• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, sayscritic

J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:

>I thought this part was very funny:
>
>
>
>Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're
>protecting our customers," he said, against newly-developed
>activation cracks that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply
>not been in use, when the PC was originally activated.
>
>[end quote]
You have to recognize, though, that when he says "our customers", he
means victims of counterfeiting - implicitly, deliberate warez-style
pirates are not customers.


>Why do computer users need to be protected against hacks that
>deactivate Microsoft's product activation? Deactivating WPA is a
>good thing. It means less potential for grief. No, the only ones
>Microsoft is protecting here are themselves.
>
>All it means to me is that I can never use Microsoft's automatic
>download, or anything that requires the running of the "Genuine
>Advantage" or whatever else they are calling their piracy-sniffing
>tools these days. I have a completely legitimate copy of Windows
>7, yet these tools are cut off to me, because I don't want to risk
>the screw ups of WPA and associated "security" crap.



Well, I will agree to the extent that in an ideal world, this wouldn't
be necessary. But it's not fair to Microsoft, and more importantly to
victims of counterfeit software, to completely reject it on principle.
There's a principle on both sides.

--
Joel Crump
 
O

Ophelia

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:Idien.65925$Db2.62152@edtnps83...

>
> I thought this part was very funny:
>
>
>
> Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're protecting our
> customers," he said, against newly-developed activation cracks that may
> have slipped by Microsoft, or simply not been in use, when the PC was
> originally activated.
>
> [end quote]
>
> Why do computer users need to be protected against hacks that deactivate
> Microsoft's product activation? Deactivating WPA is a good thing. It means
> less potential for grief. No, the only ones Microsoft is protecting here
> are themselves.
>
> All it means to me is that I can never use Microsoft's automatic download,
> or anything that requires the running of the "Genuine Advantage" or
> whatever else they are calling their piracy-sniffing tools these days. I
> have a completely legitimate copy of Windows 7, yet these tools are cut
> off to me, because I don't want to risk the screw ups of WPA and
> associated "security" crap.
You couldn't make it up could you:(


--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on
>>>>>>>> urls in
>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process
>>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS lying
>>>>> linturd troll you are.
>>>>
>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you use
>>>> Windows.
>>>>
>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.

>>
>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.

>
> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>
>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure you're
>>> now screwed!...LOL!
>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!

>>
>> Not at all...

>
> LIAR!
>
> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>> and over and over again.

>
> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>
> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>> sense that you don't care.

>
> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use free
> (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
> Oops!...LOL!
>>
>>


Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because one
objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically lead to
my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate Frank is to "win".

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on
>>>>>>> urls in
>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe that
>>>>>> when I
>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process
>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no need
>>>>> to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>
>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>
>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>
>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!

>>
>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>

> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.


There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process
>>>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS lying
>>>>>> linturd troll you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you use
>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.
>>>
>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.

>>
>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>
>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>
>>> Not at all...

>>
>> LIAR!
>>
>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>> and over and over again.

>>
>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>
>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>> sense that you don't care.

>>
>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use
>> free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>>

>
> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because one
> objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically lead to
> my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate Frank is to "win".
>

Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
Oops!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click on
>>>>>>>> urls in
>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process
>>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no
>>>>>> need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>
>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>
>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>
>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>

>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.

>
> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>

Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
oops!
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS lying
>>>>>>> linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you use
>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.
>>>>
>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>
>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>
>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>
>>>> Not at all...
>>>
>>> LIAR!
>>>
>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>> and over and over again.
>>>
>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>
>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>
>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use
>>> free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because
>> one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically
>> lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate Frank
>> is to "win".
>>

> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
> Oops!


More leaping logic ... how surprising, NOT.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar process
>>>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no
>>>>>>> need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>
>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>
>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.

>>
>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>

> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
> oops!


And yet even more leaping logic. You've got a problem, Frank.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS lying
>>>>>>>> linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you use
>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>
>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>
>>>> LIAR!
>>>>
>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>
>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>
>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use
>>>> free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because
>>> one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically
>>> lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate Frank
>>> is to "win".
>>>

>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>> Oops!

>
> More leaping logic


....om your part

.... how surprising, NOT.

You got that one right!
>
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no
>>>>>>>> need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>>
>>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.
>>>
>>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>>

>> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
>> oops!

