Mac Soup - Kagi advice please
Duncan Kennedy
I've read the announcement and comments about the latest release of
MacSoup and it sounds like what I might look for in my gradual move from
Windows to Mac. My real question is about Kagi - not a payment system I
have ever used or heard of. Being mildly paranoid, anyone like to
re-assure me please?
--
Duncan K
Downtown Dalgety Bay
Jim
It's quite an old payment system. I can't tell you much about it other than
I've used it (long ago) and nothing bad happened.
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
"A Microsoft spokesman said: "We spent five years and $350million
developing a system that would make it really easy for us not to
give you your money back." The Daily Mash
Mark Bestley
It is used by many shareware authours. I have used it several times from
2001-2006 including for MacSoup and I have seen no odd things in my bank
statements etc.
--
Mark
Eddie
I have used several times with no problems.
Just be aware that it automatically adds VAT to your bill.
--
Regards
Eddie
J. J. Lodder
> I've read the announcement and comments about the latest release of
> MacSoup and it sounds like what I might look for in my gradual move from
> Windows to Mac.
MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
You can try it at your ease.
Do RTFM though.
> My real question is about Kagi - not a payment system I
> have ever used or heard of. Being mildly paranoid, anyone like to
> re-assure me please?
Kagi was set up as a shareware clearing house about 20 years ago.
Nothing wrong with it, and they are helpful in case of problems.
Kagi's use by shareware authors is near universal.
Jan
Steve Firth
> My real question is about Kagi - not a payment system I
> have ever used or heard of.
Not really "a payment system", Kagi is an e-commerce site for software
authors. It's reputable and has been around a long time.
Duncan Kennedy
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
shareware, which explains my ignorance. Now I can download and support
the author.
Mike Dee
> MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
> You can try it at your ease.
"Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
--
dee
Rowland McDonnell
By `spyware features', he means that MacSoup makes posts like this one,
which according to Jan provide spying-type personal information about
the poster.
I know what he's on about - can you see it?
Rowland.
P.S. If you've not worked it out yet, look at the headers. See the one
that provides OS and application information? That's the spyware
feature, at least according to Jan who's obviously even more barking mad
than I am.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
> Duncan Kennedy <nos...@nospam.otterson-bg.couk> wrote:
>
> > I've read the announcement and comments about the latest release of
> > MacSoup and it sounds like what I might look for in my gradual move from
> > Windows to Mac.
>
> MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
<cough> It's not got one. It does no sending of information
surreptitiously.
[snip]
Rowland.
J. J. Lodder
Activate.
Registered copies of MacSoup
broadcast the system version you are using
(and hence info about the kind of your mac) to the world.
Unregistered copies merely say you use MacSoup,
which is unobjectionable,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Mike Dee <mik...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
>
> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> > > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
> > > You can try it at your ease.
> >
> > "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
> > did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
>
> By `spyware features', he means that MacSoup makes posts like this one,
> which according to Jan provide spying-type personal information about
> the poster.
>
> I know what he's on about - can you see it?
>
> Rowland.
>
> P.S. If you've not worked it out yet, look at the headers. See the one
> that provides OS and application information? That's the spyware
> feature, at least according to Jan who's obviously even more barking mad
> than I am.
MacSoup broadcasts information about your system to the world,
and there is no way you can control that.
Hence MacSoup is spyware.
There can be no possible justification for this.
Stefan Haller can have his MacSoup vanity tag,
but he should not publish user information with it.
Best,
Jan
Jim
>>
>> > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
>> > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
>> > You can try it at your ease.
>>
>> "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
>> did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
>
> Activate.
>
> Registered copies of MacSoup
> broadcast the system version you are using
> (and hence info about the kind of your mac) to the world.
> Unregistered copies merely say you use MacSoup,
> which is unobjectionable,
It's not spyware, so stop bloody overreacting.
"Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers
and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
The Older Gentleman
I've used it and my bank account wasn't emptied.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
J. J. Lodder
> On 2009-12-18, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> >> > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
> >> > You can try it at your ease.
> >>
> >> "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
> >> did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
> >
> > Activate.
> >
> > Registered copies of MacSoup
> > broadcast the system version you are using
> > (and hence info about the kind of your mac) to the world.
