A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old February 12th 19, 04:38 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her.


pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.
Ads
  #47  
Old February 12th 19, 04:51 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,800
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 02/12/2019 10:38 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26

Rene

  #48  
Old February 12th 19, 04:55 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
123456789[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam
wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you

get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.


Not in my state (AZ/US):

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal
alone shall not enter the roadway.
  #49  
Old February 12th 19, 05:31 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,812
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.


Not true here in the US, AFAIK, though it could be different in your
country. If you expect to have the right of way as a pedestrian, you'd
better look for a designated crosswalk. There are a few other
exceptions, as well, but generally speaking if you step out wherever you
feel like it, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Not really.

  #50  
Old February 12th 19, 05:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,800
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 02/12/2019 10:55 AM, 123456789 wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a

traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you

get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.


Not in my state (AZ/US):

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided
in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal alone shall
not enter the roadway.


Right, only makes common sense.

Rene
  #51  
Old February 12th 19, 05:45 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 2/11/19 6:33 PM, lonelydad wrote:

[snip]

I don't usually comment on the validity of a post, but what we have here
is an example of a response being fired off after mis/not reading the
original post and not doing any kind of research on the validity of the
content. As [email protected], stated, the proposed charge is if a user still
running Windows 7 wants to continue to receive security updates, they
will have to pay for it, since Windows 7 is about five versions back or
so, if one counts the semiannual updates of Windows 10 as new versions.
If Microsoft really tried to bill for the continued use of Windows 7
intself it would be violating its own Terms of Use, and would more than
likely face a raft of lawsuits from corporate users still using the
platform. Microsoft has fully depreciated the capital cost of Windows 7
and its term of support, and has no legal basis to start charging a user
fee for continued use. But it would be interesting to see them try it.


They can probably change those "terms of use" anytime they want, in any
way the want.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The concept of sin divorces morality from reality."
  #52  
Old February 12th 19, 05:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26


(f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or
intoxicated person.

random states -

california:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec
tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH
21950.**
(a)*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b)*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a
curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a
vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No
pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk.
(c)*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d)*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the
duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within
any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.

minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21
Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control
signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle
shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no
marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian
has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible
for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the
conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
....
Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver
of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal
when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any
child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

new york:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r
epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html
When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the
right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).
In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk,
must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide
dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153).
What if there is no crosswalk?
If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way
to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152).
What about sidewalks?
The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway,
building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to
any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a).

washington:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain
stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within
an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is
upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of
this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying
traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of
a one-way roadway.
  #53  
Old February 12th 19, 05:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

In article ,
123456789 wrote:

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you

get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.


Not in my state (AZ/US):

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal
alone shall not enter the roadway.


yes in your state:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm
28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk
A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic
control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver
of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping
if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway
on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is
approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to
be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so
close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
  #54  
Old February 12th 19, 05:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.


the motor vehicle code.


Not true here in the US, AFAIK, though it could be different in your
country.


see links in other post.

If you expect to have the right of way as a pedestrian, you'd
better look for a designated crosswalk. There are a few other
exceptions, as well, but generally speaking if you step out wherever you
feel like it, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.


jaywalking might be illegal in some places, but it's the responsibility
of the driver not to hit said pedestrian if in the path of the vehicle.

and in new york city, not jaywalking marks you as a tourist. muggers
like tourists.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Not really.


yes really. they either end up injured and can't walk, or they're dead.

either way, no further occurrences.
  #55  
Old February 12th 19, 05:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,812
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:26:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

I don't own a cellphone/smartphone either. I do use VOIP,
because it's cheaper than the $55 per month they expect
here for a landline.

$55...yikes, someone must be very proud of their telco offering.

As for VoIP being cheaper, I assume you mean free (after acquiring a
VoIP adapter).

usually, voip-voip calls are free, while calls to/from ptsn are not.


By the way, thanks for backing off of the "calls to/from ptsn are not"
free thing. It's PSTN, but that was probably a typo.

