xp sending info microshaft

[Newt]

A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in Visual
Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought I'd
ask you lot to shed some light on this.
He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
remotely.
True or false?
What are the real risks of this?
Newt

[Thetan]

I hope not! Get yourself a decent firewall like Nortons Personal Firewall.
Should make life harder for people at MS.

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

[Thetan]

I hope not! Get yourself a decent firewall like Nortons Personal Firewall.
Should make life harder for people at MS.

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

[Michael Stevens]

Newt wrote:
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt

Newt,
Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on activation.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Michael Stevens]

Newt wrote:
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt

Newt,
Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on activation.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Jupiter Jones]

Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.

Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
The description in the subject tells much about you.

--
Jupiter Jones
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.


"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
in Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

[Jupiter Jones]

Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.

Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
The description in the subject tells much about you.

--
Jupiter Jones
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.


"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
in Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

[Newt]

Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out of
his arse!
So what exactly does it say about me?
"Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.
>
> Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> The description in the subject tells much about you.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones
> An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.
>
>
> "Newt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
> in Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
> thought I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
> same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
> >
> >
>
>

[Newt]

Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out of
his arse!
So what exactly does it say about me?
"Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.
>
> Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> The description in the subject tells much about you.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones
> An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.
>
>
> "Newt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
> in Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
> thought I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
> same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
> >
> >
>
>

[Newt]

Already use that nsg
> Jupiter Jones
> An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.

[Newt]

Already use that nsg
> Jupiter Jones
> An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.

[Newt]

I already own a pucker version of XP pro thanks, I was going to lend it to
my friend but he got all hyped-up about it.
"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out
of
> his arse!
> So what exactly does it say about me?
> "Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> > A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> > way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.
> >
> > Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> > ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> > The description in the subject tells much about you.
> >
> > --
> > Jupiter Jones
> > An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> > Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.
> >
> >
> > "Newt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> > that it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
> > in Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
> > thought I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
> > same or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> > useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Newt]

I already own a pucker version of XP pro thanks, I was going to lend it to
my friend but he got all hyped-up about it.
"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out
of
> his arse!
> So what exactly does it say about me?
> "Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> > A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> > way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.
> >
> > Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> > ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> > The description in the subject tells much about you.
> >
> > --
> > Jupiter Jones
> > An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
> > Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit.
> >
> >
> > "Newt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> > that it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back
> > in Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
> > thought I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
> > same or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> > useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael Stevens]

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Newt wrote:
>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
>> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
>> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
>> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
>> useless remotely.
>> True or false?
>> What are the real risks of this?
>> Newt
>
> Newt,
> Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on
> activation.

Woops!! forgot the link as Newt pointed out the link wasn't on my web site.
8-)
More info on XP activation.
http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Michael Stevens]

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Newt wrote:
>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
>> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
>> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
>> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
>> useless remotely.
>> True or false?
>> What are the real risks of this?
>> Newt
>
> Newt,
> Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on
> activation.

Woops!! forgot the link as Newt pointed out the link wasn't on my web site.
8-)
More info on XP activation.
http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Ghost]

In article >, "Newt"
> wrote:

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt



It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
those circumstances...

[Ghost]

In article >, "Newt"
> wrote:

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt



It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
those circumstances...

[Newt]

What about UK law, I guess it would be the same..
"Ghost" > wrote in message
...

> It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> those circumstances...

[Newt]

What about UK law, I guess it would be the same..
"Ghost" > wrote in message
...

> It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> those circumstances...

[Ghost]

In article >, "Newt"
> wrote:

> What about UK law, I guess it would be the same..
> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> > those circumstances...



Probably about the same... comes under denial of service... would also
come under destruction of personal property laws...

[Ghost]

In article >, "Newt"
> wrote:

> What about UK law, I guess it would be the same..
> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> > those circumstances...



Probably about the same... comes under denial of service... would also
come under destruction of personal property laws...

[relic]

As predicted, Newt wrote this:
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt

Not true. Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.

--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
"The French.... They're there when they need you."

[relic]

As predicted, Newt wrote this:
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> useless remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt

Not true. Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.

--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
"The French.... They're there when they need you."

[Andrew]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:39:17 +0100, "Newt"
> wrote:

>A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
>sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in Visual
>Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought I'd
>ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
>generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
>remotely.
>True or false?
>What are the real risks of this?
>Newt
>

Dont worry. I suppose they can, it's not hard technically but I am
sure they won't becasue they will risk a lot of lawsuits - they can
never tell if I am just re-installing it after a harddisk failure or
after a virus attack.

We have to go thro the hassle of getting a new activiation key. That's
all.

