Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You don't even know when you've lost the argument.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ahahaha...you don't even know when you lost the battle...you fool.

>>>>>> Frank

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Frank's M.O.:

>>>>>

>>>>> 1. Engage in personal attacks

>>>>> 2. Set up straw arguments

>>>>> 3. Use red herrings

>>>>> 4. Ignore posts which refute his claims

>>>>> 5. When reminded that his claims have been refuted, demand that the

>>>>> posts be reposted

>>>>> 6. Play victim

>>>>> 7. Declare himself winner of the debate

>>>>> 9. Threaten his perceived enemies with Hell

>>>>> 10. Claim that pointing out invalid methods of "debate" is an ad

>>>>> hominem

>>>>> 11. Repeat ad nauseam

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> alias m.o.

>>>> 1) Lie.

>>>> 2) More lies.

>>>> 3) Keep on lying.

>>>> 4) Deny you're lying.

>>>> 5) Lie some more.

>>>> 6) Admit you're a lair.

>>>> 7) Deny your a liar.

>>>> 8) Lie some more.

>>>> 9) Accuse others of insults.

>>>> 10) Accuse others of blustering.

>>>> 11) Then lie about being caught lying.

>>>> Repeat as necessary..i.e., ever day, in every post.

>>>>

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Yet Frank can't come up with one single lie I have told. Everyone act

>>> surprised.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>>

>> You must be suffering from dementia, or else you think you can now,

>> once again, lie your way out of another lie.

>> You are one pathetic piece of sh*t.

>> Frank

>>

>> Oh, and everyone is not at all surprise that you'd try and lie your

>> way out of another one of your lies.

>> You are sick!

>

>

> Like I said, Frank can't come up with one single lie I have told and all

> he can do is repeat the same tired, cliché and insult riddled refrain.

>

> Alias

 

You have a real and apparent sickness. We've already been down this

road. You've already publicly admitted to lying cause you were caught by

me and others, remember? Try google, it's all there in writing.

Otherwise just continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Frank

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:56:27 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:28:06 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>> You answered your own argument Donald...

>>>

>>>

>>>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>>>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>>>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>>>> supportable.

>>> So what do you call it when Microsoft summarily removes your access to

>>> your computer, your data and the operating system you have paid to use?

>>>

>>> Where was the court when your system was deactivated...

 

There is no such process as "deactivation" connected with Windows,

Charlie.

 

I have never seem this process you refer to. My OS remains activated.

BTW, Microsoft has the RIGHT to "summarily remove FULL access" to

theirr "OS. They have NO RIGHT to "summarily remove access" to "your

computer."

 

You have complete control of your machine at all times. Don't believe

me? Remove Windows, and replace it with another OS. You will STILL

have "FULL ACCESS" to your machine.

>>

>> Again, Mr. Tame, where's your proof?

>> F.U.D. are not admissable in court as evidence, Charlie.

>

>

>The proof is that as you admit your system was deactivated with no

>warning based on the assumption that you were guilty of something.

 

Sir, I have NEVER, at ANYTIME made such a statement ANYWHERE. Why?

Because it is not something which happens in the world we call

"reality." There is NO WAY to "deactivate" Windows. Unless, of

course, you speak a different language than we do, and define

"deactivate" differently from the rest of the world.

>You are obviously willing to accept that

IN no way am I willing to accept your lie, at any time.

>so I trust your confinement at Guantanamo on the grounds that you

 

If that were truthful, I could understand what you are trying to say.

However, it is simply not. In any case, I have no wish to get into a

political argument with you.

 

Just trust me when I say that I am a strict purist when it comes to

the U.S. Constitution (especially the first 10 Amendments), while Mr.

Bush and Co. are all a bunch of plotters and conspirators.

 

Please do not lump me in with that criminal bunch. There are exactly

two intelligent people in the bunch: The Vice-President, and

Condolezza Rice. Too bad they are using their considerable intellects

to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

>"Might" be a terrorist and there's no

>need to provide any evidence for that will also meet with you approval.

 

Since I am NOT a Constitutional scholar of any kind, and am especially

not an attorney who practices before the Supreme Court, any such

approval is not mine to give or receive in ANY OTHER WAY than through

the Ballot-Box.

 

Since you are neither a Constitutional scholar (or, apparently a

scholar of ANY kind), nor are you a Supreme Court Justice, I would not

want your approval anyway. And if you were to give it, I would simply

ignore it, since it would be coming from someone who has no right or

ability to give it in the first place..

 

If you were an attorney and mine, I would immediately give you your

"walking papers", since you have absolutely no legal or political

knowledge which is worth a spit. You would do me much more harm than

good.

 

Donald L McDaniel

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:20 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

>>> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>>> copy?

>>>>>

>>>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>>>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>>>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

>>> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

>>> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

>>> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

>>> deserve it or not.

>>>

>>> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

>>> Unlike many others.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel.

>> Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post. Daniel, you are so

>> out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

>> customers' satisfaction'!

>

> Evidently, sir, YOU seem to be the one who is out of touch with

> reality, since you cannot even tell the difference between a surname

> and a Christian name.

 

And the person to whom you are replying is not a "sir", sir.

>

> I have been using Microsoft OSes since the 80's, and have never found

> Microsoft to be uncommitted to their customer's satisfaction.

>

> Donald L McDaniel

 

You must be blind.

 

Alias

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:38:26 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I know

>>>>>> windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep getting an icon

>>>>>> come up saying i need to activate windows. When i put my product key in i am

>>>>>> told it is already in use. It is definitely the right product key and if it

>>>>>> is already in use i must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I

>>>>>> have 25 days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft

>>>>>> gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>> something you bought.

>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a thief

>>> until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by phone, you

>>> will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>

>>> the tech asks me two

>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>

>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>> type:

>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>> machine at once.

>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>> copy?

>>>

>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>> something you bought"?

>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the point

>>> of doing it?

 

Of course I'm not saying that, friend. It would be a rather stupid

statement to make, considering that even Microsoft says that

Activation is not guaranteed, UNLESS you have a valid license, and you

are exercising your license in a valid manner.

 

If your license IS valid, AND you are exercising it in a valid manner,

activation IS guaranteed.

>>>

>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>

Ok, "Alias", then, if that is what you wish.

I just can't call you Alias, since it is certainly not your true name.

>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>

>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>> someone else.

>>>

>>>> Again, friend,

>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software."

>>>>

>>>> This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>>

>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>

>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>

>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>> of ownership".

>>>>

>>>> It's simply a "license to install and use /the software/ on one or

>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>

>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution?

>>>>

>>>> Personally, I believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him, but is

>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>

>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>

>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and there is

>>>>> no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up with. Check it

>>>>> out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>

>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>

>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>> Sad.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or whatever

>>> your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to accuse paying

>>> customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise and expect stay in

>>> business.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>

>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>> my stay on the earth.

>>

>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>> supportable.

>>

>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>

>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>> or more witnesses."

>>

>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>> witnesses."

>>

>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>> these newsgroups.

>>

>> But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>> than I deserve over the years.

>>

>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but twice, or MS

>will make it impossible for you to use the copy of Windows that you

>bought, that is called assuming you are guilty of piracy until you prove

>otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS FUD, have accused me of piracy

>with no proof.

 

First, sir, I have made no such accusation.

I DID suggest that if you actually feel "guilty" of piracy when

someone just SUGGESTS the possibility, the existence of rightly-placed

guilt existing in your heart increases.

 

People usually feel guilt for two reasons:

1) They actually ARE guilty of what they FEEL guilty about.

2) They have a form of mental illness which exibits itself in false

guilt. People like this usually wind up "confessing" to every crime

committed by others.

 

I personally have never experienced this false guilt. If I feel

guilty, the chances of my being guilty approach certainty.

 

Friend, NO ONE can "make" you feel guilty, contrary to your delusions.

Either you ARE guilty, or you arent. If you FEEL guilt when you

actually AREN'T, you definitely have a mental illness, or you are

listening to the Devil (who IS "The Accuser" by nature, BTW), or you

do not recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit, who "convinces the

World of [their] sin [i.e., the world's crimes], of [God's or our]

righteousness, and [His righteous] judgments [about the world's sin

and crimes]".

 

"Accuse" and "convince" are two different concepts. Satan accuses,

while the Spirit of TRUTH speaks the TRUTH, and CONVINCES the guilty

of their guilt.

>MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

 

I've never heard them say any such thing, sir. If you did, perhaps you

might want to see a psychiatrist about it? He or she should be able

to give you a good medication which will help to control your

delusions and hallucinations.

 

Or have a good heart-felt talk with His Son, Jesus Christ, who is

really concerned about your guilt, and the method for removing it. He

has no wish for you to live in guilt, either misplaced guilt, or guilt

you rightly deserve, and has provided a way for you to escape it.

 

Donald L. McDaniel

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

wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

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

>> wrote:

>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

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

>>>> DiBoy' wrote:

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired.

>>>>>>>> I know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When

>>>>>>>> i put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission

>>>>>>> to use something you bought.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>> which

>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>

>>>>> Which is more than they need to ask their paying customers and it

>>>>> violates privacy.

>>>>>

>>>>> When you call for activation, being an educated consumer is

>>>>> beneficial.

>>>>> Quoted from the MS website:

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_facts.mspx

>>>>>

>>>>> "Mandatory Product Activation Data

>>>>>

>>>>> * The Installation ID is unique to each product and comprises two

>>>>> components:

>>>>>

>>>>> 1. Product ID. Unique to the product key used during installation

>>>>> 2. Hardware hash. Non-unique representation of the PC

>>>>>

>>>>> * The country in which the product is being installed (for

>>>>> Office XP and Office XP family products only)"

>>>>>

>>>>> You are never required to provide any other info in order to get

>>>>> activated. The agent is required to activate you immediately if you

>>>>> phone in and provide only the product ID, hardware hash, and

>>>>> occasionally the country in which the product(s) is being

>>>>> installed! It is none of their business if you made hardware

>>>>> changes, why you are reinstalling, etc and you do not need to

>>>>> answer questions like that.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Which as I keep saying comes back to one simple question, what's the

>>>> point? Mine us that each time online activation (Which is far less

>>>> of a nuisance and provides MS with just as much data as requested

>>>> above) is declined I remove the offending version of Windows and

>>>> replace it with a version of Linux. That surely makes Microsoft very

>>>> happy, doesn't it?

