A trojan works by tricking you into downloading and installing the malware. MS Office was probably picked not because of any inherent vulnerability but because
1. It's widely deployed and
2. People expect their computer to tell them that Microsoft Office wants updating. Microsoft products always want updating.
Adobe products would be an even better choice. Click on a link and up pops a window that tells you you need to install the latest Flash player. The average user doesn't think twice about this because Adobe has trained them to expect to see their browser ask them to download a new Flash player.
What Adobe's software and Apple's software do to your computer is either their fault or your fault, depending on how you look at it. It's not Microsoft's doing.
Microsoft just provides the operating system that *allows* you to clutter up your startup sequence with all that crap. And if that's what you want to do with your computer, they should let you. But MS Office's behavior is their fault. and they provide useless bloatware, but it's far less onerous than the garbage that computer sellers (are you listening Dell?) put on your PC before you buy it.
What I really blame them for is Windows Search and the associated Indexer. That is a real piece of garbage and has been since the very beginning. It doesn't compare in performance with Apple's Searchlight or Finder, and it really hogs system performance. It's like Microsoft never heard of nice.
The Federal government has exceptions on which they can govern. One is inter-state commerce. The people have exceptions on what rights they DON'T have and none pertain to transportation or what people can purchase.
What people can purchase is not at issue. The TSA controls what people can bring onto passenger planes. I was not discussing anything else in this thread.
If you believe their business is inter-state commerce, then what isn't interstate commerce?
Yes, I believe the business of transporting people from one state to another is interstate commerce. That seems incredibly obvious to me. It also seems incredibly obvious that only the federal government is in a position to make laws regarding air travel in the United States. And I think it's incredibly obvious that some sort of laws are needed, and some sort of governing authority, e.g. the FAA and the TSA are necessary.
It is about interstate commerce as taxis, a farm, Hollywood, or even a church.
Not in my opinion. But the sale, distribution and transportation of anything across state lines as a commercial operation is given to United States jurisdiction. So is copyright (relevant to Hollywood movies).
So if a government doesn't regulate, then nobody regulates?
That's what's usually meant by "regulate" with regard to business and I have no issue with that usage.
I guess customers don't exist anymore... Businesses can just wreck havoc across everything and suppress everyone...oh wait, there is only one entity with those powers.
Yes, unless the people use the power of government to limit what businesses can do, that's largely the case.
What it shows is that the studios tried to work with him in a manner that would have had them being paid when he distributed their content. They gave him every chance to have a legal, mutually agreeable working relationship and he screwed them over anyway.
All his admirers want is for somebody to help them steal.
I don't see how you could win a suit for being censored. Google has no obligation to publish anything about anyone. Censoring results that look too much like advertising but aren't paid for would be good for their bottom line.
No, it's not a reason not to patent it. The reason is that the gene existed and did what it did before you discovered what it did. It doesn't matter that you just discovered the gene that makes me able to regulate the insulin in my blood. I've been using that gene for that purpose and so has almost everybody else. If you now use that new knowledge to make a drug that helps diabetics, good for you. You can patent THAT DRUG. But you shouldn't be able to patent the gene or the mechanisms by which it operates. Those are simply facts of nature. Those facts belong to nobody even though you discovered them.
Now if somebody else figures out how to make the same thing happen with a different drug (that works better than yours or is easier to produce) THAT person should own the rights to their drug. I consider every drug to be non-obvious, because it's never obvious that a novel substance when introduced into the body will be safe and effective. Often all the indications are that a candidate drug will work, only it proves to have unsafe side effects or doesn't work because of some factor that the inventors couldn't know about without trying it in real patients.
As for patenting genes in living organisms, it shouldn't be allowed unless all of the organisms are to be contained in a secure environment under your physical control. Once it escapes control, only the original maker should be held liable for its propagation and any economic damages that it caused.
It's not the blue eyes themselves that are the subject of the patent. It's the business process wherein the person with blue eyes is photographed and used to advertise a product.
Ummm...you do realize that most of the peoples on the west coast of Alaska have lived there for longer than there even has been a United States government, don't you?
But not one of the people who live there now. The people who choose to live there now choose to live in an isolated area. They may well feel more free by doing so than they ever could by traveling to a city like Anchorage. I suspect they do. But if they don't, it's still a result of their individual choices, for which no government can be blamed.
