OK, you're right with that, but on the other hand it would be okay to measure the results of any therapy only compared to the number of patients who want it to be successful in the first place.

This is about teaching on HOW to say no despite peer pressure.

No. Exactly not. Windows and doors are like open ports. If you have them, you need to secure them. A firewall works fine in those cases.

Putting a firewall where no open ports are makes as much sense as locking non-existant doors. That makes only sense if you're expecting doors to magically appear in your house. Which for a typical windows installation, is less absurd then it may sound. But then those appearing doors are your main problem.

But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)

Bt when you encounter a lemma about a childrens book you don't know, you usually assume it's just a book you don't know! Which is usually not an error, unless you can claim to know all childrens books. (and the standard pronounciation is pretty far from the prank call like "I'm a liar" that's probably supposed to be)

Unrealistic expectations?

Not for the best of the Best of the BEST, SIR!

youporn, pornhub and redtube?

Real and respected brands in their field of business.

In related news: Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up?

thx

Adding a method to hide processes running on your system may be considered a security vulnerability. Such systems are usually used only by malware and legitimate software should NOT use any technology to counter the work of anti-virus software. Either your antivirus is weakend (which should be considered a security vulnerability) or "real" malware might also hide under the "invisibility cloak" set up by SecuROM to hide itself.

SecuROm may not be a security threat in itself, but it uses typical malware patterns and generally weakens your system security.

OK, I'm recounting a user report on forum from years ago from the back of my memory here, so take this paragraph with a grain of salt: (may have been a similar copy protection system, if not exactly SecuROM)

I remember a user reporting a broken DVD writer. He bought a new one and replaced the "malfunctioning" drive only to find out that the new drive was also "broken". Turned out it was a DRM system that blocked the DVD writer and that user threw away a perfectly functioning DVD writer. Actual monetary damage here.

If it is not uninstalled with the software, it permanently eats up ressources that can't be reclaimed by the legitimate owner by uninstalling, as it is hiding itself from the computers software/process management system. (see "rootKit" in #1) As it is hidden, there is no indication that any problem showing up years after the deinstallation of a computer game (#2) might still be connected to a residual software component (read: garbage) from a casual game from a few years ago.

No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.

"Root your system" not as in "rooting your cellphone to get privileged access to do it's job" as your cellphone backup app or filemanager does.

"Root your system" as in applying stealth technologies used to hide malware from your antivirus software, as a so called "RootKit" (special class of malware using said stealth technologies) is doing.

And no, my video driver isn't doing that.

[citation needed]

In what way was he "humiliated"?

Advising a passenger that non-frequent flyers can't board during frequent flyer boarding is NOT humiliation.

What's next? Someone blogging and making someones life living hell just because he was "rude" and "humiliating" by insisting that you need to buy a ticket to watch that movie in the theater?

And what state would thet be where you think some company clerk is "authority"?

Corporate america where they brainwashed you that it is completly ok if money has power over the weak ones?

And exactly THAT is why it is not as "harmless" to call out names on the public internet as some posters here claimed it was.

Thank you for the demonstration.

She denied non-frequent fliers frequent fliers perks. This is anything but rude. So publishing a statement that someone is rude (on those grounds) is libel. So there's something here that would justify letting the lawyers from their leash.

On the other hand, this is nothing that couldn't have been handled well AFTER the flight.

Yes. And I'd say THAT's what changed over the last 25 years. Flying has been something special and passengers did not see paying for an airline ticket as an invitation to act like jerks. But with Joe Sixpack and his guys taking a plane to their booze trip to Mallorca.

And every passenger should be glad that drunk people or people who insist to smoke or pee on the floor (google for the celebrity...) are thrown out. It's not that the "air waitresses" have gained more power to do so. It's more people acting up like that!

And it's not the "air waitress" who has any power to do so. It's the captain, who is in full command and full responsibility for the vessel. And like captain at sea, this means full disciplinary command over crew and payload (self stowing* or not)

*Yes, that's what we are: self stowing payload.