>>>>

>>>> Ask yourself who is punishing who here, sure as hell isn't me

>>>> hurting any :)

>>>

>>> That's because you are in the know Charlie. It is there to

>>> intimidate computer illiterate paying customers into buying another

>>> copy of vista.

>>>

>>

>> Well that may be true and work once, but next time a WINDOWS UPDATE

>> changes a driver and invalidates their system even the most easily

>> intimidated are going to ask WTF, do I have to buy a new copy every

>> month :)

>>

>> It was imperative when this concept was introduced that there be no

>> false positives, the first time MS had to apologize for false

>> positives (Which has happened of course) doomed the technology and

>> highlighted the fact that BS are no more capable or writing flawless

>> code than anyone else, it also demonstrated an "Apparent" attitude

>> that indicates MS don't care about inconveniencing their users. As

>> I've said before, I fully support attempts to combat serious and

>> malicious piracy but there's a need for some logic in the solution.

>>

>> The worst of this situation is that ordinary folks do not understand

>> what's going on, but the malicious thieves and less than honest users

>> - the very same ones causing the problem in the first place - can find

>> ways to beat it in no time at all. Heaven knows what it costs to

>> maintain this massive system but it seems to me to be an extraordinary

>> waste of money since those genuinely caught by it were never going to

>> pay anyway and those accidentally caught by it aren't going to keep

>> paying for more of the same :)

>

> Everything you say here could be entirely accurate, but all of it

> happens as a result of their buggy DRM.

>

 

 

Well long term this is what may happen.

 

At this time most folk wanting an app will grab a popular one, and MS

have that sewn up as there are far more developers trying to make a

living out of Windows platform than others.

 

However, as more and more either cannot use "Borrowed" platforms and get

this hassle, and more and more legit users get this hassle, it seems

logical that, to put it bluntly, many people will simply give up using

Windows at all if it can be avoided. This creates emails to developers

saying "When you doing the Linux / Mac / Solaris port?"

 

As numbers increase many may just port their stuff, and as more and more

becomes available the train gathers momentum. If MS are not exceedingly

careful they will inflict upon themselves a double whammy.

 

..Net won't stop this because although Visual Studio is nice to use for

managed code etc if people want to write other stuff to port VS may not

be the best thing to use, heck Java is always waiting in the wings and

that's not provided by amateur coders in some nondescript .org.

 

So it could well be that MS is going to stop people using Windows

illegally and there still be consequences. :)

"Alias" <akaalias@nospam.com> wrote in message news:fj1cgl$b2c$1@aioe.org...

> Frank wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>> You don't even know when you've lost the argument.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Ahahaha...you don't even know when you lost the battle...you fool.

>> Frank

>

> Frank's M.O.:

>

> 1. Engage in personal attacks

> 2. Set up straw arguments

> 3. Use red herrings

> 4. Ignore posts which refute his claims

> 5. When reminded that his claims have been refuted, demand that the

> posts be reposted

> 6. Play victim

> 7. Declare himself winner of the debate

> 9. Threaten his perceived enemies with Hell

> 10. Claim that pointing out invalid methods of "debate" is an ad

> hominem

> 11. Repeat ad nauseam

>

> Alias

 

Hi Frank.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:13:51 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:06:45 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you keep

>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>

>> Crap!! I thought you guys had been called on that comparison of a

>> Ford and a License to an OS too many times already. I guess you just

>> never learn, do you?

>>

>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

 

So NOW you are comparing the Police (who do have the right to arrest

and detain, according to the Constitution) with Microsoft, Inc.,. who

have no such rights?

>>>>>>

>> Normally, when one changes scenarios in a Usenet thread, he also

>> changes the Subject, since that is what he is actually doing.

>>

>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>> activation?

>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>

>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>

>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>

>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>

>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>

>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending on the

>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money.

 

That is a decision the users made, isn't it? In otherwords, the USERS

who use high-priced telecommunications (rather than POTS or cheaper

plans) cause the high prices they have to pay for a 5 or 10 minute

call, not Microsoft. Microsoft has made their servers available to

the widest possible audience for FREE. They should be commended for

it, not criticized.

>>

>> If I had a cell phone contract like that, I would change providers

>> quickly.

>>

>>>> Money they shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of the

>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears that

>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>

>> Well, if that were what they were doing, I could see where you're

>> coming from. But of course, "prove" is a legal term, and does not

>> exist outside a Courtroom.

>>

>> Since Microsoft Activation Servers do not in any way "judge" the

>> legality or illegality of a particular license, not being a part of

>> the Legal Systems of nations where they exist, your statement is

>> obviously nothing but F.U.D.

>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> As I said clearly (I think) it has nothing in this case to do with

>>> Governments or Blackwater, except for the fact that given "Implied"

>>> permission for one thing large organizations will take that permission

>>> for other things.

 

I tend to agree that any citizen who fails to find fault with that is

not a very good citizen, and deserves what he gets. But again, what

does this have to do with Windows Product Activation?

>>>

>>> We now accept having to "Prove" our innocence every few weeks, days,

>>> whatever - and yet as the reply suggests no questions are asked so what

>>> does this system achieve?

 

Unlike you, I do not have to prove anything, since I am not guilty.

Guilt or innocense do not come from without, but from within.

Either one IS guilty, or he is innocent.

 

Going before a judge and jury are for men only. God knows whether one

is intriniscally guilty or innocent. And HE will have the last word.

>> Again, you speak from ignorance, rather than truth.

>> Activation is NOT a "legal process" of any kind. It is simply a

>> mechanism for helping insure that one has a valid license, and is

>> using it legitimately.

>

>And that is not a legal judgment, oh but wait, is is a judgment of

>"Legitimacy". I stand corrected then, I now see a huge difference.

 

Microsoft can make no laws, sir, since they are not part of the

Government. Windows Product Activation is not a "legal process", nor

are our licenses "Laws". They are created according to the advice of

attorneys, which will hopefully stand up in a court of Law. Otherwise,

they cannot enforce or make US or State legislation. Only a judge in

a court of Law can make a "Judgment of Law".

 

HOWEVER, Microsoft's officers, like all citizens, have the right to

collect evidence which may be presented in a court of Law.

>The comparison with Ford is in fact quite valid, though not perfect. If

>you lease a car the leasing agent will normally try to contact you

>exhaustively before repossession. Not so with only 3 days to deal with

>the problem. Then you simply call and promise the check is in the mail

>and they let you have it back... don't think so. I think they wait until

>they have some evidence of non payment before they repossess and then

>whatever hoops one has to jump through to get the vehicle back are your

>own problem.

 

Since you put it your comparison in that light, I must agree with you.

Microsoft LEASES their OS to us, just as a leasing agency is wont to

do. WE have ONLY the right to USE it according to their terms, not

ours.

>You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only one

>copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person

 

There will always be dishonest persons, or good persons who feel they

have to be dishonest to have their way. There is no way to avoid this

by ANYONE. Even the Creator faces this fact..

 

By the way, our licenses do give us the right to make one or more

archival copies, which may be used according to our licenses. But you

have misunderstood what I've said, sir.

>will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?"

 

Dishonest people lie for a simple reason: They are liars.

>If there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying,

And here you get to the crux of the matter: with WGA and WPA, there

will never be a greater majority lying than those who have legitimate

keys, so your hypothesis is really stupid.

>who ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can bet

>it will be the single honest user.

 

If the problem is that bad, then maybe Microsoft SHOULD slam the door.

It's their property, anyway, isn't it?

 

But honesty ALWAYS pays a good dividend. I have no doubt of that.

While we are constrained by the terms of our licenses, Microsoft is

also constrained by the same terms. Our licenses tell us we will have

no worries if we do it Microsoft's way. I see nothing wrong, immoral,

or illegal with the arrangement. If you do, perhaps you need to

change your moral compass setting 180 degrees.

 

Donald L. McDaniel

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:44:00 -0800, Frank <fb@jr.kmo> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fivfvm$3df$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>

>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the

>>>>>>>> activation process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say"

>>>>>>>> you have only one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the

>>>>>>>> dishonest person will say that anyway, which brings us neatly

>>>>>>>> back to "What use is it?" If there are 100 people using the same

>>>>>>>> product key, 99 of them lying, who ultimately gets to lose out

>>>>>>>> when MS finally slam the door? You can bet it will be the single

>>>>>>>> honest user.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Whoop dee doo.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>>>>>> customer.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> So anti customer that you run XP.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> No WGA on my XP machine. You haven't figured out how to keep that off

>>>> your machine? LOL! Just because I activated it doesn't mean that I

>>>> liked it.

>>>

>>>

>>>>> So anti customer that most don't care.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> You and MS are very wrong about that.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> No you are making your world more important than everyone else's.

>>> This results in you assuming your limited experience is what happens

>>> everywhere.

>>> Exactly the same attitude that has held linux back since it started,

>>> "of course its easy, I do it ten times a day".

>>> What is it about some linux users that makes them think they are the

>>> center of the world and that everyone's experience is the same as theirs?

>>

>>

>> Dennis gets refuted so, naturally, he resorts to unfounded insults.

>>

>> Check mate.

>>

>> Alias

>

>hehehe...he's perfectly nailed your stupid fringe ass. You friggin

>atheist linux lying loser.

>Frank

 

I really like that alliteration, Frank.

Let's hear a few more like that one.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:43:19 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> See below...

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>> type:

>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you keep

>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>>>>>

>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>> activation?

>>>>

>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>

>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>

>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>> circustances.

>>>>

>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>

>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>

>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending on the

>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of the

>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears that

>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>

>>> Cheers.

