WindowsXP office 2007. Free on the net . WHy pay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nosugarintea
  • Start date Start date
Daave said:
Alright, I'll bite.

According to you, are there ever any times when stealing is wrong?
Click to expand...

There is a very old story from Russia from the early days of what they
called Communism:
"If you had two houses, what would you do?"
"I would give one away to someone without one"
"If you had two oxen, what would yoy do?"
"I'd keep one and give the other to someone without one"
"If you had two shirts, what wouuld you do?"
"I'd keep them"
"Why wouldn't you give one away?"
"Because to _do_ have two shirts"

So, in answer to your question, perhaps stealing is wrong when that
which was stolen belongs to him.

Allen
 
OpenOffice does most of the things that MS Office does and is available
for free as a Windows port. If you need smart quotes, though, I think you
have to get them from a Word document to get the editing started.
 
In nazi germany it was illegal to harbour jews. Its free software, if
you have the brains and courage to do it. Dont be a whimp.
 
caver1 said:
Very good!:-D
I guess the only absolute is that some will say that theft is not always
wrong. So if I get someone else to make a copy of XP then gives it to me,
then it is legal for me to use it as it was not I who stole it.
Click to expand...


The XP CD is not unique. What is unique is the license key. So giving
someone an XP CD is no harm, no foul. Installing with a license key is a
different issue.
 
Jon said:
Well, you've slightly extended the meaning of stealing to the poetic
usage. No human spent hours of their time developing air and water
and your eyes belong to you.

Yes, the land you live on may have been stolen from the Indians, but
that is someone else's crime, not yours.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The Indians had/have no concept of ownership of real property.
Land, to them, was much like air to you.

You can't steal something if it doesn't belong to someone or if it's been
abandoned.
 
http://sharethefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34125

IF you dont have something constructive to say, pls dont say anything.
Morality is relative. ANy first year philosophy student knows that.
There are no absolutes in this world.
Click to expand...

"Morality is relative" only for moral relativists and the concept was
created to justify the otherwise unjustifiable.

For the rest of us, morality is absolute.

But here's a hint you can use when the day of judgement comes:

When you find yourself up to your nose in flaming worms.... stand on your
tip-toes.
 
In nazi germany it was illegal to harbour jews. Its free software, if
you have the brains and courage to do it. Dont be a whimp.
Click to expand...


I think you meant to write "harbor" and "wimp". Maybe you need to steal a
spell checker too?
 
Rock said:
The XP CD is not unique. What is unique is the license key. So giving
someone an XP CD is no harm, no foul. Installing with a license key is a
different issue.
Click to expand...

This is where nick picking does no good cause the same type of logic can
be applied to the license key.
My boss said the other day- "We will never understand those type of
people because their thinking process is different than ours. Not wrong
just different. So we have to find a way to help them."
Enter who ever you want for "those type of people". This type of
reasoning means there is nothing that is wrong. So why have any kind of
rules.
 
Very good!:-D
I guess the only absolute is that some will say that theft is not always
wrong. So if I get someone else to make a copy of XP then gives it to
me, then it is legal for me to use it as it was not I who stole it.
Click to expand...


Depends on your specific jurisdiction. In some locales, you'd be an
"Accessory after the Fact," and in many you could be charged with
Receiving Stolen Goods.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
 
I may be mistaken, but I think "HeyBub" <[email protected]> said something
like the following in message
Well, no. The Indians had/have no concept of ownership of real property.
Land, to them, was much like air to you.

You can't steal something if it doesn't belong to someone or if it's been
abandoned.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right. I'm sure the conversation went something like this....

-"Excuse me Mr Indian, sir. That's a mighty fine piece of air you're
breathing. Would you mind awfully if I wiped out your tribe, raped your
wives and pillaged your wigwams to enjoy it instead of you?"
-"Not at all. Be my guest. After all we don't own it"
 
Bruce said:
Depends on your specific jurisdiction. In some locales, you'd be an
"Accessory after the Fact," and in many you could be charged with
Receiving Stolen Goods.
Click to expand...


That's the point I was trying to make. There are absolutes in some things.
 
