Virus on page?

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:53:44 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

voting in a large election is a waste of time for ME
because my ONE vote makes absolutely no difference.

Actually, a lot of people did, especially younger voters
(under 40). That's why in many districts (US) or ridings
(Canada) a less than overwhelmingly popular candidate
won.

If a candidate wasn't popular with the VOTERS he wouldn't
win. Unless you mean the recent US presidential election
where the candidate with the least votes won...

It's the "Condorcet paradox of voting". Briefly, although
one vote doesn't count for much from the voter's POV,

It's not just a POV. My one missing vote actually has NO
effect on an election.

You remind me of the saying, "No individual raindrop considers itself
responsible for the flood." While true on its face, it doesn't tell the
whole story. There wasn't just one raindrop.

Likewise, you aren't the only person who doesn't vote. While your vote
alone probably doesn't make a difference except in the most extreme
example of an otherwise tie, you along with everyone else who didn't
vote could absolutely make a difference.

There's been talk for decades about what it would take to bring in the
non-voters. Pay each voter $25 just for showing up? Make it illegal and
subject to a fine for NOT showing up? Set up more polling places and run
shuttle buses? Make election day a Federal holiday? Make it easier to
vote by mail? Allow people to vote via the Internet? Via their cell
phone? Regardless, nothing much has been done, partly because one party
doesn't really want more people to vote. The fear is that they might
vote for the wrong people.

Here in the US, we have a strange dynamic where it's generally assumed
that if the folks who don't vote could somehow be persuaded to do so,
they would vote overwhelmingly Democratic rather than Republican. Both
parties generally agree on that, so when Democrats get into office and
take power, they tend to expand early voting, reduce or eliminate voter
ID laws, and reinstate voters who have been stricken from the rolls.
Conversely, when Republicans get into office and take power, they tend
to reduce early voting, enact tough voter ID laws, and strike large
swaths of people from the voter rolls. Both sides are doing what they
think they need to do in order to survive and protect their power. The
Democrats would appear to hold the higher moral ground on these issues,
but politics in this country is way past that point. Shame used to be a
motivator for politicians, but shame alone doesn't go very far these
days. Thanks to gerrymandering, politicians get to pick their
constituents, rather than the other way around.

[snip]

especially when 30 or more percent of the voters don't
vote "because one vote won't make a difference."

That doesn't change the fact that MY vote really does not
count in the election's outcome.

By that reasoning, no one's vote really counts. Yet, people still get
elected, so apparently votes DO count, after all. Yours, as much as
anyone else's.

nospam
Sun, 24 Mar 2019
12:27:22 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:

But they
can add, and do add, additional features that only them
support properly (because they don't publish).

as can others, however, content creators are not required
to use them, and it would be foolish to do so. it's rare
that a pdf on a web site is anything fancy.

On the contrary. Most government forms and complex forms I
have seen use them.

I've seen the same.

They only need to be using adobe software for the creation,
and bingo! It happens even if they don't intend to.

false.

At which point I disregard what you say :-P

When nospam claimed Malwarebytes was an antivirus, I stopped
reading their posts. [g] I know what the software is and isn't, I
worked for the ****ing company in Malware Research; not sales.
*GRIN*

semantic bull****. while technically there is a minor difference,
it is irrelevant in this context and the terms are used
interchangeably by just about everyone anyway.

There's no semantic bull**** involved here. The so called minor
difference is whether or not the malware has the required functional
code for self replication. If it doesn't, it's NOT a virus (or a
worm). If it does, it could be a virus or a worm, or both! as I
previously took the lengthy time to explain.

even malwarebytes considers them to be equivalent:

As I previously wrote, sales marketing hype means nothing to me. I
wasn't in sales, I was one of the people responsible for creating the
definitions that keep others safe from the malware the product can
deal with. Malware that isn't specifically virus in nature, that is.


that encompasses all kinds of malicious software, including
viruses. That being said, anti-malware can stop a viral
infection form happening and remove infected files.