> > Unregistered copies merely say you use MacSoup,
> > which is unobjectionable,
>
> It's not spyware, so stop bloody overreacting.
Then what do you call it,
if you don't want to call it
by it's customary name?
Jan
Jim
"An unwanted header".
For pity's sake...
Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for
Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> > It's not spyware, so stop bloody overreacting.
>>
>> Then what do you call it,
>> if you don't want to call it
>> by it's customary name?
>
>"An unwanted header".
>
>For pity's sake...
What, are we talking about the User-Agent string? Anyone who doesn't
want it can molest it to something innocuous with a hex editor, I
suppose.
Spyware. Ha.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
- Groucho Marx
Jim
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:55:49 +0000, j...@magrathea.plus.com (Jim)
> wrote:
>
> >J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> > It's not spyware, so stop bloody overreacting.
> >>
> >> Then what do you call it,
> >> if you don't want to call it
> >> by it's customary name?
> >
> >"An unwanted header".
> >
> >For pity's sake...
>
> What, are we talking about the User-Agent string? Anyone who doesn't
> want it can molest it to something innocuous with a hex editor, I
> suppose.
>
> Spyware. Ha.
Exactly. It's not exactly broadcasting your credit card details to the
world.
Jim
--
"Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good
product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious
understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some
slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Peter Ceresole
'Spyware' certainly *isn't* the customary name for what that is.
I don't think that there is a customary name for it, probably because
it's so trivial.
--
Peter
J. J. Lodder
So 'spyware' will have to do,
Jan
PS I hope you will agree his is objectionable behaviour.
Suppose you visit another uk.comp.sys.mac regular
who you didn't know personally yet, for some reason.
That person next post a message to uk.comp.sys.mac
'I want you all to know that Peter C. drives
a bright red 1999 Peugeot 205'.
(or something like it)
Would you approve of such behaviour?
Jan
Peter Ceresole
> That person next post a message to uk.comp.sys.mac
> 'I want you all to know that Peter C. drives
> a bright red 1999 Peugeot 205'.
> (or something like it)
I did once; a diesel. 205. Bright red.
But it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
--
Peter
Jim
> > >
> > > Then what do you call it,
> > > if you don't want to call it
> > > by it's customary name?
> >
> > 'Spyware' certainly *isn't* the customary name for what that is.
> >
> > I don't think that there is a customary name for it, probably because
> > it's so trivial.
>
> So 'spyware' will have to do,
No, 'unwanted header information' is what it is.
>
> Jan
>
> PS I hope you will agree his is objectionable behaviour.
Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>". It's
hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
> Suppose you visit another uk.comp.sys.mac regular
> who you didn't know personally yet, for some reason.
>
> That person next post a message to uk.comp.sys.mac
> 'I want you all to know that Peter C. drives
> a bright red 1999 Peugeot 205'.
> (or something like it)
>
> Would you approve of such behaviour?
It's a moot point since that's nothing like this.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Then what do you call it,
> > > > if you don't want to call it
> > > > by it's customary name?
> > >
> > > 'Spyware' certainly *isn't* the customary name for what that is.
> > >
> > > I don't think that there is a customary name for it, probably because
> > > it's so trivial.
> >
> > So 'spyware' will have to do,
>
> No, 'unwanted header information' is what it is.
>
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > PS I hope you will agree his is objectionable behaviour.
>
> Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
> having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>". It's
> hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
You clearly don't understand
the difference between giving and taking,
Jan
Jim
I repeat: it's not exactly giving away your credit card details.
Take a look at some other headers from other newsreaders, especially
Mozilla. MacSOUP is not exactly alone here. If someone knows what OS
you're using then...er...help me out here?
And for now consider your point duly noted. And please, given that
that's now the case, stop whining about it like a 12 year old girl.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
> > > having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>". It's
> > > hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
> >
> > You clearly don't understand
> > the difference between giving and taking,
>
> I repeat: it's not exactly giving away your credit card details.
It doesn't matter what it's about.