This is where nick picking does no good cause the same type of logic can
be applied to the license key.
My boss said the other day- "We will never understand those type of people
because their thinking process is different than ours. Not wrong just
different. So we have to find a way to help them."
Enter who ever you want for "those type of people". This type of reasoning
means there is nothing that is wrong. So why have any kind of rules.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you talking about? You made a statement involving someone
giving you a copy of XP. I was pointing out that the CD itself is not
unique and of no use without the license key. Any CD of the same type of
XP - i.e. language, retail v OEM, Home v. Upgrade, can be used with a
license key for that type. What is unique is the license key.

Now if you want to make a statement about someone giving you a license key,
then do so, but it's a different issue from the CD.

If the license key is stolen and you have knowledge of this or should
reasonably have known, then you are also responsible for accepting stolen
property, and are just as guilty of larceny. If the license key is pirated
then it's still larceny. Just because there was an intermediary doesn't
change your culpability.
 
Rock said:
What exactly are you talking about? You made a statement involving
someone giving you a copy of XP. I was pointing out that the CD itself
is not unique and of no use without the license key. Any CD of the same
type of XP - i.e. language, retail v OEM, Home v. Upgrade, can be used
with a license key for that type. What is unique is the license key.

Now if you want to make a statement about someone giving you a license
key, then do so, but it's a different issue from the CD.

If the license key is stolen and you have knowledge of this or should
reasonably have known, then you are also responsible for accepting
stolen property, and are just as guilty of larceny. If the license key
is pirated then it's still larceny. Just because there was an
intermediary doesn't change your culpability.
Click to expand...

If you would follow the whole thread you would understand. There are
supposedly no absolutes so there is no theft. Most who would copy the cd
in looking for "free" software would also look for hacked keys. So there
is no difference. My "intermediary" was in response
to a previous response.
 
If you would follow the whole thread you would understand. There are
supposedly no absolutes so there is no theft. Most who would copy the cd
in looking for "free" software would also look for hacked keys. So there
is no difference. My "intermediary" was in response
to a previous response.
Click to expand...


I read the whole thread. Use of the OS either through a hacked key or
hacked OS is larceny. You responded to me, and I was clarifying a point
you don't seem to understand. The CD and license are different issues. A
legit, non hacked, XP installation CD is not unique. and can be used with
any license key of that type. Just having a legit CD that someone gave you,
assuming the CD is not itself stolen, is not larceny. It's when that legit
CD is used to install the OS that the issue arises.

Now if the CD itself is stolen, or the OS is hacked in same way so a key is
not needed, or that legit OS is installed with a pirated or stolen key,
that's where larceny comes in.

Frankly I don't understand what you are saying. Who says there are no
absolutes - you? someone else? If not you, are you saying you believe that?
And if you do (or don't) what's your point? What does "there are supposedly
no absolutes" mean? "Supposedly"? - by whom? - not that I really care what
you mean. You certainly don't make anything clear in expressing yourself.
 
Rock said:
I read the whole thread. Use of the OS either through a hacked key or
hacked OS is larceny. You responded to me, and I was clarifying a
point you don't seem to understand. The CD and license are different
issues. A legit, non hacked, XP installation CD is not unique. and can
be used with any license key of that type. Just having a legit CD that
someone gave you, assuming the CD is not itself stolen, is not larceny.
It's when that legit CD is used to install the OS that the issue arises.

Now if the CD itself is stolen, or the OS is hacked in same way so a key
is not needed, or that legit OS is installed with a pirated or stolen
key, that's where larceny comes in.

Frankly I don't understand what you are saying. Who says there are no
absolutes - you? someone else? If not you, are you saying you believe
that? And if you do (or don't) what's your point? What does "there are
supposedly no absolutes" mean? "Supposedly"? - by whom? - not that I
really care what you mean. You certainly don't make anything clear in
expressing yourself.
Click to expand...

Start here or maybe one or two above;
 
Start here or maybe one or two above;
Click to expand...

You mean you are basing your response on the validity of what nosugarintea
says? There goes any credibility. You might want to hitch your wagon to a
different horse.
 
Back
Top