A
-
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.
C
Char Jackson
Flightless Bird
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
<yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
becomes completely unrecognizable.
The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
defend himself and repeatedly fails.
<yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
becomes completely unrecognizable.
The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
defend himself and repeatedly fails.
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/26/2010 7:46 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there.
Really?
He redefines
> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
> becomes completely unrecognizable.
Can you factually refute what he posted?
>
> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there.
Really?
He redefines
> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
> becomes completely unrecognizable.
Can you factually refute what he posted?
>
> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
A
Alias
Flightless Bird
Char Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>
> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>
That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the
part of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
--
Alias
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>
> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>
That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the
part of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
--
Alias
S
SC Tom
Flightless Bird
"Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> --
> Andrew
<yawn> Old news.
news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> --
> Andrew
<yawn> Old news.
A
Alias
Flightless Bird
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>
> <yawn> Old news.
No, it isn't. The spyware hasn't even been deployed yet. Be sure and
install it on March 9th and hope you don't get a false positive or two.
Note that the spyware will scan all your installed programs which,
frankly, is none of Microshit's business.
--
Alias
>
> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>
> <yawn> Old news.
No, it isn't. The spyware hasn't even been deployed yet. Be sure and
install it on March 9th and hope you don't get a false positive or two.
Note that the spyware will scan all your installed programs which,
frankly, is none of Microshit's business.
--
Alias
D
DanS
Flightless Bird
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>
> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
> verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either, so
what's your point.
Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and repeated
by him.
D
DanS
Flightless Bird
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>
>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>
> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
> so what's your point.
>
> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>
> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
> repeated by him.
And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is *EXACTLY*
what happened.
Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
"Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
answers.
That's called reporting."
news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>
>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>
> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
> so what's your point.
>
> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>
> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
> repeated by him.
And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is *EXACTLY*
what happened.
Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
"Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
answers.
That's called reporting."
J
John Aldred
Flightless Bird
Andrew wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
I'm afraid that my simple mind doesn't follow the logic behind this exercise
by Microsoft.
If it is possible to decline to take the WAT update, then those running
hacked copies if Win7, (and those with privacy/false positive concerns)
will simply not install it.
The vast majority of users will have Win 7 pre-installed on their machines
by the OEM. A small percentage of users such as myself, may have been
sufficiently impressed by the beta to purchase an upgrade from a reputable
supplier.
So who is Microsoft targeting with this exercise?
I guess it is those who have unwittingly purchased a pirate copy and will
find out to their cost in the near future.
But is this such a huge number as to make it worthwile risking bad publicity
and causing disquiet among their user base?
--
John Aldred
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
I'm afraid that my simple mind doesn't follow the logic behind this exercise
by Microsoft.
If it is possible to decline to take the WAT update, then those running
hacked copies if Win7, (and those with privacy/false positive concerns)
will simply not install it.
The vast majority of users will have Win 7 pre-installed on their machines
by the OEM. A small percentage of users such as myself, may have been
sufficiently impressed by the beta to purchase an upgrade from a reputable
supplier.
So who is Microsoft targeting with this exercise?
I guess it is those who have unwittingly purchased a pirate copy and will
find out to their cost in the near future.
But is this such a huge number as to make it worthwile risking bad publicity
and causing disquiet among their user base?
--
John Aldred
A
Alias
Flightless Bird
John Aldred wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
> I'm afraid that my simple mind doesn't follow the logic behind this exercise
> by Microsoft.
>
> If it is possible to decline to take the WAT update, then those running
> hacked copies if Win7, (and those with privacy/false positive concerns)
> will simply not install it.
>
> The vast majority of users will have Win 7 pre-installed on their machines
> by the OEM. A small percentage of users such as myself, may have been
> sufficiently impressed by the beta to purchase an upgrade from a reputable
> supplier.
>
> So who is Microsoft targeting with this exercise?
> I guess it is those who have unwittingly purchased a pirate copy and will
> find out to their cost in the near future.
> But is this such a huge number as to make it worthwile risking bad publicity
> and causing disquiet among their user base?
>
This latest WAT is just the beginning. It's optional now but MS can
change that in a heartbeat (or keystroke). MS doesn't give a shit about
its user base as this and WGA prove in spades. ALL they care about is
money. WGA and WAT are more FUD tools to provoke fear from using pirated
MS software than catching pirates, that along with stating that all
pirated software has malware.
