"Silicon neuron" <sili@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46e8fcec@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>

> By Scott Dunn

>

> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off

> auto-updates.

 

 

I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,

so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked

in it before.

 

Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on

their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind

myself to turn it off.

 

So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could

easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,

that Microsoft was patching files even though he

(thought he) had turned off auto-updates,

- being unaware that it had been silently turned on.

 

(That's a question, phrased as the answer

But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)

 

In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,

and the update service.

 

I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)

and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows

updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates

unless that service is running.)

Then I turn that service off, again, too.

 

If Microsoft is actually going around all services,

then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it

indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.

And there are laws against that kind of thing.

Just because MS happen to be a particular kind

of software, an OS, should not make any difference

in this. Or that's what I think anyway.

 

~greg

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>>>> contract

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a

>>>> legally binding contract.

>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>> Your not in the UK then..

>>

>>

>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives

>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

>

> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and

> another outright lie from you.

 

Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.

>>

>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the

>>> sale which you can't do.

>>

>>

>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he

>> always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and

>> clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

>

> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.

> Frank

 

More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish

behavior, Frankie Boy?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Your Automatic Update settings do NOT control the automatic updating of the

Windows Update software, Val.

--

~PA Bear

 

Val wrote:

> And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway?

>

> But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF!

>

> It still stinks.

>

> Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance,

> notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware.

> Why

> didn't Windows Defender catch it? 8-)

>

>

> Val

>

>

> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

> news:eqRhuzw9HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Disable the Windows update service.

> You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is

> used.

>

>

> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"

> <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fceh56$3rp$1@aioe.org...

>> It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not

>> use them."

>>

>> How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?

>>

>> --

>> 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

> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,

> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked

> in it before.

 

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

time less valuable than yours?

> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on

> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind

> myself to turn it off.

 

Are you saying that if you disable Automatic Updates and then update via

Windows Update website, Automatic Updates is re-enabled or the Automatic

Update /service/ is turned on?

--

~PA Bear

 

~greg wrote:

> "Silicon neuron" <sili@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:46e8fcec@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>>

>> By Scott Dunn

>>

>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>

>

> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,

> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked

> in it before.

>

> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on

> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind

> myself to turn it off.

>

> So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could

> easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,

> that Microsoft was patching files even though he

> (thought he) had turned off auto-updates,

> - being unaware that it had been silently turned on.

>

> (That's a question, phrased as the answer

> But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)

>

> In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,

> and the update service.

>

> I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)

> and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows

> updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates

> unless that service is running.)

> Then I turn that service off, again, too.

>

> If Microsoft is actually going around all services,

> then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it

> indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.

> And there are laws against that kind of thing.

> Just because MS happen to be a particular kind

> of software, an OS, should not make any difference

> in this. Or that's what I think anyway.

>

> ~greg

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

>>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>>>>> contract

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a

>>>>> legally binding contract.

>>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Your not in the UK then..

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives

>>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

>>

>>

>> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and

>> another outright lie from you.

>

>

> Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.

>

>>>

>>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the

>>>> sale which you can't do.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what

>>> he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute

>>> and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

>>

>>

>> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.

>> Frank

>

>

> More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish

> behavior, Frankie Boy?

>

 

Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in

His opinion, mr atheist?

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> If the Update Service is disabled, No.

> That is not the same as turning off Microsoft/Windows Update

>

 

Where does it state this, JJ? Where does it state that those files will

not update on a machine if the WU service is disabled?

 

--

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

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:47:02 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> 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, you're already seen as a big enough idiot without now trying

to play attorney and removing all doubt.

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

>>>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>

>>>>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>>>>>> contract

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a

>>>>>> legally binding contract.

>>>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Your not in the UK then..

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives

>>>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

>>>

>>>

>>> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and

>>> another outright lie from you.

>>

>>

>> Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.

>>

>>>>

>>>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the

>>>>> sale which you can't do.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what

>>>> he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute

>>>> and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

>>>

>>>

>>> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish

>> behavior, Frankie Boy?

>>

>

> Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in

> His opinion, mr atheist?

 

How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

hundreds of years ago? You believe in channeling too? I asked YOU what

YOU think he would think. Course to understand that, you would have to

be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Alias wrote:

>

> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

> hundreds of years ago?

 

Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the

answer.

 

You believe in channeling too?

 

Channeling what?

 

I asked YOU what

> YOU think he would think.

 

Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth

would you care what He thinks, huh?

 

Course to understand that, you would have to

> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

 

Sorry pal!

You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

Try again, ok?

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>

>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

>> hundreds of years ago?