Sure, as I previously outlined. If it already has a working signature
for the virus or worm, AND you don't mind the infected file (if it's
actually a virus) deleted instead of the viral code removed without
sacrificing the host. Malwarebytes only choice is the latter. An
antivirus on the other hand is usually able to remove the offensive
section of code that you don't want on your machine, WITHOUT having
to delete the infected file along with it. It's a difference in
skill, you understand. Well, you probably don't, but I suspect by
now, others who've read this far do.

Also, as I touched on previously, if the virus is capable of changing
it's signatures per infection, or the malwarebytes team can't safely
isolate a unique enough signature, the virus won't be 'known' to
them. And, again, Malwarebytes only cure is to toss the baby out with
the bath water. What has worked well for them as a glorified trojan
detection and removal tool, doesn't work so well with an actual virus
infection issue. Malware is a fancy term that means the same thing as
a trojan. It's just harder to confuse it with a condom to laypersons.
[g]


However, anti-malware isn¹t necessarily equipped to restore files
that have been changed or replaced by a virus. Both antivirus and
anti-malware fall under the broader term ³cybersecurity.²

And this is where they get a bit misleading, intentionally. There
antimalware product isn't equipped to restore a single file back to
it's original self if it's infected by anything, correct. That
doesn't mean the antivirus programs they suggest you replace with
their own product are stuck in the same boat. They are not. What's
more, the antivirus is just as capable of detecting the same nonsense
as Malwarebytes; it's childsplay for their engines by comparison.


--
“What’s the difference between a British and an Iraqi tank?”
“I don’t know.”
“Welcome to the US Air Force.”

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

If I got religion and voted tomorrow, your 30% would
still not vote, and I'd be standing in line for
nothing since my ONE vote still didn't count.

Yes it does, because it changes the winner's margin by
1. The paradox is that the vote counts even if you don't
cast it.

IF I voted, my ONE vote would NOT affect an election outcome
even though the vote may be physically (electronically?)
counted.

If you were the only one who thinks this way, true. But
you aren't. The higher the number of non-voters, the
higher the winning margin.

Perhaps true for the herd. But MY individual actions in
non-voting have no direct effect on other voters thinking
and whether they vote or not.

That's why it's called a paradox: ONE vote or non-vote
doesn't make a difference.

Exactly!!!

But EVERY vote and non-vote counts. So whether you've
voted or not, you've affected the election.

You mean that instead of 1,000,000 votes the candidate got
1,000,001 votes because of me voting and that affected the
election???

your claim that your non-vote doesn't count is invalid.

My claim from the start was/is that my ONE vote doesn't
affect the election outcome. That is a literal, practical,
pragmatic fact. As good as any one of Arlen's...

So while you're right that YOUR ONE vote, seen from YOUR
POV, makes no difference,

*MY* ONE vote as seen from your POV also doesn't affect
the election.

that same vote, combined with all votes and non-votes,
decides the election.

That may be true. But MY (me myself and I and no one else's)
non-vote makes no difference in the election outcome. I
plead guilty to being uncivic or even immoral by not voting
but I have yet to affect any election's outcome by my
non-action...

Have we worn this out yet?

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:53:44 -0700, 123456789
wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

you aren't the only person who doesn't vote. While your
vote alone probably doesn't make a difference except in
the most extreme example of an otherwise tie, you along
with everyone else who didn't vote could absolutely make
a difference.

I plead guilty to being un-civic. But in REALITY if I
started voting tomorrow the other shirkers wouldn't change
and the end result is the same.

There's been talk for decades about what it would take to
bring in the non-voters. Pay each voter $25 just for
showing up? Make it illegal and subject to a fine for NOT
showing up?

Is it really good policy to bribe and force people to vote?
It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.