>>

>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>> experience for me.

>>

>> Cheers

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason for

>MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

>not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

>the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

>are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the main

>reason I am running Ubuntu.

 

As usual, your "arguments" are more unfounded rumour and innuendo.

BTW, I NEVER see any such "force", nor have I ever. I have NEVER felt

as if I were being "forced" by Microsoft to do anything. I realize

that Microsoft has the right to institute measures to help combat

piracy, since I approved of the terms of my license whole-heartedly

when I installed the OS for the first time.

 

Microsoft is NOT "forcing paying customers" to do anything. They ARE

requiring ALL consumers of Windows to prove they have legit licenses,

IF they wish to continue using them, which is well-within THEIR

rights..

>The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>perfectly normal.

 

No sir, the truly sad thing is that people like you exist on the

earth, who think the Universe revolves around THEIR needs, wants,

desires, and lusts..

 

Hmmmm...

I wouldn't use the terms "perfectly normal", since I do not believe in

the concept of "perfection" this side of the Resurrection.

 

Nor do believe in the concept of "normal", since there is no such

thing. I am convinced that each person is a unique individual, as

Christian scriptures teach.

 

While I do not believe either WPA or WGA are "perfectly normal", I DO

see their "necessity" at this point in the history of Microsoft to

enable their legitimate customers to obtain the best value for their

money..

 

Perhaps, more criminals will die soon, and then the world will be a

safer place for the rest of us.

 

We can only hope.

 

Donald L. McDaniel

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:44:00 -0800, Frank <fb@jr.kmo> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>>"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>news:fivfvm$3df$1@aioe.org...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>>>news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>You are the one who published here the instructions for the

>>>>>>>>>activation process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say"

>>>>>>>>>you have only one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the

>>>>>>>>>dishonest person will say that anyway, which brings us neatly

>>>>>>>>>back to "What use is it?" If there are 100 people using the same

>>>>>>>>>product key, 99 of them lying, who ultimately gets to lose out

>>>>>>>>>when MS finally slam the door? You can bet it will be the single

>>>>>>>>>honest user.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Whoop dee doo.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>>>>>>>customer.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>So anti customer that you run XP.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>No WGA on my XP machine. You haven't figured out how to keep that off

>>>>>your machine? LOL! Just because I activated it doesn't mean that I

>>>>>liked it.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>>So anti customer that most don't care.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>You and MS are very wrong about that.

>>>>>

>>>>>Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>No you are making your world more important than everyone else's.

>>>>This results in you assuming your limited experience is what happens

>>>>everywhere.

>>>>Exactly the same attitude that has held linux back since it started,

>>>>"of course its easy, I do it ten times a day".

>>>>What is it about some linux users that makes them think they are the

>>>>center of the world and that everyone's experience is the same as theirs?

>>>

>>>

>>>Dennis gets refuted so, naturally, he resorts to unfounded insults.

>>>

>>>Check mate.

>>>

>>>Alias

>>

>>hehehe...he's perfectly nailed your stupid fringe ass. You friggin

>>atheist linux lying loser.

>>Frank

>

>

> I really like that alliteration, Frank.

> Let's hear a few more like that one.

 

:-D

Frank

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:34:26 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you

>>>>>> keep

>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>> activation?

>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>

>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>

>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>

>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>

>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>

>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending

>>>> on the

>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of

>>>> the

>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears

>>>> that

>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>

>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>> experience for me.

>>>

>>> Cheers

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>

>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy.

 

No, sir, I am being what I am: a conscientious individual who loves

freedom and truth.

 

But I apparently have something many don't appear to possess in these

times: a CONSCIENCE.

>>There is no reason for

>> MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

>> not.

Who are YOU to think for Microsoft? Evidently there IS at least ONE

reason: The past behavior of run-of-the-mill pre-activation users of

Windows. Until WPA was instituted, MOST copies of Windows were

"casual copies" passed from hand to hand. IN this day of fairly

anomyous Peer2Peer-networks, WPA and WGA are absolute NECESSITIES.

>>If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

>> the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

>> are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the main

>> reason I am running Ubuntu.

 

If you can't have it for free, or you have to be willing to PROVE you

own it, you don't want it? Sounds fishy to me.

>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>> perfectly normal.

 

NO, but we DO have legal licenses, so we have no fear of loss, unlike

many others.

>> Alias

>

>

>Actually it is very like the relaxation in domestic spying and patriot

>act laws. People who have not done any wrong think it doesn't apply to

>them,

Actually, anyone who thinks only laws that they break are applicable

to them is really a fool. That's the beauty of Laws: They apply to

EVERYONE, indiscriminantely.

 

But those who OBEY the Law have no need to fear its negative

consequences

..

>which indeed it should not apply to them, however the agencies

>like FBI, CIA etc have no way to know who it applies to - so in fact the

>overall effect is to make us all suspects.

>

>I haven't stolen Vista, I am sure Donald hasn't, but Microsoft do not

>know, so they assume we have until we satisfy them that we have not.

>

You certainly sound British to me, sir. Here in the States we do not

use plural verbs with collective names . We use singular verbs in

almost all cases.

 

We would say "But Microsoft DOES not know...".

>While we have been discussing this 1000 pirate copies hit the streets in

>China.

I assure you, more "casual copies" of Pre-XP Windows OSes hit the

streets than a thousand "pirated" ones.

>It is very easy for Governments to claim "The innocent have nothing to

>fear" because that is what we would like to think, but what that does is

>push the burden of proof from the authorities onto the innocent.

 

There you are right. But since Microsoft is not a government in any

way, your statement makes no sense.

>Given the way that the apparently innocent WGA has grown with WPA into a

>kill switch

 

That sir, is definitely not so, since such a "kill switch" does not

exist in the real world, but only the strange, shadow-world of

anti-MIcrosoft bigots..

>one has to wonder where this is going, and Microsoft risks

>losing the helpful friendly face ordinary people expect.

 

I've certainly found that face to be helpful to this ordinary person.

>As I keep saying, MS do have a right to pursue this course if they wish,

>we have a right to avoid it

 

As you claim to have done? If you HAVE, what's it to you if the

greater majority don't really care one way or the other?

 

>and that may not be good for business. If I

 

Apparently, it's not been bad for Microsoft. Everyone is always

forecasting their ultimate demise. I've not seen this yet. Perhaps

those Doom-sayers might take a few lessons from the Right-Wing

Evangelicals of the 20th Century, who were continually forecasting the

imminent return of Christ, but were actually full of horse manure.

 

At least, they seem to have made a profit from their lies. Where's

YOURS?

>were in the developer business my reaction would be to start using some

>multi platform development system, Eclipse, Java, something like that so

>as people rebel my market does not suffer. The bad side effect for MS is

>that where some software is now only available for Windows that will

>change because Developers now have a good reason for writing multi platform.

>

>What Donald and other are basically asking for is for Microsoft to bury

>themselves,

 

Please do not lump me in with such idiots, sir. I believe I've

sufficiently proven my widsom (what little I do possess).

 

I ask Microsoft for only a single thing: a drastically lower price.

>and love 'em or hate 'em that would be a bad things for the

>industry, to say nothing of their 1000s of employees.

>

>This "Nothing to fear if you are innocent" is the biggest swindle going,

>and politics is riddled with the same misconceptions.

 

Sir, such a statement is far from being a "swindle". It is a FACT OF

REALITY. A greater man than both of us said it this way: "There is

nothing to fear but fear itself."

 

St. Paul says the same thing, but uses different words: "Do what is

RIGHT, and you will have no reason to fear the Authorities, since they

aren't put on the Earth for their own pleasure, but bear the Sword of

Justice on God's behalf, for His Purpose." What THEY think about it

is completely irrelevant to God. He has HIS plans, and they will be

unfolded at His convenience, not ours, in spite of ANY plans or plots

we might hatch..

 

Of course, that is my paraphrase, so if you want, you can find fault

with my interpretation. But I do believe I have been a faithful

conduit for his spirit to be translated into words modern folks can

easily understand. If you find fault with his spirit, you find fault

with the One Spirit Who indwells us all. That Spirit, hopefully, is

the Spirit of Christ, Who is the Son of the Living God, and God

Himself.

 

Anyway, I've diverged.

 

The point is, there is no need to fear hardships of any kind, whether

we deserve them or not, if we have no guilt weighing our consciences

down.

 

Donald L. McDaniel

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:20 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

>>> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>>> copy?

>>>>>

>>>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>>>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>>>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

>>> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

>>> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

>>> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

>>> deserve it or not.

>>>

>>> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

>>> Unlike many others.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel.

>> Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post. Daniel, you are so

>> out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

>> customers' satisfaction'!

>

> Evidently, sir, YOU seem to be the one who is out of touch with

> reality, since you cannot even tell the difference between a surname

> and a Christian name.

 

LOL, 'sir'? Not the last time I checked. Your reading comprehension

skills must be as good, you address me as a male when I have a female name.

>

> I have been using Microsoft OSes since the 80's, and have never found

> Microsoft to be uncommitted to their customer's satisfaction.

>

> Donald L McDaniel

 

This would be the difference between you and most of the rest of the

world. Your reality from what you are espousing here is the same view

of 'reality' that those with their head up MS's collective arse have.

 

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:38:26 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I know

>>>>>>> windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep getting an icon

>>>>>>> come up saying i need to activate windows. When i put my product key in i am

>>>>>>> told it is already in use. It is definitely the right product key and if it

>>>>>>> is already in use i must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I

>>>>>>> have 25 days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft

>>>>>>> gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>> something you bought.

>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a thief

>>>> until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by phone, you

>>>> will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>>

>>>> the tech asks me two

>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>

>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>> type:

>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>> machine at once.

>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>> copy?

>>>>

>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the point

>>>> of doing it?

>

> Of course I'm not saying that, friend. It would be a rather stupid

> statement to make, considering that even Microsoft says that

> Activation is not guaranteed, UNLESS you have a valid license, and you

> are exercising your license in a valid manner.