Taking things without permission is wrong,
Jan
Duncan Kennedy
<j...@magrathea.plus.com> writes
>J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> > Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
>> > having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>". It's
>> > hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
>>
>> You clearly don't understand
>> the difference between giving and taking,
>
>I repeat: it's not exactly giving away your credit card details.
>
>Take a look at some other headers from other newsreaders, especially
>Mozilla. MacSOUP is not exactly alone here. If someone knows what OS
>you're using then...er...help me out here?
>
several of my clients use that records the OS of the visitor along with
a great deal more.
Roger Merriman
possibly but it's very minor, note my unregistered is lazyness ie I've
misplaced/lost/put safe the code a few years back....
it's on a list of things to do but well...
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Jim
> >Take a look at some other headers from other newsreaders, especially
> >Mozilla. MacSOUP is not exactly alone here. If someone knows what OS
> >you're using then...er...help me out here?
> >
> FWIW there is at least one well used web statistics facility that
> several of my clients use that records the OS of the visitor along with
> a great deal more.
Exactly.
Jim
--
"How much of a waste of time is this, on a scale of 'making your
own crisps' to 'the Millenium Dome'?" Jack Parlabane, "Be My Enemy"
http://www.UrsaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Jim
You're whining again.
And you must _hate_ web browsers.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mike Dee <mik...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > >
> > > > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> > > > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
> > > > You can try it at your ease.
> > >
> > > "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
> > > did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
> >
> > By `spyware features', he means that MacSoup makes posts like this one,
> > which according to Jan provide spying-type personal information about
> > the poster.
> >
> > I know what he's on about - can you see it?
> >
> > Rowland.
> >
> > P.S. If you've not worked it out yet, look at the headers. See the one
> > that provides OS and application information? That's the spyware
> > feature, at least according to Jan who's obviously even more barking mad
> > than I am.
>
> MacSoup broadcasts information about your system to the world,
> and there is no way you can control that.
> Hence MacSoup is spyware.
But it's not spying because it's not covert information gathering!
It's information broadcasting - something quite different.
> There can be no possible justification for this.
> Stefan Haller can have his MacSoup vanity tag,
> but he should not publish user information with it.
Yeah, well, I'm concerned about aspects of my privacy, but I think
you're being a bit silly about this one.
Do you ensure that all your Web browsers provide spoofed info, for
example? /That/ information sending is hidden from the user in general
- why no complaints in that direction?
Rowland.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> > > > Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
>> > > > having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>". It's
>> > > > hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
>> > >
>> > > You clearly don't understand
>> > > the difference between giving and taking,
>> >
>> > I repeat: it's not exactly giving away your credit card details.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what it's about.
>> Taking things without permission is wrong,
>
>You're whining again.
>
>And you must _hate_ web browsers.
And TCP packets. Deriving the source OS from sequence number sequences
is apparently a reasonably mature technique.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Homeopaths suffer from dilutions of grandeur
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > Not especially, no. Half the threads in this group start with "I'm
> > > > > having trouble with <foo> and I'm running Mac OS X version <bar>".
> > > > > It's hardly giving out your credit card information, is it?
> > > >
> > > > You clearly don't understand
> > > > the difference between giving and taking,
> > >
> > > I repeat: it's not exactly giving away your credit card details.
> >
> > It doesn't matter what it's about.
> > Taking things without permission is wrong,
>
> You're whining again.
Says the one who will always get on his moral high horse
when it is about open wifi, or downloaded software, or...,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Dee <mik...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
> > > > > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
> > > > > You can try it at your ease.
> > > >
> > > > "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a little, or
> > > > did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
> > >
> > > By `spyware features', he means that MacSoup makes posts like this one,
> > > which according to Jan provide spying-type personal information about
> > > the poster.
> > >
> > > I know what he's on about - can you see it?
> > >
> > > Rowland.
> > >
> > > P.S. If you've not worked it out yet, look at the headers. See the one
> > > that provides OS and application information? That's the spyware
> > > feature, at least according to Jan who's obviously even more barking mad
> > > than I am.
> >
> > MacSoup broadcasts information about your system to the world,
> > and there is no way you can control that.
> > Hence MacSoup is spyware.
>
> But it's not spying because it's not covert information gathering!
It is. MacSoup doesn't tell or warn you about it.
> It's information broadcasting - something quite different.
