Without any evidence, it is a myth at best.

 

"But it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies..."

But it can when there is no evidence of it having been said other than

commonly misquoted.

Find something that gives a specific time place, verifiable source such as a

transcript etc.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message

news:xn0fbaia4zyd30004ceedsaid@news.individual.net...

> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it

> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have

> wanted to deny that also.. :)

>

> Take a look here:

>

> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

>

> --

> //ceed

norm wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> norm wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> norm wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

>>>>>

>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Well norm, I don't think so.

>>>> If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and

>>>> that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.

>>>

>>>

>>> Good enough for what? You?

>>

>>

>> Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your

>> uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for

>> yourself, right?

>

> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As

> opposed to what from your quarter?

 

You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your

accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

 

You can attempt to walk this around

> in circles all you want.

 

Nah, you're the one doing the wheel act, not me.

 

What is unsubstantiated? You stated (quite

> strongly) that you believe in God.

 

So?

 

With that belief comes responsibility

> for one's words and actions.

 

Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to

assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking

the fool.

 

Your words and actions belie such a belief.

 

Ha! Who the hell do you think you are? I'll be the determiner of my

beliefs and my actions related to those beliefs, not you!

> You are a hypocrite by definition.

 

Now you're statement are becoming hypocritical. You're one really

confused person!

 

The other possibility is that you do

> not believe in God, even though you state that you do.

 

Now you wandering into make-it-up land!

 

In that case, you

> are simply a liar.

 

You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than

you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.

Live with it! You're wrong!

>

>>

>>>

>>>> And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't

>>>> make me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a

>>>> hypocrite by your's or anyone else's definition.

>>>

>>>

>>> Sure you are.

 

That statement's not working cause it's just not true. Nor can you make

it true.

>>

>>

>> hahaha...sorry norm, but that's just not true. Your opinion is owned

>> only by you and it's totally meaningless especially to me, the person

>> you're trying to hang it on.

>> Try again

>>

>>>

>>>> And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.

>>>> Too bad!

>>>> Try harder.

>>>

>>>

>>> Don't need to.

 

Then you lose! Plain and simple.

>>>

>> Then you give up and concede that you're wrong, right?

>> Otherwise your argument just fell completely apart.

>>

>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>> Oh, and one other thing.

>>>> You have no idea who I am either!

>>>

>>>

>>> Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition.

>>

>>

>> Wrong again. You're the only one pushing the definition...and without

>> any proof..other than you say so...so by "anyone's definition'...is

>> simply not true is it?

>> Try harder.

>> Frank

>>

>> And you still have no idea who I am.

>

> You are correct. I have no idea who you are. I know what you are. A

> hypocrite, and if not that, a liar.

 

Purporting to prove I am something I'm not by simply saying it doesn't

make it true.

In fact, knowing the truth, that I'm not a hypocrite, now makes you both

a liar and a fool.

You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far

you're not keeping up!

Frank

ceed wrote:

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>

> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

> |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

>

> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it

> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have

> wanted to deny that also.. :)

>

> Take a look here:

>

> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

>

 

 

Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

 

“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

 

Which is vastly different from saying:

 

"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

640kb memory".

 

Frank

On 17 Sep 2007 04:58:36 GMT, "ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

>|<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>|

>||Ford can't.

>||There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

>||right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

>||If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

>|

>|Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you

>|willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they

>|want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that

>|is, but we both know you don't.

>

>I still don't get this "fanboy" term. It doesn't really tell me

>anything other than that you do not trust (and/or like) people who

>likes Vista or MS for that matter. It seems very personal for some

>reason. Why is it so bad that some people, like me, get Vista to work?

>Is it because it's not fair since you don't?

>

>In your world I guess I would be a fanboy, but I think it's a good

>thing because it means I get return on my Vista investment. But you use

>the term as an insult. I just do not get the logic behind that.

>

>And now you will probably call me all kinds of nasty things again

>including fanboy. It is kind of amusing that someone like you who

>obviously knows a lot about computers and software wastes so much time

>being mad.

 

You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly

shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often

illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what

they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and

take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't

participate.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:43:32 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>norm wrote:

>> "It's only your uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion". As

>> opposed to what from your quarter?

