Phone Home

[Alias]

Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>
>
> "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.

So they say and you believe.

> It just checks to see if the
> OS is valid.

So they say and you believe.

> If you are running a valid OS then no big deal.

Never heard of false positives, bucko?

> Except
> for thieves like yourself who are worried.

And your proof that I am a thief other than talking out your lying ass is?

>
> If my copy phones home I don't give a rats ass.

Until the guy in India tells you you have to buy another copy.

--
Alias

 

[Spanky de Monkey]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmas0p$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.
>
> So they say and you believe.
>
>> It just checks to see if the OS is valid.
>
> So they say and you believe.
>
>> If you are running a valid OS then no big deal.
>
> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>

So what is a false positive? Never had one on my computer. I run genuine
software unlike yourself.

>> Except for thieves like yourself who are worried.
>
> And your proof that I am a thief other than talking out your lying ass is?

You keep harping about "spyware" and Microsoft trying to protect their
property. It usually is people like you who bitch about software that tries
to catch thieves. Therefore you must be one of them.

 

[Char Jackson]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:48:44 -0600, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> 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."

There were a lot of things in Bott's blog article that raised an
eyebrow, but the one you quoted above was the most flagrant. If
calling someone and then passing along their response verbatim is
"reporting", well that's going to come as a huge surprise to anyone
who is doing _actual_ reporting. Ed Bott was never on my radar prior
to this, but I see now that I haven't been missing anything important.

 

[Spanky de Monkey]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmbfip$ev7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.

Doesn't seem to bother the people who have genuine copies. I know you are
worried so you should download their software to put you at ease. If you
have a genuine copy, there will be no issue. I am sure you are scared
because most likely you are running a pirated copy and that is why you are
all over this.

Too bad. Better stick to Ubuntu where they don't give a rats ass who gets
their INFERIOR OS running for a day or so.


>>
>> 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.

BULLSHIT. If you purchase a pirated copy you KNOW it you dumbshit.

 

[Char Jackson]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:50:04 -0800, "Spanky de Monkey"
<spanky@deMonkey.org> wrote:

>"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>
>So what is a false positive?

No wonder you're not concerned about false positives. You don't even
know what they are!

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 9:52 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:48:44 -0600, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> 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."
>
> There were a lot of things in Bott's blog article that raised an
> eyebrow, but the one you quoted above was the most flagrant. If
> calling someone and then passing along their response verbatim is
> "reporting", well that's going to come as a huge surprise to anyone
> who is doing _actual_ reporting. Ed Bott was never on my radar prior
> to this, but I see now that I haven't been missing anything important.
>
You still haven't posted one factual refute of what EB reported nor what
MS has said that KB971033 is and does.
All you've done is go into hyperbole about something that obviously gets
your dander up.
There is nothing factual coming from you.

 

[Andrew]

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:f9nio5htck0b2n04ncpv4nh4egujs3n0e1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:50:04 -0800, "Spanky de Monkey"
> <spanky@deMonkey.org> wrote:
>
>>"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>>
>>So what is a false positive?
>
> No wonder you're not concerned about false positives. You don't even
> know what they are!
>
According to the page on Article ID: 971033 - Last Review: February 12,
2010 - Revision: 1.2
Description of the update for Windows Activation Technologies.
A false positive would be pretty tough to get.
WFP would 1st try to replace a system file that has been not signed by
Microsoft Corp.

Tampered Files
If the update discovers a tampered file, it tries to restore the file. This
restore may require a restart. If this update cannot restore the tampered
files, it will direct you more information on the Internet.

Then...

Validation Errors or Activation Exploits
Validation errors and activation exploits try to bypass the Windows
activation process and are sometimes included with counterfeit copies of
Windows. If a validation error or activation exploit is detected, you will
be directed to more information on the Internet for resolution of the
activation exploit or the validation error. When validation errors or
activation exploits are removed, you may be asked to use a valid product key
to activate the copy of Windows 7 that is running on your computer. If you
decide not to resolve the validation error or the activation exploit at that
time, you will be periodically notified that the copy of Windows 7 that is
running on your computer is not genuine. Additionally, Windows will provide
a link to more information online for resolution.

So if you are ok running system files not signed by MS then you might be
exposed to a false positive. In order to do so though you have to jump
through some hoops.
You have to set the /debug switch, and turn off WFP in the registry,
otherwise your file will be set back to the original to begin with.


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/222193
So, according to MSFT it shouldn't be all that easy to get a false positive.

But you know how that goes...At any rate the worst that can happen besides
the phoning home (Which other apps like WINUpdate use also) is that you will
be asked to verify your copy is genuine, through a nagging reminder system.
It seems that the timebomb for Beta and RC copies of Win7 is much worse from
a user perspective. Those shut down every 2 hours without saving your work.
--
Andrew

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 97 AM, Alias wrote:
> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>
>>
>> "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.
>
> So they say and you believe.

