Where or where is Ron Schestowitz gone?
firebrand
ridiculous number of posts be hidden from my eyes, as they made the
newsgroup all but impossible to read.
After a while away from Usenet, I've returned only to find that Roy's
posts no longer swamp the group. So what's happened? Has Roy's
attainment of his PhD led to a proper job which no longer gives him the
opportunity to post so much? Has Roy actually gone and got himself a
real job at last?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Schestowitz hater. But so much of the
stuff he posted in this group was... meh.
I see that other characters post here (eg Hadron) but he's a little
ladyboy compared to Roy's volumionous output; so I can cope with his
inanities and inaccuracies.
I hope Roy doesn't return to the bad old days of BoycottNovell and the
rest of his crusades. It's interesting to note that the site http://
boycottnovell.com is now http://techrights.org. Has Roy mellowed in his
(not so) old age? Or am I looking in the wrong places.
Glenn Hall
> A few years ago, I had to add kill-file rules to make Roy Schestowitz's
> ridiculous number of posts be hidden from my eyes, as they made the
> newsgroup all but impossible to read.
Roy's site it now called TechRights which IMHO is a more
appropriate title. His personal web page has his accomplishments
listed but in a nutshell he graduated, has a real job in research
(cardiology I think) and continues his work with foss advocacy. I
don't know Roy personally but I got the impression that he decided
to concentrate on more legitimate places to advocate Linux. He
just started a weekly web cast which is pretty decent, technical
problems aside. The opening theme song is hilarious. It's a take
off on "I Fought the Law and the Law won". I think it's called "I
Fought the Troll and the Troll Lost."
Roy is surely a controversial person and I doubt there is anyone
on the planet, including me, that agrees with every one of his
points but that's not what he is about. Roy makes people think and
that is the secret to his popularity. Whether you agree or
disagree, his choice of topic and his methods of presenting the
topics will either rally supporters or attract dissenters.
He is very polarized in my opinion and that's ok because he is
consistent and sincere as far as I can tell. Some people say he
should tone down his opinions a little but I disagree. It's better
to honestly express how you feel rather than compromise your self
worth and end up feeling guilty about it. This doesn't mean that
you can't meet people half way and reach a mutual compromise, but
your core beliefs should not be watered down unless of course you
have had a change of opinion which is also fine. The foss
community is fortunate to have a person like Roy on their side
advocating freedom in a most tireless manner.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> He is very polarized in my opinion and that's ok because he is
> consistent and sincere as far as I can tell. Some people say he
> should tone down his opinions a little but I disagree. It's better
> to honestly express how you feel rather than compromise your self
> worth and end up feeling guilty about it. This doesn't mean that
> you can't meet people half way and reach a mutual compromise, but
> your core beliefs should not be watered down unless of course you
> have had a change of opinion which is also fine. The foss
> community is fortunate to have a person like Roy on their side
> advocating freedom in a most tireless manner.
Not true. By his own admission, Roy feeds off of trolls. I used to
lob him trollbait softballs and he swung at them. Is this honest? Or
stupid? Anybody with half a brain would clearly see I was feeding him
trollbait--yet he took the trollbait on its face value and ran with
it. That's dishonest (assuming the man is not stupid, and, if what
you say about him being in the medical sciences is right, he's not
stupid).
So Roy is essentially a polarizing shill. Essentially a troll on a
mission, nothing more. Your last line above seems to point in the
same direction as Roy.
RL
Ezekiel
"Glenn Hall" <glennhall59...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n2e3azihszi1$.1l9ipx7b1id1z$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:51:36 +0000 (UTC), firebrand wrote:
>
>> A few years ago, I had to add kill-file rules to make Roy Schestowitz's
>> ridiculous number of posts be hidden from my eyes, as they made the
>> newsgroup all but impossible to read.
>
> The foss community is fortunate to have a
> person like Roy on their side advocating
> freedom in a most tireless manner.
Puhleeze.