>

> If your license IS valid, AND you are exercising it in a valid manner,

> activation IS guaranteed.

 

But its buggy DRM software. There is no guarantee.

>

>>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>>

> Ok, "Alias", then, if that is what you wish.

> I just can't call you Alias, since it is certainly not your true name.

>

>>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>>

>>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>>> someone else.

>>>>

>>>>> Again, friend,

>>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software."

>>>>>

>>>>> This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>>>

>>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>>

>>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>>> of ownership".

>>>>>

>>>>> It's simply a "license to install and use /the software/ on one or

>>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>>

>>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution?

>>>>>

>>>>> Personally, I believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him, but is

>>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>>

>>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>>

>>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and there is

>>>>>> no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up with. Check it

>>>>>> out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

>>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>>

>>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>>

>>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>>> Sad.

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or whatever

>>>> your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to accuse paying

>>>> customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise and expect stay in

>>>> business.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>>

>>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>>> my stay on the earth.

>>>

>>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>>> supportable.

>>>

>>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>>

>>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>>> or more witnesses."

>>>

>>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>>> witnesses."

>>>

>>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>>> these newsgroups.

>>>

>>> But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>>> than I deserve over the years.

>>>

>>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>> If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but twice, or MS

>> will make it impossible for you to use the copy of Windows that you

>> bought, that is called assuming you are guilty of piracy until you prove

>> otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS FUD, have accused me of piracy

>> with no proof.

>

> First, sir, I have made no such accusation.

> I DID suggest that if you actually feel "guilty" of piracy when

> someone just SUGGESTS the possibility, the existence of rightly-placed

> guilt existing in your heart increases.

>

> People usually feel guilt for two reasons:

> 1) They actually ARE guilty of what they FEEL guilty about.

> 2) They have a form of mental illness which exibits itself in false

> guilt. People like this usually wind up "confessing" to every crime

> committed by others.

>

> I personally have never experienced this false guilt. If I feel

> guilty, the chances of my being guilty approach certainty.

>

> Friend, NO ONE can "make" you feel guilty, contrary to your delusions.

> Either you ARE guilty, or you arent. If you FEEL guilt when you

> actually AREN'T, you definitely have a mental illness, or you are

> listening to the Devil (who IS "The Accuser" by nature, BTW), or you

> do not recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit, who "convinces the

> World of [their] sin [i.e., the world's crimes], of [God's or our]

> righteousness, and [His righteous] judgments [about the world's sin

> and crimes]".

 

Oh sheese, here with go with your low reading comprehension again.

Below is a dictionary reference to the definition of guilt. Read the

first listing a few times until you really understand:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guilt

 

guilt

–noun

1. the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation,

or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law culpability: He admitted his

guilt.

2. a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime,

wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

3. conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.: to

live a life of guilt.

>

> "Accuse" and "convince" are two different concepts. Satan accuses,

> while the Spirit of TRUTH speaks the TRUTH, and CONVINCES the guilty

> of their guilt.

>

>> MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>

> I've never heard them say any such thing, sir. If you did, perhaps you

> might want to see a psychiatrist about it? He or she should be able

> to give you a good medication which will help to control your

> delusions and hallucinations.

>

> Or have a good heart-felt talk with His Son, Jesus Christ, who is

> really concerned about your guilt, and the method for removing it. He

> has no wish for you to live in guilt, either misplaced guilt, or guilt

> you rightly deserve, and has provided a way for you to escape it.

>

> Donald L. McDaniel

 

LOL! Alias is an atheist (as I understand).

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:13:51 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:06:45 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you keep

>>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>> Crap!! I thought you guys had been called on that comparison of a

>>> Ford and a License to an OS too many times already. I guess you just

>>> never learn, do you?

>>>

>>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>

> So NOW you are comparing the Police (who do have the right to arrest

> and detain, according to the Constitution) with Microsoft, Inc.,. who

> have no such rights?

>

>>> Normally, when one changes scenarios in a Usenet thread, he also

>>> changes the Subject, since that is what he is actually doing.

>>>

>>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>>> activation?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>>

>>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending on the

>>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money.

>

> That is a decision the users made, isn't it? In otherwords, the USERS

> who use high-priced telecommunications (rather than POTS or cheaper

> plans) cause the high prices they have to pay for a 5 or 10 minute

> call, not Microsoft. Microsoft has made their servers available to

> the widest possible audience for FREE.

 

Until the servers go down:

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/08/25/windows-genuine-advantage-validation-servers-down/

> They should be commended for

> it, not criticized.

>

>>> If I had a cell phone contract like that, I would change providers

>>> quickly.

>>>

>>>>> Money they shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of the

>>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears that

>>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>> Well, if that were what they were doing, I could see where you're

>>> coming from. But of course, "prove" is a legal term, and does not

>>> exist outside a Courtroom.

>>>

>>> Since Microsoft Activation Servers do not in any way "judge" the

>>> legality or illegality of a particular license, not being a part of

>>> the Legal Systems of nations where they exist, your statement is

>>> obviously nothing but F.U.D.

>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> As I said clearly (I think) it has nothing in this case to do with

>>>> Governments or Blackwater, except for the fact that given "Implied"

>>>> permission for one thing large organizations will take that permission

>>>> for other things.

>

> I tend to agree that any citizen who fails to find fault with that is

> not a very good citizen, and deserves what he gets. But again, what

> does this have to do with Windows Product Activation?

>>>> We now accept having to "Prove" our innocence every few weeks, days,

>>>> whatever - and yet as the reply suggests no questions are asked so what

>>>> does this system achieve?

>

> Unlike you, I do not have to prove anything, since I am not guilty.

> Guilt or innocense do not come from without, but from within.

> Either one IS guilty, or he is innocent.

>

> Going before a judge and jury are for men only. God knows whether one

> is intriniscally guilty or innocent. And HE will have the last word.

>

>>> Again, you speak from ignorance, rather than truth.

>>> Activation is NOT a "legal process" of any kind. It is simply a

>>> mechanism for helping insure that one has a valid license, and is

>>> using it legitimately.

>> And that is not a legal judgment, oh but wait, is is a judgment of

>> "Legitimacy". I stand corrected then, I now see a huge difference.

>

> Microsoft can make no laws, sir, since they are not part of the

> Government. Windows Product Activation is not a "legal process", nor

> are our licenses "Laws". They are created according to the advice of

> attorneys, which will hopefully stand up in a court of Law. Otherwise,

> they cannot enforce or make US or State legislation. Only a judge in

> a court of Law can make a "Judgment of Law".

>

> HOWEVER, Microsoft's officers, like all citizens, have the right to

> collect evidence which may be presented in a court of Law.

 

But they don't for home consumers. They are too chicken their DRM BS

would not stand up in court.

>

>> The comparison with Ford is in fact quite valid, though not perfect. If

>> you lease a car the leasing agent will normally try to contact you

>> exhaustively before repossession. Not so with only 3 days to deal with

>> the problem. Then you simply call and promise the check is in the mail

>> and they let you have it back... don't think so. I think they wait until

>> they have some evidence of non payment before they repossess and then

>> whatever hoops one has to jump through to get the vehicle back are your

>> own problem.

>

> Since you put it your comparison in that light, I must agree with you.

> Microsoft LEASES their OS to us, just as a leasing agency is wont to

> do. WE have ONLY the right to USE it according to their terms, not

> ours.

 

And MS should not be trampling all over our fair use rights with their

license, but they do anyway.

>

>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only one

>> copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person

>

> There will always be dishonest persons, or good persons who feel they

> have to be dishonest to have their way. There is no way to avoid this

> by ANYONE. Even the Creator faces this fact..

>

> By the way, our licenses do give us the right to make one or more

> archival copies, which may be used according to our licenses. But you

> have misunderstood what I've said, sir.

>

>> will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?"

>

> Dishonest people lie for a simple reason: They are liars.

>

>> If there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying,

> And here you get to the crux of the matter: with WGA and WPA, there

> will never be a greater majority lying than those who have legitimate

> keys, so your hypothesis is really stupid.

>

>> who ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can bet

>> it will be the single honest user.

>

> If the problem is that bad, then maybe Microsoft SHOULD slam the door.

> It's their property, anyway, isn't it?

 

So you obviously think that MS should screw their paying customers. Now

that is what I call true customer satisfaction - NOT!

>

> But honesty ALWAYS pays a good dividend. I have no doubt of that.

> While we are constrained by the terms of our licenses, Microsoft is

> also constrained by the same terms. Our licenses tell us we will have

> no worries if we do it Microsoft's way. I see nothing wrong, immoral,

> or illegal with the arrangement. If you do, perhaps you need to

> change your moral compass setting 180 degrees.

>

> Donald L. McDaniel

 

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:43:19 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you keep

>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>> activation?

>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>

>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>

>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>

>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>

>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>

>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending on the

>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of the

>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears that

>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>> experience for me.

>>>

>>> Cheers

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason for

>> MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

>> not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

>> the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

>> are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the main

>> reason I am running Ubuntu.

>

> As usual, your "arguments" are more unfounded rumour and innuendo.

> BTW, I NEVER see any such "force", nor have I ever. I have NEVER felt

> as if I were being "forced" by Microsoft to do anything. I realize

> that Microsoft has the right to institute measures to help combat

> piracy, since I approved of the terms of my license whole-heartedly

> when I installed the OS for the first time.

>

> Microsoft is NOT "forcing paying customers" to do anything. They ARE

> requiring ALL consumers of Windows to prove they have legit licenses,

 

Force, require, what is the difference?

> IF they wish to continue using them, which is well-within THEIR

> rights..

>

>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>> perfectly normal.

>

> No sir, the truly sad thing is that people like you exist on the

> earth, who think the Universe revolves around THEIR needs, wants,

> desires, and lusts..

>

> Hmmmm...

> I wouldn't use the terms "perfectly normal", since I do not believe in

> the concept of "perfection" this side of the Resurrection.