Do you have any real evidence to the contrary?
No? Lets all act real surprised.
>
>> It just checks to see if the OS is valid.
>
> So they say and you believe.

Do you have any real evidence to the contrary?
No? Lets all act real surprised.
>
>> If you are running a valid OS then no big deal.
>
> Never heard of false positives, bucko?

Yeah...from you!...Ha!
>
>> Except for thieves like yourself who are worried.
>
> And your proof that I am a thief other than talking out your lying ass is?

You are a known and admitted lying thief. You don't even use the
product, *BUCKO*!
Oops!
>
>>
>> If my copy phones home I don't give a rats ass.
>
> Until the guy in India tells you you have to buy another copy.

Is that what they told you when MS caught you stealing their software?
Well...?

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 9:59 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:50:04 -0800, "Spanky de Monkey"
> <spanky@deMonkey.org> wrote:
>
>> "Alias"<aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>>
>> So what is a false positive?
>
> No wonder you're not concerned about false positives. You don't even
> know what they are!
>

"false positives" started years ago with XP when OS validation first
started.
Today it appears to be a non-issue.

 

[Alias]

Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>> news:hmas0p$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.
>>
>> So they say and you believe.
>>
>>> It just checks to see if the OS is valid.
>>
>> So they say and you believe.
>>
>>> If you are running a valid OS then no big deal.
>>
>> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>>
>
> So what is a false positive?

Are you for real?

> Never had one on my computer. I run
> genuine software unlike yourself.

Genuine has nothing to do with it.

>
>>> Except for thieves like yourself who are worried.
>>
>> And your proof that I am a thief other than talking out your lying ass
>> is?
>
> You keep harping about "spyware" and Microsoft trying to protect their
> property. It usually is people like you who bitch about software that
> tries to catch thieves. Therefore you must be one of them.

More leaps in logic, eh? It doesn't follow that someone who objects to
having to install a program that doesn't benefit the user to, once
again, prove one isn't running a pirated copy. It isn't MS' job to catch
thieves. That's the job of the legal authorities.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmbfip$ev7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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.
>
> Doesn't seem to bother the people who have genuine copies. I know you
> are worried so you should download their software to put you at ease.
> If you have a genuine copy, there will be no issue. I am sure you are
> scared because most likely you are running a pirated copy and that is
> why you are all over this.
>
> Too bad. Better stick to Ubuntu where they don't give a rats ass who
> gets their INFERIOR OS running for a day or so.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> BULLSHIT. If you purchase a pirated copy you KNOW it you dumbshit.
>
>
>

You're so confused you don't even know who you are replying to with your
lies.

--
Alias

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 109 AM, Alias wrote:
> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmbl8i$ivp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>>>> news:hmas0p$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.
>>>
>>> So they say and you believe.
>>>
>>>> It just checks to see if the OS is valid.
>>>
>>> So they say and you believe.
>>>
>>>> If you are running a valid OS then no big deal.
>>>
>>> Never heard of false positives, bucko?
>>>
>>
>> So what is a false positive?
>
> Are you for real?
>
>> Never had one on my computer. I run genuine software unlike yourself.
>
> Genuine has nothing to do with it.
>
>>
>>>> Except for thieves like yourself who are worried.
>>>
>>> And your proof that I am a thief other than talking out your lying
>>> ass is?
>>
>> You keep harping about "spyware" and Microsoft trying to protect their
>> property. It usually is people like you who bitch about software that
>> tries to catch thieves. Therefore you must be one of them.
>
> More leaps in logic, eh? It doesn't follow that someone who objects to
> having to install a program that doesn't benefit the user to, once
> again, prove one isn't running a pirated copy. It isn't MS' job to catch
> thieves. That's the job of the legal authorities.
>
'leaps in logic"? Hahahah...no wonder you're on wifie #4, broke and
living in a third world country. You and logic don't compute.

 

[SC Tom]

"Andrew" <yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmbi59$2qb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
> news:Ix8in.57593$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

I apologize; I shouldn't have replied at all.
--
SC Tom

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 10:42 AM, Alias wrote:
> Spanky de Monkey wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
>> news:hmbfip$ev7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Doesn't seem to bother the people who have genuine copies. I know you
>> are worried so you should download their software to put you at ease.
>> If you have a genuine copy, there will be no issue. I am sure you are
>> scared because most likely you are running a pirated copy and that is
>> why you are all over this.
>>
>> Too bad. Better stick to Ubuntu where they don't give a rats ass who
>> gets their INFERIOR OS running for a day or so.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> BULLSHIT. If you purchase a pirated copy you KNOW it you dumbshit.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You're so confused you don't even know who you are replying to with your
> lies.
>
Oh the irony of that statement. WTF do you think you're fooling, fool?
You don't even use the product your foaming at the mouth over. You are
the confused idiot FUD spreading lying asshole linutrd loser in here.
You don't see that do you?
DAMN!!!!
Blinded by your MS hatred huh?
Figures.