Schestowitz was nothing more than a whining paranoid child hypocrite. And a
stupid one at that when it came to computer/technical matters.
You try to make him out to be Ghandi or Nelson Mandella or something -
"advocating freedom in a most tireless manner." He's a fscking low-life
spammer.
amicus_curious
"Ezekiel" <no_...@fake-zeke.com> wrote in message
news:ibgnrp$qa3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> You try to make him out to be Ghandi or Nelson Mandella or something -
> "advocating freedom in a most tireless manner." He's a fscking low-life
> spammer.
>
Schestowitz is trying to make himself out as that sort, but the image
suffers due to a lack of reality. Being able to study someone's source code
does not create anything akin to freedom. Rather it allows someone skilled
in programming to replicate someone's efforts, usually for the purpose of
obtaining beneficial use of the program without paying the license fee. In
the process, the results are made available to millions of FOSS advocates
who are themselves limited in their abilities to create object modules.
As demonstrated by the wide availability of otherwise protected works on the
warez sites and newsgroups, this process does not really need any access to
the source code, but it is illegal and is prosecuted in commercial
situations by the BSA. What the small timer fears is that this piracy might
be prosecuted on their own level as the RIAA has done to individual song
poachers. Their paranoia runs deep.
Schestowitz stands out from the crowd only because he is so overly possessed
by this quest and has ever so much more energy than the run of the mill COLA
advocate who is typically much less engaged with society.
Hadron
Also dont forget that Roy was showing off in this #irc channel and
actually strutted around telling his sycophantic brood how someone asked
him to review a document and he refused because they wouldn't pay him!
Yup, a freetard through and through. His ONLY contribution to OSS is to
berate and hound the real developers while trying to up his hit
count. Not surprisingly Creepy Chris used to hang off his every word and
hence became known as Roy's lapdog.
Glenn Hall
> Not true. By his own admission, Roy feeds off of trolls.
Where do you see this?
He regularly kicks trolls off of his irc channel so I doubt he
feeds off them.
> So Roy is essentially a polarizing shill. Essentially a troll on a
> mission, nothing more. Your last line above seems to point in the
> same direction as Roy.
Roy is indeed polarizing to some degree but only because he
passionately believes in the cause and chooses to take one side
and one side only.
I don't think his intent is to polarize people but instead to
persuade them that his ideas have merit.
High Plains Thumper
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> Not true. By his own admission, Roy feeds off of trolls.
>
> Where do you see this? He regularly kicks trolls off of his irc channel
> so I doubt he feeds off them.
He doesn't feed trolls, or feed off them.
>> So Roy is essentially a polarizing shill. Essentially a troll on a
>> mission, nothing more. Your last line above seems to point in the same
>> direction as Roy.
>
> Roy is indeed polarizing to some degree but only because he passionately
> believes in the cause and chooses to take one side and one side only. I
> don't think his intent is to polarize people but instead to persuade
> them that his ideas have merit.
Of course. This is the spirit of advocacy and is on topic for COLA,
something the trolls don't understand or if they do, to derail beneficial
discussions on the merits of Linux compared to other operating systems,
the sole purpose of COLA.
--
HPT
RayLopez99
> "Ezekiel" <no_z...@fake-zeke.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ibgnrp$qa3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > You try to make him out to be Ghandi or Nelson Mandella or something -
> > "advocating freedom in a most tireless manner." He's a fscking low-life
> > spammer.
>
> Schestowitz is trying to make himself out as that sort, but the image
> suffers due to a lack of reality. Being able to study someone's source code
> does not create anything akin to freedom. Rather it allows someone skilled
> in programming to replicate someone's efforts, usually for the purpose of
> obtaining beneficial use of the program without paying the license fee.
But I notice a lot of FOSS sites say: "Free to use this source in a
non-commercial setting {with a pointer to some license} but if you
want to use this source in a commercial setting please contact us for
a quote". That smacks of hypocrisy to me.
> In
> the process, the results are made available to millions of FOSS advocates
> who are themselves limited in their abilities to create object modules.
