Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank wrote:

Adam Albright wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
wrote:


The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.


Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
legal or factual. That is always damn funny.


Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
nothing fool!
Well...?

Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?

Don't be silly.

Frank wrote:
norm wrote:

Frank wrote:

norm wrote:


And you, as an avowed Christian, certainly do not present yourself
as such in this group.


Oh, and you're the definitive expert on Christians?

One doesn't have to be an expert, definitively or otherwise, to be a
Christian. Stay on task.


Careful norm, as you're about to hurt yourself.
I didn't say anything about 'being a Christian".
As far as I can see, you are correct about the "being a Christian"
statement, but you have never denied it in prior threads when called on
your statements of your belief. But I will admit I was wrong on that
part of the statement. However, you have avowed (on occasion in very
strong terms) that you believe in God, so I will restate what I said
above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present yourself
as such in this group.
Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief. You are still a hypocrite.


Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
ng, huh?

Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?


The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.


Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
such a thing?

If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in the
course of your "arguments"?

Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?
Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
and accusations of someone being a godless atheist. Your belief and your
actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Or could it be that you will use any
"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need?


Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.
Again, I think not.

Then again, why bother to
ask anything of you?

You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming
anyway.

Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any
substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.
So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others, I
in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

Enjoy.

I certainly do and thank you very much!

Frank



--
norm

Adam Albright wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank wrote:


Adam Albright wrote:


On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
wrote:



The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.


Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
legal or factual. That is always damn funny.


Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
nothing fool!
Well...?


Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?

Don't be silly.


Ummm...so you don't huh?
That's what I thought.
Well...in that case...you LOSE...hahaha...!
You're a fake, a phony and an as*hole too boot!
Frank

norm wrote:

...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very
strong terms) that you believe in God, so I will restate what I said
above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present yourself
as such in this group.

Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief.

They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

You are still a hypocrite.

And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?



Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
ng, huh?


Pitiful need for attention, I take it?


Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?



The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.



Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
such a thing?


If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
the course of your "arguments"?


Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?

Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.

Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
So...?

Your belief and your
actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?


Or could it be that you will use any

"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need?



Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

Again, I think not.

Oh, I think you've already done it!

Then again, why bother to

ask anything of you?


You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

anyway.


Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in any
substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others, I
in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
manipulated".
Who do you answer to norm?
Frank

Kids!!

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"Frank" wrote in message
...
Adam Albright wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:14:10 -0700, Frank wrote:


Adam Albright wrote:


On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:00 -0700, Andrés Vargas
wrote:



The guy *Adam* just became angry because of the easy way Bruce explained
things. Without further arguments, the only way for him is to take the
conversation away of the logic and begin a discussion based in feelings.


Angry? I'm only pointing out the lunacy of what some here consider
legal or factual. That is always damn funny.


Got any case law or recent court decisions to back up your statement(s)
If you do then post them...or else you're just a stupid big mouth know
nothing fool!
Well...?


Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?

Don't be silly.


Ummm...so you don't huh?
That's what I thought.
Well...in that case...you LOSE...hahaha...!
You're a fake, a phony and an as*hole too boot!
Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

|Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
|
|Don't be silly.


This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post in
this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this case
feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.
Personally I would be tired of it by now, but by all means, let Frank
have his fun. You are offering him as much as he wants on a silver
plate.

I have learnt a lot of new combination of insulting words and terms
from you, but that's about it

--
//ceed

On 16 Sep 2007 11:53:48 GMT, "ceed" wrote:

Adam Albright wrote:

|Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
|
|Don't be silly.

This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post in
this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this case
feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.

Really? Then the inescapable conclusion is you're as screwed up
mentally as Frank is. Pity.

Adam Albright wrote:

|On 16 Sep 2007 11:53:48 GMT, "ceed" wrote:
|
||Adam Albright wrote:
||
||Explain case law to a stupid feces throwing monkey like you Frank?
||
||Don't be silly.
|
||This is just too funny: I can point my newsreader at a random post
||in this group and it will most likely be you throwing dirt (in this
||case feces) mostly at Frank who seems to enjoy pushing your buttons.
|
|Really? Then the inescapable conclusion is you're as screwed up
|mentally as Frank is. Pity.

No I'm not, it's just so tempting to pull your leg. Won't do it anymore
though since you seem to get really upset. I'm just a boring computer
user like you, although without the strong opinions and temper.

--
//ceed

Frank wrote:
norm wrote:

...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that
you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present
yourself as such in this group.

Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?
There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your
proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.

Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief.

They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

You are still a hypocrite.

And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?
Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a
hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.



Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a public
ng, huh?


Pitiful need for attention, I take it?


Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are the
place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?



The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.



Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
such a thing?


If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
the course of your "arguments"?


Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?

Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your "arguments"
and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.

Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
So...?
The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that
you are a hypocrite.

Your belief and your
actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?
The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the
other.


Or could it be that you will use any

"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need?



Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

Again, I think not.

Oh, I think you've already done it!

Then again, why bother to

ask anything of you?


You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

anyway.


Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in
any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked others,
I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
manipulated".
Who do you answer to norm?
Frank
I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a
hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You
proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that
belief.
hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a
person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her
public statements.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME ipocrite OF LL hypocrita Gk hypokrits a
stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to
hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin
hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings

--
norm

On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers wrote:
Silicon neuron wrote:

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.

Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:

================================================== ======================

You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:59:07 -0700, FIsc
wrote:

On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers wrote:
Silicon neuron wrote:

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.

Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:

================================================== ======================

You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?


Microsoft is infamous for proclaiming "rules" only to break the rules
themselves. Classic example and what's getting a lot of noise now is
UAC and standard user. For YEARS Windows and every Microsoft product
was by DESIGN written to run as administrator. Until Vista, Windows
installed itself with one user, will full administrative rights unless
you changed it. Now the boys of Redmond bellow loudly that's not a
good idea, yet it was Microsoft that not only started the practice but
encouraged it. The biggest hypocrites of all are found at Microsoft!

"PA Bear" wrote in message ...
I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
in it before.

Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our time less valuable than yours?


Of course I didn't mean that at all.

And I did read down the branches in this thread, to certain levels.

But there are certain catch-phrases that usually accurately tell me
that it would be a waste my time to go further down a branch.
Things like unix vs windows.
And all insults.

In this case it was just that I didn't happen to be interested,
at that particular moment anyway, in "EULA".

But I see now that I should at least have gone further down
that particular branch, because, in it, you come closest
to answering my very badly expressed questions,
with:
--Disable the Windows update service.
--You will need to enable the service before any Windows
--Update function is used.

and

--I don't know if it is written anywhere.
--Even if it was some would have to see for themselves.
--Disable the service on a clean Install, or whatever suits
--needs, of Windows
--and verify for yourself.

Have to wait " 'till tuesday" to test.


Of course there are a few other services involved:
("Background Intelligent Transfer Service", just to mention one)
and ActiveX controls
(I've never known a site that used more of them.
I hate it that Windows doesn't tell Which activeX control
is wanting to run!)
which, for me, should not be activated from the outside,
since I normally run as a user, not administrator.


But again, and I don't know how better to say it:
I just can't beleive that Microsoft would go around all the services.
I think we agree about that.
It sounds like urban-myth.

~~~

Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
myself to turn it off.

Are you saying that if you disable Automatic Updates
and then update via Windows Update website,
Automatic Updates is re-enabled
or the Automatic Update /service/ is turned on?


I am sorry, I don't know.
It might have been Norton Internet Security.
Or it might have been a complete illusion.

I will pay much closer attention next time,
and then report back here what I'm talking about,
(if it turns out to be worth telling.)


I appologize.

~greg

But I see now that I should at least have gone further down
that particular branch, because, in it, you come closest
to answering my very badly expressed questions,


I meant of course Jupiter Jones [MVP].

(but perhaps you (~PA Bear)
had his posts in mind?)

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ...
"Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on their auto-updates thingy."
Perhaps on your computers, not mine.
I leave Automatic Updates off on some computers and it has remained off after updates.
There is something other than just the update process turning it back on


Might have been Norton Internet Security.
(I'm pretty sure they turn back on
their own auto-update feature after some updates anyway.)

~

I just wrote a response to "~PA Bear" that was
more meant for you. Sorry.

~greg.

FIsc wrote:
On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers wrote:
Silicon neuron wrote:

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the
opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance
notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.

Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:

================================================== ======================

You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?



Well done, everybody else seems to have missed that despite old Jonesy
using it in an attempt to bolster his case.

That phrase does not say what specifically you can turn off BUT it sure
does imply that you can turn all of it off.

Now, on many occasions I have seen the "Windows is checking if you have
the latest version of the updating software" or whatever and I wait and
it says I need to install some ActiveX to proceed with the process. I
see nothing wrong with this and see no reason why, suddenly, MS decided
to not ask that question and do it anyway. When I say check for updates
it's obviously going to check that the updater on my machine is the
current version, why go sneaking about the back door UNLESS you have
something to hide?

You can't always leave auto install on, if a restart is needed and shuts
down an industrial process control you're in trouble, bt most people
could and probably should, however sneaking about in the background is
NOT going to encourage that