Phone Home

[Frank]

On 2/27/2010 2:55 PM, Alias wrote:
> 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.

Translation: alias lies about any MS whenever he can.
oops!...LOL!

> Frank and the Nymshifter bring it up more than I do.

Oops! Just caught you lying again!

I posted some MS
> Windows 7 News from various viewpoints in a NEWS group. Imagine that ...

Translation: alias spammed this ng with the very same news from numerous
sites. His hatred and rage over the apparent success of 7 has him
foaming at the mouth!
Too bad huh?...Hahahaha!!!

 

[Gordon]

On 2010-02-27, Spanky de Monkey <spanky@deMonkey.org> 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.
>
>
>
How is your foot. For you have shot yourself.

 

[GreyCloud]

Al Smith wrote:
> 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.
>

Pretty much what Steve Wozniak said of his Prius. He deduced that it
was a software flaw.
And this could be very costly for Toyota, seeing that the computers are
a black box module.



--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

 

[DanS]

OT:


>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Pretty much what Steve Wozniak said of his Prius. He deduced that it
> was a software flaw.
> And this could be very costly for Toyota, seeing that the computers
> are a black box module.


I had just read several articles about third-parties testing the system and
being able to purposely create what would be system faults, but tested good
by the ECM.

On the radio I even heard an interview with some group that was able to
create a fault condition that regularly did actually cause the sudden
acceleration problem, usually within minutes of starting to drive the car
under one of these undetected fault conditions.

 

[GreyCloud]

Re: OT:

DanS wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Pretty much what Steve Wozniak said of his Prius. He deduced that it
>> was a software flaw.
>> And this could be very costly for Toyota, seeing that the computers
>> are a black box module.
>
>
> I had just read several articles about third-parties testing the system and
> being able to purposely create what would be system faults, but tested good
> by the ECM.
>
> On the radio I even heard an interview with some group that was able to
> create a fault condition that regularly did actually cause the sudden
> acceleration problem, usually within minutes of starting to drive the car
> under one of these undetected fault conditions.
>
>
>

I think it was Stanford U. that also did some testing and found software
faults.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

On 2/26/2010 8:16 PM, Andrew wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>

Its is called WAT because that is what people scream when they hear the
MS has infested their windows with yet another piece of spyware. It
should instead be called TWAT: Too much Windows Activation Technologies!