Right. Most people don't code.
>
> As demonstrated by the wide availability of otherwise protected works on the
> warez sites and newsgroups, this process does not really need any access to
> the source code, but it is illegal and is prosecuted in commercial
> situations by the BSA. What the small timer fears is that this piracy might
> be prosecuted on their own level as the RIAA has done to individual song
> poachers. Their paranoia runs deep.
>
Right. They know they are one small step removed, if that, from the
warez crowd. Jail time for them all I say, unless, like me, they
bought their stuff from a legitimate store in Thailand like I did,
where it's legal under local custom.
RL
RayLopez99
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:21:17 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
> > Not true. By his own admission, Roy feeds off of trolls.
>
> Where do you see this?
Here, in COLA.
> He regularly kicks trolls off of his irc channel so I doubt he
> feeds off them.
>
I would not want to be part of his irc channel. Probably he can peak
inside your system with it. I don't trust Roy one bit.
> > So Roy is essentially a polarizing shill. Essentially a troll on a
> > mission, nothing more. Your last line above seems to point in the
> > same direction as Roy.
>
> Roy is indeed polarizing to some degree but only because he
> passionately believes in the cause and chooses to take one side
> and one side only.
Right. That's the definition of unbalanced.
> I don't think his intent is to polarize people but instead to
> persuade them that his ideas have merit.
And he fails, as much as Communists failed, except with the gullible,
to get people to believe their theory. One thing is certain: people
do not pay hard earned money to Microsoft (or anybody) without some
value being given in return. That's why FOSS, like Communism, will
fail: it fails to realize that simple fact.
RL
Peter Köhlmann
> On Nov 11, 5:02 pm, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>> "Ezekiel" <no_z...@fake-zeke.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ibgnrp$qa3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>> > You try to make him out to be Ghandi or Nelson Mandella or something -
>> > "advocating freedom in a most tireless manner." He's a fscking low-life
>> > spammer.
>>
>> Schestowitz is trying to make himself out as that sort, but the image
>> suffers due to a lack of reality. Being able to study someone's source
>> code does not create anything akin to freedom. Rather it allows someone
>> skilled in programming to replicate someone's efforts, usually for the
>> purpose of obtaining beneficial use of the program without paying the
>> license fee.
>
> But I notice a lot of FOSS sites say: "Free to use this source in a
> non-commercial setting {with a pointer to some license} but if you
> want to use this source in a commercial setting please contact us for
> a quote". That smacks of hypocrisy to me.
>
Feel free *not* to use their code.
Did you notice that it is "theirs", and they may licence it whichever way they
deem fit?
Idiot
--
Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.
Snit
11:16 AM:
Just as Adobe and Apple and MS can license their code as they see fit - and
that include restricting the use of it.
Glad you agree.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Robin T Cox
> Or am I looking in the wrong places.
Obviously, like many M$ fanboys, you are way behind the times.
Roy operates on Twitter nowadays.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
amicus_curious
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a2b4b9d-a7a2-41f9...@f16g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 5:02 pm, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>> "Ezekiel" <no_z...@fake-zeke.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ibgnrp$qa3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>> > You try to make him out to be Ghandi or Nelson Mandella or something -
>> > "advocating freedom in a most tireless manner." He's a fscking
>> > low-life
>> > spammer.
>>
>> Schestowitz is trying to make himself out as that sort, but the image
>> suffers due to a lack of reality. Being able to study someone's source
>> code
>> does not create anything akin to freedom. Rather it allows someone
>> skilled
>> in programming to replicate someone's efforts, usually for the purpose of
>> obtaining beneficial use of the program without paying the license fee.
>
> But I notice a lot of FOSS sites say: "Free to use this source in a
> non-commercial setting {with a pointer to some license} but if you
> want to use this source in a commercial setting please contact us for
> a quote". That smacks of hypocrisy to me.
