Check out AppLocker.

It allows you to vet certain programs and allow them to be installed, including updates and future versions, without granting the user account full rights to install.

Or you can publish MSIs to the network and allow your users to install programs from the "Add Programs" menu.

And a complimentary anti-trust case against them to boot.

I check the scored on Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary and AV Comparitives http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/summary/summary2009.pdf to get the best available. I have used Avast! for years with great success, and recently started using Microsoft Security Essentials, both of which are VB100 rated. I like the small footprint of the new MS offering, and the fact that it has such a high detection and low false-positive rating. So far so good, even on my in-laws' laptop.

Pimp my quantum ride?

You don't know what the program is about. Regardless of anyone's feelings on sex, letting semi-nude pictures of yourself get transmitted digitally is a bad idea, as is transmitting them, and these teens might not understand that.

If it bricks, the Dealer's going to be the one who has to replace it. As far as I look at it, it's zero risk, financially.

Safety wise, it fixes a known bug.

Take the update.

But what about the runon particle?

There are three other parties in Germany that share those aims you listed (free democrats, green party and left party).

And all but the left party (which didn't existed in that incarnation then) had pretty much forgotten about this. Remember wire taping (1996, FDP), "Otto Katalog I + II" (2001+2002, Grüne), just to name two examples? Of course, it might be coincidence that both of them discovered their civil rights roots about the same time the PIRATEN were formed. But, honestly, I doubt it.

You sound like a programmer who is completely ignorant of how legal systems work.

He sounds like a programmer who has seen how the legal system works.


Laws aren't written like "if photo.is_manipulated() then display_disclaimer() end".

Nope, you have that 100% true - Because that would give a nice, easy, objective test of guilt.

Instead, the law will describe 200 different varieties of manipulation, which the advertising industry will neatly get around ("Well, it didn't explicitly ban radioactive waste to give the subject a healthy glow"), while semi-pro photographers fear for their freedom if they dare to sell a decent shot to a local paper. It will include zero funding for enforcement but allow police to charge high-end cameras with a crime and thereby keep them. It will accidentally outlaw Gimp (but of course they'd never enforce that, wink-wink-nudge-nudge) but not Photoshop because of some obscure detail in their JPEG compression implementations. And finally, just for good measure, it will provide 50 billion dollars to build stronger levees in Nevada (or the French equivalent, I suppose).

And I wish I meant this as hyperbole...

And if we're talking porn, the free hand is probably useful...

>>cheese that is actually plastic,

That portion of it, at least, needs to be done to adhere to truth-in-advertising laws. You can't photograph REAL CHEESE unless you use it.

Wait... does this mean I can no longer stuff a sock in my shorts without wearing a t-shirt that states, "Disclaimer: the package below may have been artificially altered to appear larger than in real life"?

Not so new. Palm has been using that form factor for a long time.

as if it were what it is: treason.

The Constitution defines treason. And this isn't it, much as you'd like it to be.

What's an Assumpiton?