>

> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the

> answer.

 

I was asking YOU.

>

> You believe in channeling too?

>

> Channeling what?

 

Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>

> I asked YOU what

>> YOU think he would think.

>

> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth

> would you care what He thinks, huh?

 

I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>

> Course to understand that, you would have to

>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

>

> Sorry pal!

> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

> Try again, ok?

> Frank

 

You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't

even realize it.

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

I don't know if it is written anywhere.

Even if it was some would have to see for themselves.

Disable the service on a clean Install, or whatever suits needs, of Windows

and verify for yourself.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"

<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fcgupq$e7s$1@aioe.org...

> Where does it state this, JJ? Where does it state that those files will

> not update on a machine if the WU service is disabled?

>

> --

> 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

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

>>> hundreds of years ago?

>>

>>

>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the

>> answer.

>

>

> I was asking YOU.

>

>>

>> You believe in channeling too?

>>

>> Channeling what?

>

>

> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>

>>

>> I asked YOU what

>>

>>> YOU think he would think.

>>

>>

>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth

>> would you care what He thinks, huh?

>

>

> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>

>>

>> Course to understand that, you would have to

>>

>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

>>

>>

>> Sorry pal!

>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

>> Try again, ok?

>> Frank

>

>

> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't

> even realize it.

 

hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your

point...even if you had one.

You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,

haven't you?

I bet it really hurts!

Frank

If someone feels the agreement is invalid, perhaps they need to contact an

attorney specializing in software licensing.

In this case I believe you would find that the clause in the license is the

notification.

That clause does nor circumvent the law.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:%23B5TsZ59HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>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

"Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates

thingy."

Perhaps on your computers, not mine.

I leave Automatic Updates off on some computers and it has remained off

after updates.

There is something other than just the update process turning it back on

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"~greg" <g_m@remove-comcast.net> wrote in message

news:FoSdnSZgqK8TQ3bbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@giganews.com...

> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,

> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked

> in it before.

>

> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on

> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind

> myself to turn it off.

>

> So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could

> easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,

> that Microsoft was patching files even though he

> (thought he) had turned off auto-updates,

> - being unaware that it had been silently turned on.

>

> (That's a question, phrased as the answer

> But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)

>

> In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,

> and the update service.

>

> I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)

> and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows

> updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates

> unless that service is running.)

> Then I turn that service off, again, too.

>

> If Microsoft is actually going around all services,

> then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it

> indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.

> And there are laws against that kind of thing.

> Just because MS happen to be a particular kind

> of software, an OS, should not make any difference

> in this. Or that's what I think anyway.

>

> ~greg

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

>>>> hundreds of years ago?

>>>

>>>

>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find

>>> the answer.

>>

>>

>> I was asking YOU.

>>

>>>

>>> You believe in channeling too?

>>>

>>> Channeling what?

>>

>>

>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>>

>>>

>>> I asked YOU what

>>>

>>>> YOU think he would think.

>>>

>>>

>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on

>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?

>>

>>

>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>>

>>>

>>> Course to understand that, you would have to

>>>

>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

>>>

>>>

>>> Sorry pal!

>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

>>> Try again, ok?

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't

>> even realize it.

>

> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your

> point...even if you had one.

And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as

such in this group. Do you think people don't notice your behavior? The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,

> haven't you?

> I bet it really hurts!

> Frank

 

 

--

norm

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died

>>>> hundreds of years ago?

>>>

>>>

>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find

>>> the answer.

>>

>>

>> I was asking YOU.

>>

>>>

>>> You believe in channeling too?

>>>

>>> Channeling what?

>>

>>

>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>>

>>>

>>> I asked YOU what

>>>

>>>> YOU think he would think.

>>>

>>>

>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on

>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?

>>

>>

>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>>

>>>

>>> Course to understand that, you would have to

>>>

>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

>>>

>>>

>>> Sorry pal!

>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

>>> Try again, ok?

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't

>> even realize it.

>

> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your

> point...even if you had one.

> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,

> haven't you?

> I bet it really hurts!

> Frank

 

Frank ducks and dodges again.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

norm wrote:

>

> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as

> such in this group.

 

Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?

 

Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

 

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public ng, huh?

 

The

> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

 

Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such a

thing?

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who

>>>>> died hundreds of years ago?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find

>>>> the answer.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I was asking YOU.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> You believe in channeling too?

>>>>

>>>> Channeling what?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> I asked YOU what

>>>>

>>>>> YOU think he would think.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on

>>>> earth would you care what He thinks, huh?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Course to understand that, you would have to

>>>>

>>>>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Sorry pal!