>
Well that is a way to have one's cake and eat it too. I am not really
against anyone releasing source code and tying strings on it, whether it is
a charge for commercial use or a GPL poison pill. I think that you should
be allowed to benefit as much as you want if you are clever enough to invent
something that someone else is willing to pay to obtain due to the benefit
that they will get from it. The hard-core FOSSers, though, seem to deem it
as evil and demand free as in beer as well as free as in licensed.
>
>> In
>> the process, the results are made available to millions of FOSS advocates
>> who are themselves limited in their abilities to create object modules.
>
> Right. Most people don't code.
>
>>
>> As demonstrated by the wide availability of otherwise protected works on
>> the
>> warez sites and newsgroups, this process does not really need any access
>> to
>> the source code, but it is illegal and is prosecuted in commercial
>> situations by the BSA. What the small timer fears is that this piracy
>> might
>> be prosecuted on their own level as the RIAA has done to individual song
>> poachers. Their paranoia runs deep.
>>
>
> Right. They know they are one small step removed, if that, from the
> warez crowd. Jail time for them all I say, unless, like me, they
> bought their stuff from a legitimate store in Thailand like I did,
> where it's legal under local custom.
>
Jail time is not likely other than in some extreme cases. The purpose of
the copyright law is mainly to protect the author's income from unauthorized
copying. If the author cannot expect any income from the user of an
unauthorized copy, then the laws are largely superfluous. If you buy in
Thailand legally, you still cannot bring it into the USofA legally.
However, if you pirate a copy of something that you would never have
purchased legally, it is hard to see where there is any damage to the author
and the author might actually benefit from the incremental increase in
ubiquity. Windows has apparently benefited in this way over the years.
Glenn Hall
> firebrand wrote:
>
>> Or am I looking in the wrong places.
>
> Obviously, like many M$ fanboys, you are way behind the times.
>
> Roy operates on Twitter nowadays.
He can find Roy here: http://twitter.com/schestowitz
Rathbone
Good. Will save slrn a few cpu cycles by not having to kill his posts
anymore.
Clogwog
news:C901868F.829E6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Peter Köhlmann stated in post ibhbtn$u22$03$1...@news.t-online.com on
b.t.w. Did you know Peter said that "USB is really good for (what) ?? , I my
opinion, USB is just a piece of shit, thought of by Miccysoft."
I have the Message-ID, but he might be able to find his own "odd claims" ;-)
RayLopez99
> > But I notice a lot of FOSS sites say: "Free to use this source in a
> > non-commercial setting {with a pointer to some license} but if you
> > want to use this source in a commercial setting please contact us for
> > a quote". That smacks of hypocrisy to me.
>
> Well that is a way to have one's cake and eat it too. I am not really
> against anyone releasing source code and tying strings on it, whether it is
> a charge for commercial use or a GPL poison pill. I think that you should
> be allowed to benefit as much as you want if you are clever enough to invent
> something that someone else is willing to pay to obtain due to the benefit
> that they will get from it. The hard-core FOSSers, though, seem to deem it
> as evil and demand free as in beer as well as free as in licensed.
So the hard-core FOSSers think the GPL is evil? That's interesting.
I agree with you however, pay for performance is my motto, but I just
point out some FOSSers are not hard-core and in fact just like the
rest of us. That's hypocrisy.
> Jail time is not likely other than in some extreme cases. The purpose of
> the copyright law is mainly to protect the author's income from unauthorized
> copying. If the author cannot expect any income from the user of an
> unauthorized copy, then the laws are largely superfluous. If you buy in
> Thailand legally, you still cannot bring it into the USofA legally.
Probably true, though I would argue it's a 'grey goods' scenario. And
even if I'm not reselling it, but using it for my own use. And I
bought it (let's assume, not sure this is 100% true) legally in
Thailand, so it's not a counterfeit.
> However, if you pirate a copy of something that you would never have
> purchased legally, it is hard to see where there is any damage to the author
> and the author might actually benefit from the incremental increase in
> ubiquity. Windows has apparently benefited in this way over the years.
Right. But the Thai s/w is not pirated (in my hypo).
