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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:52:28 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
OP didn't whine, he expressed his frustration. He's unusual only in expressing his frustration here. Someone who reports an actual problem, with reasonable details, is asking for help and will usually get it. Someone who just whines about unspecified "problems" is indeed whining. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:12:12 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
I'm not so sure freeware will disappear, they'll probably just modify there user agreements. I don't remember which one it was at the moment, but I loaded a Linux Live CD or something free to play with, and it had a statement that amounted to there was no warranty of anything. How can you be held accountable when you say your product isn't guaranteed to do much of anything. G And of course Microsoft's EULAs say essentially the same thing -- if our software causes a problem, it's your tough luck. That's standard in the industry, and has been for the 30+ years that I've owned PCs. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On 17 Oct 2015, Wolf K wrote in
alt.windows7.general: You still don't get it. I don't think you ever will. It seems that neither will you. If someone comes here looking for assistance they will likely get a good effort from several people. If they just want to whinge, they should go somewhere else. It's their choice. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
"Mayayana" wrote in message ... | The free market will weed out inferior software. You mean like the way it caught the VW scam? Or maybe the way the free market gives me a choice of 2 duopoly companies for phone service, which both charge the same price that keeps going up? Or maybe you're referring to the way that Microsoft has managed to charge outrageous prices for their monopoly office software for decades. Did you imagine that was due to the free market and not their carefully planned non- compatibility and market power? (Is it the free market at work when college students are forced to buy MS Office in order to do their work?) The valorization of so-called "free market" has given us Apple lock-in while legalized slave labor builds their iPhones and legal offshoring of profits allows them to legally evade taxes. Free market thinking gave us NAFTA, which drove jobs out of the US, to Mexico where it's legal to exploit employees more. (I once read an article detailing how HP had a plant over the border in Mexico, all ready to go online within a week of NAFTA passing.) NAFTA helped big corporations, but did it help the US economy or society? A relevant question in the face of the new NAFTA -- the Pacific trade agreement. | Expecting governments to do anything more efficiently | than the free market seems somewhat misguided. Why? The free market has given us Turing Pharmaceuticals in the past month, bought out by a hedge fund manager who's now hiking the prices, while the gov't seems helpless to stop him. (Just search for Turing price hikes. You'll find plenty of links.) Would you feel the same way if you needed a pill that had just gone from $13.50 to $750 per pill, not covered by your insurance, under a "free market" system that gives you no recourse? Software liability is certainly a tricky issue, but in this crazed election season it's worth remembering that we don't have only two options, between the extremes of total gov't control or lack of it. Capitalism, socialism and free market economy and just some of the trigger words that have become grossly oversimplified and distorted by two sides yelling at each other. "Free market" with no regulation is simply a return to barbaric king-of-the-hill society, where kings and warlords rule -- whether by sword or by lawsuit. This is a very sensible and accurate post. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:52:18 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2015-10-17 09:36, Stormin' Norman wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:52:28 -0400, Wolf K wrote: you will see pressure to invalidate the EULA clauses that abrogate any liability for consequential damages, a provision that amounts to an admission that the computer will fail. The EU has already taken steps to make software and hardware vendors more liable. The above will only serve to dramatically increase prices, will probably destroy the concept of freeware or open source software and result in far less flexible, more appliance-like, software. In general, more regulation on the free-market stifles innovation, reduces competition and ends up costing us all much more in the long run. Save regulations for those things which threaten life and limb. The free market will weed out inferior software. Expecting governments to do anything more efficiently than the free market seems somewhat misguided. Ah, if only there were in fact a free market. It's an ideal more honoured in the breach than th'observance, to quote somebody or other. ;-) A specious argument. My business is part of the free market, I operate in it everyday. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but everyday it is up to me which happens. You're funny. Microsoft is one of the most successful things in the history of the universe. But it has only done two or three things right and is living proof that the Govt is frequently as efficient as private sector entities. If you get the govt out of business, you have some tycoon deciding how much you have to pay for bandwidth. And everything else. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:03:01 -0700, masonc