AC

[Andrew]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:39:17 +0100, "Newt"
> wrote:

>A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
>sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in Visual
>Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought I'd
>ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
>generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
>remotely.
>True or false?
>What are the real risks of this?
>Newt
>

Dont worry. I suppose they can, it's not hard technically but I am
sure they won't becasue they will risk a lot of lawsuits - they can
never tell if I am just re-installing it after a harddisk failure or
after a virus attack.

We have to go thro the hassle of getting a new activiation key. That's
all.

AC

[Steve Shattuck]

"Newt" > wrote in message =
...

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that =
it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in =
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but =
thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same =
or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?


Of course an honest person would never even wonder about such things.

[Steve Shattuck]

"Newt" > wrote in message =
...

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that =
it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in =
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but =
thought I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same =
or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?


Of course an honest person would never even wonder about such things.

[kurttrail]

Typical MicroMoron Think! Thought Crimes!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"


"Steve Shattuck" > wrote in message
...
"Newt" > wrote in message
...

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?


Of course an honest person would never even wonder about such things.

[kurttrail]

Typical MicroMoron Think! Thought Crimes!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"


"Steve Shattuck" > wrote in message
...
"Newt" > wrote in message
...

> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?


Of course an honest person would never even wonder about such things.

[gregh]

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!

B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.

C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to other
products, too, though.

D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would stop
them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto your
machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> remotely.
> True or false?
> What are the real risks of this?
> Newt
>
>

A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!

B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.

C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to other
products, too, though.

D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would stop
them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto your
machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
>
> B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the
> web.
>
> C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to
> other products, too, though.
>
> D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would
> stop them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to
> get onto your machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
>
> B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the
> web.
>
> C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to
> other products, too, though.
>
> D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would
> stop them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to
> get onto your machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[gregh]

"Michael Stevens" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Stevens wrote:
> > Newt wrote:
> >> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> >> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> >> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> >> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> >> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> >> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> >> useless remotely.
> >> True or false?
> >> What are the real risks of this?
> >> Newt
> >
> > Newt,
> > Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on
> > activation.
>
> Woops!! forgot the link as Newt pointed out the link wasn't on my web
site.
> 8-)
> More info on XP activation.
> http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
> --

It isn't all there is, though. A list of software on your machine DOES get
sent to MS every time you use Windows Update over the web with XP.


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Michael Stevens" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Stevens wrote:
> > Newt wrote:
> >> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
> >> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
> >> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
> >> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> >> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
> >> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
> >> useless remotely.
> >> True or false?
> >> What are the real risks of this?
> >> Newt
> >
> > Newt,
> > Check the link below for some non-urban legend information on
> > activation.
>
> Woops!! forgot the link as Newt pointed out the link wasn't on my web
site.
> 8-)
> More info on XP activation.
> http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
> --

It isn't all there is, though. A list of software on your machine DOES get
sent to MS every time you use Windows Update over the web with XP.


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Newt"
> > wrote:
>
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
>
>
>
> It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> those circumstances...

Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other side,
your computer isn't disabled, is it?


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Newt"
> > wrote:
>
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
>
>
>
> It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> those circumstances...

Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other side,
your computer isn't disabled, is it?


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.

A previously activated copy of XP *WILL* activate again.

1) If your machien crashes irrevocably within 6 months of activating, you
can activate again but will have to talk to someone on the phone and get a
series of numbers.

2) If the same situation occurs AFTER 6 months from when you activated, you
can activate online as if you never activated before.

>
> Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> The description in the subject tells much about you.
>

Suggest you check out the link below which describes what software and stuff
is reported to MS when you choose windows update:

http://www.tecchannel.de/betriebssysteme/1126/index.html


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Jupiter Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Windows XP does nothing of the kind.
> A previously activated Windows XP will not activate, Microsoft has no
> way to inactivate a currently activated Windows XP.

A previously activated copy of XP *WILL* activate again.

1) If your machien crashes irrevocably within 6 months of activating, you
can activate again but will have to talk to someone on the phone and get a
series of numbers.

2) If the same situation occurs AFTER 6 months from when you activated, you
can activate online as if you never activated before.

>
> Your "friend" is falling for the paranoia caused largely by the
> ignorant and Microsoft detractors such as yourself.
> The description in the subject tells much about you.
>

Suggest you check out the link below which describes what software and stuff
is reported to MS when you choose windows update:

http://www.tecchannel.de/betriebssysteme/1126/index.html


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out
of
> his arse!
> So what exactly does it say about me?

Info, when you use Windows Update *IS* reported to MS:

http://www.tecchannel.de/betriebssysteme/1126/index.html


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Just wanted info so that I can it to him to prove that he is talking out
of
> his arse!
> So what exactly does it say about me?

