Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:11:10 -0400, <here@home.again> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" in news:q6ele3tagdnvdin745n5qcd9gh45ugqa6u@4ax.com...

>> I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

>> Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

>>

>

>

>No, I'm just a crusty old office worker tired of you blow hard blustering

>about it instead of actually doing something about it. I'm in here to see if

>there are any neat tweaks I missed for Vista, not argue whether or not Vista

>is right for anyone else.

>

 

Blowhard is one word. What exactly do you expect me to do about

Microsoft? Please explain.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:55:23 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>>> paid for.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>>> only leased the option to use it.

>>

>>

>> So says Redmond.

>

>Not really. I guess you're not aware of the fact that Redmond is a city

>in Washington State, in the USA. Redmond has nothing to do with your

>software. Microsoft, in their EULA, state that you've paid for the right

>to use their software. You don't own it, period...like it or not.

 

Leave it to Frank to never get anything right. The point little

Frankie is Microsoft doesn't own anybody's computer, yet they act like

they can take control over it and stuff it with their crap if you ask

for it or not.

>

> I don't agree.

 

You never agree with reason.

>

>You don't agree with something that is factually correct and legally stated?

>You do have problems don't you..."fringe" thinking maybe?

 

You now going to try to tell you're a legal expert too on top of

everything else you've claimed and had to back pedal away from?

>

>

>I paid for it and it's in my house and

>> therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

>

>Oh really? That's a very telling, childish statement.

 

The biggest child in the newsgroup is YOU Frank. Obviously you know

nothing about property laws.

>Wake up pal...you're wrong and you're having a really difficult time

>accepting or admitting it.

>Frank

 

I'll make a deal with you. I'll get off your back if you admit the

scores of times you were wrong. Deal?

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:12:20 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

>> Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

>>

>

>You're always using the above statement whenever anyone states a truth

>concerning MS.

 

That "truth" would be what? I guess you forgot, I'm the one that was a

professional witness, (my accounting background and as an auditor)

who's been in over a hundred different court rooms in real trials in

many different state and federal courts all dealing with contract law.

>The truth need not be defended. It is it's own defense.

>What MS did is legally ok according to the EULA we all agreed to if

>you're using MS software.

 

Geez Frank, you've already established you're just a putz, no need to

reconfirm it daily. But if you insist on playing with something you

know nothing about let me at least TRY to educate you and other

clueless fanboys.

 

Any EULA including Microsoft's is at the same time both binding and

not binding. The legal term for a EULA is a 'contract of adhesion'.

No surprise, they've been around in many forms long before there was a

software industry. Common examples would be a ticket stub to a movie,

parking garage receipt or ticket to some sporting event. Such

"licenses" are by design very one sided, often in the extreme and

attempt to infer nearly unlimited rights to the issuer of the license

without regard to the rights of the purchaser. That does not make them

ironclad or even enforceable. In fact it often works against them

being enforceable if they pile it on too thick.

 

Two other terms to describe such licenses are 'ticket cases' or

'click-wrap agreements'. What no doubt would surprise unabashed

Microsoft defenders like you is case law is filled with examples where

courts have ruled against the issuer of such a license on the grounds

the terms were too vague or too all encompassing that they were

unreasonable and thus decided not to enforce them regardless what the

language within the license itself said.

 

That's why I mean by being binding and not binding. A better phrase

would be to say not enforceable. If someone got pissed off enough at

Microsoft and had deep pockets to proceed with a law suit a good

chance they would win since Microsoft's EULA is so intrusive, lopsided

and biased towards Microsoft in it's language it is very unlikely any

court would enforce all the provisions it contains.

 

Surprise, Microsoft's attorneys that wrote the EULA are well aware of

that fact, but depend on clueless rubes like you following it to the

letter under mere threat of punishment, you, like others being totally

ignorant how the legal system really works. I'm sorry you're so dumb

Frankie, but obviously you are that dumb as you keep reminding us.

 

So while some courts have accepted the act of clicking "I agree" as

sufficient to be "binding" the same courts may not enforce provisions

they deem to be unexpected, unusual or obviously lopsided in favor of

the license grantor. The flip side is courts HAVE ruled that a license

can not protect a vendor from incompetent acts including those of

omission regardless what flowerily language some EULA clause may

contain exempting the vendor from any liability.