>

>You're the one making the accusation, remember? Prove your

>accusation...if you can. Otherwise, you're a liar.

 

Ok fool. You've called me a drunk countless times. PROVE IT right

here, right now, or you just admitted you are a liar.

>Oh, so now you're my confessor? I don't think so. You're trying to

>assume a position of importance not granted to you. Now you're looking

>the fool.

 

You still are too stupid to understand nobody comes off as a bigger

fool than you do, Frankie numbnuts.

>You don't really have anything substantial to say do you other than

>you're pissed cause you can't win this argument cause you're wrong.

>Live with it! You're wrong!

 

Speaking of substance, it was YOU that needed to tell us you have

property in Southern Europe, you claim to run a business, have

multiple stockbrokers and you claim you are wealthy and recently

you've began to claim you are hansom. All shameless bragging and

surely signs of a nut case off his meds. That's all you are Frankie, a

certifiable nut case.

>You need to try harder if you still want to dance with me cause so far

>you're not keeping up!

 

 

You dance for us just fine Frankie, the fool that you are.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:56 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

>against whatever you want.

>Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

>subject is noted yet again.

 

You're describing yourself if anyone wishing to invest a little time

using Google will confirm.

>

>"constantly denying there's a problem"

>Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

 

You really, I mean REALLY are such a pompous ass. Really!

Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that

says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates

above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,

and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

 

John John wrote:

> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on the

> EULA legalities. But...

>

> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For

> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal

> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal. If

> you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge me

> 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your terms,

> you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you to court

> you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract you would

> still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an illegal

> contract.

>

> John

>

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>

>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have

>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not

>> have been what customers want.

>>

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

> against whatever you want.

> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

> subject is noted yet again.

>

> "constantly denying there's a problem"

> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

 

After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but

you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

 

Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

 

 

-Michael

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:55:51 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>

wrote:

>* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

>> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

>> against whatever you want.

>> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

>> subject is noted yet again.

>>

>> "constantly denying there's a problem"

>> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

>

>After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

>of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

>hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this group, but

>you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

>supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

>assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

>You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

>

>Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

>

Charlie isn't the only one that knows Jupiter's type. His type infests

newsgroups all across Usenet. While the "cause" they so viciously try

to defend changes depending on the newsgroup, the defender always has

the same unmistakable traits. Characters like Frank and Jupiter are

easy to spot and suffer from the Don Quixote or tilting after

windmills syndrome.

 

Simply said they have a foolish need to confront and engage in

conflict with an imagined opponent or threat rather than engage in

meaningful discussion. This idiom alludes to Miguel de Cervantes's Don

Quixote, Spanish novel written in the seventeenth century. The title

character, Don Quixote, attacks a group of windmills with his lance at

full tilt when he mistakes them for a group of ferocious giants.

 

Here the cause is obviously to defend Microsoft's honor or practices

no matter how wrong or foolish they may be and to deny any problems

exist with Vista. Anyone exposing Microsoft failings is attacked,

often viciously and without cause by Don Quixote types.

 

For sure a silly and foolish exercise since anyone with any

intelligence at all knows Windows regardless of version is rift with

all kinds of bugs and performance issues. Don Quixote types simply

can't stand anybody factually pointing out flaws in their beloved

object of hero worship and thus act very foolishly trying to defend

what they think is being attacked. Of course they never know their

actions are seen as hilarious by nearly everyone else.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes

> against whatever you want.

> Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the

> subject is noted yet again.

>

> "constantly denying there's a problem"

> Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

>

 

JJ, why are you in such denial about coming across to other posters as

stuck up? Whether you see yourself that way or not, others, many others

here do see it that way and are voicing their opinions. You will

probably never be taken seriously here unless you change that perception.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Adam Albright wrote:

 

-----drunken diatribe deleted as a public service-----

 

Dance for us georgie-boy...lol!

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> You think fanboy is nasty? It's just a descriptive term they clearly

> shows the unhealthy obsession some have with Microsoft often

> illustrated by how they defend them blindly without thinking what

> they're defending. I suggest you lighten up. If you can't have fun and

> take the banter that's common in newsgroups maybe you shouldn't

> participate.