Info, when you use Windows Update *IS* reported to MS:

http://www.tecchannel.de/betriebssysteme/1126/index.html


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Newt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
> I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
> >
> >
>
> A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
>
> B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.
>
> C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to other
> products, too, though.
>
> D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would stop
> them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto your
> machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!



Another ignorant post from another ignorant rumor monger... Sorry gregh-
but your info is bad...

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Newt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that it
> > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> Visual
> > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
> I'd
> > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > remotely.
> > True or false?
> > What are the real risks of this?
> > Newt
> >
> >
>
> A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
>
> B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.
>
> C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to other
> products, too, though.
>
> D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would stop
> them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto your
> machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!



Another ignorant post from another ignorant rumor monger... Sorry gregh-
but your info is bad...

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Newt"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
> it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
> I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> > those circumstances...
>
> Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other side,
> your computer isn't disabled, is it?
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.

Plain and Simple.

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Newt"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
> it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but thought
> I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be a violation of US federal law to disable a computer under
> > those circumstances...
>
> Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other side,
> your computer isn't disabled, is it?
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.

Plain and Simple.

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:
> "Ghost" > wrote in message
>

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:
> "Ghost" > wrote in message
>

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read this:

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Newt]

I didnt have any idea how many replies this post would generate, you amuse
amaze me!
thx

[Newt]

I didnt have any idea how many replies this post would generate, you amuse
amaze me!
thx

[johnf]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> gregh wrote:
>
> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read
> this:
>
> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.

"Peanut: johnf
Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.

Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file if it
only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”


I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.

Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the OZ
sense of humour.

(For those who didn't read that thead, the original poster's clock was, from
memory, about 10 hrs ahead and had accidently deleted something several hrs
prior to his post.)

Oh, well, at least I'm famous now.

--
johnf

[johnf]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> gregh wrote:
>
> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read
> this:
>
> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.

"Peanut: johnf
Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.

Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file if it
only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”


I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.

Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the OZ
sense of humour.

(For those who didn't read that thead, the original poster's clock was, from
memory, about 10 hrs ahead and had accidently deleted something several hrs
prior to his post.)

Oh, well, at least I'm famous now.

--
johnf

[Kadaitcha Man]

johnf wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> gregh wrote:
>>
>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read
>> this:
>>
>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>
> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>
> "Peanut: johnf
> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>
> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>
>
> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>
> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
> OZ sense of humour.

On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate... I am an
Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured. BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing
classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Kadaitcha Man]

johnf wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> gregh wrote:
>>
>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also read
>> this:
>>
>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>
> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>
> "Peanut: johnf
> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>
> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>
>
> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>
> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
> OZ sense of humour.

On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate... I am an
Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured. BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing
classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[johnf]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> johnf wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> gregh wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also
>>> read this:
>>>
>>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>>
>> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>>
>> "Peanut: johnf
>> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>>
>> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
>> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>>
>>
>> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>>
>> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
>> OZ sense of humour.
>
> On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate...
> I am an Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured.
> BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER*
> *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Out-humoured? Bull, how was I supposed to know?
Next time use an email & URL address that gives some indication to that.
That f/u on your behalf just about earns you a spot on the list as well.
BTW, there's no such NG as "microsoft.public.windowsxp.perfor" - suggest you
don't go overboard with multiple posting.
--
johnf

[johnf]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> johnf wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> gregh wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also
>>> read this:
>>>
>>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>>
>> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>>
>> "Peanut: johnf
>> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>>
>> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
>> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>>
>>
>> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>>
>> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
>> OZ sense of humour.
>
> On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate...
> I am an Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured.
> BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER*
> *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Out-humoured? Bull, how was I supposed to know?
Next time use an email & URL address that gives some indication to that.
That f/u on your behalf just about earns you a spot on the list as well.
BTW, there's no such NG as "microsoft.public.windowsxp.perfor" - suggest you
don't go overboard with multiple posting.
--
johnf

[Kadaitcha Man]

johnf wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> johnf wrote:
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> gregh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also
>>>> read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>>>
>>> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>>>
>>> "Peanut: johnf
>>> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>>>
>>> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
>>> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>>>
>>> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
>>> OZ sense of humour.
>>
>> On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate...
>> I am an Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER*
>> *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Out-humoured?

Yes. Funny, eh?

> Bull, how was I supposed to know?
> Next time use an email & URL address that gives some indication to
> that.

I did. Any Aussie worth his salt knows what a kadaitcha is. It's obvious
that you wouldn't know up from down even if you had three guesses at it.