 

The bottom line if push comes to shove, it isn't Microsoft that gets

to decide, the courts will and courts at both state and federal level

have a long history of refusing to enforce even written contracts if

they deem sections are unreasonable which can lead and has led to the

entire control or license getting thrown out in extreme cases. So any

EULA, license or contract is always open to interpretation.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:12:20 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>

>>Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>

>>>

>>>I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

>>>Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

>>>

>>

>>You're always using the above statement whenever anyone states a truth

>>concerning MS.

>

>

> That "truth" would be what? I guess you forgot, I'm the one that was a

> professional witness, (my accounting background and as an auditor)

> who's been in over a hundred different court rooms in real trials in

> many different state and federal courts all dealing with contract law.

 

Great! I'm sure we're all very impressed by the fact that you've

admitted to being a paid liar and a shill for a bunch of blood sucking

attorneys.

Now mr smartie pants, show us all the case law where EULA's are not

legally binding contracts, ok?

>

>>The truth need not be defended. It is it's own defense.

>>What MS did is legally ok according to the EULA we all agreed to if

>>you're using MS software.

>

>

> Geez Frank, you've already established you're just a putz, no need to

> reconfirm it daily. But if you insist on playing with something you

> know nothing about let me at least TRY to educate you and other

> clueless fanboys.

 

Oh...? Gee whiz mr know-it-all shows us...we can't wait!

>

> Any EULA including Microsoft's is at the same time both binding and

> not binding. The legal term for a EULA is a 'contract of adhesion'.

> No surprise, they've been around in many forms long before there was a

> software industry. Common examples would be a ticket stub to a movie,

> parking garage receipt or ticket to some sporting event. Such

> "licenses" are by design very one sided, often in the extreme and

> attempt to infer nearly unlimited rights to the issuer of the license

> without regard to the rights of the purchaser. That does not make them

> ironclad or even enforceable. In fact it often works against them

> being enforceable if they pile it on too thick.

>

> Two other terms to describe such licenses are 'ticket cases' or

> 'click-wrap agreements'. What no doubt would surprise unabashed

> Microsoft defenders like you is case law is filled with examples where

> courts have ruled against the issuer of such a license on the grounds

> the terms were too vague or too all encompassing that they were

> unreasonable and thus decided not to enforce them regardless what the

> language within the license itself said.

>

> That's why I mean by being binding and not binding. A better phrase

> would be to say not enforceable. If someone got pissed off enough at

> Microsoft and had deep pockets to proceed with a law suit a good

> chance they would win since Microsoft's EULA is so intrusive, lopsided

> and biased towards Microsoft in it's language it is very unlikely any

> court would enforce all the provisions it contains.

>

> Surprise, Microsoft's attorneys that wrote the EULA are well aware of

> that fact, but depend on clueless rubes like you following it to the

> letter under mere threat of punishment, you, like others being totally

> ignorant how the legal system really works. I'm sorry you're so dumb

> Frankie, but obviously you are that dumb as you keep reminding us.

>

> So while some courts have accepted the act of clicking "I agree" as

> sufficient to be "binding" the same courts may not enforce provisions

> they deem to be unexpected, unusual or obviously lopsided in favor of

> the license grantor. The flip side is courts HAVE ruled that a license

> can not protect a vendor from incompetent acts including those of

> omission regardless what flowerily language some EULA clause may

> contain exempting the vendor from any liability.

>

> The bottom line if push comes to shove, it isn't Microsoft that gets

> to decide, the courts will and courts at both state and federal level

> have a long history of refusing to enforce even written contracts if

> they deem sections are unreasonable which can lead and has led to the

> entire control or license getting thrown out in extreme cases. So any

> EULA, license or contract is always open to interpretation.

 

Duh...! I guess you failed to read my original statement where I said

that EULA's are legally binding contracts until the courts say otherwise.

You know something adam, you've really got stupid, ignorant and as*hole

down pat.

You dumb fukkin PUTZ!

Frank

>

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:55:23 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>>>>paid for.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>>>>only leased the option to use it.

>>>

>>>

>>>So says Redmond.