>

I suggest you lighten up and try and fix the one little install of Vista

business you badly screwed up.

Or else stop complaining and go back to XP, like the rest of the losers

have done.

Frank

Charlie and a few others also have shown they need to stoop to personal

attacks and name calling at times.

A very few other do little else.

Neither of which are necessary or appropriate.

But I guess you accept it and turn away since it suits you.

 

"...just another Microsoft hyper-shill."

"You may try to fool some of the newer..."

Since I am not attempting to fool you, it is good you are not fooled by

something you imagine.

Not at all trying to fool anyone, but name calling to avoid the issues seems

the thing for a few critics.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message

news:OtUKarT%23HHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> After being involved in this group since June 2006 and reading many

> of your posts, I also find you to be arrogant and just another Microsoft

> hyper-shill. You may try to fool some of the newer visitors to this

> group, but

> you certainly don't fool me. I've known Charlie for years, and he is a

> supporter of Microsoft. However, unlike you, he is able to make an honest

> assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly that Microsoft has done.

> You simply look away and/or make excuses for them.... constantly.

>

> Charlie has you down pat, and there is no doubt about that.

>

>

> -Michael

Frank wrote:

 

|ceed wrote:

|

|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

||

|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more

|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

||

|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But

||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I

||would have wanted to deny that also.. :)

||

|| Take a look here:

||

||

||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

||

|

|

|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

|

|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

|

|Which is vastly different from saying:

|

|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

|640kb memory".

|

|Frank

 

If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right? :)

 

--

//ceed

Adam Albright wrote:

 

|File copying/moving is one such area.

 

Now that is a real problem with Vista. You're absolutely right. I have

overcome it by using TeraCopy which basically takes over the whole

copy/move job in Vista (and XP for that matter).

 

--

//ceed

ceed wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

> |ceed wrote:

> |

> || Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> ||

> |> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more

> |than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

> ||

> || It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

> || There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But

> ||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I

> ||would have wanted to deny that also.. :)

> ||

> || Take a look here:

> ||

> ||

> ||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

> ||

> |

> |

> |Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

> |

> |“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

> |

> |Which is vastly different from saying:

> |

> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

> |640kb memory".

> |

> |Frank

>

> If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right? :)

>

 

hahaha...or we can always be American about...if enough is just

right...then too much has to be better! :-)

Frank

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Charlie and a few others also have shown they need to stoop to personal

> attacks and name calling at times.

> A very few other do little else.

> Neither of which are necessary or appropriate.

> But I guess you accept it and turn away since it suits you.

>

> "...just another Microsoft hyper-shill."

> "You may try to fool some of the newer..."

> Since I am not attempting to fool you, it is good you are not fooled by

> something you imagine.

> Not at all trying to fool anyone, but name calling to avoid the issues

> seems the thing for a few critics.

>

 

 

You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty.

 

The vast majority of Windows users do not and probably will not read the

EULA at all, at least not all the way through. Of those folks who do

read it many will not understand the finer "Legal" points built into the

wording. Even fewer will read the document with a view to nit picking

the "May be nefarious" passages from it, yet it seems that is the only

way to go. To read the EULA several times with the thought in mind "How

does this wording mean Microsoft can screw me?"

 

I don't suggest for one moment that is Microsoft's "Intent", merely that

if we take your view of the agreement we must read in that manner.

 

Else we take things at face value, and believing Microsoft to be, in

general, a reputable company we do tend to take things at face value.

 

In use, the "Settings" appear to mean you have 3 choices, Download and

install Updates, Download and ask, Download nothing until specifically

requested. There is nothing in that dialog to suggest other "Updates" or

communication of any kind.