wrote: All well and good to spend time solving Windows 7 problems What about workers (like me) who just want to get work done on their computers? Because my 11-year-old HP XP was slow and had symptoms of failing disk, I sprung for a big Dell and Windows 7. I get problem after problem after problem and no work done. I have learned to keep a log of solutions: my "Win7 Manual" I must *permanently* keep my xx XP machine on hand, as I see others doing. At what point will there be a huge class lawsuit? The damages that Microsoft are causing must be in the $billions. Wow, my troll started a great thread. Very interesting. Some of you would find my "The Liberal Case for Conservatism" book interesting. I do ask for specific help, but mostly Google for it. In every case, someone else has had the same problem. In some cases there is/was no solution (and don't expect me to recite them for you). I'll now post one for which I've found no solution (making a repair disc). Here's an amusing anecdote of no importance: I did a search for "notebook.exe" and found 11 (eleven) of them. Eleven. Theory: After the Vista disaster, Microsoft *threw together* Win7 in a big hurry. Now they want to flush the Win7 pile by forcing us all to Win10. Incidentally, I *never* touch the registry manually or by any jokester "Fix It" program. I do use Avast! and three junk cleaners that work. It's incredible how verdant capitalism pushes adware. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
| Theory: After the Vista disaster, Microsoft *threw together* Win7 in
| a big hurry. Now they want to flush the Win7 pile by forcing us all | to Win10. | I don't think many people would agree with that. Back in the early-mid 2000s MS was working on something like Metro, which they were calling Longhorn. They had a plan to remake Windows as a sandboxed trinket-app system running on top of .Net, which in turn would run on top of Windows. Only Microsoft would be able to actually access the system files -- like tablets and phones now. The problem was that a .Net layer on top of the OS was so bloated and resource hungry that they simply couldn't make it work with the hardware of the time. By about 2005 they decided to cut their losses and do a "Longhorn reset". Vista was a relatively new version of NT that was put together between that time and 2007. Win7 is basically just Vista with some rough edges removed. Most notably, people can adjust the nag and restriction level in Win7, making it somewhat less safe, but more usable and far less irritating. Metro is pretty much what Longhorn was meant to be, albeit a somewhat less ambitious version. The move to Win10 is the latest, most extensive version of what MS has tried to do with Active Desktop, Passport, Hailstorm, Longhorn, SPOT watches and Metro -- Windows as a service, not a tool. That's not a theory. It's been clearly articulated in recent years by Microsoft, which now call themselves a services and devices company. They no longer even include software in that description. | Incidentally, I *never* touch the registry manually or by any jokester | "Fix It" program. I do use Avast! and three junk cleaners that work. | It's incredible how verdant capitalism pushes adware. | You might find it worth your while to look into some of those "jokester fix-its". Some of them could help you to put a serviceable lock on your front door, so to speak. What you're doing instead is to ignore system maintenance while hiring several resource-hungry thugs to help you kick out all the riff-raff who are getting in. That's not a very efficient way to keep house. The riff-raff often leave a mess behind, and the thugs may end up breaking some china. At best you've got a noisy, busy house unnecessarily. I shudder to even imagine what kind of dubious stuff you're installing to get so much adware hanging around. Crapware isn't really an effect of "capitalism". Usually it's a result of trying to get something for nothing. Much of the Internet is built on the flim flam model that exploits people's greed. You try to grab a freebie trinket that's being held out while the other person tries to pick your pocket, hoping you'll be distracted by the trinket. Both sides are trying to cheat the other. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 17:07:45 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
And of course Microsoft's EULAs say essentially the same thing -- if our software causes a problem, it's your tough luck. That's standard in the industry, and has been for the 30+ years that I've owned PCs. Not working so well for VW though is it? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:12:53 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: [snip] I'm not so sure about that. If a contractor works in a state with an implied warranty of 2 years, but explicitly writes a one year warranty into his contract, I expect the one year version would hold, since it was signed and agreed to by the customer. It would certainly hold if the law is written to say, "In the absence of explicit warranty, a 2 year warranty shall apply." Some laws state that certain terms can not be signed away. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:12:12 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
The Common Law principle is that you cannot agree to limit or reduce your legal rights. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. People do things every day -- quite legal things -- that limit their rights. When you sign an apartment lease, you give up your legal rights to dispose of your income as you choose, to keep a pet in your home, etc. When you sign a mortgage, you give up your legal right to live without fire insurance, and you give up your legal right to pay your own fire insurance. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
| The Common Law principle is that you cannot agree to limit or reduce