It is both. Spying and broadcasting,
and therefore twice as obectionable.
> > There can be no possible justification for this.
> > Stefan Haller can have his MacSoup vanity tag,
> > but he should not publish user information with it.
>
> Yeah, well, I'm concerned about aspects of my privacy, but I think
> you're being a bit silly about this one.
>
> Do you ensure that all your Web browsers provide spoofed info, for
> example? /That/ information sending is hidden from the user in general
> - why no complaints in that direction?
I would also object if a web site
were to put it's gathered information
about visitors on-line,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
We are not talking about gathering information.
The subject was publishing it world-wide,
without asking the owners permission,
Jan
Jim
Oh, you mean those occasions where there's an actual theft of something?
Software, resources, bandwidth, whatever?
Yes. Yes, I do.
MacSOUP doesn't steal anything.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > You're whining again.
> >
> > Says the one who will always get on his moral high horse
> > when it is about open wifi, or downloaded software, or...,
>
> Oh, you mean those occasions where there's an actual theft of something?
> Software, resources, bandwidth, whatever?
>
> Yes. Yes, I do.
>
> MacSOUP doesn't steal anything.
There you have it, excuses in one case,
condemnation in another.
In short, a double standard,
Jan
Jim
Not in the slightest since as I pointed out the first involves actual
theft and the second doesn't. Two different situations.
Anyway, if you _really_ feel this strongly about it then take it up with
Stefan. If he won't change it then kindly have the good grace to stop
using MacSOUP or to stop complaining about it. At some point you'll just
have to accept it and move on.
Rowland McDonnell
<puzzled> You are wrong. MacSoup shows you in your posts.
Where I come from, if it's not covert, it's not spying, whatever's going
on.
You're sounding completely insane.
> > It's information broadcasting - something quite different.
>
> It is both. Spying and broadcasting,
> and therefore twice as obectionable.
Not covert, therefore not spying. You're mad.
> > > There can be no possible justification for this.
> > > Stefan Haller can have his MacSoup vanity tag,
> > > but he should not publish user information with it.
> >
> > Yeah, well, I'm concerned about aspects of my privacy, but I think
> > you're being a bit silly about this one.
> >
> > Do you ensure that all your Web browsers provide spoofed info, for
> > example? /That/ information sending is hidden from the user in general
> > - why no complaints in that direction?
>
> I would also object if a web site
> were to put it's gathered information
> about visitors on-line,
I object to Websites gathering the information at all. It would to my
mind be totally unobjectionable if ALL such information were fully
published.
By which I do mean all of it.
J. J. Lodder
You mean everybody should be able to google your IP
and get a complete list of all the sites you have visited?
I'm afraid you have a complete disagreement here
with the entire rest of the world,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, you mean those occasions where there's an actual theft of something?
> > > Software, resources, bandwidth, whatever?
> > >
> > > Yes. Yes, I do.
> > >
> > > MacSOUP doesn't steal anything.
> >
> > There you have it, excuses in one case,
> > condemnation in another.
> >
> > In short, a double standard,
>
> Not in the slightest since as I pointed out the first involves actual
> theft and the second doesn't. Two different situations.
That depends on your definitions of 'theft'.
(we've been there before)
The trouble with people who hold double standards
is that they don't see their own duplicity.
> Anyway, if you _really_ feel this strongly about it then take it up with
> Stefan.
You must be joking.
> If he won't change it then kindly have the good grace to stop
> using MacSOUP or to stop complaining about it. At some point you'll just
> have to accept it and move on.
That's your blowing up things.
I merely gave a factual answer to a switcher
considering MacSoup.
It is a factually correct answer,
Jan
Jim
> > Not in the slightest since as I pointed out the first involves actual
> > theft and the second doesn't. Two different situations.
>
> That depends on your definitions of 'theft'.
> (we've been there before)
Yes, and we pointed out that here in the UK people can actually be
charged for bandwidth. Remember?
> The trouble with people who hold double standards
> is that they don't see their own duplicity.
Non sequitur.
> > Anyway, if you _really_ feel this strongly about it then take it up with
> > Stefan.
>
> You must be joking.
