http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/twitter-users-in-uk-us-experience-issues-site-appears-down-day-before-start-of-olympics/2012/07/26/gJQADAwXBX_story.html

How could this be safe?

Just like CFL bulbs are not being said to cause skin damage. I'm not talking about the Mercury here either http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/23/study-says-energy-efficient-light-bulbs-may-emit-harmful-radiation/

Before we leap into this where is the safety checks on all this stuff. IF I had a small child that got fried there would be all hell to pay. I know the article mentions fried eggs and fried cats but still.

I don't have hobbies; hobbies cost money. Interests are quite free. - George Carlin.

I truely beleive the person who has the equipment either has a job in that field so they have the equipment for the job. The homemoaner (yes moaner) doesnt' have the tools so things that are premade make it more affordable. You know how much space all that equipment would take to really be fully equiped so you can do what ever job you need to have done? And the cost. I have a brother in law who went to school to be a mechanic. He had to buy all his tools and when he graduated he had most of what was needed to be a mechanic. It cost him over three grand.

Although I'm a comptuer programmer and have many more thousands in equipment for software and comptuer hardware which is my job and hobbie. My house is an interest of mine that only need things fixed everyonce in a while and when I want to "upgrade" I'll pay someone who has all the equipment already or if it's something small that will not kill me or my family I'll figure out how to do it myself and only buy the lowest and cheapest tools since I will only need them once or twice.

Just asking what this would mean if Novell would win this. Would this mean that the close gardens that stop people from selling what ever app they want to dream up? Will the restrictions of following guidelines have to be removed (at least from MS stores). Since if we take this to the extreme: Win RT doesn't allow x86 (except for some internal MS items) so would this mean MS would have to allow anyone to those APIs since they apparently did port the x86 stuff to RT? Would this mean the Apple only APIs that people can't use on the iDevices would be forcefully opened to allow developers to use them? Just like how during the Anti-trust case against MS force MS to document it's APIs that they specifically told people not to use but people did because of the tighter integration it allowed?
I'm serious I really don't understand what this 17 year old case would affect things in todays world.

You beat me to it! I still like the movie version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/

If I had the mod points I'd give them to you. Thank you very much. I just ordered one.

What is that little Andriod box that they show in the begining? I can't make out the name.

I loved MXC on Spike TV here in the states..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXC

I just want to know how are they going to fit all the attendees into the cab so they can see what is going on?

Loved this when I read it the first time. Book prices go up to a million dollars because of this. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358

So they think they found the answer but now they need to find the question. Didn't we go through this before?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318649/

It's funny the movie had something like this in it. I don't want to do any spoiler of the movie

Does this injunction really matter? the 10.1N is out that fixed any issues in the EU so can't Samsung just sell the 10.1N?

Yes I did mean "no".
Remember the question is about applying the first law of robotics. "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." Your example may show "intelligence" or "conscious" just as plants and animals do but not to the level needed to follow or to act in a way to carry out the first law of robotics.

Cell phones would need to understand that they are a phone and what circumstances are happening right now and how they can affect the outcome. Lets take an example that could be challenged by what the first law says. You make a call the cell phone knows that the conversation you are having is making you or the other person upset (but we will just with our end of the conversation in my making a point although the cell phone would also have to worry about the other person also). Should the phone interfere with the call. It can tell that the conversation is heating up and curse words are involved, it can tell from sensors that your blood pressure is rising, skin sweat is analized, and voice analysis confirms all of this. The phone then taps into your medical history and sees that you have had hart attacks in the past.
Now again what can the cell phone do? Cut the call your on? Call medical services because it beleives your are about to have a medical event? Let it play out and then see if you have a medical event because of the call? Take past calls that you have had (and any on the current call's subject) in the past and not had issues even though they were heated arguments and then figure out a percent based on what you are talking about and how hard that is on your conciousness? So, again, the question is? What can and should the phone do? Terminate the call? Break in with it's own thoughts on the conversation to try to get the heated argument calmed down? Access medical services and put them on standby incase you have a medical event because of the call?

As you can see cell phones are in no way ready to do this type of "thinking or reasoning ability" because they don't have that kind of "conciousness"

This can't happen, the phones have on consciousness.