I will agree with this under certain conditions. Are you living in Pakistan and you're considering vaccinating for polio? Yes - the risk outweighs the reward.

What about an average US household and something like the flu or chicken pox? Should something like that be forced? What if we're not talking about 'getting sick' but the vaccine causing some pretty nasty things? I'm not talking about "autism", but triggering transverse myelitis where the immune system reacts against the spinal cord?

I get it. It's rare for a vaccine to cause physical damage. You probably don't know anyone who spent the better part of a year in the hospital battling an autoimmune issue caused from a simple flu shot. While statistically rare, these things can and do occur.

What I don't get is why it's ok for anyone to give the government free reign on deciding to forcefully inject these vaccines in a one-size fits all method. Increase what we vaccinate for, whether it's really applicable or not. All while not doing any tests prior to the shots or afterwards. If a blood test shows the first 2 shots were successful and the 3rd isn't necessary - then hey, why chance anything with an unnecessary injection?

Sometimes an argument isn't 100% for or 100% against an idea -- but somewhere in the middle.

As someone that's driven 1,000+ HP cars, worked over a decade around high performance cars ... yes.

There are some cars that have a reputation of trying to kill you, but the Carrera GT is on the far side of that spectrum. Clutch engagement range compared to a light switch and no ground clearance makes this car difficult to drive on the street.

This isn't a 911, or anything remotely streetable. Many crazy high performance cars come with very advanced stability controls and AWD for a reason.

The premise is a high density of lower cost systems in a data center cabinet, not 1U dell servers. The second part to the quote which was left out of the article referenced how we plan our, organize, and wire the cabinets up. We have a confidence that Apple will use the same external shape for the Mac mini for at least a few model generations. They've only changed the exterior dimensions once since it was released. So dedicating cabinets (we are up to 6 now) just for Mac minis isn't that big of a deal. When they change the design we'll adapt and be set for a few more model generations. It's proven to be a stable enough hardware platform to be able to offer a service for them.

The machines are not perfect and they are not for everyone. But they have the most bang for the buck and work out well for start ups, development, and programs that require OS X. There is obvious a demographic for it as there are thousands of the machines colocated between the various companies.

There are software packages out that watch files that are being touched and scan them for known matches, viruses, etc and can quarantine them. Also software that watches out for relaying of emails and scripts sending out a ton of email (spam). A decent shared hosting company already does these two things. Common practice would be to disable the malicious code if it's still there (a lot of bots upload, execute, then remove the files) or reset compromised passwords and notify customers of what's going on. Let the customers deal with their own stuff. It's way to messy to force these types of upgrades on them, with the exception of maybe known exploits - like automatically replacing outdated timthumb.php code.