>>

>>Not really. I guess you're not aware of the fact that Redmond is a city

>>in Washington State, in the USA. Redmond has nothing to do with your

>>software. Microsoft, in their EULA, state that you've paid for the right

>>to use their software. You don't own it, period...like it or not.

>

>

> Leave it to Frank to never get anything right.

 

Oh really? Please point out where in my above statement I'm wrong. Do it

or else you'll look just like the big mouth idiot you are, ok?

Well...?

 

The point little

> Frankie is Microsoft doesn't own anybody's computer, yet they act like

> they can take control over it and stuff it with their crap if you ask

> for it or not.

 

I never said MS owned anyone's computer. That's your statement. Are you

drunk again or just making things up...you know...your "strawman act'

you're always accusing others of doing?

Well...?

>

>> I don't agree.

>

>

> You never agree with reason.

 

Reason? Look up the meaning of the word and try again, ok?

>

>>You don't agree with something that is factually correct and legally stated?

>>You do have problems don't you..."fringe" thinking maybe?

>

>

> You now going to try to tell you're a legal expert too on top of

> everything else you've claimed and had to back pedal away from?

 

You're the one claiming to be a legal expert, remember? All I do is just

read and comprehend what I've read...unlike you.

>

>>

>>I paid for it and it's in my house and

>>

>>>therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

>>

>>Oh really? That's a very telling, childish statement.

>

>

> The biggest child in the newsgroup is YOU Frank. Obviously you know

> nothing about property laws.

 

Read the EULA you agreed to, you moron.

>

>

>>Wake up pal...you're wrong and you're having a really difficult time

>>accepting or admitting it.

>>Frank

>

>

> I'll make a deal with you. I'll get off your back if you admit the

> scores of times you were wrong.

 

First of all, you're not on my back. You're my Pavlovian dog (you may

need to look that one up), remember?

 

Deal?

 

Secondly, you can't make a deal for something you don't have nor control

you dumb PUTZ...hahaha...lol!

Frank

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:21:55 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>> That "truth" would be what? I guess you forgot, I'm the one that was a

>> professional witness, (my accounting background and as an auditor)

>> who's been in over a hundred different court rooms in real trials in

>> many different state and federal courts all dealing with contract law.

>

>Great! I'm sure we're all very impressed by the fact that you've

>admitted to being a paid liar and a shill for a bunch of blood sucking

>attorneys.

 

In addition to you not having any respect for customers having

documented problems with Vista you obviously have no respect for the

American legal system either. I'm not really surprised.

>Now mr smartie pants, show us all the case law where EULA's are not

>legally binding contracts, ok?

>>

>>>The truth need not be defended. It is it's own defense.

>>>What MS did is legally ok according to the EULA we all agreed to if

>>>you're using MS software.

 

You ignorance of the law is on a par with your ignorance of Windows.

You know nothing about either.

Erwin Moller wrote:

> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>> NoStop wrote:

>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our express

>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>> group and

>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating system

>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You

>>>>> have

>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>> behind your

>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>>> to the

>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>> happen

>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and find

>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>

>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>

>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for compatibility

>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>>> this

>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>

>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>

>>> Cheers.

>>>

>>

>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

>> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>

>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>>

>>

>

> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

> Reliable source of information you got...

>

> Erwin Moller

 

<I have seen some of your posts.>

 

<A typical song and dance Linux user that's always got an excuse

response when things are not so rose colored bright and smelling fresh

for Linux.>

 

<Someone or somebody owns something and that's why the figures are what

they are -- YEAH RIGHT OKEY DOKAY. -)>

 

<You need to show some kind of proof here other than your lip service.

Show some kind of proof showing that M$ owns Netcraft. That's all you

have to do here to be convincing.>

 

<You need to come up with something other than the lip service.>

 

<The reason Linux is being out done on the Web Server market is Win 2k3

Server running IIS7, which is just as secure as the Linux/Apache Web

platform, along with .Net solutions running on the M$ platform. The

bottom line is Linux can't keep the pace. Linux has nothing to date that

can keep pace with with Win 2k3, IIS7 and .NET.>

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> In addition to you not having any respect for customers having

> documented problems with Vista...