[Kadaitcha Man]

johnf wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> johnf wrote:
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> gregh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone reading the post from gregh, King of retards, should also
>>>> read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery
>>>
>>> Glad to see that I made the Peanut list.
>>>
>>> "Peanut: johnf
>>> Problem: User has link to a missing temp file.
>>>
>>> Answer “If he resets the PC clock back it may restore the temp file
>>> if it only disappeared in the last couple of hours!”
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to know who were the other peanuts who took that seriously.
>>>
>>> Next time I'll use a Smiley for the retards who don't understand the
>>> OZ sense of humour.
>>
>> On that part about understanding the Aussie sense of humour, mate...
>> I am an Aussie, you ****chop. You have been out-humoured.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ****ing classic! *COUGH* *CHOKE* *GURGLE* SPLUTTER*
>> *WHEEZE* BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Out-humoured?

Yes. Funny, eh?

> Bull, how was I supposed to know?
> Next time use an email & URL address that gives some indication to
> that.

I did. Any Aussie worth his salt knows what a kadaitcha is. It's obvious
that you wouldn't know up from down even if you had three guesses at it.

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other
side,
> > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
> In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
> your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.
>
> Plain and Simple.

Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so it
wouldn't be considered anything by them.


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other
side,
> > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
> In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
> your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.
>
> Plain and Simple.

Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so it
wouldn't be considered anything by them.


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "gregh"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Newt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> > Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
thought
> > I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
> >
> > B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.
> >
> > C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to
other
> > products, too, though.
> >
> > D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would
stop
> > them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto
your
> > machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
>
>
> Another ignorant post from another ignorant rumor monger... Sorry gregh-
> but your info is bad...

That's fine mate. Your knowledge is non-existent so your info isn't
insulting!


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "gregh"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Newt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me that
it
> > > sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info back in
> > Visual
> > > Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be true but
thought
> > I'd
> > > ask you lot to shed some light on this.
> > > He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
or
> > > generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc useless
> > > remotely.
> > > True or false?
> > > What are the real risks of this?
> > > Newt
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A) Get a LEGAL copy never a pirated version!
> >
> > B) Yes info is sent back whenever you do a Windows Update over the web.
> >
> > C) Yes you can be remotely disabled with some stuff. This extends to
other
> > products, too, though.
> >
> > D) If they can remotely disable, it is unlikely that a firewall would
stop
> > them. As you well know, anyone with the ability and desire to get onto
your
> > machine online can only be stopped by pulling the plug!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
>
>
> Another ignorant post from another ignorant rumor monger... Sorry gregh-
> but your info is bad...

That's fine mate. Your knowledge is non-existent so your info isn't
insulting!


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> That's fine mate. Your knowledge is non-existent so your info isn't
> insulting!

.... said the king of retards

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> That's fine mate. Your knowledge is non-existent so your info isn't
> insulting!

.... said the king of retards

[Michael Stevens]

relic wrote:
> As predicted, Newt wrote this:
>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
>> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
>> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
>> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
>> useless remotely.
>> True or false?
>> What are the real risks of this?
>> Newt

> Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.

That has not been proven. 8-)
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Michael Stevens]

relic wrote:
> As predicted, Newt wrote this:
>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send info
>> back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this would be
>> true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on this.
>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with same
>> or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your pc
>> useless remotely.
>> True or false?
>> What are the real risks of this?
>> Newt

> Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.

That has not been proven. 8-)
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> > > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other
> side,
> > > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
> >
> > In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
> > your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.
> >
> > Plain and Simple.
>
> Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
> disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so it
> wouldn't be considered anything by them.
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!



Gregh...

Are you dain bramaged or what?

Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
Denial of Service, a felony.

They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
action since they are an American owned corporation.

Sheesh.

I refuse to get in a battle of the wits with an unarmed person. lol

And stop freaking cross-posting to all these NG!

[Ghost]

In article >, "gregh"
> wrote:

> "Ghost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer, just
> > > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the other
> side,
> > > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
> >
> > In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed on
> > your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of Service.
> >
> > Plain and Simple.
>
> Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
> disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so it
> wouldn't be considered anything by them.
>
>
> --
> Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!



Gregh...

Are you dain bramaged or what?

Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
Denial of Service, a felony.

They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
action since they are an American owned corporation.

Sheesh.

I refuse to get in a battle of the wits with an unarmed person. lol

And stop freaking cross-posting to all these NG!

[Graham]

Xref: kermit alt.certification.a-plus:72213 alt.certification.mcse:136770 alt.os.windows-xp:258301 microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:99611 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:538266 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:273126 microsoft.public.windows
xp.newusers:70805

That is a stupid argument even for you Greph. Jusy how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin?