GV calls within the US and Canada are free, but limited to 3 hours.
International calls start at $0.01 per minute, depending on the called
country. The called number can be PSTN, or not. It's still free.


google voice is not really a voip provider and only recently offered
voip support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice#VoIP_services
Google Voice permits Voice Over IP (VoIP) as a beta from both the web
and Android clients. It formerly supported XMPP signaling but no
longer does. However, it has been reported that at one time some
users could receive calls with their Google Voice accounts via the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).

Google Voice is still free and works pretty well,
although individual calls are limited to 3 hours.

it's not voip, although there are ways to use it as such.


I use it with an Obihai ATA and it looks like VoIP to me. I vaguely
recall that it might have been SIP back when it was launched, but that's
~10 years ago so I don't remember for sure.


obihai is one of the ways to use gv as a 'normal phone', originally via
xmpp, which is no longer supported. i'm not sure what it uses now.


I'm using a broader definition of VoIP than you are. Packetized voice
using a protocol that rides on TCP or UDP, either of which in turn rides
on IP. I don't really care what the upper layer protocol is.

--

Char Jackson
  #56  
Old February 12th 19, 05:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 2/11/19 7:15 PM, Mike wrote:

[snip]

It's inevitable.
The cellphone model already does that.
Want data?* No problem.* Fork over $40 a line for
4 lines and get lotsa data, whether you use it or not.
Somebody has to pay for that Superbowl commercial.


There's a company called Karma where you bought data by the GB and it
never expires, even if it takes you 30 years to use it. After a couple
of years, they started taking it back, At least for new purchases. So
far, you get to keep data yo bought before the change.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The concept of sin divorces morality from reality."
  #57  
Old February 12th 19, 05:58 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 2/11/19 8:11 PM, pjp wrote:

I have always felt if Linux had games equal to Windows would do it.


When using XP I got interested in playing "Spider Solitaire" (turning
OFF the machine-gun dealing sound). Now, I find I prefer "Penguin
Spider" in Linux. Linux does have a bunch of games (without the
commercial junk of recent Windows). You may have to install them
separately from the OS.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The concept of sin divorces morality from reality."
  #58  
Old February 12th 19, 06:01 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 2/11/19 9:30 PM, Paul wrote:

[snip]

Since the executables don't have access to the
physical layer on disk drives, commercial software
attempting to write license patterns in places they
shouldn't, are blocked.


I think that's what happened when I had a dual boot (Win and Linux on
the same disk). Some Windows program messed up the bootloader.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The concept of sin divorces morality from reality."
  #59  
Old February 12th 19, 06:10 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,800
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 02/12/2019 11:46 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.

the motor vehicle code.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26


(f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or
intoxicated person.

random states -

california:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec
tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH
21950.
(a)*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b)*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a
curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a
vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No
pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk.
(c)*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d)*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the
duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within
any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.

minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21
Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control
signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle
shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no
marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian
has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible
for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the
conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
...
Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver
of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal
when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any
child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

new york:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r
epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html
€ When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the
right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).
€ In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk,
must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide
dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153).
What if there is no crosswalk?
€ If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way
to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152).
What about sidewalks?
€ The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway,
building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to
any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a).

washington:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain
stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within
an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is
upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of
this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying
traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of
a one-way roadway.


Your proof does not fit the situation that I saw, What I am saying is an
intersection with traffic lights not just a crosswalk but regular Red,
yellow and green lights and Walk and Don't walk lights for pedestrians.
There, that's fairly easy to understand.

Rene

  #60  
Old February 12th 19, 06:10 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On 2/11/19 10:29 PM, nospam wrote:

[snip]

just because a few people are oblivious to their surroundings doesn't
mean everyone is.


One of the things I don't like is when one person (probably using a
cellphone) yells at another t the other end of the aisle, apparently not
caring that I am much closer to the yeller.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The concept of sin divorces morality from reality."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.