>

> Nor do believe in the concept of "normal", since there is no such

> thing. I am convinced that each person is a unique individual, as

> Christian scriptures teach.

>

> While I do not believe either WPA or WGA are "perfectly normal", I DO

> see their "necessity" at this point in the history of Microsoft to

> enable their legitimate customers to obtain the best value for their

> money..

>

> Perhaps, more criminals will die soon, and then the world will be a

> safer place for the rest of us.

>

> We can only hope.

 

It's sad you support the death penalty.

>

> Donald L. McDaniel

 

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

Charlie Tame wrote:

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

> wrote:

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>> Hi,

>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I

>>>>> know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i must

>>>>> be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25 days

>>>>> left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft

>>>>> gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>

>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>> use something you bought.

>>>

>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>

>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>

>> Which is more than they need to ask their paying customers and it

>> violates privacy.

>>

>> When you call for activation, being an educated consumer is beneficial.

>> Quoted from the MS website:

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_facts.mspx

>>

>> "Mandatory Product Activation Data

>>

>> * The Installation ID is unique to each product and comprises two

>> components:

>>

>> 1. Product ID. Unique to the product key used during installation

>> 2. Hardware hash. Non-unique representation of the PC

>>

>> * The country in which the product is being installed (for Office

>> XP and Office XP family products only)"

>>

>> You are never required to provide any other info in order to get

>> activated. The agent is required to activate you immediately if you

>> phone in and provide only the product ID, hardware hash, and

>> occasionally the country in which the product(s) is being installed!

>> It is none of their business if you made hardware changes, why you are

>> reinstalling, etc and you do not need to answer questions like that.

>

>

> Which as I keep saying comes back to one simple question, what's the

> point? Mine us that each time online activation (Which is far less of a

> nuisance and provides MS with just as much data as requested above) is

> declined I remove the offending version of Windows and replace it with a

> version of Linux. That surely makes Microsoft very happy, doesn't it?

 

:)

>

> Ask yourself who is punishing who here, sure as hell isn't me hurting

> any :)

 

Well, I agree that MS is shooting themselves in the foot with their

buggy DRM.

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

Charlie Tame wrote:

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

> wrote:

>> Charlie Tame wrote:

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

>>> DiBoy' wrote:

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired.

>>>>>>> I know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>>>

>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>

>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>

>>>> Which is more than they need to ask their paying customers and it

>>>> violates privacy.

>>>>

>>>> When you call for activation, being an educated consumer is beneficial.

>>>> Quoted from the MS website:

>>>>

>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_facts.mspx

>>>>

>>>> "Mandatory Product Activation Data

>>>>

>>>> * The Installation ID is unique to each product and comprises two

>>>> components:

>>>>

>>>> 1. Product ID. Unique to the product key used during installation

>>>> 2. Hardware hash. Non-unique representation of the PC

>>>>

>>>> * The country in which the product is being installed (for

>>>> Office XP and Office XP family products only)"

>>>>

>>>> You are never required to provide any other info in order to get

>>>> activated. The agent is required to activate you immediately if you

>>>> phone in and provide only the product ID, hardware hash, and

>>>> occasionally the country in which the product(s) is being

>>>> installed! It is none of their business if you made hardware

>>>> changes, why you are reinstalling, etc and you do not need to answer

>>>> questions like that.

>>>

>>>

>>> Which as I keep saying comes back to one simple question, what's the

>>> point? Mine us that each time online activation (Which is far less of

>>> a nuisance and provides MS with just as much data as requested above)

>>> is declined I remove the offending version of Windows and replace it

>>> with a version of Linux. That surely makes Microsoft very happy,

>>> doesn't it?

>>>

>>> Ask yourself who is punishing who here, sure as hell isn't me hurting

>>> any :)

>>

>> That's because you are in the know Charlie. It is there to intimidate

>> computer illiterate paying customers into buying another copy of vista.

>>

>

> Well that may be true and work once, but next time a WINDOWS UPDATE

> changes a driver and invalidates their system even the most easily

> intimidated are going to ask WTF, do I have to buy a new copy every

> month :)

>

> It was imperative when this concept was introduced that there be no

> false positives, the first time MS had to apologize for false positives

> (Which has happened of course) doomed the technology and highlighted the

> fact that BS are no more capable or writing flawless code than anyone

> else, it also demonstrated an "Apparent" attitude that indicates MS

> don't care about inconveniencing their users. As I've said before, I

> fully support attempts to combat serious and malicious piracy but

> there's a need for some logic in the solution.

>

> The worst of this situation is that ordinary folks do not understand

> what's going on, but the malicious thieves and less than honest users -

> the very same ones causing the problem in the first place - can find

> ways to beat it in no time at all. Heaven knows what it costs to

> maintain this massive system but it seems to me to be an extraordinary

> waste of money since those genuinely caught by it were never going to

> pay anyway and those accidentally caught by it aren't going to keep

> paying for more of the same :)

 

Everything you say here could be entirely accurate, but all of it

happens as a result of their buggy DRM.

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

For whatever it's worth--

Ran into activation problems with Office 07 Pro version.

Seems to be some sort of activation server problem as well as some issue

within Office 07 after the updates are applied.

Understand that the key and off 07 copy used are not only genuine, they were

obtained directly from Microsoft. Part of the problem may be due to the OEM

student teacher trial version commonly shipped with an OEM Vista loaded P/C.

Evidently the office uninstall process does not fully clean up things. Nor

does the install process work correctly when you select a non default

location to install, when a previous copy (but a different level) was

installed at the default locations.

 

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

news:u97ntlhNIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

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

> wrote:

>> Charlie Tame wrote:

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

>>> wrote:

>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

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

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I

>>>>>>>>> know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Which is more than they need to ask their paying customers and it

>>>>>> violates privacy.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When you call for activation, being an educated consumer is

>>>>>> beneficial.

>>>>>> Quoted from the MS website:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_facts.mspx

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Mandatory Product Activation Data

>>>>>>

>>>>>> * The Installation ID is unique to each product and comprises two

>>>>>> components:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 1. Product ID. Unique to the product key used during installation

>>>>>> 2. Hardware hash. Non-unique representation of the PC

>>>>>>

>>>>>> * The country in which the product is being installed (for Office

>>>>>> XP and Office XP family products only)"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You are never required to provide any other info in order to get

>>>>>> activated. The agent is required to activate you immediately if you

>>>>>> phone in and provide only the product ID, hardware hash, and

>>>>>> occasionally the country in which the product(s) is being installed!

>>>>>> It is none of their business if you made hardware changes, why you

>>>>>> are reinstalling, etc and you do not need to answer questions like

>>>>>> that.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Which as I keep saying comes back to one simple question, what's the

>>>>> point? Mine us that each time online activation (Which is far less of

>>>>> a nuisance and provides MS with just as much data as requested above)

>>>>> is declined I remove the offending version of Windows and replace it

>>>>> with a version of Linux. That surely makes Microsoft very happy,

>>>>> doesn't it?

>>>>>

>>>>> Ask yourself who is punishing who here, sure as hell isn't me hurting

>>>>> any :)

>>>>

>>>> That's because you are in the know Charlie. It is there to intimidate

>>>> computer illiterate paying customers into buying another copy of vista.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Well that may be true and work once, but next time a WINDOWS UPDATE

>>> changes a driver and invalidates their system even the most easily

>>> intimidated are going to ask WTF, do I have to buy a new copy every

>>> month :)

>>>

>>> It was imperative when this concept was introduced that there be no

>>> false positives, the first time MS had to apologize for false positives

>>> (Which has happened of course) doomed the technology and highlighted the

>>> fact that BS are no more capable or writing flawless code than anyone

>>> else, it also demonstrated an "Apparent" attitude that indicates MS

>>> don't care about inconveniencing their users. As I've said before, I

>>> fully support attempts to combat serious and malicious piracy but

>>> there's a need for some logic in the solution.

>>>

>>> The worst of this situation is that ordinary folks do not understand

>>> what's going on, but the malicious thieves and less than honest users -

>>> the very same ones causing the problem in the first place - can find

>>> ways to beat it in no time at all. Heaven knows what it costs to

>>> maintain this massive system but it seems to me to be an extraordinary

>>> waste of money since those genuinely caught by it were never going to

>>> pay anyway and those accidentally caught by it aren't going to keep

>>> paying for more of the same :)

>>

>> Everything you say here could be entirely accurate, but all of it happens

>> as a result of their buggy DRM.

>>

>

>

> Well long term this is what may happen.

>

> At this time most folk wanting an app will grab a popular one, and MS have

> that sewn up as there are far more developers trying to make a living out

> of Windows platform than others.

>

> However, as more and more either cannot use "Borrowed" platforms and get

> this hassle, and more and more legit users get this hassle, it seems

> logical that, to put it bluntly, many people will simply give up using

> Windows at all if it can be avoided. This creates emails to developers

> saying "When you doing the Linux / Mac / Solaris port?"

>

> As numbers increase many may just port their stuff, and as more and more

> becomes available the train gathers momentum. If MS are not exceedingly

> careful they will inflict upon themselves a double whammy.

>

> .Net won't stop this because although Visual Studio is nice to use for

> managed code etc if people want to write other stuff to port VS may not be

> the best thing to use, heck Java is always waiting in the wings and that's

> not provided by amateur coders in some nondescript .org.

>

> So it could well be that MS is going to stop people using Windows

> illegally and there still be consequences. :)

>

>

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:34:26 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you

>>>>>>> keep

>>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>>> activation?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>>

>>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending

>>>>> on the

>>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of

>>>>> the

>>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears

>>>>> that

>>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>>> experience for me.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy.

>

> No, sir, I am being what I am: a conscientious individual who loves

> freedom and truth.

>

> But I apparently have something many don't appear to possess in these

> times: a CONSCIENCE.

>

>>> There is no reason for

>>> MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

>>> not.