[Graham]

Xref: kermit alt.certification.a-plus:72213 alt.certification.mcse:136770 alt.os.windows-xp:258301 microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:99611 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:538266 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:273126 microsoft.public.windows
xp.newusers:70805

That is a stupid argument even for you Greph. Jusy how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin?

[relic]

As predicted, Michael Stevens wrote this:
> relic wrote:
>> As predicted, Newt wrote this:
>>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send
>>> info back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this
>>> would be true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on
>>> this.
>>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
>>> same or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your
>>> pc useless remotely.
>>> True or false?
>>> What are the real risks of this?
>>> Newt
>
>> Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.
>
> That has not been proven. 8-)

ROFL.
--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
"The French.... They're there when they need you."

[relic]

As predicted, Michael Stevens wrote this:
> relic wrote:
>> As predicted, Newt wrote this:
>>> A friend has told me that if you use a copied version of xp or me
>>> that it sends details to MS and that MS have the ability to send
>>> info back in Visual Basic to disable your pc. I didnt think this
>>> would be true but thought I'd ask you lot to shed some light on
>>> this.
>>> He seems to think that if there is more than one copy of OS with
>>> same or generated cd key that MS can track you down or render your
>>> pc useless remotely.
>>> True or false?
>>> What are the real risks of this?
>>> Newt
>
>> Bill *does* collect copies of your Porn collection though.
>
> That has not been proven. 8-)

ROFL.
--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
"The French.... They're there when they need you."

[Bill Martin]

> More info on XP activation.
> http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm

Thanks for the link Michael - this is interesting stuff. From idle curiosity
though, does XP ever update it's stored system features list? For example, I
suspect most people at some point upgrade the amount of RAM they have.
Initially, as I understand it, XP recognizes this as a system change but not
a large enough one to cry foul. After a month of use or some such, does XP
come to realize it's normal for the machine to have extra memory, or does it
forever more see that as a change to be wary about?

I guess I'm asking whether this is an adaptive algorithm or is it cast in
stone (silicon) when XP is first activated?

Bill

[Bill Martin]

> More info on XP activation.
> http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm

Thanks for the link Michael - this is interesting stuff. From idle curiosity
though, does XP ever update it's stored system features list? For example, I
suspect most people at some point upgrade the amount of RAM they have.
Initially, as I understand it, XP recognizes this as a system change but not
a large enough one to cry foul. After a month of use or some such, does XP
come to realize it's normal for the machine to have extra memory, or does it
forever more see that as a change to be wary about?

I guess I'm asking whether this is an adaptive algorithm or is it cast in
stone (silicon) when XP is first activated?

Bill

[Thomas Wendell]

Or is this the four month rule, ie. everything the same for 4 months, then
do almost anything??


--
I'd rather drink beer, it soothes M$ aggravated nerves.
Helsinki, Finland (remove spam_)




"Bill Martin" > kirjoitti
oft.com...
> > More info on XP activation.
> > http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
>
> Thanks for the link Michael - this is interesting stuff. From idle
curiosity
> though, does XP ever update it's stored system features list? For
example, I
> suspect most people at some point upgrade the amount of RAM they have.
> Initially, as I understand it, XP recognizes this as a system change but
not
> a large enough one to cry foul. After a month of use or some such, does
XP
> come to realize it's normal for the machine to have extra memory, or does
it
> forever more see that as a change to be wary about?
>
> I guess I'm asking whether this is an adaptive algorithm or is it cast in
> stone (silicon) when XP is first activated?
>
> Bill

[Thomas Wendell]

Or is this the four month rule, ie. everything the same for 4 months, then
do almost anything??


--
I'd rather drink beer, it soothes M$ aggravated nerves.
Helsinki, Finland (remove spam_)




"Bill Martin" > kirjoitti
oft.com...
> > More info on XP activation.
> > http://aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
>
> Thanks for the link Michael - this is interesting stuff. From idle
curiosity
> though, does XP ever update it's stored system features list? For
example, I
> suspect most people at some point upgrade the amount of RAM they have.
> Initially, as I understand it, XP recognizes this as a system change but
not
> a large enough one to cry foul. After a month of use or some such, does
XP
> come to realize it's normal for the machine to have extra memory, or does
it
> forever more see that as a change to be wary about?
>
> I guess I'm asking whether this is an adaptive algorithm or is it cast in
> stone (silicon) when XP is first activated?
>
> Bill

[Jon]

"gregh" > wrote in message =
...