RL
RayLopez99
> Another selfnuke by Kohltard. Plain and simple!
Yes. Kohl means KOLOS in Greek which means ASS. Tard = turd. So
Peter (another body part) has a surname of ASS-TURD in Greek and
English. Fitting for our little Mazi.
Peter--did you know 33% of Germans voted for The Leader? So 66% did
not. But 100% supported him during the war. Including your
relatives. Then they profess shock and horror over Dresden, but
ignore the Holocaust. Hypocrites, like FOSS advocates.
RL
Snit
1:24 PM:
...
>>> Feel free *not* to use their code.
>>>
>>> Did you notice that it is "theirs", and they may licence it whichever way
>>> they deem fit?
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>>
>> Just as Adobe and Apple and MS can license their code as they see fit - and
>> that include restricting the use of it.
>>
>> Glad you agree.
>>
> Another selfnuke by Kohltard. Plain and simple!
Yup. No doubt.
> b.t.w. Did you know Peter said that "USB is really good for (what) ?? , I my
> opinion, USB is just a piece of shit, thought of by Miccysoft."
> I have the Message-ID, but he might be able to find his own "odd claims" ;-)
Wow. No, I did not know of that claim. That is rather amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Clogwog
And he keeps continuing to post his arse droppings all over the place.
When Peter posts, the stench is unbearable!
Snit
2:15 PM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> schreef in bericht
> news:C901A602.82A76%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Clogwog stated in post ibhjep$f1b$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 11/11/10
>> 1:24 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Feel free *not* to use their code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you notice that it is "theirs", and they may licence it whichever way
>>>>> they deem fit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot
>>>>>
>>>> Just as Adobe and Apple and MS can license their code as they see fit - and
>>>> that include restricting the use of it.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you agree.
>>>>
>>> Another selfnuke by Kohltard. Plain and simple!
>>>
>> Yup. No doubt.
>>
>>> b.t.w. Did you know Peter said that "USB is really good for (what) ?? , I my
>>> opinion, USB is just a piece of shit, thought of by Miccysoft." I have the
>>> Message-ID, but he might be able to find his own "odd claims" ;-)
>>>
>> Wow. No, I did not know of that claim. That is rather amazing.
>>
> Making idiotic claims seems to be his specialty!
Yes, like when he tried to explain the difference between Quit and Exit.
Another lovely selfnuke on his part... going so far as to even wipe out the
straw man version of the argument people were spewing.
> And he keeps continuing to post his arse droppings all over the place.
> When Peter posts, the stench is unbearable!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b48ed86-0172-4756...@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 8:52 pm, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>> > But I notice a lot of FOSS sites say: "Free to use this source in a
>> > non-commercial setting {with a pointer to some license} but if you
>> > want to use this source in a commercial setting please contact us for
>> > a quote". That smacks of hypocrisy to me.
>>
>> Well that is a way to have one's cake and eat it too. I am not really
>> against anyone releasing source code and tying strings on it, whether it
>> is
>> a charge for commercial use or a GPL poison pill. I think that you
>> should
>> be allowed to benefit as much as you want if you are clever enough to
>> invent
>> something that someone else is willing to pay to obtain due to the
>> benefit
>> that they will get from it. The hard-core FOSSers, though, seem to deem
>> it
>> as evil and demand free as in beer as well as free as in licensed.
>
> So the hard-core FOSSers think the GPL is evil? That's interesting.
> I agree with you however, pay for performance is my motto, but I just
> point out some FOSSers are not hard-core and in fact just like the
> rest of us. That's hypocrisy.
>
I do not see how you can interpret my remark that way. I am sure that they
do not see the GPL as evil and do see it as quite the opposite. What they
evangelize against is locking code up so that an owner can profit from
license sales. They will allow for charging for services such as modifying
the code, but do not allow such changes to benefit only the person paying
for them.