>
> And yet even more leaping logic.


In your delusional dreams.

You've got a problem, Frank.

Yeah, I keep responding to a POS asshole lying loser like you.
Oops!


>
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you use
>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>
>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>
>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use
>>>>> free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because
>>>> one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically
>>>> lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate Frank
>>>> is to "win".
>>>>
>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>> Oops!

>>
>> More leaping logic

>
> ...om your part
>
> ... how surprising, NOT.
>
> You got that one right!
>>


Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am I?"
tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to click
>>>>>>>>>>> on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no
>>>>>>>>> need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.
>>>>
>>>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
>>> oops!

>>
>> And yet even more leaping logic.

>
> In your delusional dreams.
>
> You've got a problem, Frank.
>
> Yeah, I keep responding to a POS asshole lying loser like you.
> Oops!
>
>
>>


No, you can't think logically.

--
Alias
 
P

paul_36

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

On 2010-02-16, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>
>>I thought this part was very funny:
>>
>>
>>
>>Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're
>>protecting our customers," he said, against newly-developed
>>activation cracks that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply
>>not been in use, when the PC was originally activated.
>>
>>[end quote]
>
>
> You have to recognize, though, that when he says "our customers", he
> means victims of counterfeiting - implicitly, deliberate warez-style
> pirates are not customers.
>
>
>>Why do computer users need to be protected against hacks that
>>deactivate Microsoft's product activation? Deactivating WPA is a
>>good thing. It means less potential for grief. No, the only ones
>>Microsoft is protecting here are themselves.
>>
>>All it means to me is that I can never use Microsoft's automatic
>>download, or anything that requires the running of the "Genuine
>>Advantage" or whatever else they are calling their piracy-sniffing
>>tools these days. I have a completely legitimate copy of Windows
>>7, yet these tools are cut off to me, because I don't want to risk
>>the screw ups of WPA and associated "security" crap.

>
>
> Well, I will agree to the extent that in an ideal world, this wouldn't
> be necessary. But it's not fair to Microsoft, and more importantly to
> victims of counterfeit software, to completely reject it on principle.
> There's a principle on both sides.
>
I remember that the m$ "MVP"s in the ms.public.windowsxp.general
claiming/insisted that we (users) are not customers of ms; implying
the only the retailers/wholesaleers were the actual customers of ms.

The "anti-piracy" actions of ms equals the sum of spyware + trojans;
the spyware reports & the trojan does the terrorist attack.

When I had a motherboard that didn't have a built-in network card, I
had only changed the nic to another pci slot & ms spyware claimed I
did a "drastic change" & so must activate winxp within 30 days; it
was a reminder that the ms "anti-piracy" actions can never be trusted.
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you
>>>>>>>>> use Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>>>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to WSE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to use
>>>>>> free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just because
>>>>> one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't logically
>>>>> lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how desperate
>>>>> Frank is to "win".
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>>> Oops!
>>>
>>> More leaping logic

>>
>> ...om your part
>>
>> ... how surprising, NOT.
>>
>> You got that one right!
>>>

>
> Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am I?"
> tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.
>

Yawn.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you
>>>>>>>>>> use Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile of
>>>>>>>>> useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring to
>>>>>>>>> WSE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to
>>>>>>> use free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just
>>>>>> because one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't
>>>>>> logically lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how
>>>>>> desperate Frank is to "win".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>>>> Oops!
>>>>
>>>> More leaping logic
>>>
>>> ...om your part
>>>
>>> ... how surprising, NOT.
>>>
>>> You got that one right!
>>>>

>>
>> Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am I?"
>> tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.
>>

> Yawn.


If you're bored with yourself, imagine how others feel.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that when I
>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is no
>>>>>>>>>> need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>>>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>>>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
>>>> oops!
>>>
>>> And yet even more leaping logic.

>>
>> In your delusional dreams.
>>
>> You've got a problem, Frank.
>>
>> Yeah, I keep responding to a POS asshole lying loser like you.
>> Oops!
>>
>>
>>>

>
> No, you can't think logically.
>

Oh, the fucking irony of that statement!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you
>>>>>>>>>>> use Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile
>>>>>>>>>> of useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically referring
>>>>>>>>>> to WSE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm sure
>>>>>>>>>> you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to
>>>>>>>> use free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just
>>>>>>> because one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't
>>>>>>> logically lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how
>>>>>>> desperate Frank is to "win".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>>>>> Oops!
>>>>>
>>>>> More leaping logic
>>>>
>>>> ...om your part
>>>>
>>>> ... how surprising, NOT.
>>>>
>>>> You got that one right!
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am I?"
>>> tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.
>>>

>> Yawn.

