If you look at revenues, they're sideways over the past years. So OK, she didn't turn the company around. But she took a has-been company with little really going for it and... well, kept it from going bankrupt. Given that the market cap is currently $50 billion, I think $186 million is not excessive for keeping a sinking ship afloat. Hell, who could have done it? Sure, Jobs did an amazing job turning around Apple when he came back, but it had a strong niche in OS and hardware design, and Yahoo never really had anything like that once they passed their peak. And while I'm not some sort of hard-core feminist, I think there's a bit of hypocrisy that she's taking flak for making money off mediocre performance running a mediocre, has-been company. Any number of male CEOs have had been highly compensated for driving good companies into the ground, to the point that it's hardly even news. It's just sort of expected.

The Register article has a bit more information. This isn't really a vulnerability. It's definitely not "remote code execution". It works like this:

- Microsoft provides a tool called AppLocker that can be used to limit the programs that can be run on a system.
- The AppLocker tool is not intended as a tight "security boundary". Instead, it is a way to implement company policies like "no playing games at work", or to help with software licensing, i.e. "the company system image has a copy of Photoshop, but you aren't in the Design department, so you aren't licensed to run it", and perhaps to reduce attack surface area.
- The Microsoft-provided sample AppLocker configuration (intended to show the syntax for AppLocker rules) happens to have a sample rule that whitelists all programs under C:\windows. This is not a "recommended" rule -- it's a "sample" rule.
- If you leave this rule in, there are a large number of ways to escape the sandbox.
- A researcher found another one. Yay, I guess?

The new one is interesting because I wouldn't have considered regsvr32 to be a command that allows for running of arbitrary other commands. On the other hand, it shouldn't belong in a production whitelist in the first place, so being able to use it to escape the sandbox isn't particularly interesting.

Nice straw man you've got there. Don't conflate government with governance.

Actually, exactly like NASA. Even SpaceX would already be victim to this pattern like Lockheed/Boeing if Elon Musk was not maniacally focused on his Get Your Ass To Mars project.

Money emerges organically as market participants converge on a commodity that is highly marketable, divisible, portable and durable. No need for a government there. For contract dispute resolution, common law emerges iteratively from case precedents and consensus among arbitrators, no need for a legislature. Central planning didn't work for the Soviets and roofing nails, and it's a testament to our resourcefulness that we still hobble by doing it for law and money and health care.

I think the biggest difference is that Amazon didn't have to fight a retail mafia/guild on their way to the top.

...If you always tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. Even in his time, just sticking to the truth was the path of least resistance.

He would call the government and protesters "Sisyphists," since they apparently believe it is better that the consumer has to work harder to get a ride. http://www.econlib.org/library...

The intent of the medallion system is irrelevant. What is relevant is the outcome it has produced. That outcome was evidently so bad at serving the consumer, that a firm can risk legal trouble and still make billions.

I said it's better, not perfect.

Hope you don't plan on lobbying.

Americans seem to have a gigantic blind spot when it comes to government corruption. Sure, people tend to nod at generic whining about "corrupt politicians" but they are hopelessly incapable of spotting that corruption when it happens. They will blame non-government actors all day long for making and offering bribes. As for the politicians who habitually take bribes? Crickets.

It's the laws that are bullshit. Look at what kind of service Uber facilitates. How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry? How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down? What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?

Exactly. No one would think to lobby the government if the government were not so powerful and meddlesome. People work to persuade the bureaucracy because doing so has a huge ROI.

Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel, and no thanks to government's relationship to this industry, lobbying aggressively is an act of self-defense. Instead of denigrating Uber for playing this game, blame the governments which have made this necessary, and blame yourselves for not voting the bastards out when they create cartels.