>
>
>> Jail time is not likely other than in some extreme cases. The purpose of
>> the copyright law is mainly to protect the author's income from
>> unauthorized
>> copying. If the author cannot expect any income from the user of an
>> unauthorized copy, then the laws are largely superfluous. If you buy in
>> Thailand legally, you still cannot bring it into the USofA legally.
>
> Probably true, though I would argue it's a 'grey goods' scenario. And
> even if I'm not reselling it, but using it for my own use. And I
> bought it (let's assume, not sure this is 100% true) legally in
> Thailand, so it's not a counterfeit.
>
Authenticity has nothing to do with the legality.
>
>> However, if you pirate a copy of something that you would never have
>> purchased legally, it is hard to see where there is any damage to the
>> author
>> and the author might actually benefit from the incremental increase in
>> ubiquity. Windows has apparently benefited in this way over the years.
>
> Right. But the Thai s/w is not pirated (in my hypo).
>
It is if you bring it into the US where it violates the US law.
RayLopez99
>
> > Right. But the Thai s/w is not pirated (in my hypo).
>
> It is if you bring it into the US where it violates the US law.
Nope. Google Grey Goods. The Supreme Court heard a couple of cases
on this about 10 years ago, and pretty much came down in favor of the
'counterfeiters' as I recall. So it's legal. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market#Computer_Games
But if you purchase under restrictions it is not. A doctrine called
first sale comes into play. For example see here: http://www.thegrayblog.com/
("The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Timothy
S. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ, vacated the summary
judgment ruling of the lower court and held that the first sale
doctrine does not apply to software sold pursuant to shrink wrap
licenses that prohibit resale. This ruling binds software users in the
ninth circuit to shrink wrap license terms and invites legislative
clarification."). But my Thai s/w had no such restrictions. So in
theory I could even resell it to somebody--first sale says so.
However, Microsoft would likely not like that and sue me. But if the
Thai s/w was legally sold (not counterfeit, not licensed for non-
resale) in Thailand, they could not stop me (but as a practical matter
I think the s/w might be counterfeit, still, I'm just being
hypothetical). It varies. Not all software is licensed for not
resale--if that was the case, nobody could sell s/w on eBay for
example except the original s/w manufacturers.
RL
Glenn Hall
If you install that crap on your system you are an idiot.
How do you know for certain what it is doing behind the scenes?
Chances are good all your information is being shared all over the
place.
Idiot.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> If you install that crap on your system you are an idiot.
> How do you know for certain what it is doing behind the scenes?
> Chances are good all your information is being shared all over the
> place.
> Idiot.
You are paranoid. No wonder you use Linux. Do you also believe in
UFOs?
If the s/w passes all my Windows virus checkers, what makes you think
it's doing stuff 'behind the scenes'?
Youz the idiot.
RL
Peter Köhlmann
Well, you have just proven beyond any doubt that you are a dumb imbecile
Please explain (in detail) how your beloved AV software helps against threats
not yet known?
Short answer: It doesn't.
Your beloved wintendo Toys-R-Us will be infected in no time at all.
And you ar enot the wiser, because it will eventually even disable your
bullshit-artists AV software, letting your Toy-OS crumple with every new virus
(several hundreds per day)
Gods are you incompetent and stupid
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
RayLopez99
wrote:
Dumb ASS, you're talking about zero day attacks. Every day you get
those. That's why you get patches. Now here's a logic question for
you, kraut: if I bought the software 365 days ago, and for the last
365 days every time the AV program does not spot a virus, what is the
probability my software is infected with a "new" virus, a zero-day
attack?
Idiot. The answer is ZERO, the same number of times you've been with
a woman. Even a fat, ugly German woman. German men are so ugly that
Hedi Klum married Seal--not uncommon with German woman, as they cannot
find any quality German men. I guess WWII killed them all off.
RL
Glenn Hall
> On Nov 12, 9:02�am, Glenn Hall <glennhall59.removem...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you install that crap on your system you are an idiot.
>> How do you know for certain what it is doing behind the scenes?
>> Chances are good all your information is being shared all over the
>> place.
>> Idiot.