--
Alias
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
> I'm afraid that my simple mind doesn't follow the logic behind this exercise
> by Microsoft.
>
> If it is possible to decline to take the WAT update, then those running
> hacked copies if Win7, (and those with privacy/false positive concerns)
> will simply not install it.
>
> The vast majority of users will have Win 7 pre-installed on their machines
> by the OEM. A small percentage of users such as myself, may have been
> sufficiently impressed by the beta to purchase an upgrade from a reputable
> supplier.
>
> So who is Microsoft targeting with this exercise?
> I guess it is those who have unwittingly purchased a pirate copy and will
> find out to their cost in the near future.
> But is this such a huge number as to make it worthwile risking bad publicity
> and causing disquiet among their user base?
>
This latest WAT is just the beginning. It's optional now but MS can
change that in a heartbeat (or keystroke). MS doesn't give a shit about
its user base as this and WGA prove in spades. ALL they care about is
money. WGA and WAT are more FUD tools to provoke fear from using pirated
MS software than catching pirates, that along with stating that all
pirated software has malware.
--
Alias
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 6
8 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
>> verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>
> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either, so
> what's your point.
>
Nor is there any proof it isn't.
> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
It's already released.
>
> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and repeated
> by him.
Which I'll believe over the blithering psycho foaming-at-the-mouth MS
hating linturd assholes.
8 AM, DanS wrote:>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
>> verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>
> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either, so
> what's your point.
>
Nor is there any proof it isn't.
> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
It's already released.
>
> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and repeated
> by him.
Which I'll believe over the blithering psycho foaming-at-the-mouth MS
hating linturd assholes.
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>
>>
>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>
>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>
>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>> so what's your point.
>>
>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
>> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>> repeated by him.
>
> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is *EXACTLY*
> what happened.
>
> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>
> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
> answers.
>
> That's called reporting."
>
>
>
And you problem with getting the facts is?
> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>
>>
>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>
>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>
>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>> so what's your point.
>>
>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
>> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>> repeated by him.
>
> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is *EXACTLY*
> what happened.
>
> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>
> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
> answers.
>
> That's called reporting."
>
>
>
And you problem with getting the facts is?
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 2:26 AM, Alias wrote:
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
>> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
>> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
>> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>>
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>
> That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the
> part of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
>
Ahhh...the MS hating foaming-at-the-mouth lying linutrd FUD spreading
asshole gives us his jaded, personal opinion.
Shove it asshole, you don't even use the product.
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
>> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
>> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
>> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>>
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>
> That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the
> part of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
>
Ahhh...the MS hating foaming-at-the-mouth lying linutrd FUD spreading
asshole gives us his jaded, personal opinion.
Shove it asshole, you don't even use the product.
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 5:03 AM, Alias wrote:
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>
>> <yawn> Old news.
>
> No, it isn't. The spyware hasn't even been deployed yet.
You're right, no spyware has been nor will be deployed. However, the
update (KB971033) is and has been available. I installed it on 2/25/10.
Oops! How would you know, you don't even use the product!
Be sure and
> install it on March 9th and hope you don't get a false positive or two.
heheheh...you really are getting your panties all in a bunch over this
aren't you sheep-fucker.
> Note that the spyware will scan all your installed programs which,
> frankly, is none of Microshit's business.
It's also none of your business seeing as how you don't even use the
products.
Now get lost troll.
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>
>> <yawn> Old news.
>
> No, it isn't. The spyware hasn't even been deployed yet.
You're right, no spyware has been nor will be deployed. However, the
update (KB971033) is and has been available. I installed it on 2/25/10.
Oops! How would you know, you don't even use the product!
Be sure and
> install it on March 9th and hope you don't get a false positive or two.
heheheh...you really are getting your panties all in a bunch over this
aren't you sheep-fucker.
> Note that the spyware will scan all your installed programs which,
> frankly, is none of Microshit's business.
It's also none of your business seeing as how you don't even use the
products.
Now get lost troll.
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 8:00 AM, Alias wrote:
<--snipped the lying FUD--->
When you demonstrate that you actually use the product then we all will
try and consider what you say in here more than just the insane jealous
ranting of a lunatic lying FUD spreading linturd asshole.