>>>> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.

>>>> Try again, ok?

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you

>>> don't even realize it.

>>

>>

>> hahaha...for an avowed atheist, you sure don't know how to argue your

>> point...even if you had one.

>> You've been hammered like this many times before concerning religion,

>> haven't you?

>> I bet it really hurts!

>> Frank

>

>

> Frank ducks and dodges again.

>

 

 

I'm not the one dancing!

You must like the beat! :-)

Frank

PA Bear wrote:

> Your Automatic Update settings do NOT control the automatic updating of the

> Windows Update software, Val.

 

Your WinXP's /Automatic_Update/ settings do NOT control the

/automatic_updating/ behavior of your WinXP's system-software.

 

My, my, why isn't this intuitively understood by everyone?

 

--

Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

 

Please followup in the newsgroup.

E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

Frank wrote:

> norm wrote:

>

>>

>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as

>> such in this group.

>

> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?

One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a

Christian. Stay on task.

>

> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

>

> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public ng,

> huh?

Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

>

> The

>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

>

> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such a

> thing?

If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the

course of your "arguments"? Or could it be that you will use any

"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your

little game to gain the attention you need? Then again, why bother to

ask anything of you? There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

anyway. Enjoy.

> Frank

 

 

--

norm

Silicon neuron wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>

> By Scott Dunn

>

> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>

> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed,

> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.

>

>

> Files changed with no notice to users

 

 

Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels

on August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but

not install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU

software, and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for

permission, when according to the article, not one else was?

 

Dave T.

 

--

Thought for the day...Life is sexually transmitted.

I have Automatic Updates turned off always. I read a couple of articles that

showed how to find out if you had WU updated by stealth, and as far as I can

see no file changes were made on or about August 23 on my machine. Has

anyone in this newsgroup actually seen evidence that their computer was

updated with Automatic Updates turned off.

 

 

"Dave T." <davey@MyPlace.net> wrote in message

news:zC_Gi.8242$z_5.2453@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Silicon neuron wrote:

>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>>

>> By Scott Dunn

>>

>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>>

>> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely

>> installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth

>> patching.

>>

>>

>> Files changed with no notice to users

>

>

> Not totally true. This update came to me through normal update channels on

> August 23. I have my Vista Home Premium configured to notify me but not

> install, and it did just that. It was billed as an update to WU software,

> and I consented to allow installation. Why was I asked for permission,

> when according to the article, not one else was?

>

> Dave T.

>

> --

> Thought for the day...Life is sexually transmitted.

The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained

things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the

conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

 

Atte:

A proud GNU software user.

FreeBSD System Administrator.

 

"Frank" wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:

>

> >

> > Explain to us how Microsoft KNOWS who clicked their mouse agreeing to

> > the EULA which is the ONLY so-called "proof" anyone agreed to the

> > terms of the license.

>

> Uhhh...how about the owner of the computer the software is installed on?

>

> Damn, Frank I know you're a real dim bulb, but

> > even you should see the fatal flaw in such half-ass reasoning and to

> > try to claim it becomes legally binding is laughable.

>

> Try running that bs line by any Municipal, County, State or Federal

> Court Judge.

>

> >

> > Worse, Microsoft doesn't provide any written version of the EULA in

> > the packaging Vista comes in and the only way you get to see it is if

> > you begin the install process THEN nobody that sold Vista to you will

> > take it back claiming it is "opened" software. Sounds like a catch 22

> > to me.

>

> Tell that to the Judge!

> >

> > Of course you being nothing but a moronic fanboy you probably wait on

> > your porch every evening hoping you see a pig fly past. Lots of luck

> > with that.

>

> For a supposed "genius, you're very good at doing stupid!

> Frank

>

>

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas

<AndrsVargas@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained

>things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the

>conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.

 

Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider

legal or factual. That is always damn funny.

norm wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> norm wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself as

>>> such in this group.

>>

>>

>> Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?

>

> One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a

> Christian. Stay on task.

 

 

Careful norm, as you're about to hurt yourself.

I didn't say anything about 'being a Christian".

>

>>

>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

>>

>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public

>> ng, huh?

>

> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

 

Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the

place to be, right?

Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?

>

>>

>> The

>>

>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

>>

>>

>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say such

>> a thing?

>

> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the

> course of your "arguments"?

 

Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of

argument, ok?

 

Or could it be that you will use any

> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your

> little game to gain the attention you need?

 

 

Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

 

Then again, why bother to

> ask anything of you?

 

You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

 

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

> anyway.

 

Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any

substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

 

Enjoy.

 

I certainly do and thank you very much!

 

Frank