Activation comments with other products beside Microsoft

[sipowtiz_00]

I simply dumped Windoze and installed Linux on my puter. MS simply blows.

..fred

Get ready to pay.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5070583.htm
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5070583.html?tag=fdfeed
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030902S0030
http://news.com.com/2100-1003_3-5070527.html?tag=fd_top

Andrew

 

[kurttrail]

Hugh Candlin wrote:

Freedom of speech is not unrestricted.

We should stop calling it "freedom of speech," because there is no such
thing.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

You can protest outside my house but you can't come in. You can
protest in the street but you can't enter my property. When you go to
work do you think you can't be fired for what you say? You don't have
the right to free speech unless you are willing to pay the price. Kurt
isn't.

Like Kurt you don't know what you are talking about.

How many times do I have to say that I stand behind my words. Turn me
in to my local prosecutor. It is ya'll that aren't backing up your
words!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Greg P Rozelle]

Aclu is not Irrelevant to my claims.

Reason I brought up Unauthorized story of Three's Company.
The Producers and original actors has sued to stop the broadcast.
But Unauthorized Producers won under "Freedom of Speech"

It would be perfect legal for me to write a book or web page to tell
were to get illegal stuff. I would not get in trouble at all.
The person who decides to download something to use.
They would be in trouble for using it. period.
All you would need is a disclaimer period.

I get me information from the news & Aclu even yahoo.

Andrew, I not talking about in the work place or
inside people residents that's different. Outside a on the sidewalk
you are allowed to protest. I do know what I'm talking about. If you
want to live in hole being afraid to say what your think. That's your
choice.

Note where people stand when they go on Stike, right
outside on the property of work place.

Now Kurttrail
I surprised you would say this

Reason, with all you have said in other post.

I stand by my words as well. I believe in what the Aclu stands for.


Hopefully, I don't have post again to defend my beliefs & get back to
helping people.

Greg P Rozelle

I'll ignore that as useless information.

I am correct.

Irrelevant to you claim.

Irrelevant to your claim.

There are illegal acts DEPICTED in books and movies.
There is a huge difference between that
and someone actually performing such actions.


I think you mean what I just said?

Irrelevant to your claim.

Just one example to prove that you are wrong.

Under Section 871(a) of Title 18, United States Code,
prohibiting threatening the President of the United States,
"true threats" satisfy the statute's threshold of criminal conduct
and put the conduct beyond the protections of the First Amendment;
whether a statement is a "true threat" is determined by (1) the context,
(2) whether the threat is expressly conditional in nature,
and (3) the reaction of the listeners.

Still think that you can say what you want without freedom
from repercussions. Violate the above section and you will
be guaranteed a knock on your door and a ride in a very
large, very black SUV.

I'm no radical. I have never been in trouble with the law.
I responded to your post strictly as an analyst reviewing
your claim to see if it held water. It does not.

Freedom of speech is not unrestricted.

Disclaimer
My advice is as-is. It could trash your system.

 

[kurttrail]

Get ready to pay.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5070583.htm
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5070583.html?tag=fdfeed
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030902S0030
http://news.com.com/2100-1003_3-5070527.html?tag=fd_top

Anyone that pays SCO anything, is a fool. So far the only evidence they
shown of any similarities between Unix & Linux is code that is already
covered under BSD license.

SCO has been fined in Germany for spreading it's unsubstantiated claims
about Linux.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,84564,00.html

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Greg P Rozelle]

Andrew,

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-991464.html?tag=nl

However, Steve Mills, senior vice president of IBM's software group,
told CNET News.com in an earlier interview that he didn't see any
intellectual property concerns between Unix and Linux. He also was
critical of SCO's efforts

Sco has refused to show proof of Copyright. Sco want to become
another big & Only competitor of Linux. Check out the Linux
newsgroups.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5060965.html?tag=nl
IBM on Thursday filed counterclaims against the SCO Group in the
continuing legal battle over the Linux operating system.

I would refuse to pay for any additional for a Linux License.

Sco forget one important things.