 

 

You're referring to yourself of course. You are the one who did the in

place upgrade install of Vista business

and can't figure out in your little brain pointy head that maybe, just

maybe, you did the wrong thype of install

and just maybe, that's your porblem. But your stupid ego won't let you

admit that will it. So you blame everything,

including your own ignorance, on MS.

I have no respect for you and a few other retarded as*holes in this ng.

 

 

you obviously have no respect for the American legal system either.

 

 

WTF does that mean?

 

 

I'm not really surprised.

 

I'm not surprised by the gibberish you're now posting.

>

>

>>Now mr smartie pants, show us all the case law where EULA's are not

>>legally binding contracts, ok?

>>

>>>>The truth need not be defended. It is it's own defense.

>>>>What MS did is legally ok according to the EULA we all agreed to if

>>>>you're using MS software.

>

>

> You ignorance of the law is on a par with your ignorance of Windows.

> You know nothing about either.

 

Hahaha...that's funny and at the same time a rather pathetic statement

coming from a loser like who now recognizes that you've bitten off more

than you could chew.

Careful you don't choke!

Frank

>

Erwin Moller wrote:

> MICHAEL wrote:

>> * Erwin Moller:

>>> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our

>>>>>>>> express

>>>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>>>> group and

>>>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating

>>>>>>> system

>>>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't.

>>>>>>> You have

>>>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>>>> behind your

>>>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make

>>>>>>> changes to the

>>>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>>>> happen

>>>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and

>>>>>>> find

>>>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for

>>>>>> compatibility

>>>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple

>>>>>> desktops, this

>>>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>>>

>>>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and

>>>> M$ has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>>>

>>>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>>

>>

>>> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

>>> Reliable source of information you got...

>>

>> No, Netcraft is not owned by Microsoft.

>> Netcraft isn't based in the US, either.

>> However, some in the Linux community think they are

>> or would like to believe they are because they don't

>> like Netcraft's statistical conclusions. Some question

>> their methodology.

>>

>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> Yes, I know that article. My statement that Netcraft is owned by M$ was

> over the top/false, I know, but something is very smelly about the

> Netcraft stats.

>

> Considering Microsofts long list of manipulations of statistics, the

> Netcrafts statistics really starts to smell.

>

> What is most suspicious (to me) is the fact that Security Space has

> completely different result, and their method of indexing makes sense.

> Counting only sites that have at least one link from another well-known

> site, thus excluding stupid (Google)farm sites.

>

> Well, you read the article (and comments) yourself I guess. :)

>

> Anyway, as an oldfart webdeveloper I found that Apache is vastly

> superior to IIS(6/7), both in performance and stability. Not to mention

> security. -)

>

 

<That's a flat out lie what you're talking not only about Win 2k3 server

and IIS7, but the rest of this garbage you are dribbling. You lied about

M$ and Netcraft. So, as far as I am concerned, you have no credibility

from this point and no telling what lies will come from you.>

 

<You are a lier and you are not credible.>

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Michael Solomon wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fcdlk7$kq7$1@aioe.org...

>> Frank wrote:

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>>> paid for.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software,

>>> you've only leased the option to use it.

>>

>> So says Redmond. I don't agree. I paid for it and it's in my house and

>> therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

>>

>>> >

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>> To email me, remove shoes

> Alias, it's not just Redmond. Most commercial software companies view

> their product as licensed to the public but owned by them, the corporate

> entity, IP owner, etc.

>

 

Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the licensing

scam bandwagon. It will be their downfall if they don't change it. The

music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public image

was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted music CD from

Sony?). The jury is still out on whether big corporate software

companies will wake up or not.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Re: Eriwin's problem

 

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea3a6c$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Mrs. Alias wrote:

>> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

>> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

>> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

>> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

>> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

>> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

>> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting

>> to

>> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer.

>> There

>> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>>

>> Just FYI.

>

>

> Didn't you post this same great original stale joke allready??

> Stop wasting bandwidth and get a job or something.

> You are behaving like a six year old who just lost his chocolatebar.

>

Look who is talking about wasting bandwidth - By the way, I haven't used my

allotment yet this month. Just FYI. You are acting like a 3 year old with

his finger up his A$$. Just FYI.