> Who are YOU to think for Microsoft? Evidently there IS at least ONE

> reason: The past behavior of run-of-the-mill pre-activation users of

> Windows. Until WPA was instituted, MOST copies of Windows were

> "casual copies" passed from hand to hand. IN this day of fairly

> anomyous Peer2Peer-networks, WPA and WGA are absolute NECESSITIES.

 

Incorrect. WPA and WGA/N are NOT necessities, and there is no need to

yell, donald. While there might be a necessity for some type of control

to thwart pirates, The buggy DRM that pisses off paying customers is not

the answer.

>

>>> If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

>>> the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

>>> are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the main

>>> reason I am running Ubuntu.

>

> If you can't have it for free, or you have to be willing to PROVE you

> own it, you don't want it? Sounds fishy to me.

>

>>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>>> perfectly normal.

>

> NO, but we DO have legal licenses, so we have no fear of loss, unlike

> many others.

 

I do still have a fear of loss because I could end up like so many

others being one of the 20% of those who had a false positive with WPA

or WGA/N. And that is a reasonable concern.

>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Actually it is very like the relaxation in domestic spying and patriot

>> act laws. People who have not done any wrong think it doesn't apply to

>> them,

> Actually, anyone who thinks only laws that they break are applicable

> to them is really a fool. That's the beauty of Laws: They apply to

> EVERYONE, indiscriminantely.

>

> But those who OBEY the Law have no need to fear its negative

> consequences

> .

>> which indeed it should not apply to them, however the agencies

>> like FBI, CIA etc have no way to know who it applies to - so in fact the

>> overall effect is to make us all suspects.

>>

>> I haven't stolen Vista, I am sure Donald hasn't, but Microsoft do not

>> know, so they assume we have until we satisfy them that we have not.

>>

> You certainly sound British to me, sir. Here in the States we do not

> use plural verbs with collective names . We use singular verbs in

> almost all cases.

>

> We would say "But Microsoft DOES not know...".

>

>> While we have been discussing this 1000 pirate copies hit the streets in

>> China.

> I assure you, more "casual copies" of Pre-XP Windows OSes hit the

> streets than a thousand "pirated" ones.

>

>> It is very easy for Governments to claim "The innocent have nothing to

>> fear" because that is what we would like to think, but what that does is

>> push the burden of proof from the authorities onto the innocent.

>

> There you are right. But since Microsoft is not a government in any

> way, your statement makes no sense.

>

>> Given the way that the apparently innocent WGA has grown with WPA into a

>> kill switch

>

> That sir, is definitely not so, since such a "kill switch" does not

> exist in the real world, but only the strange, shadow-world of

> anti-MIcrosoft bigots..

 

It's called reduced functionality mode.

>

>> one has to wonder where this is going, and Microsoft risks

>> losing the helpful friendly face ordinary people expect.

>

> I've certainly found that face to be helpful to this ordinary person.

 

For the right price.

>

>> As I keep saying, MS do have a right to pursue this course if they wish,

>> we have a right to avoid it

>

> As you claim to have done? If you HAVE, what's it to you if the

> greater majority don't really care one way or the other?

>

>

>> and that may not be good for business. If I

>

> Apparently, it's not been bad for Microsoft. Everyone is always

> forecasting their ultimate demise. I've not seen this yet. Perhaps

> those Doom-sayers might take a few lessons from the Right-Wing

> Evangelicals of the 20th Century, who were continually forecasting the

> imminent return of Christ, but were actually full of horse manure.

>

> At least, they seem to have made a profit from their lies. Where's

> YOURS?

>

>> were in the developer business my reaction would be to start using some

>> multi platform development system, Eclipse, Java, something like that so

>> as people rebel my market does not suffer. The bad side effect for MS is

>> that where some software is now only available for Windows that will

>> change because Developers now have a good reason for writing multi platform.

>>

>> What Donald and other are basically asking for is for Microsoft to bury

>> themselves,

>

> Please do not lump me in with such idiots, sir. I believe I've

> sufficiently proven my widsom (what little I do possess).

>

> I ask Microsoft for only a single thing: a drastically lower price.

>

>> and love 'em or hate 'em that would be a bad things for the

>> industry, to say nothing of their 1000s of employees.

>>

>> This "Nothing to fear if you are innocent" is the biggest swindle going,

>> and politics is riddled with the same misconceptions.

>

> Sir, such a statement is far from being a "swindle". It is a FACT OF

> REALITY. A greater man than both of us said it this way: "There is

> nothing to fear but fear itself."

>

> St. Paul says the same thing, but uses different words: "Do what is

> RIGHT, and you will have no reason to fear the Authorities, since they

> aren't put on the Earth for their own pleasure, but bear the Sword of

> Justice on God's behalf, for His Purpose." What THEY think about it

> is completely irrelevant to God. He has HIS plans, and they will be

> unfolded at His convenience, not ours, in spite of ANY plans or plots

> we might hatch..

>

> Of course, that is my paraphrase, so if you want, you can find fault

> with my interpretation. But I do believe I have been a faithful

> conduit for his spirit to be translated into words modern folks can

> easily understand. If you find fault with his spirit, you find fault

> with the One Spirit Who indwells us all. That Spirit, hopefully, is

> the Spirit of Christ, Who is the Son of the Living God, and God

> Himself.

>

> Anyway, I've diverged.

>

> The point is, there is no need to fear hardships of any kind, whether

> we deserve them or not, if we have no guilt weighing our consciences

> down.

>

> Donald L. McDaniel

 

That is an extremely idealistic, not realistic way of viewing the world.

 

--

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

Submit your nomination at the link below:

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

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"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

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

wrote:

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:34:26 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>> wrote:

 

 

Snipped some that is not relevant to my reply...

 

 

>> But I apparently have something many don't appear to possess in these

>> times: a CONSCIENCE.

 

 

Nobody is saying Piracy is right or even acceptable, but it IS a fact of

life like shoplifting.

 

 

>>>> There is no reason for MS to question whether a paying customer has

>>>> paid for his Windows or not.

>> Who are YOU to think for Microsoft? Evidently there IS at least ONE

>> reason: The past behavior of run-of-the-mill pre-activation users of

>> Windows. Until WPA was instituted, MOST copies of Windows were

>> "casual copies" passed from hand to hand. IN this day of fairly

>> anomyous Peer2Peer-networks, WPA and WGA are absolute NECESSITIES.

>

> Incorrect. WPA and WGA/N are NOT necessities, and there is no need to

> yell, donald. While there might be a necessity for some type of control

> to thwart pirates, The buggy DRM that pisses off paying customers is not

> the answer.

 

 

Quite so.

 

>> NO, but we DO have legal licenses, so we have no fear of loss, unlike

>> many others.

>

> I do still have a fear of loss because I could end up like so many

> others being one of the 20% of those who had a false positive with WPA

> or WGA/N. And that is a reasonable concern.

 

 

Well if MS don't shut the door on anyone (as was claimed earlier) then

it is useless, if they do then how many legal users have to argue their

case and still will have to pay? If in the end nobody has to pay we're

back to useless :)

 

 

>>> Actually it is very like the relaxation in domestic spying and

>>> patriot act laws. People who have not done any wrong think it doesn't

>>> apply to them,

>> Actually, anyone who thinks only laws that they break are applicable

>> to them is really a fool. That's the beauty of Laws: They apply to

>> EVERYONE, indiscriminantely.

>>

>> But those who OBEY the Law have no need to fear its negative

>> consequences

>> .

>>> which indeed it should not apply to them, however the agencies like

>>> FBI, CIA etc have no way to know who it applies to - so in fact the

>>> overall effect is to make us all suspects.

>>>

>>> I haven't stolen Vista, I am sure Donald hasn't, but Microsoft do not

>>> know, so they assume we have until we satisfy them that we have not.

>>>

>> You certainly sound British to me, sir. Here in the States we do not

>> use plural verbs with collective names . We use singular verbs in

>> almost all cases.

 

 

Okay I didn't steal Vista, nor do I intend to, in fact I shred any MSDN

disks I cannot use to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands

should anything get stolen. Note I used the word ensure not insure.

 

>> We would say "But Microsoft DOES not know...".

>>

>>> While we have been discussing this 1000 pirate copies hit the streets

>>> in China.

>> I assure you, more "casual copies" of Pre-XP Windows OSes hit the

>> streets than a thousand "pirated" ones.

>>

>>> It is very easy for Governments to claim "The innocent have nothing

>>> to fear" because that is what we would like to think, but what that

>>> does is push the burden of proof from the authorities onto the innocent.

>>

>> There you are right. But since Microsoft is not a government in any

>> way, your statement makes no sense.

 

 

It was not intended to refer to MS directly, however Governments have

established that paradigm (If that's the right word - if not you surely

know what I mean)

 

>>> Given the way that the apparently innocent WGA has grown with WPA

>>> into a kill switch

>>

>> That sir, is definitely not so, since such a "kill switch" does not

>> exist in the real world, but only the strange, shadow-world of

>> anti-MIcrosoft bigots..

>

> It's called reduced functionality mode.

 

 

Who is anti Microsoft, I base my criticisms on what a paying customer

might experience. If I think MS deserve a kick in the backside I say so,

that does not make me right or wrong, some will agree some will not,

but saying nothing if there "Is" a problem helps nobody, including MS

who think all is going fine and continue to irritate the hell out of people.

 

>>> one has to wonder where this is going, and Microsoft risks losing the

>>> helpful friendly face ordinary people expect.

>>

>> I've certainly found that face to be helpful to this ordinary person.

>

> For the right price.

>

>>

>>> As I keep saying, MS do have a right to pursue this course if they

>>> wish, we have a right to avoid it

>>

>> As you claim to have done? If you HAVE, what's it to you if the

>> greater majority don't really care one way or the other?

 

 

I have principles, and I also believe that the uncaring majority will

have to start caring sooner or later. If they all start caring at once

MS could get an unpleasant shock, and you can rely on Steve Jobs, Google

and various others to take every advantage of that...