Under U.S. Laws.
Any company may not cause Economics Hardship or
something similar to that, that would cause several business to close
or become backrupt.


That's all I going to say on this subject.


Greg P Rozelle



Disclaimer
My advice is as-is. It could trash your system.

 

[Hugh Candlin]

Hugh Candlin wrote:



We should stop calling it "freedom of speech," because there is no such
thing.

How would we then reference the concept?

 

[kurttrail]

How would we then reference the concept?

The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Free-Speech.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Hugh Candlin]

The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Free-Speech.

Idiot!

[LOL] That's a keeper.

 

[kurttrail]

Idiot!

Your *unqualified* word is wrong.

[LOL] That's a keeper.

I don't believe it is yours to keep.

I guess that compliment was too subtle.

I'm just too used to being called names around here, and just "idiot"
happens to be my 9 year-old niece's favorite word lately, and at first
it was cute, but is now starting to get old.

Sorry for not comprehending your intent.

Pax vobiscum.

Ditto!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Hugh Candlin]

You obviously don't understand what I trying to Convey.

I understand that you are avoiding the issue.

Freedom of speech got brought up By Ronnie & Kurttrail Not me.

Again you inject an irrelevant argument.

 

[cquirke]

I forget who the country artist was who called for a boycott of a
record chain because they were selling used CDs. He felt he was being
cheated out of his royalties.

I guess good old boys aren't good at maths... such as manufacturing
cost per CD vs. artists's royalty cut per CD, and who it is that's
really cheating him out of his royalties.

Hint: Did CDs (ever) cost less than records to buy? And to make?


The biggest and most obvious logical objection to Product Activation
hasn't really been stressed; imagine if *every* piece of fluff on the
PC had it's own activation scheme, rules, call centers to dial, etc.?

So is the implication that it is only MS, or a handful of other huge
corporations, who deserve to have their income protected?

To me, DRM has nothing to do with protecting the rights of artists,
and everything to do with artificially entrenching the media pimps'
monopoly of the means of production etc. Think about it:
- modern electro music doesn't need studios or session musos
- p2p and .mp3s are more effective at distribution
- Internet word-of-mouth is effective at promotion
- Internet radio, Google, etc. are effective as exposure
- digital cameras are getting better - movies next?

The only thing these alternate channels cannot do as (in)effectively
as the media pimps, is to derive income - and as noted, the media
pimps were never too generous there.

So - just what IS the value that media pimps bring to the 21st century
party, to justify these towering Jurassic corporate edifaces?

There's much bigger money involved in movies, so expect that turf to
be more rigorously defended. A big movie production house may spend
as much on a single block-buster as a record label spends in a year,
and partly that is because movies are genuinely more costly to make.


Imagine a heavy industry or mining economy charactarised by high
occupational health death rates and short working careers.

Image the impact on this economy when better technology and health
care cleans up this workspace. Everyone benefits, right?

Now imagine an industry response that insists on artificially culling
a percentage of the workforce to maintain the historical dynamics of
the economy, to suit corporations that depend on this for dominance.


If there's any justice in the world (hah!) media barons will be as
extinct (or at least rare) in 2025 as railway tycoons are today.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Error Messages Are Your Friends

 

[Greg P Rozelle]

To Hugh,

Hugh Wrote
If, by "allowed", you imply "freedom from repercussions",
then you are wrong. Dead wrong.

I disagree 100% on this statement you made Hugh.
This was the reasons for my post, to show that you proof
that you are free from repercussions.

The original producers of Threes company and the original actors tried
to stop production and seek damages (Or repercussions as you call it).
Of the Show called "The Unauthorized Story of Threes company"
They Unauthorized producers actual won under too things "Freedom of
the Press" and Freedom of speech" The show was delayed a little.
But still aired.

This is why I mention the books & websites that have illegal stuff in
them. Steven King never got sued for repercussions from his book or
movie and if he did, he would win.

Now if someone took action on what they see or read.
That would be the persons fault. Not the Authors, producers, e.tc.

So, I am not affording the issue.


Greg P Rozelle

Disclaimer
My advice is as-is. It could trash your system.