>
> You are paranoid. No wonder you use Linux. Do you also believe in
> UFOs?
I use Linux because I enjoy using it.
I use Windows as well for the same reason.
Actually I do believe in UFOs.
I don't believe were are the only civilization in the universe.
> If the s/w passes all my Windows virus checkers, what makes you think
> it's doing stuff 'behind the scenes'?
Because the checkers are not perfect. In fact they are not even
close to perfect.
> Youz the idiot.
>
> RL
Keep that in mind when your identity gets stolen because some
shrewd hacker slipped some rogue code into your pirated copy of
Windows.
amicus_curious
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01053543-f522-4003...@n32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 12:16 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Right. But the Thai s/w is not pirated (in my hypo).
>>
>> It is if you bring it into the US where it violates the US law.
>
> Nope. Google Grey Goods. The Supreme Court heard a couple of cases
> on this about 10 years ago, and pretty much came down in favor of the
> 'counterfeiters' as I recall. So it's legal. see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market#Computer_Games
>
you are confusing things here. The Thailand copies are not illegal in
Thailand, perhaps, but they are not legitimate under US copyright laws in
any case, so you could be prosecuted in the US. Microsoft is not likely to
bother with you under this sort of condition, but it is not something that
you can rely on.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:15:12 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 9:02 am, Glenn Hall <glennhall59.removem...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> If you install that crap on your system you are an idiot.
> >> How do you know for certain what it is doing behind the scenes?
> >> Chances are good all your information is being shared all over the
> >> place.
> >> Idiot.
>
> > You are paranoid. No wonder you use Linux. Do you also believe in
> > UFOs?
>
> I use Linux because I enjoy using it.
> I use Windows as well for the same reason.
That's fine. I got no beef with you. I apologize for any insults. I
thought you were a 100% Linux freak, but you're just a hobbyist. I
once dual booted Linux (with NT) years ago so I understand. Deep down
you're a Windows man, that's great.
>
> Actually I do believe in UFOs.
> I don't believe were are the only civilization in the universe.
Right. But unless you believe the premise behind "2001 A Space
Odyssey", that the aliens are leaving us alone but watching us, then
it's far fetched to believe in UFOs.
>
> Keep that in mind when your identity gets stolen because some
> shrewd hacker slipped some rogue code into your pirated copy of
> Windows.
Right. But it has not happened in a half decade of 'pirated' Windows
use--why start now?
RL
RayLopez99
> you are confusing things here. The Thailand copies are not illegal in
> Thailand, perhaps, but they are not legitimate under US copyright laws in
> any case, so you could be prosecuted in the US. Microsoft is not likely to
> bother with you under this sort of condition, but it is not something that
> you can rely on.
But, unless Windows is licensed (in Thailand) then first sale kicks in
and I can do as I please with my Thai Windows--it's mine, and legal in
the USA. And I doubt a court would say a license exists in Thailand--
nobody reads stuff there, no understands license. You buy it, it's
your property (i.e., first sale).
RL
amicus_curious
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f8486b0-03f7-46de...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Well, you are free to try that theory out in US courts, but my belief is
that you would lose. If the copy is not legitimate under US copyright law,
it cannot be made legitimate by selling it in Thailand or anywhere else.
RayLopez99
> > But, unless Windows is licensed (in Thailand) then first sale kicks in
> > and I can do as I please with my Thai Windows--it's mine, and legal in
> > the USA. And I doubt a court would say a license exists in Thailand--
> > nobody reads stuff there, no understands license. You buy it, it's
> > your property (i.e., first sale).
>
> Well, you are free to try that theory out in US courts, but my belief is
> that you would lose. If the copy is not legitimate under US copyright law,
> it cannot be made legitimate by selling it in Thailand or anywhere else.
But it is legitimate. First sale doctrine makes it legitimate. First
sale doctrine is a US law, not a Thai law.
Anyway it's moot in my case since I think in fact the disc is probably
counterfeit, but I think I'm right on this issue.
RL