 

There are notes in various places on the MS websites to the effect that

users with special needs (For example System Admins who need to test on

lab machines first) may prefer to turn auto updates off. This is a

sensible precaution for both MS and the Admin to take. I have yet to see

anything suggesting that this in fact does not stop all updates, and yet

the subject of MS Auto Updates has long been an issue discussed with

"Privacy" concerns in mind. MS even go to the trouble of stating that

they respect privacy and no identifiable information is "Intentionally"

collected. From this we can reliably conclude that MS can make

themselves aware of user privacy concerns WRT network traffic and

actually do make themselves aware of those concerns. It requires no

great leap of imagination to deduce that user concerns about what is

going out to MS would be equally valid WRT what is coming in...

 

Also, whatever the real intent behind this mechanism is, one must ask

the question why, when the update system already identifies when the

update system itself needs updating, MS chose to do this stealthily. The

updates do not appear to be "Security" related, in which case I could

understand MS having a desire to "Push" updates to cover some really

drastic security flaw. Maybe it would still be wrong, but it would be

"Understandable".

 

It has been suggested that for "Update" to update itself would be like

trying to change the oil in a vehicle whilst driving it, or something

similar to that. This is nonsense, all that would be necessary in that

case is a download followed by a system restart to do the install. This

happens all the time when drivers and other things demand it. In any

case I see no reason for even that to be necessary.

 

So this warrants an explanation from Microsoft and soon, because without

such their entire "Trustworthy Computing" flagship will become their

Titanic. This comes at an even worse time with three letter agencies

being suspected of planting "Trojans" and various other data collection

systems on machines. The fact here is that to persuade the open source

community to do such would require an awful lot of "Bought silence" from

an awful lot of people. For a corporation like MS it would take very few

yet at the same time cover 80-90% of the computers in use.

 

IMHO (and that is all it is) MS have to offer some explanation other

than "It's in the contract" or they present themselves as a huge target

for criticism, rumors and loss of future business. No animosity involved

whatsoever, they simply need to explain this, EULA or not, because it is

(or at least seems) to be quite unnecessary.

"You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty"

Not at all an unexpected excuse to justify a need for name calling while

ignoring the issues.

It has no place with those secure in their positions and desiring to keep on

topic.

 

"...if we take your view of the agreement we must read..."

That is not what I said.

However if there are concerns as there are for some now, then they need to

reread the applicable parts to see what was actually agreed.

In this respect, it is no different than other agreements.

People may skim over initially, but they are still responsible for what

initially missed.

If a contract is clear from a legal standpoint, it is irrelevant if the

person did not read thoroughly if they had the chance.

 

There are two issues:

1. What is legal

For this I believe the license covers it and there is little that anyone can

do from a legal standpoint.

2. What is right with their customers interests.

This is where trust is made and lost because it goes beyond legality.

It is based on trust based at least partly on a customers understanding

based on several things such as a quick view of the license, what is said by

the company and other sources.

 

 

"...appear to mean you have 3 choices..."

And I addressed this in another post in which your response was little more

than an attack.

That seems to be covered in the license even though it is not what you,

myself or others like.

Trust with Microsoft/Windows update has been brought up before and it will

again, your previous attack not withstanding.

Similar as you can in your Product Group at Microsoft with your contacts.

 

Now, are you making your opinion heard at Microsoft or are you simply

complaining here where there is no expectation or requirement that Microsoft

get your message?

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:OwCRt8Z%23HHA.5948@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> You seem to have confused "Name calling" with honesty.

>

> The vast majority of Windows users do not and probably will not read the

> EULA at all, at least not all the way through. Of those folks who do read

> it many will not understand the finer "Legal" points built into the

> wording. Even fewer will read the document with a view to nit picking the

> "May be nefarious" passages from it, yet it seems that is the only way to

> go. To read the EULA several times with the thought in mind "How does this

> wording mean Microsoft can screw me?"

>

> I don't suggest for one moment that is Microsoft's "Intent", merely that

> if we take your view of the agreement we must read in that manner.

>

> Else we take things at face value, and believing Microsoft to be, in

> general, a reputable company we do tend to take things at face value.

>

> In use, the "Settings" appear to mean you have 3 choices, Download and

> install Updates, Download and ask, Download nothing until specifically

> requested. There is nothing in that dialog to suggest other "Updates" or

> communication of any kind.