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever.
The degree of security depends upon the airport and the type of operation being conducted. If you are flying with a Part 135 (air taxi) operator out of smaller airports, no, there is not much security.
Thanks for conceding that the freedom to fly in and out of the villages you mentioned has not been impacted by the TSA. You were just blowing smoke about the government impeding their freedom to travel.
And what right, specifically, do you believe is being violated? The airports are clearly federal jurisdiction because their business is inter-state commerce. The states have no power to regulate them. Who does? Nobody?
Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
Which, coincidentally, is covered by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's almost as if the founders anticipated this sort of thing...
At least you're quoting the right Amendment now. But it still doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't assign the right to control commercial air travel to the Federal government. Commercial airports fall under the purview of the US government because it's interstate commerce. The US government DOES have that power assigned in Article I Section 8. The States have NO power to govern commerce between the states.
So it's either the wild west (actually, worse than the wild west because in the wild west there WAS law) or you let the federal government establish the rules and laws that govern air travel.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this: "Terrorist" hijacks an airplane Everyone sits tight and does what they are told. Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever). Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That's a fantasy. Here are some facts:
5 July 1972; Pacific Southwest 737-200; San Francisco, CA: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Sacramento to San Francisco when shortly before landing it was hijacked by two armed men who intended to have the aircraft fly to the Soviet Union. After landing in San Francisco, the aircraft was directed to an isolated part of the airport while the hijackers negotiated with authorities. Later, an armed FBI agent posing as the pilot that would fly the aircraft to the Soviet Union entered the aircraft while, unknown to the hijackers, three other armed FBI agents were able to position themselves near the front entry door. As the three outside FBI agents began to climb the stairs to enter the aircraft, a gun battle broke out which resulted in the deaths of both of the hijackers and one of the 77 passengers. Two other passengers were wounded, but survived. None of the seven crew members were injured. 17 December 1973, Pan Am 747, Rome, Italy: While the aircraft was at the gate loading passengers, a group of terrorists shot at the plane and threw incendiary grenades into the aircraft, killing 30. The terrorists later hijacked a nearby Lufthansa 737. 747 events involving passenger fatalities 14 June 1985; TWA 727 Athens, Greece: The aircraft was hijacked and the 153 crew and passengers were taken hostage for several days. A U.S. military member was killed by the hijackers during this time. 5 September 1986; Pan Am 747; Karachi, Pakistan: Four hijackers attempted to take control of the aircraft while it was on the ground, but the flight crew departed through the cockpit escape hatch. About 16 passengers were killed before the hijacking ended. 7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37 other passengers were killed.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
That would usually work, but a small aircraft flown off-hours could be dominated by a handful of terrorists and it would still be a very deadly weapon. If you relax security too much, it would be possible to bring weapons on the plane that could be used to neutralize the passengers and crew even on a large plane.
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
If you can't see that it's much easier and less intrusive to secure a few hundred small sites than to secure thousands of miles of border through which we must ship hundreds of billions of dollars worth of materials, I don't see how anything can penetrate your head.
Have you considered the possibility that we only have a terrorist incident on the airlines "once every few years" might be a result of the security theatre practiced at US airports. The purpose is to intimidate terrorists and to heighten the alert of the flying public so that they will speak up if they see something potentially dangerous.
The only thing we don't know is how many incidents there would be without TSA. The last serious attempt appears to have been the underwear bomber. His attempt was unsuccessful probably because he failed to find an effective way to smuggle a working bomb through airport security.
Slashdot Mirror
not enough workers IN CHINA???
Where's your evidence?
There are many other contract manufacturers in China.
There are many other contract manufacturers NOT in China.
Yes. We should boycott APPLE and EVERY OTHER Foxconn customer until they come into compliance with the law.
And those of us who use Foxconn as a supplier should de-source them. There are plenty of other suppliers.
Criminal is criminal.
Right. The employer can assume you have something to hide and only consider the suckers who hand over their FB accounts.
That's why legal action is needed. Once employers are allowed to do this everybody gets screwed.
A trojan works by tricking you into downloading and installing the malware. MS Office was probably picked not because of any inherent vulnerability but because
1. It's widely deployed and
2. People expect their computer to tell them that Microsoft Office wants updating. Microsoft products always want updating.
