"I think it is acceptable to ensure that vehicles used on public roads only run manufacturers approved software, because a software bug endangers people other that the owner."
I think you need to reread the article. This was a software bug in the manufacturer-supplied software.
Making it either illegal (through legislation) or impractical (through DRM or TPM chips or similar) only increases the chance these bugs are not found. It also takes away valuable modding capabilities to improve your own car.
If the concern is safety, then existing laws either already cover it (e.g. illegal to operate a car that hasn't passed it's yearly inspection) or should be written in a manner that does not cut out legitimate tinkering and modding because of overblown fears.
as long as people keep it to themselves and not share online, they is nothing to fear.
Uh-huh. Tell that to people who have actually not shared anything online, but still get sued.
Besides the general insanity of the ruling, it simply isn't good for the rule of law. Bad laws and bad rulings further widen the gap between what is legal and what is socially acceptable in everyday life. In free societies, there needs to be a really good reason to make something illegal if everyone is doing it. If not, then the inevitable result is selective enforcement, which undermines the belief in the fairness and equality of the law.
"shouldn't they aim for the lowest damages overall"
That is a utilitarian view.
Roughly speaking, the deontological view is that by the act of choosing to pull the lever, you are now complicit in the murder of the one (even if you did it to save the 5).
We have this same argument when it comes to torture with the 'ticking bomb' scenario. Do you choose to torture someone you suspect may know where the bomb is to save the lives of many (utilitarian)? Or is torture always wrong even if done to save lives (deontology)?
This is NOT an easy question to deal with. Good of the many vs. good of the one. Hobson's Choice. Countless other permutations.
The Trolley Problem is a very well understood thing in philosophy and ethics. There are numerous scenarios, including ones like yours, as well as an interesting variation where instead of having a lever to divert the trolley from killing the 5 lives at the cost of 1 life on the diverted track, you have option to push a fat man onto the track to stop the trolley. These scenarios have been translated into many languages and cultures, and the results are roughly similar across most people surveyed.
radius of the sun (photosphere) = 695,800 km surface area of a sphere = 4*pi*r^2
surface area of the photosphere of the sun = ~6,080,768,758,400 km^2
She's selling at 1 euro per square meter, and has 600 sales at that price, so apparently the market values her "land" at approximately 6,080,768,758,400,000,000 euros. Oh, minus the 1200 square meters she sold.
Step 1: Get someone to upload that 'glass tongues' poem via JPay to social media. Step 2: Get to a safe distance very very far away. Preferably another country. Or maybe the moon. Step 3: Watch fireworks.
I occasionally watch ESPN but don't, and won't, pay for a sports package. I'm not unique in this.
Unless you're pirating cable, you *are* already paying and *will* pay for the sports package (ESPN) that is included in your basic rates.
That last time I looked up how the fees of a basic cable package got divided it was something like:
ABC: $0.20 NBC: $0.20 Discovery: $0.35 ...long list of channels all under $1.00 until the very last one... ESPN: $6.75
ESPN really doesn't want it obvious to most customers how much more their content costs compared to other things. So of course they'll fight Verizon on this.
Is Verizon likely to lose from a legal standpoint if the contract they signed with ESPN says they've gotta include it? Probably. However, ESPN will also lose, because the fat fees it gets to rake in will prevent it wanting to adapt to a very much changing market. Customers lose for paying for something they don't want, and many of which don't even realize what they're paying for. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.