>

> There are notes in various places on the MS websites to the effect that

> users with special needs (For example System Admins who need to test on

> lab machines first) may prefer to turn auto updates off. This is a

> sensible precaution for both MS and the Admin to take. I have yet to see

> anything suggesting that this in fact does not stop all updates, and yet

> the subject of MS Auto Updates has long been an issue discussed with

> "Privacy" concerns in mind. MS even go to the trouble of stating that they

> respect privacy and no identifiable information is "Intentionally"

> collected. From this we can reliably conclude that MS can make themselves

> aware of user privacy concerns WRT network traffic and actually do make

> themselves aware of those concerns. It requires no great leap of

> imagination to deduce that user concerns about what is going out to MS

> would be equally valid WRT what is coming in...

>

> Also, whatever the real intent behind this mechanism is, one must ask the

> question why, when the update system already identifies when the update

> system itself needs updating, MS chose to do this stealthily. The updates

> do not appear to be "Security" related, in which case I could understand

> MS having a desire to "Push" updates to cover some really drastic security

> flaw. Maybe it would still be wrong, but it would be "Understandable".

>

> It has been suggested that for "Update" to update itself would be like

> trying to change the oil in a vehicle whilst driving it, or something

> similar to that. This is nonsense, all that would be necessary in that

> case is a download followed by a system restart to do the install. This

> happens all the time when drivers and other things demand it. In any case

> I see no reason for even that to be necessary.

>

> So this warrants an explanation from Microsoft and soon, because without

> such their entire "Trustworthy Computing" flagship will become their

> Titanic. This comes at an even worse time with three letter agencies being

> suspected of planting "Trojans" and various other data collection systems

> on machines. The fact here is that to persuade the open source community

> to do such would require an awful lot of "Bought silence" from an awful

> lot of people. For a corporation like MS it would take very few yet at the

> same time cover 80-90% of the computers in use.

>

> IMHO (and that is all it is) MS have to offer some explanation other than

> "It's in the contract" or they present themselves as a huge target for

> criticism, rumors and loss of future business. No animosity involved

> whatsoever, they simply need to explain this, EULA or not, because it is

> (or at least seems) to be quite unnecessary.

"PA Bear" >

> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our time less valuable than yours?

 

 

definitely.

The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were

written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide

and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one.

Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that

violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no law.

 

John

 

Bob I wrote:

> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that

> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates

> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,

> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

>

> John John wrote:

>

>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on

>> the EULA legalities. But...

>>

>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For

>> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal

>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal.

>> If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge

>> me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your

>> terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you

>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract

>> you would still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an

>> illegal contract.

>>

>> John

>>

>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>>

>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have

>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not

>>> have been what customers want.

>>>

>

The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for

EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.

Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except

for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it

differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

 

John John wrote:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were

> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide

> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain

> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that

> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no

> law.

>

> John

>

> Bob I wrote:

>

>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that

>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates

>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,

>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

>>

>> John John wrote:

>>

>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on

>>> the EULA legalities. But...

>>>

>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.

>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is

>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are

>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you

>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and

>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were

>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted

>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the

>>> law, it is an illegal contract.

>>>

>>> John

>>>

>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>>>

>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have

>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not

>>>> have been what customers want.

>>>>

>>

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:39:49 -0500, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for

>EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.

>Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except

>for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it

>differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

 

Actually it depends only on how the law in interrupted BY the court

system, IF it ever gets that far. Of course parties having legal

disputes may and often do settle contractual disputes out of court.

 

Limiting the discussion just to United States interpretation there are

three broad standards. Criminal law, Civil law and Common law.

Criminal law sets up a bunch of "laws", look at them as "rules" that

state what a "crime" is and the punishment for it IF the accused is

found guilty. Those found guilty of some criminal offense may be

subject to incarceration, meaning some length of time is generally

served for their offense within either the federal system if a federal

law is broken or in the state system if some state law is broken.

 

Read slowly: Common law tends to draw abstract rules from specific

cases, which becomes case law, whereas civil law starts with abstract

rules which judges must then apply to the various cases before them.

Punishment, if found guilty rarely results in prison time and usually

results in some monetary punishment in the form of fines.