Adobe products would be an even better choice. Click on a link and up pops a window that tells you you need to install the latest Flash player. The average user doesn't think twice about this because Adobe has trained them to expect to see their browser ask them to download a new Flash player.
Bailing out Greece is a separate issue.
What Adobe's software and Apple's software do to your computer is either their fault or your fault, depending on how you look at it. It's not Microsoft's doing.
Microsoft just provides the operating system that *allows* you to clutter up your startup sequence with all that crap. And if that's what you want to do with your computer, they should let you. But MS Office's behavior is their fault. and they provide useless bloatware, but it's far less onerous than the garbage that computer sellers (are you listening Dell?) put on your PC before you buy it.
What I really blame them for is Windows Search and the associated Indexer. That is a real piece of garbage and has been since the very beginning. It doesn't compare in performance with Apple's Searchlight or Finder, and it really hogs system performance. It's like Microsoft never heard of nice.
The Federal government has exceptions on which they can govern. One is inter-state commerce. The people have exceptions on what rights they DON'T have and none pertain to transportation or what people can purchase.
What people can purchase is not at issue. The TSA controls what people can bring onto passenger planes. I was not discussing anything else in this thread.
If you believe their business is inter-state commerce, then what isn't interstate commerce?
Yes, I believe the business of transporting people from one state to another is interstate commerce. That seems incredibly obvious to me. It also seems incredibly obvious that only the federal government is in a position to make laws regarding air travel in the United States. And I think it's incredibly obvious that some sort of laws are needed, and some sort of governing authority, e.g. the FAA and the TSA are necessary.
It is about interstate commerce as taxis, a farm, Hollywood, or even a church.
Not in my opinion. But the sale, distribution and transportation of anything across state lines as a commercial operation is given to United States jurisdiction. So is copyright (relevant to Hollywood movies).
So if a government doesn't regulate, then nobody regulates?
That's what's usually meant by "regulate" with regard to business and I have no issue with that usage.
I guess customers don't exist anymore... Businesses can just wreck havoc across everything and suppress everyone...oh wait, there is only one entity with those powers.
Yes, unless the people use the power of government to limit what businesses can do, that's largely the case.
Yeah but people who believe in God usually also believe that God us not trying to trick us.
Either that or it's areally GOOD thing. Maybe all the other support calls dried up because everything just worked.
And your evidence of this is where?
What it shows is that the studios tried to work with him in a manner that would have had them being paid when he distributed their content. They gave him every chance to have a legal, mutually agreeable working relationship and he screwed them over anyway.
All his admirers want is for somebody to help them steal.
And cut off their nose to spite their face? They'd have to give their advertisers a refund.
I don't see how you could win a suit for being censored. Google has no obligation to publish anything about anyone. Censoring results that look too much like advertising but aren't paid for would be good for their bottom line.
If the materials distributed are illegally obtained, distributing them may already be against the law.
And if the material that comes up on a search is slanderous, that's grounds fir a defamation suit.
No, you could also specific non-obvious applications of the knowledge.
A drug that mimics the action of the gene would be a non-obvious application. (All drugs being non-obvious.)
A test that measures an enzyme regulated by the gene would be an obvious application, unless there was something novel about how the test works.
No, it's not a reason not to patent it. The reason is that the gene existed and did what it did before you discovered what it did. It doesn't matter that you just discovered the gene that makes me able to regulate the insulin in my blood. I've been using that gene for that purpose and so has almost everybody else. If you now use that new knowledge to make a drug that helps diabetics, good for you. You can patent THAT DRUG. But you shouldn't be able to patent the gene or the mechanisms by which it operates. Those are simply facts of nature. Those facts belong to nobody even though you discovered them.
Now if somebody else figures out how to make the same thing happen with a different drug (that works better than yours or is easier to produce) THAT person should own the rights to their drug. I consider every drug to be non-obvious, because it's never obvious that a novel substance when introduced into the body will be safe and effective. Often all the indications are that a candidate drug will work, only it proves to have unsafe side effects or doesn't work because of some factor that the inventors couldn't know about without trying it in real patients.
As for patenting genes in living organisms, it shouldn't be allowed unless all of the organisms are to be contained in a secure environment under your physical control. Once it escapes control, only the original maker should be held liable for its propagation and any economic damages that it caused.