<snipped posts, and would have on all the previous>

gregh, you are totally misinformed, or have some CIA (non-MS) version of =
XP on your system. The fact that your earlier claim about the 6 month =
activating window is actually 120 days (unless there are 15 days in your =
month, yes that must be it).

[Jon]

"gregh" > wrote in message =
...

<snipped posts, and would have on all the previous>

gregh, you are totally misinformed, or have some CIA (non-MS) version of =
XP on your system. The fact that your earlier claim about the 6 month =
activating window is actually 120 days (unless there are 15 days in your =
month, yes that must be it).

[Kadaitcha Man]

Jon wrote:
> "gregh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snipped posts, and would have on all the previous>
>
> gregh, you are totally misinformed

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

Jon wrote:
> "gregh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snipped posts, and would have on all the previous>
>
> gregh, you are totally misinformed

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "gregh"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Ghost" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer,
just
> > > > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the
other
> > side,
> > > > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry
Men!
> > >
> > > In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed
on
> > > your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of
Service.
> > >
> > > Plain and Simple.
> >
> > Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
> > disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so
it
> > wouldn't be considered anything by them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
>
>
> Gregh...
>
> Are you dain bramaged or what?
>

If that is all you can do, stop wasting posting space.

> Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
> Denial of Service, a felony.
>

Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.

> They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
> have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> action since they are an American owned corporation.

Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
dont know for sure.

>
> Sheesh.
>
> I refuse to get in a battle of the wits with an unarmed person. lol

Then come armed next time!

>
> And stop freaking cross-posting to all these NG!

Up yours!

--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Ghost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "gregh"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Ghost" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > Disabling Windows XP, for example, doesn't disable the computer,
just
> > > > Windows XP. So, if you have a dual boot system with Linux on the
other
> > side,
> > > > your computer isn't disabled, is it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry
Men!
> > >
> > > In any event, they cannot "deactivate" Windows XP if it is installed
on
> > > your system. This would be considered by the feds as a Denial of
Service.
> > >
> > > Plain and Simple.
> >
> > Yep, plain and simply wrong. If the computer still works, they didn't
> > disable it, just their software. That doesn't disable your computer so
it
> > wouldn't be considered anything by them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!
>
>
>
> Gregh...
>
> Are you dain bramaged or what?
>

If that is all you can do, stop wasting posting space.

> Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
> Denial of Service, a felony.
>

Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.

> They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
> have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> action since they are an American owned corporation.

Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
dont know for sure.

>
> Sheesh.
>
> I refuse to get in a battle of the wits with an unarmed person. lol

Then come armed next time!

>
> And stop freaking cross-posting to all these NG!

Up yours!

--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Graham" > wrote in message
.. .
> That is a stupid argument even for you Greph. Jusy how many angels can
dance
> on the head of a pin?
>
>

Better yet - how many assholes can say it's wrong and not know any better?
;-}


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[gregh]

"Graham" > wrote in message
.. .
> That is a stupid argument even for you Greph. Jusy how many angels can
dance
> on the head of a pin?
>
>

Better yet - how many assholes can say it's wrong and not know any better?
;-}


--
Friar Tuck was always the butt of Spoonerism Jokes from the Merry Men!

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> If that is all you can do, stop wasting posting space.

I was going to post google a link to all your posts that have your catch-cry
lame in them, you know ... "you low grade moron" but I won't, though only
because I found the post where you told some poor ****ster he had a virus in
his printer. BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! http://tinyurl.com/9p68

Time to update your peanut gallery entry.

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Kadaitcha Man]

gregh wrote:

> If that is all you can do, stop wasting posting space.

I was going to post google a link to all your posts that have your catch-cry
lame in them, you know ... "you low grade moron" but I won't, though only
because I found the post where you told some poor ****ster he had a virus in
his printer. BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! http://tinyurl.com/9p68

Time to update your peanut gallery entry.

http://kadaitcha.ath.cx/bio.htm#peanut_gallery

[Newt]

I think some people should subscribe to
alt.argue.the.toss
alt.dont.admit.youre.wrong
alt.how.2.have.a.civilized.discussion

[Newt]

I think some people should subscribe to
alt.argue.the.toss
alt.dont.admit.youre.wrong
alt.how.2.have.a.civilized.discussion

[Kadaitcha Man]

Newt wrote:

> I think

Liar.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Newt wrote:

> I think

Liar.

[Newt]

Ooops!! sorry about that, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that some people really do need
to subscribe to aforementioned nsgs. Sorry for doubting anybody.

"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
...
> Newt wrote:
>
> > I think
>
> Liar.
>
>

[Newt]

Ooops!! sorry about that, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that some people really do need
to subscribe to aforementioned nsgs. Sorry for doubting anybody.