 

> Erwin Moller

Re: Your Problem

 

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea4642$0$226$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Mrs. Alias wrote:

>> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

>> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

>> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

>> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

>> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

>> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

>> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting

>> to

>> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer.

>> There

>> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>>

>> Just FYI.

>>

>

>

> Again the same posting?

>

> Are you being paid per word by M$?

 

Just FYI, the "team" has given me permission to intercept your postings.

Just FYI.

>

> Erwin Moller

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Alias wrote:

 

> Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the licensing

> scam bandwagon.

 

Really? Licensing software usage is a scam huh? Where did you get that

little gem of information from? Or did you just dream it up in your own

isolated mind?

 

It will be their downfall if they don't change it.

 

Ahhh...the crystal ball deal huh?

 

The

> music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public image

> was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted music CD from

> Sony?).

 

Sony did it to themselves and they along are the ones who did it.

But you obviously don't have any respect at all for the person(s) who

wrote, sang, manufactured and distributed the music do you.

 

The jury is still out on whether big corporate software companies will

wake up or not.

 

Big software companies? You think they are the only ones concerned with

not having their software ripped off?

You're the one who needs to wake up!

Frank

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:32:44 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> In addition to you not having any respect for customers having

>> documented problems with Vista...

>You're referring to yourself of course.

 

I'm referring to the untold masses that have reported problems. You

really should learn how to use Google Frankie instead of squeezing

your eyes shut tightly pretending Vista has no problems.

>you obviously have no respect for the American legal system either.

>

>

>WTF does that mean?

 

Based on what you said, you now snipped. Typical Frankie tactic.

 

The truth is you're just a putz.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:32:44 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>

>>Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>

>>>In addition to you not having any respect for customers having

>>>documented problems with Vista...

>

>

>>You're referring to yourself of course.

>

>

> I'm referring to the untold masses that have reported problems.

 

Nah...you're referring only to yourself. You don't give sh*t about

anyone else.

 

You

> really should learn how to use Google Frankie instead of squeezing

> your eyes shut tightly pretending Vista has no problems.

 

Oh, we had some initial issues, but we over came them and have used work

arounds if necessary.

unlike you, we don't whine......we do...we take action and overcome and

resolve.

>

>

>>you obviously have no respect for the American legal system either.

>>

>>

>>WTF does that mean?

>

>

> Based on what you said, you now snipped. Typical Frankie tactic.

 

Pathetic...you've become what you are...nothing but a backroom little

lying accountant trying to cook the books.

>

> The truth is you're just a putz.

 

Not even a cap for the "P", huh?

You lose...you're defeated...too bad.

Frank

Shouldn't you say, Instead of reading the EULA, you should install Ubuntu

because it won't cost a dime? Just FYI.

 

 

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.09.14.15.49.02.572274@zianet.com...

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:14:57 +0200, Alias wrote:

>

>> You can bet your sweet a$$ they do:

>>

>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9036058&intsrc=hm_list

>

> It might be your computer, but it's not your OS - if you run MS - read the

> EULA!

>

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>

>> Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the licensing

>> scam bandwagon.

>

> Really? Licensing software usage is a scam huh?

 

Yep.

> Where did you get that

> little gem of information from?

 

Simple logic.

> Or did you just dream it up in your own

> isolated mind?

 

You're not expected to understand.

>

> It will be their downfall if they don't change it.

>

> Ahhh...the crystal ball deal huh?

 

You're not expected to understand cause and effect either.

>

> The

>> music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public image

>> was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted music CD from

>> Sony?).

>

> Sony did it to themselves and they along are the ones who did it.

> But you obviously don't have any respect at all for the person(s) who

> wrote, sang, manufactured and distributed the music do you.

 

I have never used Kazaa, Napster or any other music downloading site. I

buy my CDs and then rip them to the computer.

>

> The jury is still out on whether big corporate software companies will

> wake up or not.

>

> Big software companies?

 

Hey, the man is learning to read!

> You think they are the only ones concerned with

> not having their software ripped off?

 

Did I say that? No, you're trying to put words in my mouth again.

> You're the one who needs to wake up!

> Frank

 

Another insulting, lying and blustering post by Frank.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>> Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the licensing

>>> scam bandwagon.