It's not the blue eyes themselves that are the subject of the patent. It's the business process wherein the person with blue eyes is photographed and used to advertise a product.
But most of the people who voted for them were overheard saying "ARRRRH!" as they left the polling place.
Ummm...you do realize that most of the peoples on the west coast of Alaska have lived there for longer than there even has been a United States government, don't you?
But not one of the people who live there now. The people who choose to live there now choose to live in an isolated area. They may well feel more free by doing so than they ever could by traveling to a city like Anchorage. I suspect they do. But if they don't, it's still a result of their individual choices, for which no government can be blamed.
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever.
The degree of security depends upon the airport and the type of operation being conducted. If you are flying with a Part 135 (air taxi) operator out of smaller airports, no, there is not much security.
Thanks for conceding that the freedom to fly in and out of the villages you mentioned has not been impacted by the TSA. You were just blowing smoke about the government impeding their freedom to travel.
And what right, specifically, do you believe is being violated? The airports are clearly federal jurisdiction because their business is inter-state commerce. The states have no power to regulate them. Who does? Nobody?
Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
Which, coincidentally, is covered by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's almost as if the founders anticipated this sort of thing...
At least you're quoting the right Amendment now. But it still doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't assign the right to control commercial air travel to the Federal government. Commercial airports fall under the purview of the US government because it's interstate commerce. The US government DOES have that power assigned in Article I Section 8. The States have NO power to govern commerce between the states.
So it's either the wild west (actually, worse than the wild west because in the wild west there WAS law) or you let the federal government establish the rules and laws that govern air travel.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this:
"Terrorist" hijacks an airplane
Everyone sits tight and does what they are told.
Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever).
Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That's a fantasy. Here are some facts:
5 July 1972; Pacific Southwest 737-200; San Francisco, CA: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from Sacramento to San Francisco when shortly before landing it was hijacked by two armed men who intended to have the aircraft fly to the Soviet Union. After landing in San Francisco, the aircraft was directed to an isolated part of the airport while the hijackers negotiated with authorities. Later, an armed FBI agent posing as the pilot that would fly the aircraft to the Soviet Union entered the aircraft while, unknown to the hijackers, three other armed FBI agents were able to position themselves near the front entry door. As the three outside FBI agents began to climb the stairs to enter the aircraft, a gun battle broke out which resulted in the deaths of both of the hijackers and one of the 77 passengers. Two other passengers were wounded, but survived. None of the seven crew members were injured.
17 December 1973, Pan Am 747, Rome, Italy: While the aircraft was at the gate loading passengers, a group of terrorists shot at the plane and threw incendiary grenades into the aircraft, killing 30. The terrorists later hijacked a nearby Lufthansa 737.
747 events involving passenger fatalities
14 June 1985; TWA 727 Athens, Greece: The aircraft was hijacked and the 153 crew and passengers were taken hostage for several days. A U.S. military member was killed by the hijackers during this time.
5 September 1986; Pan Am 747; Karachi, Pakistan: Four hijackers attempted to take control of the aircraft while it was on the ground, but the flight crew departed through the cockpit escape hatch. About 16 passengers were killed before the hijacking ended.
7 December 1987; Pacific Southwest Airlines BAe146-200; near San Luis Obispo, CA: A recently fired USAir employee used his invalidated credentials to board the aircraft with a pistol and apparently killed his former manager and both pilots (USAir had recently purchased PSA). All five crew members and the 37 other passengers were killed.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
That would usually work, but a small aircraft flown off-hours could be dominated by a handful of terrorists and it would still be a very deadly weapon. If you relax security too much, it would be possible to bring weapons on the plane that could be used to neutralize the passengers and crew even on a large plane.
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
If you can't see that it's much easier and less intrusive to secure a few hundred small sites than to secure thousands of miles of border through which we must ship hundreds of billions of dollars worth of materials, I don't see how anything can penetrate your head.
Have you considered the possibility that we only have a terrorist incident on the airlines "once every few years" might be a result of the security theatre practiced at US airports. The purpose is to intimidate terrorists and to heighten the alert of the flying public so that they will speak up if they see something potentially dangerous.
The only thing we don't know is how many incidents there would be without TSA. The last serious attempt appears to have been the underwear bomber. His attempt was unsuccessful probably because he failed to find an effective way to smuggle a working bomb through airport security.