 

 

>>> and that may not be good for business. If I

>>

>> Apparently, it's not been bad for Microsoft. Everyone is always

>> forecasting their ultimate demise. I've not seen this yet. Perhaps

>> those Doom-sayers might take a few lessons from the Right-Wing

>> Evangelicals of the 20th Century, who were continually forecasting the

>> imminent return of Christ, but were actually full of horse manure.

>>

>> At least, they seem to have made a profit from their lies. Where's

>> YOURS?

>>

>>> were in the developer business my reaction would be to start using

>>> some multi platform development system, Eclipse, Java, something like

>>> that so as people rebel my market does not suffer. The bad side

>>> effect for MS is that where some software is now only available for

>>> Windows that will change because Developers now have a good reason

>>> for writing multi platform.

>>>

>>> What Donald and other are basically asking for is for Microsoft to

>>> bury themselves,

>>

>> Please do not lump me in with such idiots, sir. I believe I've

>> sufficiently proven my widsom (what little I do possess).

 

 

 

Well I regard annoying paying customers to get back at those who have

not paid and have no intention of ever paying as being a bit suicidal,

and I think you are not looking at all the possibilities, that is by no

means intended as a personal insult, merely stating my view that the

weighting of some recent business decisions has been miscalculated.

 

 

>> I ask Microsoft for only a single thing: a drastically lower price.

>>

>>> and love 'em or hate 'em that would be a bad things for the industry,

>>> to say nothing of their 1000s of employees.

>>>

>>> This "Nothing to fear if you are innocent" is the biggest swindle

>>> going, and politics is riddled with the same misconceptions.

>>

>> Sir, such a statement is far from being a "swindle". It is a FACT OF

>> REALITY. A greater man than both of us said it this way: "There is

>> nothing to fear but fear itself."

 

 

Of course there is something to fear, innocent people have been

executed. It can be very costly in mere financial terms to defend

oneself. Look at such unclear charges as rape for example.

 

>> St. Paul says the same thing, but uses different words: "Do what is

>> RIGHT, and you will have no reason to fear the Authorities, since they

>> aren't put on the Earth for their own pleasure, but bear the Sword of

>> Justice on God's behalf, for His Purpose." What THEY think about it

>> is completely irrelevant to God. He has HIS plans, and they will be

>> unfolded at His convenience, not ours, in spite of ANY plans or plots

>> we might hatch..

>>

>> Of course, that is my paraphrase, so if you want, you can find fault

>> with my interpretation. But I do believe I have been a faithful

>> conduit for his spirit to be translated into words modern folks can

>> easily understand. If you find fault with his spirit, you find fault

>> with the One Spirit Who indwells us all. That Spirit, hopefully, is

>> the Spirit of Christ, Who is the Son of the Living God, and God

>> Himself.

>>

>> Anyway, I've diverged.

>>

>> The point is, there is no need to fear hardships of any kind, whether

>> we deserve them or not, if we have no guilt weighing our consciences

>> down.

>>

>> Donald L. McDaniel

>

> That is an extremely idealistic, not realistic way of viewing the world.

>

 

 

I'll leave that bit of philosophy for someone else to untangle.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:43:17 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:20 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

>> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

>>>> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>>>> copy?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>>>>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>>>>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

>>>> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

>>>> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

>>>> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

>>>> deserve it or not.

>>>>

>>>> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

>>>> Unlike many others.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel.

>>> Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post. Daniel, you are so

>>> out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

>>> customers' satisfaction'!

>>

>> Evidently, sir, YOU seem to be the one who is out of touch with

>> reality, since you cannot even tell the difference between a surname

>> and a Christian name.

>

>And the person to whom you are replying is not a "sir", sir.

 

Then, I am truly sorry, m'am. But considering as to how you use an

alias rather than your true name, and I have no way to extract your

gender from your chosen alias, my mistake is understandable.

>

>>

>> I have been using Microsoft OSes since the 80's, and have never found

>> Microsoft to be uncommitted to their customer's satisfaction.

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>You must be blind.

>

>Alias

 

How does the "old saw" go? "Love is blind".

But Love is also honest about its objects of affection.

 

Because of this honesty, "Love is blind" does not mean "Oblivious to

all your lover's faults". It means "Recognizing all your lover's

faults, and still loving him/her in spite of them."

 

Donald L McDaniel

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:42:12 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:20 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

>> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

>>>> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>>>> copy?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>>>>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>>>>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

 

Question: WHY did you do that? Why didn't you just tell them the

truth? Or would the truth have convicted you of misusing your

license?

 

Honest men are usually willing to believe even the lies of dishonest

men, but dishonest men are never willing to believe the truth.

>>>> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

>>>> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

>>>> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

>>>> deserve it or not.

>>>>

>>>> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

>>>> Unlike many others.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel.

>>> Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post.

>>> Daniel [sic., my name is actually Donald, not Daniel -- or McDaniel, if you prefer

>>> to call me by my father's surname. The Author], you are so

>>> out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

>>> customers' satisfaction'!

>>

>> Evidently, sir, YOU seem to be the one who is out of touch with

>> reality, since you cannot even tell the difference between a surname

>> and a Christian name.

>

>LOL, 'sir'? Not the last time I checked. Your reading comprehension

>skills must be as good, you address me as a male when I have a female name.

 

"Female name"? Where do you get this, friend?

You sign yourself as "The poster who formerly was the poster known as

'Nina DeBoy' ", or some such nonsense. How am I to know from that

that you wish to be referred to in the feminine? For all I know, I

could just as easily interpret your nonsensical alias as meaning you

just had a "gender change" operation, and now wish to be referred to

in the masculine.

 

The fact is, it is NOT PROPER English Grammar to use a gender-specific

alias for the purpose of maintaining anonymity in the Public. To

remain completely anonymous, one's gender must be completely hidden

from the Public. To do this, one must use an alias which contains no

intrinsic gender information, or which contains gender information

consistent with the gender the writer wishes to present

himself/herself to the public as, while hiding his/her true gender and

identity..

 

The difference between YOUR public appelation and MINE is simple:

YOURS is an alias, bearing no actual resemblance to your true name, as

found on your Birth Certificate. Therefore, it in no way identifies

you publically. Aliases are good tools for appearing in public while

maintaining relative anonymity.

 

MINE is my true name, as found on my Birth Certificate, and with the

information on that Certificate of Live Birth, identifies me as Donald

L. McDaniel..

 

Some folks who use aliases quite often:

* snitches

* narcs

* thieves

* adulterers

* gangsters

* some posters on the Usenet who must remain nameless, since they

never use their names

 

Some folks who did not use aliases at all:

* ALL the signers of the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

 

 

 

>

>>

>> I have been using Microsoft OSes since the 80's, and have never found

>> Microsoft to be uncommitted to their customer's satisfaction.

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>This would be the difference between you and most of the rest of the

>world. Your reality from what you are espousing here is the same view

>of 'reality' that those with their head up MS's collective arse have.

 

Hmmm....

I would put that "Your view of reality, as shown by your words in this

thread, is the same view of reality espoused by those with their

collective heads up Microsoft's arse."

 

But if you prefer your confusing view of reality, as shown by your own

words above, that is your perogative.

 

Our written speech is always a clear representation of our grasp on

reality. If we write clearly, it shows that we have a clear view of

reality. If we write confusedly, it shows that we ourselves are

confused.

 

Your words, madame, are certainly confused. Which shows me that you

are confused. I certainly want no part of your confusion, and prefer

my "different" view of reality.

 

Donald McDaniel

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:28:35 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

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

>wrote:

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:34:26 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>> wrote:

>

>

>Snipped some that is not relevant to my reply...

>

>

>

>>> But I apparently have something many don't appear to possess in these

>>> times: a CONSCIENCE.

>

>

>Nobody is saying Piracy is right or even acceptable, but it IS a fact of

>life like shoplifting.

 

Or murder? Or burglary [sic]? Or [insert a crime here]?

All of these are also "facts of life like shoplifting".

Does the fact of their being "facts of life" make them any less

criminal or evil? Of course not.

 

But "Evil abounds where good men do nothing."

>

>

>

>>>>> There is no reason for MS to question whether a paying customer has

>>>>> paid for his Windows or not.

>>> Who are YOU to think for Microsoft? Evidently there IS at least ONE

>>> reason: The past behavior of run-of-the-mill pre-activation users of

>>> Windows. Until WPA was instituted, MOST copies of Windows were

>>> "casual copies" passed from hand to hand. IN this day of fairly

>>> anomyous Peer2Peer-networks, WPA and WGA are absolute NECESSITIES.

>>

>> Incorrect. WPA and WGA/N are NOT necessities, and there is no need to

>> yell, donald. While there might be a necessity for some type of control

>> to thwart pirates, The buggy DRM that pisses off paying customers is not

>> the answer.

>

>

>Quite so.

>

>

>>> NO, but we DO have legal licenses, so we have no fear of loss, unlike

>>> many others.

>>

>> I do still have a fear of loss because I could end up like so many

>> others being one of the 20% of those who had a false positive with WPA

>> or WGA/N. And that is a reasonable concern.

>

>

>Well if MS don't shut the door on anyone (as was claimed earlier) then

>it is useless, if they do then how many legal users have to argue their

>case and still will have to pay? If in the end nobody has to pay we're

>back to useless :)

>

>

>

>>>> Actually it is very like the relaxation in domestic spying and

>>>> patriot act laws. People who have not done any wrong think it doesn't

>>>> apply to them,

>>> Actually, anyone who thinks only laws that they break are applicable

>>> to them is really a fool. That's the beauty of Laws: They apply to

>>> EVERYONE, indiscriminantely.

>>>

>>> But those who OBEY the Law have no need to fear its negative

>>> consequences

>>> .

>>>> which indeed it should not apply to them, however the agencies like

>>>> FBI, CIA etc have no way to know who it applies to - so in fact the

>>>> overall effect is to make us all suspects.

>>>>

>>>> I haven't stolen Vista, I am sure Donald hasn't, but Microsoft do not

>>>> know, so they assume we have until we satisfy them that we have not.