>>

>>

>> Really? Licensing software usage is a scam huh?

>

>

> Yep.

>

>> Where did you get that little gem of information from?

>

>

> Simple logic.

>

>> Or did you just dream it up in your own isolated mind?

>

>

> You're not expected to understand.

>

>>

>> It will be their downfall if they don't change it.

>>

>> Ahhh...the crystal ball deal huh?

>

>

> You're not expected to understand cause and effect either.

>

>>

>> The

>>

>>> music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public

>>> image was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted music

>>> CD from Sony?).

>>

>>

>> Sony did it to themselves and they along are the ones who did it.

>> But you obviously don't have any respect at all for the person(s) who

>> wrote, sang, manufactured and distributed the music do you.

>

>

> I have never used Kazaa, Napster or any other music downloading site. I

> buy my CDs and then rip them to the computer.

>

>>

>> The jury is still out on whether big corporate software companies will

>> wake up or not.

>>

>> Big software companies?

>

>

> Hey, the man is learning to read!

>

>> You think they are the only ones concerned with not having their

>> software ripped off?

>

>

> Did I say that? No, you're trying to put words in my mouth again.

>

>> You're the one who needs to wake up!

>> Frank

>

>

> Another insulting, lying and blustering post by Frank.

>

 

Another ignorant, confused and totally meaningless response from alias.

So what's new?

Frank

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:21 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

 

>Oh, we had some initial issues, but we over came them and have used work

>arounds if necessary.

>unlike you, we don't whine......we do...we take action and overcome and

>resolve.

>>

 

You don't whine? All you do day in, day out is whine! You are the

biggest UNPAID Microsoft kiss-ass, stooge and all around putz on the

planet.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:21 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>

>

>>Oh, we had some initial issues, but we over came them and have used work

>>arounds if necessary.

>>unlike you, we don't whine......we do...we take action and overcome and

>>resolve.

>>

>

> You don't whine? All you do day in, day out is whine! You are the

> biggest UNPAID Microsoft kiss-ass, stooge and all around putz on the

> planet.

>

 

hehehe...dance for us adam...lol!

Frank

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the licensing

>>>> scam bandwagon.

>>>

>>>

>>> Really? Licensing software usage is a scam huh?

>>

>>

>> Yep.

>>

>>> Where did you get that little gem of information from?

>>

>>

>> Simple logic.

>>

>>> Or did you just dream it up in your own isolated mind?

>>

>>

>> You're not expected to understand.

>>

>>>

>>> It will be their downfall if they don't change it.

>>>

>>> Ahhh...the crystal ball deal huh?

>>

>>

>> You're not expected to understand cause and effect either.

>>

>>>

>>> The

>>>

>>>> music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public

>>>> image was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted music

>>>> CD from Sony?).

>>>

>>>

>>> Sony did it to themselves and they along are the ones who did it.

>>> But you obviously don't have any respect at all for the person(s) who

>>> wrote, sang, manufactured and distributed the music do you.

>>

>>

>> I have never used Kazaa, Napster or any other music downloading site.

>> I buy my CDs and then rip them to the computer.

>>

>>>

>>> The jury is still out on whether big corporate software companies

>>> will wake up or not.

>>>

>>> Big software companies?

>>

>>

>> Hey, the man is learning to read!

>>

>>> You think they are the only ones concerned with not having their

>>> software ripped off?

>>

>>

>> Did I say that? No, you're trying to put words in my mouth again.

>>

>>> You're the one who needs to wake up!

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> Another insulting, lying and blustering post by Frank.

>>

>

> Another ignorant,

 

Lie.

> confused

 

Another lie.

> and totally meaningless response from alias.

 

A lie and an insult.

> So what's new?

> Frank

 

Nothing, Frank, you're still insulting, lying and blustering. You offer

*nothing* constructive to this news group.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> Yeah, there are a lot of companies that have hopped on the

>>>>> licensing scam bandwagon.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Really? Licensing software usage is a scam huh?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Yep.

>>>

>>>> Where did you get that little gem of information from?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Simple logic.

>>>

>>>> Or did you just dream it up in your own isolated mind?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> You're not expected to understand.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> It will be their downfall if they don't change it.