<--snipped the lying FUD--->
When you demonstrate that you actually use the product then we all will
try and consider what you say in here more than just the insane jealous
ranting of a lunatic lying FUD spreading linturd asshole.
A
Andrew
Flightless Bird
"SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
news:Ix8in.57593$G_2.17696@newsfe15.iad...
>
> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>
> <yawn> Old news.
Yeah the news is old, it was this take on it I wanted to share.
--
Andrew
news:Ix8in.57593$G_2.17696@newsfe15.iad...
>
> "Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hm9vaq$mjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>
> <yawn> Old news.
Yeah the news is old, it was this take on it I wanted to share.
--
Andrew
D
DanS
Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b894376@news.x-privat.org:
> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>
>>>
>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>
>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>
>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>> so what's your point.
>>>
>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>
>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>> repeated by him.
>>
>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>
>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>
>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>> answers.
>>
>> That's called reporting."
>>
>>
>>
> And you problem with getting the facts is?
They are not facts !!!!!!
Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
some product.
Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the floor-
mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
There won't be any *facts* about the WAT functionality until after it's
released and inspected by third-parties.
> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>
>>>
>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>
>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>
>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>> so what's your point.
>>>
>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>
>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>> repeated by him.
>>
>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>
>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>
>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>> answers.
>>
>> That's called reporting."
>>
>>
>>
> And you problem with getting the facts is?
They are not facts !!!!!!
Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
some product.
Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the floor-
mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
There won't be any *facts* about the WAT functionality until after it's
released and inspected by third-parties.
A
Andrew
Flightless Bird
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2C7A4EF78C2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b894376@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>>
>>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>>> so what's your point.
>>>>
>>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>>> repeated by him.
>>>
>>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>>
>>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>>
>>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> That's called reporting."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you problem with getting the facts is?
>
> They are not facts !!!!!!
>
> Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
> some product.
>
> Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
> there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
> issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
>
> Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the
> floor-
> mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
> design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
> coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
>
> But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
Actually, on several models like the Tacoma, and the 90's Camrys it still
*is* floormats according to Toyota.
--
Andrew
news:Xns9D2C7A4EF78C2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b894376@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>>
>>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>>> so what's your point.
>>>>
>>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>>> repeated by him.
>>>
>>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>>
>>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>>
>>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> That's called reporting."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you problem with getting the facts is?
>
> They are not facts !!!!!!
>
> Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
> some product.
>
> Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
> there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
> issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
>
> Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the
> floor-
> mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
> design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
> coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
>
> But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
Actually, on several models like the Tacoma, and the 90's Camrys it still
*is* floormats according to Toyota.
--
Andrew
F
Frank
Flightless Bird
On 2/27/2010 9:01 AM, DanS wrote:
> Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b894376@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>>
>>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>>> so what's your point.
>>>>
>>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>>> repeated by him.
>>>
>>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>>
>>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>>
>>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> That's called reporting."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you problem with getting the facts is?
>
> They are not facts !!!!!!
>
> Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
> some product.
>
> Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
> there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
> issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
>
> Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the floor-
> mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
> design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
> coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
>
> But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
>
> There won't be any *facts* about the WAT functionality until after it's
> released and inspected by third-parties.
Yawn.
> Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote in news:4b894376@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>>
>>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>>> so what's your point.
>>>>
>>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>>> repeated by him.
>>>
>>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>>
>>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>>
>>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> That's called reporting."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you problem with getting the facts is?
>
> They are not facts !!!!!!
>
> Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
> some product.
>
> Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
> there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
> issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
>
> Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the floor-
> mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
> design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
> coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
>
> But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.
>
> There won't be any *facts* about the WAT functionality until after it's
> released and inspected by third-parties.
Yawn.
S
Spanky de Monkey
Flightless Bird
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmas0p$op4$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
>> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
>> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
>> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>>
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>
> That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the part
> of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
>
It doesn't send any personal information. It just checks to see if the OS
is valid. If you are running a valid OS then no big deal. Except for
thieves like yourself who are worried.
If my copy phones home I don't give a rats ass.
news:hmas0p$op4$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
>> <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
>> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
>> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>>
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>
> That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the part
> of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
>
It doesn't send any personal information. It just checks to see if the OS
is valid. If you are running a valid OS then no big deal. Except for
thieves like yourself who are worried.
If my copy phones home I don't give a rats ass.