"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
...
> Newt wrote:
>
> > I think
>
> Liar.
>
>

[Ghost]

>
> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
> > Denial of Service, a felony.
> >
>
> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.
>
> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
>
> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
> dont know for sure.
>
> >

Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
law....

This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further with
the facts... lol

[Ghost]

>
> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
> > Denial of Service, a felony.
> >
>
> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.
>
> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
>
> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
> dont know for sure.
>
> >

Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
law....

This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further with
the facts... lol

[Kadaitcha Man]

Ghost wrote:

> And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> law....

Total ****ing crap. A company is bound by the laws of the countries it is
operating in, you stupid wankstain. If company A is based in country B and
commits a crime in country C, it is certainly liable to the laws of country
C. If the crime commited in country C is also a crime in country B, then
company A would also be liable in country B. I take it you have absolutely
no ****ing idea why companies are given legal entity status, hmmm?

For example, in the US it seems quite legal to cook your books and make
false statements to the tune of tens of billions of dollars... Enron,
Worldcom, et al. If those US companies had offices here and those frauds
were perpetrated here by those offices, the local directors would have been
given an opportunity of watching endless reruns of Seinfeld for 25 to 30
years.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Ghost wrote:

> And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> law....

Total ****ing crap. A company is bound by the laws of the countries it is
operating in, you stupid wankstain. If company A is based in country B and
commits a crime in country C, it is certainly liable to the laws of country
C. If the crime commited in country C is also a crime in country B, then
company A would also be liable in country B. I take it you have absolutely
no ****ing idea why companies are given legal entity status, hmmm?

For example, in the US it seems quite legal to cook your books and make
false statements to the tune of tens of billions of dollars... Enron,
Worldcom, et al. If those US companies had offices here and those frauds
were perpetrated here by those offices, the local directors would have been
given an opportunity of watching endless reruns of Seinfeld for 25 to 30
years.

[Spinner]

ROTFLMAO!!


"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Ooops!! sorry about that, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that some people really do
need
> to subscribe to aforementioned nsgs. Sorry for doubting anybody.
>
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Newt wrote:
> >
> > > I think
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> >
>
>

[Spinner]

ROTFLMAO!!


"Newt" > wrote in message
...
> Ooops!! sorry about that, I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that some people really do
need
> to subscribe to aforementioned nsgs. Sorry for doubting anybody.
>
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Newt wrote:
> >
> > > I think
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dan Beale]

"gregh" > wrote in message
...

> It isn't all there is, though. A list of software
> on your machine DOES get sent to MS every time you
> use Windows Update over the web with XP.

Do you have a link for that?

[Dan Beale]

"gregh" > wrote in message
...

> It isn't all there is, though. A list of software
> on your machine DOES get sent to MS every time you
> use Windows Update over the web with XP.

Do you have a link for that?

[Ghost]

In article >,
"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:

> Ghost wrote:
>
> > And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> > law....
>
> Total ****ing crap. A company is bound by the laws of the countries it is
> operating in, you stupid wankstain. If company A is based in country B and
> commits a crime in country C, it is certainly liable to the laws of country
> C. If the crime commited in country C is also a crime in country B, then
> company A would also be liable in country B. I take it you have absolutely
> no ****ing idea why companies are given legal entity status, hmmm?
>
> For example, in the US it seems quite legal to cook your books and make
> false statements to the tune of tens of billions of dollars... Enron,
> Worldcom, et al. If those US companies had offices here and those frauds
> were perpetrated here by those offices, the local directors would have been
> given an opportunity of watching endless reruns of Seinfeld for 25 to 30
> years.


And if the country where the crime was committed does not have specific
laws to cover that crime, then the law of the home country applies.

In other owrds- if a DOS was committed by M$ in a country who has no laws
agaisnt DOS, then the US law could and would apply because M$ is a US
based company.

Why in the hell are we going on with this endless freaking thread!

[Ghost]

In article >,
"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:

> Ghost wrote:
>
> > And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> > law....
>
> Total ****ing crap. A company is bound by the laws of the countries it is
> operating in, you stupid wankstain. If company A is based in country B and
> commits a crime in country C, it is certainly liable to the laws of country
> C. If the crime commited in country C is also a crime in country B, then
> company A would also be liable in country B. I take it you have absolutely
> no ****ing idea why companies are given legal entity status, hmmm?
>
> For example, in the US it seems quite legal to cook your books and make
> false statements to the tune of tens of billions of dollars... Enron,
> Worldcom, et al. If those US companies had offices here and those frauds
> were perpetrated here by those offices, the local directors would have been
> given an opportunity of watching endless reruns of Seinfeld for 25 to 30
> years.