>>>>

>>>> Ahhh...the crystal ball deal huh?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> You're not expected to understand cause and effect either.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> The

>>>>

>>>>> music industry is finally waking up after realizing their public

>>>>> image was on a par with Scrooge (care to buy a root kit fitted

>>>>> music CD from Sony?).

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Sony did it to themselves and they along are the ones who did it.

>>>> But you obviously don't have any respect at all for the person(s)

>>>> who wrote, sang, manufactured and distributed the music do you.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I have never used Kazaa, Napster or any other music downloading site.

>>> I buy my CDs and then rip them to the computer.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> The jury is still out on whether big corporate software companies

>>>> will wake up or not.

>>>>

>>>> Big software companies?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Hey, the man is learning to read!

>>>

>>>> You think they are the only ones concerned with not having their

>>>> software ripped off?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Did I say that? No, you're trying to put words in my mouth again.

>>>

>>>> You're the one who needs to wake up!

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Another insulting, lying and blustering post by Frank.

>>>

>>

>> Another ignorant,

>

>

> Lie.

>

>> confused

>

>

> Another lie.

>

>> and totally meaningless response from alias.

>

>

> A lie and an insult.

>

>> So what's new?

>> Frank

>

>

> Nothing, Frank, you're still insulting, lying and blustering. You offer

> *nothing* constructive to this news group.

>

 

 

You need to stop your incessant lying.

You've been warned about it many times before.

Grow up, ok?

Frank

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Erwin Moller"

> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

> message news:46ea87ee$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote

>>> in message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>

>>>> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

>>>> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring

>>>> alarmbells is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every

>>>> GNU/Linux distro for that matter).

>>>>

>>>> This is a HUGE difference.

>>>

>>> The past says that is just not true.

>>

>> ???

>>

>>> If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and

>>> still exist in open source code.

>>

>> How do you conclude that there are NO bugs if a few people look at the

>> open source code?

>> I am not claiming GNU/Linux contains no bugs. Of course it does!

>>

>> I am only saying that the nature of the process (of open sourcecode )

>> makes it almost impossible to put in stealthy/spylike stuff.

>> Sooner or later somebody will discover this.

>> In many cases: sooner.

>

> Just as they found the bugs that are still there?

 

To be honest: I get the impression you cannot name one bug on a *nix

system because you never touched one.

But I am sure you can Google up a few.

 

> What you say doesn't fit with real life.

 

I don't know where your 'real life' is, but it must be somewhere else

than where I am.

 

How many exploits/backdoors/etc are released for W$ OS, and how many on

nixes?

 

Why the huge difference?

> If these people really can exaimin the code and understand it they would

> also find the bugs..

 

I can tell you are not a programmer by profession. I am.

A bug ranges from a stupid typo in the sourcecode to a very obscure

seldom seen behaviour.

Depending on how you look at it you can say most code contains bugs.

 

The ultimate bottomline is how bad the bug is. Will the app fail is some

seldom met situation (eg on a W95 OS, running a particular printer), or

will the bug open up unforseen admin-blessed authentication for

everybody who approaches the computer via the net?

 

As far as building in Spyware: I repeat this is almost impossible for

all major *nix distros.

 

Nobody stops you from building your distro that contains tons of

spyware, but untill now, none were seen.

As for W$....

 

Once again: I want to stress that the nature of having your sourcecode

open in the wild makes the software better.

 

 

as you know they don't find the bugs so why do you

> have so much faith in them finding a few lines of malicious code?

 

That is hard to explain to a non programmer.

So you'll have to take my word for it, but I doubt you will.

 

>

>>

>>

>>> If all those people can't spot the bugs why would you expect them to

>>> spot any other code?

>>> What you say is a nice idea but just doesn't work.

>>

>> Just doesn't work?

>> GNU/Linux doesn't work?

>> well.....

>> I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

>

> I have explained it as simple as I know how above.

>

 

Your explaination was too simple. Sorry.

Another problem is the facts: Goos *nix have always been better/more

secure than whatever flagship M$ shipped.

That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of counting

securitybreaches.