Not at all. Your only option to solving what you see as a problem is to
take it up with the author. Hint: try being polite, rather than a
pompous entitletard. Please keep in mind that it's *his* software -
*you* merely have a licence to use it.
>
> > If he won't change it then kindly have the good grace to stop
> > using MacSOUP or to stop complaining about it. At some point you'll just
> > have to accept it and move on.
>
> That's your blowing up things.
> I merely gave a factual answer
wrong
> to a switcher
> considering MacSoup.
> It is a factually correct answer,
That word you keep using - 'factual' - I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Mike Dee
> Mike Dee <mik...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
>
>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> > MacSoup is fully functional without registration.
>> > All registration does is activate the spyware feature.
>> > You can try it at your ease.
>>
>> "Activate the _spyware_ feature"? Care to flesh this out a
>> little, or did you mean to type "de-activate" here instead?
>
> Activate.
>
> Registered copies of MacSoup
> broadcast the system version you are using
> (and hence info about the kind of your mac) to the world.
> Unregistered copies merely say you use MacSoup,
> which is unobjectionable,
OK, thanks for that, Jan. At least I can understand now what you meant
(the difference between registered and unregistered User Agent headers
in MacSoup posts).
But I do think the word "spyware" to describe this is not correct. A
"spyware" is a software that'll "phone home" personal details, usually
profiling data gathered without consent and sent to the manufacturer of
that software. A registered MacSoup gives a more completed User Agent
header but AFAIK it does not "phone home" nor divulge personal details
except about the agent delivering the message (MacSoup via such and
such a Mac and its OS).
Can't this header be turned off in MacSoup? I can understand the
shareware author of MacSoup wanting to have an "unregistered" header in
there as a "guilt thing". But not being able to turn off the User Agent
message if you've registered MacSoup and don't want the User Agent
broadcast, would be something of an annoyance IMO. - Even the freeware
MT-NewsWatcher has this as an optional header.
--
dee
J. J. Lodder
I think that definition is too limited.
You think a spy stealing atomc secrets for example
isn't a spy if he publishes them instead of sneaking away?
> Can't this header be turned off in MacSoup?
No.
> I can understand the
> shareware author of MacSoup wanting to have an "unregistered" header in
> there as a "guilt thing".
It has long since lost any utility it may have had.
The supply of do-gooding idiots with raised fingers
has run out.
> But not being able to turn off the User Agent
> message if you've registered MacSoup and don't want the User Agent
> broadcast, would be something of an annoyance IMO.
Stefan Haller has a somewhat dictatorial mindset.
Almost no aspect of MacSoup's behaviour is under user control,
Jan
Mike Dee
> Mike wrote:
>
>> But I do think the word "spyware" to describe this is not correct. A
>> "spyware" is a software that'll "phone home" personal details, usually
>> profiling data gathered without consent and sent to the manufacturer of
>> that software. A registered MacSoup gives a more completed User Agent
>> header but AFAIK it does not "phone home" nor divulge personal details
>> except about the agent delivering the message (MacSoup via such and
>> such a Mac and its OS).
>
> I think that definition is too limited. You think a spy stealing atomc
> secrets for example isn't a spy if he publishes them instead of sneaking
> away?
Not such a good analogy IMHO - Mainly because I don't think sending a
"User-Agent" header is tantamount to giving away the "family jewels"
(let alone divulging state secrets) ;-)
>> Can't this header be turned off in MacSoup?
>
> No.
Well, that is a drag. It *should* be an option for registered clients (in
MacSoup's case), at least. Even the client I'm using here has the option
to inject whatever I want into it - if anything at all. It could say
"User-Agent: None of your business" if I wished.
However, one question, Jan. If this header can't be turned off as an
option, how do you get to have just the "User-Agent: MacSOUP/x.x.x
(unregistered)" bit alone, in your headers? Most (if not all) unregistered
MacSoup headers I come across have "unregistered for xxx days" stamped
into them.
--
dee
J. J. Lodder
Sorry, took some time.
(some stupid exchanges with a forgotten who it was interfered)
I did look into it, and I have no idea.
I can trace it to the day,
and it coincides with moving to a new machine.
