moblie pom安全吗_百度知道
moblie pom安全吗
提问者采纳
不安全就不上了
提问者评价
太给力了，你的回答完美地解决了我的问题，非常感谢！
其他类似问题
pom的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁1.maven定义公共pom工程 - madding.lip
- 博客频道 - CSDN.NET
2018人阅读
1.构建基本配置工程：
即简单的一个pom文件定义基本的内容，目前本事例只是修改配置deploy相关的配置，配置如下：
&?xml version=&1.0& encoding=&UTF-8&?&
&project xmlns=&http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0& xmlns:xsi=&http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance& xsi:schemaLocation=&http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd&&
&modelVersion&4.0.0&/modelVersion&
&groupId&com.wmmad&/groupId&
&artifactId&all&/artifactId&
&version&1&/version&
&packaging&pom&/packaging&
&distributionManagement&
&repository&
&id&wmmad.releases&/id&
&name&releases&/name&
&url&http://localhost:8081/nexus/content/repositories/releases&/url&
&/repository&
&snapshotRepository&
&id&wmmad.snapshots&/id&
&name&snapshots&/name&
&url&http://localhost:8081/nexus/content/repositories/snapshots&/url&
&/snapshotRepository&
&/distributionManagement&
&/project&
定义本地release和snapshots的基本路径，主要是减少每个应用进行代码部署的拷贝。
多个版本主要是为了不同版本的适应
2.配置settings.xml：
&增加服务器部署信息：
&id&wmmad.releases&/id&
&username&deployment&/username&
&password&12345&/password&
&id&wmmad.snapshots&/id&
&username&deployment&/username&
&password&12345&/password&
&定义部署相关的信息，注意：id相同，表明你使用的部署权限。
在pom.xml文件所在的目录执行：
mvn deploy
本事例主要演示如何配置自定义pom文件，为工程搭建提供基础，这也是刚开始使用本地私服，多团队使用maven的基础。
* 以上用户言论只代表其个人观点，不代表CSDN网站的观点或立场
访问：178961次
积分：2989
积分：2989
排名：第5135名
原创：116篇
评论：23条
(1)(2)(1)(1)(4)(1)(3)(2)(1)(8)(4)(3)(2)(4)(2)(2)(3)(3)(2)(4)(3)(18)(9)(6)(2)(3)(1)(3)(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(3)(1)(3)(4)(4)(3)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
POM Wonderful,
is a private company which sells an eponymous brand of beverages and fruit extracts. It was founded in 2002 by the billionaire industrial agriculture couple
and . Through , their holding company, they are also affiliated with , , pesticide manufacturer Suterra, and Paramount Agribusiness. As a private company, POM Wonderful does not disclose its profits. In 2006,
has estimated that the company sales have increased from $12 million in 2003 to $91 million in that year. In recent years, the company has long been the subject of government prosecution due to its illegal marketing schemes.
The company's main product is pomegranate juice, which is sold in a trademark "double-bulb" bottle with the product name, POM, featured in
where the O is substituted by a . The company also manufactures blended juice beverages, such as pomegranate juice mixed with juices of blueberry, cranberry, cherry, mango or tangerine, and bottled tea- and coffee-based beverages of various flavors distributed in more conventional containers. In addition to drinks, the company sells pills and concentrated liquid products marketed as nutritional supplements.
While not part of POM Wonderful itself, another company owned by the same Resnick family, Paramount Farms, has
the "Wonderful" brand to . The
logotype uses a heart instead of the "o" in "Wonderful", similar to the "POM" in the POM Wonderful logo.
The brand name "POM Wonderful" refers to the "Wonderful"
which is grown in the central and southern
of . It is the leading commercial variety in California, being well suited for juicing with its soft seeds, high water content, and wine-like flavor. POM branded products are produced from fruit obtained from their own corporate orchards, and other orchards in the same area. The company employs a proprietary process in their own facilities to mechanically extract juice for various pomegranate based products.
POM Wonderful makes claims in promotional materials to have spent tens of millions of dollars for research. There are two broad types of research being sponsored and published. One type regards the proposed health benefits of pomegranate juice, the other type regards chemical analysis and bio-availability of pomegranate extracts and supplements. Pomegranate juice in general is the actual subject of its published sponsored research regarding health benefits, though POM typically supplies the juice to the investigators of the study. Published sponsored research regarding POM's extract products (pills and liquid concentrates) deal only with chemical analysis and bio-availability of said products, without examining any health benefits. Research has been conducted at various research institutions including UCLA, University of Naples (Italy), Technion Institute (Israel), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The company has promoted these studies as indicating that consumers of their beverages and extracts will receive a wide range of health benefits against various chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.
In 2006, POM became the target of
for funding laboratory experiments on animals to promote health claims related to its pomegranate beverages. One such experiment sought to examine a possible correlation between pomegranates and erectile dysfunction by inducing the disorder in live rabbits. In their campaign, PETA had rebranded the company’s logo as “POM Horrible.” After receiving petitions from PETA supporters and threats from
and other retailers who said they would pull POM’s drinks from store shelves if POM Wonderful continued to fund experiments on animals, the company agreed to only fund non-animal studies. Nevertheless, POM Wonderful stated that their animal tests were "helping to save human lives" and could have benefited its customers.
