatbelts also protect you if some other pratt hits you, they
are the auto equivalent of the firewall and virus scanner, and just like the
firewall and virus scanner they won't always protect you. As for traffic
laws, well they are mostly there to protect others from you (pedestrians for
instance) so the comparison does not hold true.
> The point is that if a manufacturer makes a shoddy product that could
> cause severe damage, then there are legal remedies. However if M$ or
> other companies make a shoddy software product that could cause severe
> damage, we end up getting arguments on personal responsibility. There's
> a bit of a disconnect here.
This is true, but most of the time it is not a "shoddy product" that is at
fault. vbs scripts for example, have a wide range of uses on the desktop
and to remove this facility (to foil the virus) would also stop you doing
many other things. The car manufacturer provides the seatbelt but no one
forces you at gunpoint to put it on each time you get in.
> Companies want to minimize costs etc., that is one of the reasons why
> Outlook is very popular. It comes with Office and is fairly easy to use.
> The problem is that MicroSoft also attempts to minimize costs, provide a
> good feature set, maximize shareholder returns, etc., and made a series
And Ford don't? All large companies try to maximise profits don't they?
> of decisions that makes Outlook very vulnerable to certain forms of
> virii. Given these decisions and their consequences and considering your
> arguments regarding personal responsibility, where does corporate
> responsibility come in?
And my car is very vulnerable to people smashing into it deliberately in
their own, that isn't the manufacturers fault! Corporate responsibility
comes in when there is a FAULT with the product, Outlook doesn't have a
fault it has a feature that is very useful that gets exploited for other
purposes, in the same way a car can be used to run someone down with, but
ford are never in court for that, the driver is!
Ignorance is no excuse, just because someone hasn't read a book or web page
or seen a tv news article on virii doesn't mean they aren't at fault. If
you used a gun or drove your car without proper training you would be in big
trouble, but why does the lack of a requirement for certification before you
are allowed to own a computer mean you are blameless when you do something
stupid? It doesn't, it just makes you a jerk.
--
James Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brainbench transcript ID: 822462
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=822462
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