I used to do jury duty because there was a penalty for not
showing up so it might work. In my state (AZ) you can get
out of jury duty when you turn 75. So I'm now un-civic there
too...

Here in the US, we have a strange dynamic where it's
generally assumed that if the folks who don't vote could
somehow be persuaded to do so, they would vote
overwhelmingly Democratic rather than Republican.

Sad, huh. Vote for the party, not the best candidate.

MY vote really does not count in the election's
outcome.

By that reasoning, no one's vote really counts.

Nope I never said everyone. Just ME.

Yet, people still get elected, so apparently votes DO
count, after all.

And I never said votes don't count. I said my ONE vote won't
affect an election outcome. Can you prove me wrong on that?

In article , 123456789
wrote:

There's been talk for decades about what it would take to
bring in the non-voters. Pay each voter $25 just for
showing up? Make it illegal and subject to a fine for NOT
showing up?

Is it really good policy to bribe and force people to vote?

no. it's a very bad idea.

It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.

it would be much wiser.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Just because you make something doesn't give you the right to stop anyone
else making something similar.

Similar is usually ok. It's called being influenced.

A direct copy isn't ok. Stealing ideas is just as much a crime as stealing
a physical object. See patent and trademark law as well.


End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!


Your constant outrage must be tiring.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:34:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.

it would be much wiser.

But not very democratic. Even idiots deserve a voice.

In article , mechanic
wrote:


It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.

it would be much wiser.

But not very democratic. Even idiots deserve a voice.

which is why there are idiots voted into office.

nospam wrote:
In article , mechanic
wrote:

It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.
it would be much wiser.
But not very democratic. Even idiots deserve a voice.

which is why there are idiots voted into office.

Is that why ?

Can we blame that ?

Candidates are "curated" by various means.

Boss Haug is the nominee way too often, which
tells you that you can "buy your way in", one
way or another.

I watched a guy here who:

1) Joined the party at the last minute.
2) A fat guy who always wears the same suit and pants
from the '50s. That's why I refer to the guy as
"just another pair of pants". Because the pants
are a trademark.
3) Wiggled his ass around and "skootched" two chicks
out of leadership contention. Their sin ? They actually
had a platform, with defined policies. In other words,
they played by the rules.
4) When asked what his policy would be, he said
"I'm gonna do stuff". Which has... apparently happened.
5) He has a bunch of people buy party memberships,
make one vote for him as leader, then all these
"people" disappear from sight. The "party faithful".
Mechanical Turk much ?

So that's what "curatorship" is all about.

Be the fattest guy.

Swing your weight around.

Ram it, jam it, kick over the podium. "I win!!!"

At least in the old days, we'd get a bottle of rum
for voting for guys like that. Greasy guys that
look like mobsters.

Paul

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:26:07 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:53:44 -0700, 123456789
wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
123456789 wrote:

you aren't the only person who doesn't vote. While your
vote alone probably doesn't make a difference except in
the most extreme example of an otherwise tie, you along
with everyone else who didn't vote could absolutely make
a difference.

I plead guilty to being un-civic. But in REALITY if I
started voting tomorrow the other shirkers wouldn't change
and the end result is the same.

So we should ignore the "shirkers" up to the point where ALL of them are
willing to get on board as a group? Is there no benefit to bringing them
on board one at a time? We have to start somewhere.

There's been talk for decades about what it would take to
bring in the non-voters. Pay each voter $25 just for
showing up? Make it illegal and subject to a fine for NOT
showing up?

Is it really good policy to bribe and force people to vote?
It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.

Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. Many of the people who vote
are doing it under a thick cloud of willful ignorance. You can tell from
the exit polls, where people freely admit they haven't been following
either the issues or the candidates, so when they step into the voting
booth they get their first exposure. That's why pundits sometimes
cynically say we get the government that we deserve.

MY vote really does not count in the election's
outcome.

By that reasoning, no one's vote really counts.

Nope I never said everyone. Just ME.