| your legal rights. | | | I'm sorry, but that's just not true. People do things every day -- | quite legal things -- that limit their rights. This is going way off track to no purpose. Whether one can agree to be a slave, for instance, is not the same as contract agreements. This all started with a discussion of whether software companies can disclaim liabitility for weaknesses in software products. That's not talking about giving up personal rights. And, in fact, no one has yet detailed exactly what liability we're talking about. Usefulness? Security? It seems reasonable to me to make the claim that the product makes no promise about usefulness for a particular purpose, or security from malware attacks. What *does* clearly limit personal rights is licenses that go directly against fair use law, such as license limiting serial installation and resale. Microsoft licensed .Net with a clause that said one forfeited the right to criticize it. Isn't that a 1st amendment violation? (I can't quite see the Scalia cartel putting a stop to it. Powerquest licensed Drive Image with the claim that it could only be used on one disk drive! Microsoft, to this day, is licensing OEM Windows in viloation of fair use law. I don't know of any legal threat to that license. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:19:57 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-10-19 08:56, Stormin' Norman wrote: [quoted text muted] Wolf's statement is essentially correct. He omitted one word which was easily inferred from the context. I have corrected it below. The Common Law principle is that you cannot agree to limit or reduce your 'enumerated' legal rights. Thanks, Norman. "Enumerated rights" include any that have been established by precedent. Care to give a legally valid definition of "enumerated legal rights"? I doubt you can. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a well-read layman, and as far as I know that is not a legal term. The ordinary English meaning of "enumerated" (which might not be the legal meaning, if it had one) would be pretty much the opposite of rights "established by precedent". Using the ordinary English meaning of enumerated, we would include the First Amendment. And here is another counter-example to your claim: Every employee at the NSA, every person with a security clearance, every deployed soldier, has agreed to limit his or her legal right to free speech by _not_ talking about certain topics. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
In message , Stan Brown
writes: [] When you sign a mortgage, you give up your legal right to live without fire insurance, and you give up your legal right to pay your own fire insurance. I think not in the UK; I'm not sure specifically about fire insurance, but we have legislation that specifically forbids mortgage lenders specifying which insurance provider you must use, after a spate of abuse (or perceived abuse - I think at least some of it was genuine) of such arrangements by some providers (of mortgages and insurance). They can still insist you _have_ insurance which otherwise you might not, but they can't make you buy it from them. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Experience is the comb life gives you after you lose your hair. -Judith Stearn |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:46:16 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Stan Brown writes: [] When you sign a mortgage, you give up your legal right to live without fire insurance, and you give up your legal right to pay your own fire insurance. I think not in the UK; I'm not sure specifically about fire insurance, but we have legislation that specifically forbids mortgage lenders specifying which insurance provider you must use, after a spate of abuse (or perceived abuse - I think at least some of it was genuine) of such arrangements by some providers (of mortgages and insurance). They can still insist you _have_ insurance which otherwise you might not, but they can't make you buy it from them. Just like the US, in other words. Perhaps you were misled by my "pay your own fire insurance". The usual practice here is that the homeowner signs up for fire insurance, the insurance company asks which bank holds the mortgage, and bills are sent to the bank. I say "usual practice"; doubtless there are exceptions. I was one, in my first house in the 1970s. The bank actually failed to pay the fire insurance, despite reminders from me. After my home was uninsured, I argued successfully that I was more responsible about it than they were. Amazingly, they agreed, and allowed me to pay my own insurance after that. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What about us computer USERS ?
On 10/22/15 7:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:19:34 -0400, Stan Brown wrote: You do know that the Declaration of Independence has zero legal force, right? Stan, your statement is not entirely correct. At the time it was ratified, the Declaration of Independence served as a legal expression of international sovereignty, formally separating the thirteen colonies (as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) from the authority of, and breaking all political ties with, the Crown. Enforcement of this legal document took the form of the Revolutionary War. Those who ratified the Declaration were the legally elected or appointed representatives of each of the thirteen colonies. In addition to my comments above, I offer the following for your consideration: Hi, Norman, An "Ah, but" comment or two... Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes: "The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America . My read of the Professor's statement is the Declaration is not necessarily legal, just the ideas expressed is part of the "fundamental law of the United States of America." Professor Eidsmoe has not said *directly* the Declaration itself is legal and binding. I think the Professor is saying the ideas of the Declaration are built into the fundamental laws of the US, not that the Declaration itself is a legal and binding document. "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361) And at the end of this paragraph, the Oklahoma Constitution says "the *principles* of the Declaration of Independence", not the Declaration itself. A search finds lots of links discussing the issue. I think to find the correct answer, the place to start are the Supreme Court case(s) where this question has been part of the cases presented and see what the Court ruled. But I, for one, do not have the time at the moment to ferret that info out. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|