On February 23, 2010, the U.S.
(FDA) informed the company in a
that POM Wonderful was "[promoting] (POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice) for conditions that cause the product to be a drug".
Examples of unapproved labeling cited in the warning letter come from a section of POM's website titled "Featured Scientific Studies" which contained health claims regarding "Prostate Cancer", "Erectile Dysfunction", "Reducing LDL cholesterol", "promote(ing) a healthy heart and prostate", "reduce(ing) the length and severity of colds", "...shown to slow prostate tumor growth", "particularly beneficial ("among quite a few others")."
FDA contends that, if the manufacturer desires to market its products with claims for the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, the product is subject to the typical scientific rigor of the drug approval process to achieve such claims.
POM's labeling as a food is also criticized in the letter due to a product claim of being "full of antioxidants called phytochemicals" and having "uniquely high levels of powerful antioxidants". Such nutrient content claims on food must have a scientifically validated
value and the names of such nutrients included. Simply using the terms "antioxidants" and "phytochemicals" is not specific enough for food nutrient labeling requirements because
in pomegranate juice have not yet been defined with actual physiological properties in humans.
On September 27, 2010, the
issued an administrative complaint against POM Wonderful saying it had made “false and unsubstantiated claims that their products will prevent or treat heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.” The complaint is a legal order intended to prevent future law violations by POM Wonderful.
POM is quoted as responding that "all statements made in connection with POM products are true...and as strong advocates of honest labeling and fair advertising, we are looking forward to working with the agency to resolve this matter." The FDA warning letter makes it clear that it expects POM to correct "deficiencies in your products or... labeling" within 15 days.
On May 22, 2012, Chief
Michael Chappell ruled after a hearing that the company's claims were deceptive and issued a cease and desist order effective for 20 years.
The greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony demonstrates that there is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate claims that the Pom products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction or that they are clinically proven to do so.
[POM Wonderful] shall not make any representation, in any manner, expressly or by implication, including through the use of a product name, endorsement, depiction, illustration, trademark or trade name, about the health benefits, performance or efficacy of any covered product, unless the representation is nonmisleading.
The May 22, 2012 Administrative Law Judge upheld two of POM's positions: (1) any FDA pre-approval requirement “would constitute unnecessary overreaching” and that (2) more stringent double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were not necessary.
In January 2015,
upheld most of the FTC's 2010 order. The appellate court said that many of POM's ads "mischaracterized the scientific evidence concerning the health benefits of Pom’s products with regard to those diseases."
From 2008 through 2014, POM
against 's subsidiary, . The lawsuit claimed that the name of the product called Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of five juices was misleading because it contained 0.3% pomegranate juice and 99.4% apple juice. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided in June 2014 that a lawsuit for false advertising claims could be pursued against Coca-Cola, saying "Competitors may bring
claims like POM’s challenging food and beverage labels regulated by the ." Legal analysts anticipate several more years of litigation on issues not argued in the Supreme Court, such as cause and magnitude of financial or brand injury to POM Wonderful resulting from the Minute Maid product.
The company, product, executives and owner
were featured in a 2011 documentary about , marketing and advertising in movies and TV shows. The film was entitled . POM agreed to pay one million dollars (subject to certain conditions) for "above-the-title" billing on the film.
(2009). Rubies in the Orchard. Doubleday.  .
. CAIVN. 2010.
Murr, Andrew (). . Newsweek.
Starling S (March 3, 2010). . < 2010.
. POM Wonderful LLC. 2007. Archived from
Posell, Fiona (). .
Berfield, Susan (). . .
Purvis, Andrew (). . The Guardian (London).
Sellers, Tracy (). .
. POM Wonderful LLC. 2008. Archived from
Holmgren, Pam (July 2, 2007). .
Goodman, Brenda (31 May 2007). . New York Times 2015.
Komp, Catherine (19 January 2007). . News Standard 2015.
. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010.
. The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective. 2010.
Federal Trade Commission (). . Federal Trade Commission.
Neuman, William (). . New York Times.
"Judge: POM deceptively marketed juice"; Associated Press, May 22, 2012
article by Stephanie Strom in
May 21, 2012
Kardell, Nicole (May 24, 2012). . The National Law Review 2012.
. FTC Beat 2012.
"POM Wonderful loses bid to tout health benefits in drink ads"; Reuters, January 30, 2015
"Pom Wonderful loses appeal of FTC's deceptive advertising ruling"; The Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2015
Pom Wonderful v. FTC; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, January 30, 2015
Hananel S (12 June 2014). . Associated Press and The Augusta Chronicle 2014.
Bartz, Diane (April 21, 2014). . Yahoo News.
(PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. June 12, 2014.
Watson E (17 June 2014). .
by William Reed Business Media 2014.
, film by Morgan Spurlock (2011)
Office of Administrative Law Judges, D. Michael Chappell (May 17, 2012).
(PDF). Federal Trade Commission 2012.Free Mobile Videos - Mobile Porn Tube100% Like90% Like82% Like78% Like89% Like78% Like93% Like87% Like88% Like84% Like75% Like82% Like82% Like80% Like& 2015 Free Mobile Vidz All models were over the age of 18 at time of photography.