(I think I used th eMigration Assistent,
but I'm not sure of that)
I can't reproduce it on another machine,
and I have no idea how to do it deliberately,
or how to restore the day count.
Perhaps I should reinstaal MacSoup for that,
but that's to much trouble to try.
A pity, I had begun to like the day count.
Now I'll never reach the 10.000 days,
Jan
Mike Dee
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Mike Dee <mik...@emteedee.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> > However, one question, Jan. If this header can't be turned off as an
> > option, how do you get to have just the "User-Agent: MacSOUP/x.x.x
> > (unregistered)" bit alone, in your headers? Most (if not all) unregistered
> > MacSoup headers I come across have "unregistered for xxx days" stamped
> > into them.
>
> Sorry, took some time.
> (some stupid exchanges with a forgotten who it was interfered)
>
> I did look into it, and I have no idea.
> I can trace it to the day,
> and it coincides with moving to a new machine.
[...]
>
> A pity, I had begun to like the day count.
> Now I'll never reach the 10.000 days,
What is supposed to happen after 10,000 days of keeping this shareware
unregistered?
--
dee
J. J. Lodder
A celebration,
Jan
Dr Geoff Hone
WinZip starts with a message like:
*You are on day 274 of your 30 day free trial*
When I was part of a small software development team, we built in a
60-day drop dead function. Send in the feedback form - duly completed
- from the distribution disk, and we sent back the unlock code. This
was on free distribution software, and we put this function in to get
the user feedback.
This worked well, picked up several bugs quite early, and pointed up
what the users really wanted as added features.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > A pity, I had begun to like the day count.
> > > > Now I'll never reach the 10.000 days,
> > >
> > > What is supposed to happen after 10,000 days of keeping this shareware
> > > unregistered?
> >
> > A celebration,
> >
> > Jan
>
> ?
Figure it out for yourself,
Jan
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> > I object to Websites gathering the information at all. It would to my
> > mind be totally unobjectionable if ALL such information were fully
> > published.
> >
> > By which I do mean all of it.
>
> You mean everybody should be able to google your IP
> and get a complete list of all the sites you have visited?
Everyone should be able to get that information on *everyone*.
Everyone - all of us - omnes.
I'm an anarchist - of course I'm in favour of *FULL* disclosure of all
information. Why? Because privacy is dead: there seems to be no way to
prevent `the institutions' getting pretty much any info on *us* that
they like.
You should read more dystopian SF - that way, you'd understand that my
suggestion is the only sane and civilised solution to the problem of
institutional oppression that we're facing. The genie cannot be put
back into the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened, there is no going
back: we cannot have privacy any more. Okay, so tear down all the walls
- *ALL* of them.
> I'm afraid you have a complete disagreement here
> with the entire rest of the world,
That claim is so obviously lunatic I don't know what to say in response.
<sigh>
Aside from: there're roughly 6.5 x 10^9 people in the world. Very
obviously, not all of them share your opinions. Some of them share my
opinions - equally obviously. And - yep, obvious again - most of them
have opinions that are neither yours nor mine.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > I object to Websites gathering the information at all. It would to my
> > > mind be totally unobjectionable if ALL such information were fully
> > > published.
> > >
> > > By which I do mean all of it.
> >
> > You mean everybody should be able to google your IP
> > and get a complete list of all the sites you have visited?
>
> Everyone should be able to get that information on *everyone*.
Including the Chinese government?
Mr Google and Ms Clinton seems to disagree,
Jan
Chris Ridd
> Mr Google and Ms Clinton seems to disagree,
"Ms"? AIUI they're still married. Unless you mean their daughter?
--
Chris
J. J. Lodder
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>On 2010-01-18 10:54:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Mr Google and Ms Clinton seems to disagree,
>
>"Ms"? AIUI they're still married. Unless you mean their daughter?
Ms covers both miss and mrs. And mistress too, in at least one sense.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted;
persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished;
persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
By Order of the Author." -- Mark Twain
Rowland McDonnell
> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >J. J. Lodder said:
> >
> >> Mr Google and Ms Clinton seems to disagree,
> >
> >"Ms"? AIUI they're still married. Unless you mean their daughter?