 

Some may be shocked to learn much of present day's civil law is based

on ancient Egyptian law from many thousands of years ago which the

ancient Romans adopted and modified that were further adopted

throughout Europe and pretty much remained unchanged through the 18th

century.

 

Then a process call Codification began to change the legal landscape.

This new process is where some enity, ie a Government in a democracy

restates and refines the "law" resulting as in the United States as

some act of Congress, creating some federal statutes. The official

codification of Federal statutes is called the United States Code.

This "code" is divided into "titles" numbered 1 through 50. Title 18

for example contains many of the Federal criminal statutes. This

process is based on The Corpus Juris Civilis a collection of

fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued during the years 529 to 534

by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor.

 

The US Code is very complex and lengthy:

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html

 

Another difference between common and civil law is civil law is

historically common law developed by custom, beginning before there

were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after

there were written laws, whereas civil law developed out of Roman law.

 

The difference between civil law and common law isn't limited to

codification, but in the approach taken to codes and statutes. In

civil law countries like the United States, legislation is always

written by some governmental body, (at the federal level, Congress)

which is seen as the primary source of federal law while each state

legislature has the same task for writing state laws. Ditto for local

governments where some governmental body proposes and creates "law"

more commonly called an ordinance; some authoritative decree or

direction, again having roots in Roman times.

 

By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of

codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be

derived. Courts therefore have to reason extensively on the basis of

general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from

statutory provisions to fill in the blanks and to achieve coherence.

By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of

law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law

and thus interpreted narrowly.

 

My point of all this long winded flowerily language is to remind those

that think anything in any "legal" written document such as a contract

or Microsoft's EULA is absolute and binding are sadly mistaken and in

for a rude shock IF any provision is tested within the court system.

Often many contractual clauses fail to pass the smell test and will

accordingly be thrown out by the courts. I've seen it happen many

times, so sorry, I must snicker when I see the fanboy crowd making

reference to the EULA and pretending it trumps everything else. Not

even close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>John John wrote:

>

>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were

>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide

>> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain

>> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that

>> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no

>> law.

>>

>> John

>>

>> Bob I wrote:

>>

>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that

>>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates

>>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,

>>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

>>>

>>> John John wrote:

>>>

>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on

>>>> the EULA legalities. But...

>>>>

>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.

>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is

>>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are

>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you

>>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and

>>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were

>>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted

>>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the

>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.

>>>>

>>>> John

>>>>

>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have

>>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not

>>>>> have been what customers want.

>>>>>

>>>

~greg wrote:

> "PA Bear" >

>> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our

>> time less valuable than yours?

> definitely.

 

Take a hike. <plonk>

John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to

microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions

> were

> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted

> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around

> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up

> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there

> would in fact be no law.

>

> John

>

> Bob I wrote:

>

>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law

>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to

>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't

>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

>>

>> John John wrote:

>>

>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting

>>> on

>>> the EULA legalities. But...

>>>

>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an

>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.

>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is

>>> illegal

>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are

>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that

>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement

>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if

>>> I were to take you

>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your

>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the

>>> law, it is an illegal contract.

>>>

>>> John

>>>

>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>>>

>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.

>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you

>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification

>>>> may not have been what customers want.

>>>>

>>

 

Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild

West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement

there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,

regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?

"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in

news:xn0fbbb1ka0s0s001ceedsaid@news.individual.net:

> Frank wrote:

>

>|ceed wrote:

>|

>|| Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>||

>|> |"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more

>|than > |640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

>||

>|| It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.

>|| There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But

>||it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I

>||would have wanted to deny that also.. :)

>||

>|| Take a look here:

>||

>||

>||http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-

>||line/

>||

>|

>|

>|Well the way the quote is quoted on the referenced URL is:

>|

>|“640K ought to be enough for anybody”.

>|

>|Which is vastly different from saying:

>|

>|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than

>|640kb memory".

>|

>|Frank

>

> If you never need more then what you have ought to be enough, right?

> :)

>

 

The first is in context with the design and expectations at the time.

Given the 8086 proc, and IBM's prediction that they would sell about

250,000 of those new compuyers, the first quote is accurate.