 

[John Aldred]

Spanky de Monkey wrote:

>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hmbfip$ev7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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.
>
> Doesn't seem to bother the people who have genuine copies. I know you are
> worried so you should download their software to put you at ease. If you
> have a genuine copy, there will be no issue. I am sure you are scared
> because most likely you are running a pirated copy and that is why you are
> all over this.
>
> Too bad. Better stick to Ubuntu where they don't give a rats ass who gets
> their INFERIOR OS running for a day or so.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> BULLSHIT. If you purchase a pirated copy you KNOW it you dumbshit.

I'm not sure who you are replying to here.
You seem to be quoting my post, but replying to Alias!!

However if it was for me , I resent the remark about running a pirated copy.

I responded to an e-mail from Microsoft, following the beta trial, and took
up their limited offer of a reduced price if I placed a pre-release date
order. I assume that they were not advertising pirated copies.

--
John Aldred

 

[felmon]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:50:04 -0800, Spanky de Monkey wrote:

> It usually is people like you who bitch about software that tries to
> catch thieves. Therefore you must be one of them.

interesting logic. if the police did regular searches of your house or
car in an effort to catch thieves, you wouldn't bitch because that would
make you a thief?

I tend to side with people who don't want people peeking and poking
around unless there is basis for suspicion but that's just an old-
fashioned (US) constitutional principle.

but I am violating my own principle posting to this thread. I don't know
why Alias wants to press these 'advocacy' posts. maybe one or two off-
topic posts, sure, and it's valuable information, but this ng will soon
be pretty degraded.

but it is weird how willing people are to let others get into their
business without 'warrant'.

Felmon

 

[felmon]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 199:08 +0100, Alias wrote:

> More leaps in logic, eh? It doesn't follow that someone who objects to
> having to install a program that doesn't benefit the user to, once
> again, prove one isn't running a pirated copy. It isn't MS' job to catch
> thieves. That's the job of the legal authorities.

I generally agree but of course, if I agree to allow Microsoft to do a
search, that is also an exercise of liberty. the way I understand it, one
can control whether this update gets installed, well, at least now.

I tend to side with you on the issue but why do all of these posts in a
technical group? I could see posting one or two links - everyone goes off
topic from time to time - but I don't see the point of hammering the nail
constantly.

same goes for talking about Linux. but you and I have had this
conversation before - months ago, in a different ng. I don't right now
recall your justification but I take it you believe you are providing
people here some kind of service.

as a user of Linux myself, I am very doubtful how persuasive your posts
are in that regard.

Felmon

 

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 12:24 PM, felmon wrote:

snip

I don't know why Alias wants to press these 'advocacy' posts. maybe one
or two off-
topic posts, sure, and it's valuable information, but this ng will soon
be pretty degraded.

That is his already posted, explicit goal.


snip

 

[Al Smith]

Andrew 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 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.
>
>


I don't think the floor mats were ever the real problem. Toyota
just didn't want to admit that its electronic throttle system has
a design flaw.

-Al-

 

[Alias]

felmon wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 199:08 +0100, Alias wrote:
>
>> More leaps in logic, eh? It doesn't follow that someone who objects to
>> having to install a program that doesn't benefit the user to, once
>> again, prove one isn't running a pirated copy. It isn't MS' job to catch
>> thieves. That's the job of the legal authorities.
>
> I generally agree but of course, if I agree to allow Microsoft to do a
> search, that is also an exercise of liberty. the way I understand it, one
> can control whether this update gets installed, well, at least now.
>
> I tend to side with you on the issue but why do all of these posts in a
> technical group? I could see posting one or two links - everyone goes off
> topic from time to time - but I don't see the point of hammering the nail
> constantly.
>
> same goes for talking about Linux. but you and I have had this
> conversation before - months ago, in a different ng. I don't right now
> recall your justification but I take it you believe you are providing
> people here some kind of service.
>
> as a user of Linux myself, I am very doubtful how persuasive your posts
> are in that regard.
>
> Felmon

I'm not pushing Linux any more, although I will counter obvious lies.
Frank and the Nymshifter bring it up more than I do. I posted some MS
Windows 7 News from various viewpoints in a NEWS group. Imagine that ...

--
Alias