>
> If you're bored with yourself, imagine how others feel.


What an ironic statement from our resident troll.
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic

"paul_36" <guest@site.invalid> wrote in message
news:hlekso$eqt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 2010-02-16, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

<<snip>>

> When I had a motherboard that didn't have a built-in network card, I
> had only changed the nic to another pci slot & ms spyware claimed I
> did a "drastic change" & so must activate winxp within 30 days; it
> was a reminder that the ms "anti-piracy" actions can never be trusted.


The change notice is the result of a certain number of changes. You may do
three or four what you consider "major" changes and never get notified, but
then do one "minor" change (such as moving the NIC) and get hit.
--
SC Tom
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and get used to it or look into alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR! More of your MS hatred and FUD spreading? What a POS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying linturd troll you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a lie, pal. You will be checked every 90 days or more at
>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft's pleasure. Live with it and get used to it if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> use Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes an outright lie from you...as expected. You stupid pile
>>>>>>>>>>> of useless lying linturd FUD. The OP is specifically
>>>>>>>>>>> referring to WSE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, he was referring to the genuine check.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Re-read the article you fucking idiot
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care about being checked for Genuine MS...but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> sure you're now screwed!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>> Oops!...Hahahah!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LIAR!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but I do object to having to prove I bought something over
>>>>>>>>>> and over and over again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Especially when you didn't "buy" but stoled it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Course, you're stupid and I'm smart so it makes
>>>>>>>>>> sense that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can afford real Genuine MS software whereas you're doomed to
>>>>>>>>> use free (open sores shit) or pirated crap.
>>>>>>>>> Now who is the "smart one" you *DUMB FUCK*
>>>>>>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh dear, Frank is doing his leaping logic dance again. Just
>>>>>>>> because one objects to MS' spyware and intrusive WGA/WAT doesn't
>>>>>>>> logically lead to my using pirated software. It just shows how
>>>>>>>> desperate Frank is to "win".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, you've pointed out what a desperate loser you are!...LOL!
>>>>>>> Oops!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More leaping logic
>>>>>
>>>>> ...om your part
>>>>>
>>>>> ... how surprising, NOT.
>>>>>
>>>>> You got that one right!
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now Frank trots out his grade school "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>> tactic. Pretty lame, Frank.
>>>>
>>> Yawn.

>>
>> If you're bored with yourself, imagine how others feel.

>
> What an ironic statement from our resident troll.


More leaps of logic from our logic impaired resident moron.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable,says critic

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> John Aldred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...anti_piracy_practice_unacceptable_says_critic
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article for those running Windows and are afraid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> click on urls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet messages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OT.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials on Win 7. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that when I
>>>>>>>>>>>> installed it there was a requirement to have my copy of the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated. I suspect that this check is carried out on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if this is so, and if this is a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> process to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>> announced above?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once installed, it only updates the definitions as there is
>>>>>>>>>>> no need to re-verify that your copy of Windows is Genuine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Didn't read the article, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't comprehend the article, did you troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason the definitions are updated is
>>>>>>>>>> to make sure it's genuine again and again and again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OP is referring specifically to WSE you *DUMB FUCK*!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP is ME, jerk off, and the article is about WAT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP I answered referred to WSE cock sucker.
>>>>>>> You stupid pile of useless lying linturd shit!
>>>>>>> Go have babba, your male sheep lover, butt-fuck you some more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is only one OP in a thread, n00b.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, the one I was responding to you sheep-fucking n00b!
>>>>> oops!
>>>>
>>>> And yet even more leaping logic.
>>>
>>> In your delusional dreams.
>>>
>>> You've got a problem, Frank.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I keep responding to a POS asshole lying loser like you.
>>> Oops!
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>
>> No, you can't think logically.
>>

> Oh, the fucking irony of that statement!


No irony at all. You're logic impaired as you demonstrate with almost
every post.

--
Alias
 
Top