What you said about your vote can apply to everyone else who doesn't
vote. To each of them individually, I agree that a single vote isn't
likely to make a difference.* The problem is that you aren't the only
one.

*In the 2018 mid-terms, I vaguely remember a statewide election that was
decided by a single vote, (somewhere in the southeast? Georgia? I don't
remember), and I believe it was Virginia where one election was a tie
and they decided the winner by drawing a name from a bowl. One "shirker"
coming out to vote would have decided that one.

Yet, people still get elected, so apparently votes DO
count, after all.

And I never said votes don't count. I said my ONE vote won't
affect an election outcome. Can you prove me wrong on that?

After an election in which you didn't vote, you can say with some
assurance that your vote wouldn't have changed the results, but it's
much more precarious to say, before an election, that your vote won't
count. Once voting has ended and the votes counted, it's too late.
There's probably at least one person in Virginia who is saying he/she
should have voted so that the random drawing could have been avoided.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

The OP recently declared he uses Piratebay for his "personal"
media.
Maybe you missed the post ?

Message-ID:

He was applauded by the STALKER, who went on to admit he
didn't steal ORIGINAL work, "only" made copies and posted them all
over the net ....

//redacted complained to Dropbox that I'd stolen a *COPY* of a photo
of a Harvard aircraft from his website. It was supposed to be
light-heated banter, but redacted didn't see it that way. Sad. :-(
//

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318192230/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Waste of time trying to explain what "copyright" is to
sociopaths, IMHO.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Char Jackson wrote:
123456789 wrote:

in REALITY if I started voting tomorrow the other
shirkers wouldn't change and the end result is the
same.

So we should ignore the "shirkers" up to the point where
ALL of them are willing to get on board as a group?

But we shirkers aren't a group. We're made up of all
persuasions. The ONLY thing we have in common is that we
don't vote. Those who claim to know how we individually
might vote are guessing.

Is there no benefit to bringing them on board one at a
time? We have to start somewhere.

Why? Is it your moral responsibility to save me from my
non-voting sins? I'm also an agnostic. You'll have to get in
line behind several preachers...

Many of the people who vote are doing it under a thick
cloud of willful ignorance.

And under the influence of the incessant attack ads...

pundits sometimes cynically say we get the government
that we deserve.

Perhaps that's true. But the (US) system still seems to
survive and work. And even if it had not, my ONE vote
wouldn't have changed anything.

I agree that a single vote isn't likely to make a
difference.

Thank you...

The problem is that you aren't the only one.

I agree that I am not the only non-voter. I'm not that sure
it's a big problem.

*In the 2018 mid-terms, I vaguely remember a statewide
election that was decided by a single vote,

In my state (AZ) that would require a recount. What are the
chances they would get the same one vote difference twice?

and they decided the winner by drawing a name from a
bowl. One "shirker" coming out to vote would have
decided that one.

Perhaps you could have shamed some other shirker into voting
in that election. Get to work...

After an election in which you didn't vote, you can say
with some assurance that your vote wouldn't have changed
the results

I can confidently say it before the election too. You want
to bet me a hundred bucks that the next AZ election won't be
decided by one vote?

There's probably at least one person in Virginia who is
saying he/she should have voted so that the random
drawing could have been avoided.

If I had waited in line for an hour to vote in that
election, surely some other shirker would have done the same
thing and nullified my deciding vote. So I'm glad I stayed
home...

In article , Paul
wrote:

It might be wiser just to let the ones who study the
candidates and issues to do the INFORMED voting.
it would be much wiser.
But not very democratic. Even idiots deserve a voice.

which is why there are idiots voted into office.

Is that why ?

Can we blame that ?

absolutely.

On 25/03/2019 15:18, Shadow *LIED* *AGAIN*

"only" made *ONE* copy and saved it in his Dropbox account.

Post corrected to reflect the truth.

--
David B.
Devon, UK