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

Re: Your Problem

 

Ezmerelda LaDouche wrote:

> "Erwin Moller"

> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

> message news:46ea4642$0$226$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>> Mrs. Alias wrote:

>>> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

>>> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

>>> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

>>> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

>>> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

>>> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

>>> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting

>>> to

>>> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer.

>>> There

>>> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>>>

>>> Just FYI.

>>>

>>

>> Again the same posting?

>>

>> Are you being paid per word by M$?

>

> Just FYI, the "team" has given me permission to intercept your postings.

> Just FYI.

>

 

What team?

What is there to intercept?

I am posting to a puclic group.

Your team, whatever it is, must be state-of-the-art. Intercepting a

public usenet posting. Neat trick!

 

And what is with that 'just FYI' after everything you write?

Something the docter ordered?

 

I lost your 'line of thought' completely by now (if such a thing exists).

Sorry.

 

Erwin Moller

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ee48c8$0$242$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46ea87ee$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote

>>>> in message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>>

>>>>> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

>>>>> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring

>>>>> alarmbells is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every

>>>>> GNU/Linux distro for that matter).

>>>>>

>>>>> This is a HUGE difference.

>>>>

>>>> The past says that is just not true.

>>>

>>> ???

>>>

>>>> If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and still

>>>> exist in open source code.

>>>

>>> How do you conclude that there are NO bugs if a few people look at the

>>> open source code?

>>> I am not claiming GNU/Linux contains no bugs. Of course it does!

>>>

>>> I am only saying that the nature of the process (of open sourcecode )

>>> makes it almost impossible to put in stealthy/spylike stuff.

>>> Sooner or later somebody will discover this.

>>> In many cases: sooner.

>>

>> Just as they found the bugs that are still there?

>

> To be honest: I get the impression you cannot name one bug on a *nix

> system because you never touched one.

 

I have written kernel code in Unix before but why would that make it so I

should be able to name bugs?

I have found some and had them fixed by Unix providers too but I still don't

know their names.

Maybe you have pet names for them?.. I do not.

> But I am sure you can Google up a few.

 

My ability to use google or not doesn't have any effect on the existence of

the bugs.

However your inability to use google is clouding your judgement and you are

just toeing the party line when you say the code being published makes it

impossible for there to be malicious code it there.

 

>

>

>> What you say doesn't fit with real life.

>

> I don't know where your 'real life' is, but it must be somewhere else than

> where I am.

>

> How many exploits/backdoors/etc are released for W$ OS, and how many on

> nixes?

 

That is totally irrelevant.

Why is it when the faults in unix that you claim don't exist are pointed

out, you result to comparing it to something else?

>

> Why the huge difference?

>

>> If these people really can exaimin the code and understand it they would

>> also find the bugs..

>

> I can tell you are not a programmer by profession. I am.

> A bug ranges from a stupid typo in the sourcecode to a very obscure seldom

> seen behaviour.

> Depending on how you look at it you can say most code contains bugs.

>

> The ultimate bottomline is how bad the bug is. Will the app fail is some

> seldom met situation (eg on a W95 OS, running a particular printer), or

> will the bug open up unforseen admin-blessed authentication for everybody

> who approaches the computer via the net?

 

It has nothing at all to do with this argument.

It quite simple..

you claim that because the code is published it is impossible to hide

malicious code..

I say it is not.

I have offered the fact that the people that can view the code don't find

the bugs so why would they find a bit of malicious code?

You just try and divert the argument onto something else.

>

> As far as building in Spyware: I repeat this is almost impossible for all

> major *nix distros.

 

Well thats a change it was impossible earlier.

>

> Nobody stops you from building your distro that contains tons of spyware,

> but untill now, none were seen.

> As for W$....

>

> Once again: I want to stress that the nature of having your sourcecode

> open in the wild makes the software better.

 

There is little evidence to support this..

The source code for the telephone exchange I worked on is not published but

its far more reliable than any published code that you can show me.

So you can forget that argument as I know its not true.

> as you know they don't find the bugs so why do you

>> have so much faith in them finding a few lines of malicious code?

>

> That is hard to explain to a non programmer.

> So you'll have to take my word for it, but I doubt you will.

 

I doubt if anything you "know" could convince me.. I have decided that I

can't trust what you say.