>>>>

>>> You certainly sound British to me, sir. Here in the States we do not

>>> use plural verbs with collective names . We use singular verbs in

>>> almost all cases.

>

>

>Okay I didn't steal Vista, nor do I intend to, in fact I shred any MSDN

>disks I cannot use to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands

>should anything get stolen. Note I used the word ensure not insure.

>

>

>>> We would say "But Microsoft DOES not know...".

>>>

>>>> While we have been discussing this 1000 pirate copies hit the streets

>>>> in China.

>>> I assure you, more "casual copies" of Pre-XP Windows OSes hit the

>>> streets than a thousand "pirated" ones.

>>>

>>>> It is very easy for Governments to claim "The innocent have nothing

>>>> to fear" because that is what we would like to think, but what that

>>>> does is push the burden of proof from the authorities onto the innocent.

>>>

>>> There you are right. But since Microsoft is not a government in any

>>> way, your statement makes no sense.

>

>

>It was not intended to refer to MS directly, however Governments have

>established that paradigm (If that's the right word - if not you surely

>know what I mean)

>

>

>>>> Given the way that the apparently innocent WGA has grown with WPA

>>>> into a kill switch

>>>

>>> That sir, is definitely not so, since such a "kill switch" does not

>>> exist in the real world, but only the strange, shadow-world of

>>> anti-MIcrosoft bigots..

>>

>> It's called reduced functionality mode.

 

Definitely not a "kill switch" by any definition of the phrase. The

term "kill switch" is used for a simple reason: It LOOKS really

"evil", and makes an IMMEDIATE impression on the reader. i.e., "Fear,

Uncertainty, and Doubt".

>

>

>Who is anti Microsoft, I base my criticisms on what a paying customer

>might experience. If I think MS deserve a kick in the backside I say so,

> that does not make me right or wrong, some will agree some will not,

>but saying nothing if there "Is" a problem helps nobody, including MS

>who think all is going fine and continue to irritate the hell out of people.

 

Agreed. We all want a better OS. And Microsoft has gotten monolithic

over the years. They certaintly could use a little excitement and

pizazz in Redmond for a change.

 

Heaven knows their customers want a little excitement after all those

years of beige boxes. That's not entirely Microsoft's fault, of

course. But Microsoft keeps designing OSes around those beige boxes,

which is.

>

>

>>>> one has to wonder where this is going, and Microsoft risks losing the

>>>> helpful friendly face ordinary people expect.

 

I really don't believe this is happening. The more customers they

have to support, the more instances of bad customer service there will

be reported. That's simple Statistics. There is no way around this.

Any company with the customer base of Microsoft will face this

"problem" at one time or another. To expect anything else is

unrealistic and irrational.

>>> I've certainly found that face to be helpful to this ordinary person.

>>

>> For the right price.

 

You got that right: "For the right price..."

>>>

>>>> As I keep saying, MS do have a right to pursue this course if they

>>>> wish, we have a right to avoid it

 

Personally, I believe it is actually down to this:

Those who want to be honest, and those who don't.

Those who want to be honest will continue doing it Microsoft's way,

while those who don't will find another way.

>>> As you claim to have done? If you HAVE, what's it to you if the

>>> greater majority don't really care one way or the other?

>

>

>I have principles, and I also believe that the uncaring majority will

>have to start caring sooner or later.

 

It's not that the majority are "uncaring": rather, the majority are

happy and satisfied, else they WOULD be complaining. Americans are a

bunch of complainers. Always have been, and always will be. It's

unnatural for us to be the "uncaring majority"..

>If they all start caring at once

>MS could get an unpleasant shock,

 

It's gonna be pretty hard to shock Microsoft.

>and you can rely on Steve Jobs,

 

If he has HIS way, computers will ONLY be in the hands of the upper

eschelons of our society. You can rely on Steve JObs, alright. You

can rely on him to make computing more expensive, more exclusive, and

more bland.

 

Bill Gates has done a very powerful thing, in my opinion: He has put

computing into the hands of the common people rather than just the

rich and the Intelligentsia. Because of that one thing, he can do no

wrong in my eyes. Because of that simple thing, the rich and the

Intelligentsia can never control the population as they have done in

the past.

>Google and various others to take every advantage of that...

 

Good. That is exactly what Microsoft wants them to do. Take

advantage of their Operating System. Use it.

>

>

>

>>>> and that may not be good for business. If I

>>>

>>> Apparently, it's not been bad for Microsoft. Everyone is always

>>> forecasting their ultimate demise. I've not seen this yet. Perhaps

>>> those Doom-sayers might take a few lessons from the Right-Wing

>>> Evangelicals of the 20th Century, who were continually forecasting the

>>> imminent return of Christ, but were actually full of horse manure.

>>>

>>> At least, they seem to have made a profit from their lies. Where's

>>> YOURS?

>>>

>>>> were in the developer business my reaction would be to start using

>>>> some multi platform development system, Eclipse, Java, something like

>>>> that so as people rebel my market does not suffer. The bad side

>>>> effect for MS is that where some software is now only available for

>>>> Windows that will change because Developers now have a good reason

>>>> for writing multi platform.

>>>>

>>>> What Donald and other are basically asking for is for Microsoft to

>>>> bury themselves,

>>>

>>> Please do not lump me in with such idiots, sir. I believe I've

>>> sufficiently proven my widsom (what little I do possess).

>

>

>

>Well I regard annoying paying customers to get back at those who have

>not paid and have no intention of ever paying as being a bit suicidal,

>and I think you are not looking at all the possibilities,

 

Think about that for a minute: WHY would Microsoft INTENTIONALLY

"annoy" their paying customers to get back at those who have not

paid."

 

That makes absolutely no sense, as you have suggested. It would be

suicidal. I do not believe that Microsoft is attempting to destroy

itself. While some companies do wind up destroying themselves [most

notable being the company which claimed to own Unix suing everyone and

his brother in the Open Source community over copyright violations]

for idiotic reasons, most have rational counsel. Or, at least they

have better record-keeping. Microsoft has such rational counsel.

>that is by no

>means intended as a personal insult, merely stating my view that the

>weighting of some recent business decisions has been miscalculated.

 

Considering that we do not see all which goes on behind the scenes,

which the officers of Microsoft sift through before making their

business decisions, I really don't believe any of us can make any

accurate judgments about Microsoft's business decisions.

>

>

>>> I ask Microsoft for only a single thing: a drastically lower price.

>>>

>>>> and love 'em or hate 'em that would be a bad things for the industry,

>>>> to say nothing of their 1000s of employees.

>>>>

>>>> This "Nothing to fear if you are innocent" is the biggest swindle

>>>> going, and politics is riddled with the same misconceptions.

>>>

>>> Sir, such a statement is far from being a "swindle". It is a FACT OF

>>> REALITY. A greater man than both of us said it this way: "There is

>>> nothing to fear but fear itself."

>

>

>Of course there is something to fear, innocent people have been

>executed. It can be very costly in mere financial terms to defend

>oneself. Look at such unclear charges as rape for example.

>

>

>>> St. Paul says the same thing, but uses different words: "Do what is

>>> RIGHT, and you will have no reason to fear the Authorities, since they

>>> aren't put on the Earth for their own pleasure, but bear the Sword of

>>> Justice on God's behalf, for His Purpose." What THEY think about it

>>> is completely irrelevant to God. He has HIS plans, and they will be

>>> unfolded at His convenience, not ours, in spite of ANY plans or plots

>>> we might hatch..

>>>

>>> Of course, that is my paraphrase, so if you want, you can find fault

>>> with my interpretation. But I do believe I have been a faithful

>>> conduit for his spirit to be translated into words modern folks can

>>> easily understand. If you find fault with his spirit, you find fault

>>> with the One Spirit Who indwells us all. That Spirit, hopefully, is

>>> the Spirit of Christ, Who is the Son of the Living God, and God

>>> Himself.

>>>

>>> Anyway, I've diverged.

>>>

>>> The point is, there is no need to fear hardships of any kind, whether

>>> we deserve them or not, if we have no guilt weighing our consciences

>>> down.

>>>

>>> Donald L. McDaniel

>>

>> That is an extremely idealistic, not realistic way of viewing the world.

 

I see it entirely differently. I see it as a realistic way of viewing

the world, not just an idealistic one, since it is easily attainable

by ordinary men.

 

Donald

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:43:17 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:20 -0600, The poster formerly known as 'The

>>> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' <none@none.not> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

>>>>> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>>>>>> copy?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>>>>>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>>>>>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

>>>>> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

>>>>> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

>>>>> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

>>>>> deserve it or not.

>>>>>

>>>>> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

>>>>> Unlike many others.

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel.

>>>> Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post. Daniel, you are so

>>>> out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

>>>> customers' satisfaction'!

>>> Evidently, sir, YOU seem to be the one who is out of touch with

>>> reality, since you cannot even tell the difference between a surname

>>> and a Christian name.

>> And the person to whom you are replying is not a "sir", sir.

>

> Then, I am truly sorry, m'am. But considering as to how you use an

> alias rather than your true name, and I have no way to extract your

> gender from your chosen alias, my mistake is understandable.

 

The person to whom you were replying is female, not me.

>

>>> I have been using Microsoft OSes since the 80's, and have never found

>>> Microsoft to be uncommitted to their customer's satisfaction.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>> You must be blind.

>>

>> Alias

>

> How does the "old saw" go? "Love is blind".

> But Love is also honest about its objects of affection.

>

> Because of this honesty, "Love is blind" does not mean "Oblivious to

> all your lover's faults". It means "Recognizing all your lover's

> faults, and still loving him/her in spite of them."

>

> Donald L McDaniel

 

Not applicable.

 

Alias

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>

> MINE is my true name, as found on my Birth Certificate, and with the

> information on that Certificate of Live Birth, identifies me as Donald

> L. McDaniel..

 

So you say but cannot prove. For all we know, your real name is Ronald

McDonald.

 

Alias