And if the country where the crime was committed does not have specific
laws to cover that crime, then the law of the home country applies.

In other owrds- if a DOS was committed by M$ in a country who has no laws
agaisnt DOS, then the US law could and would apply because M$ is a US
based company.

Why in the hell are we going on with this endless freaking thread!

[Kadaitcha Man]

Ghost wrote:
> In article >,
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:

> And if the country where the crime was committed does not have
> specific laws to cover that crime, then the law of the home country
> applies.

No. Not so. You assume that that applies to all countries. It does not.
Such is your ****headedness that you make broad generalisations sufficient
enough to prove that you are a ****tard.

> In other owrds- if a DOS was committed by M$ in a country who has no
> laws agaisnt DOS, then the US law could and would apply because M$ is
> a US based company.

Which is, in essence, what I wrote, is it not, head****?

> Why in the hell are we going on with this endless freaking thread!

Because I want it to.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Ghost wrote:
> In article >,
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:

> And if the country where the crime was committed does not have
> specific laws to cover that crime, then the law of the home country
> applies.

No. Not so. You assume that that applies to all countries. It does not.
Such is your ****headedness that you make broad generalisations sufficient
enough to prove that you are a ****tard.

> In other owrds- if a DOS was committed by M$ in a country who has no
> laws agaisnt DOS, then the US law could and would apply because M$ is
> a US based company.

Which is, in essence, what I wrote, is it not, head****?

> Why in the hell are we going on with this endless freaking thread!

Because I want it to.

[LesterWarby@aol.com]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:34:31 GMT, (Ghost) wrote:

>
>>
>> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
>> > Denial of Service, a felony.
>> >
>>
>> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
>> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
>> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
>> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.
>>
>> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
>> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
>> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
>>
>> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
>> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
>> dont know for sure.
>>
>> >
>
>Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
>before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
>of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
>law....
>
>This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
>type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further with
>the facts... lol




http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1485861


LAW HA!

[LesterWarby@aol.com]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:34:31 GMT, (Ghost) wrote:

>
>>
>> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it is
>> > Denial of Service, a felony.
>> >
>>
>> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It isnt
>> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is just
>> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's your
>> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still works.
>>
>> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the aussies
>> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
>> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
>>
>> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a DOS so
>> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but I
>> dont know for sure.
>>
>> >
>
>Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
>before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
>of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
>law....
>
>This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
>type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further with
>the facts... lol




http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1485861


LAW HA!

[Rabid_Roach]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:34:31 GMT, (Ghost) wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it
is
> >> > Denial of Service, a felony.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It
isnt
> >> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is
just
> >> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's
your
> >> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still
works.
> >>
> >> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the
aussies
> >> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> >> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
> >>
> >> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a
DOS so
> >> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but
I
> >> dont know for sure.
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
> >before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
> >of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> >law....
> >
> >This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
> >type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further
with
> >the facts... lol
>
>
>
>
> http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1485861
>
>
> LAW HA!
>
>

And just why would an administrator for a Bank no less, have a server with
propritary/highly secure information connected to the net without an
aduquate firewall in place? Sounds like one place I'm not putting any of my
money.

[Rabid_Roach]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:34:31 GMT, (Ghost) wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Stop arguing your uninformed opinion. They cannot disable the OS- it
is
> >> > Denial of Service, a felony.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Whether it is a felony depends on the laws of the country it is in. It
isnt
> >> a DOS as you well know in any case. The computer can still work. It is
just
> >> a disabling of a program. If you CHOOSE to make it your ONLY OS that's
your
> >> choice. If you have, say, a dual boot XP/Linux, your computer still
works.
> >>
> >> > They cannot do it, even if you are in Australia. I am sure the
aussies
> >> > have a similar law, but even if they dont, the US law will cover that
> >> > action since they are an American owned corporation.
> >>
> >> Not really sure if that is a thing in Australia at all but it isnt a
DOS so
> >> it is really not the subject. Likely a real DOS is against the law but
I
> >> dont know for sure.
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >Gregh... you are right about that.. you really do not know for sure...
> >before you post, try researching and learning... it is DOS under the laws
> >of the US. And, since M$ is an American comapny, they are bound by US
> >law....
> >
> >This is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned- you are not the
> >type to learn- you know what you know, I will not confuse you further
with
> >the facts... lol
>
>
>
>
> http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/1485861
>
>
> LAW HA!
>
>

And just why would an administrator for a Bank no less, have a server with
propritary/highly secure information connected to the net without an
aduquate firewall in place? Sounds like one place I'm not putting any of my
money.