>
> Ms covers both miss and mrs. And mistress too, in at least one sense.
Ms, Mrs, and Miss are all personal titles to be used by the choice of
the person to whom they apply.
On that basis, Ms does not cover Miss and Mrs because some don't like
the title and don't want it applied to them.
`I'm Mrs, not Ms' - I have been told sharply more than once. And not
just by women of what's termed a certain age, whatever the hell that
might mean.
Some people in this world still value marriage, you know. Sign more
contracts said Roy and he was right.
Harper, not bloody Rogers.
Rowland McDonnell
<sigh>
Point is, the Chinese government has almost all the information anyway.
So goes Google, so Google's objections to the Chinese government are
rank hypocrisy: *WE* may have this info, says Google, but not any
operation we disapprove of. Fuck that - I'm not having that sort of
thing controlled by an argument between a bunch of Californian
advertising executives and the government of the so-called `Middle
Kingdom'[1].
The US government and the UK government are just as bad if not worse as
the Chinese government for syping on their own people - and the US
government I'm sure gets a lot of help in that from Google.
That's why I want *US* to have access to all the data too.
Privacy is dead - don't you get it?
Rowland.
[1] That matters - they're horribly insular and ignorant of the world
at large, *MUCH* worse than even the average Victorian Brit.
J. J. Lodder
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> > Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >J. J. Lodder said:
> > >
> > >> Mr Google and Ms Clinton seems to disagree,
> > >
> > >"Ms"? AIUI they're still married. Unless you mean their daughter?
> >
> > Ms covers both miss and mrs. And mistress too, in at least one sense.
>
> Ms, Mrs, and Miss are all personal titles to be used by the choice of
> the person to whom they apply.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with Ms Clinton,
and it seems unlikely I will ever have the opportunity
to ask her in person about her preferences. (if any)
So I'll do it my way, if you don't mind.
Weren't you the anarchist here?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
I find it ironic that you advocate
giving in to the worst totalitarian states
on basis of your misguided total anarchism,
Jn
Sara
Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
For business contacts I use Ms rather than Mrs. Obviously those who knew
me as Ms Kirk and now know me as Ms Merriman (although to be honest most
people call me Sara - I'm not that formal) can infer that I've got
married but it is none of their business, just as I have no business
knowing whether or not they are married.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I find it ironic that you advocate
> giving in to the worst totalitarian states
> on basis of your misguided total anarchism,
<puzzled> You're mental, you are - you got *that* out of what I wrote?
He's loopy: off his trolley, completely mad.
Jan, you've lost it. Really. Completely bonkers.
I said that to *beat* the totalitarian bastards, we need full disclosure
of everything to everyone.
That's what I said.
Let me see what emails the members of the committee that runs the
Chinese central government have been exchanging - in translation, with
detailed biographical information about the correspondents, their
current diary appointments, parking tickets, educational and medical
records, and so on. Full disclosure, I said - do please explain how my
suggestion is `giving in' to totalitarianism?
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
You'll do it your way whether I mind or not - unless you're a spineless
worm rather than a normal Dutchman.
I have my opinion on the proper usage of personal titles and I've given
it. And I'll do so any time I think it's appropriate.
I don't expect anyone to change their behaviour based on me expressing
my opinions on this matter, but I'm damned if I'm going to let some
horrible rude new convention arise that I'd find distasteful to use
without at least raising some kind of stink about it.
> Weren't you the anarchist here?
<grin>
I still am.
Does it disturb you that I'm not meeting the spec of an anarchist that
you got from some book?
Do remember that the point about anarchy is that you're *supposed* to
make up your own rules. Anarchists in the contemporary sense will never
run anything because they spend too much time arguing amongst
themselves; although unlike socialists, anarchists know how to enjoy
themselves and have a decent party which makes up for the arguing
somewhat, just so long as you only hear about it in the news reports...
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> For business contacts I use Ms rather than Mrs. Obviously those who knew
> me as Ms Kirk and now know me as Ms Merriman (although to be honest most
> people call me Sara - I'm not that formal) can infer that I've got
> married but it is none of their business, just as I have no business
> knowing whether or not they are married.
My wife insists on `Dr' to avoid the `are you married or not' point ever
being considered.