I see, there’s all these facts out there, yet I have to support your case for you? I hope you’re not a lawyer, because you wouldn’t win a case like that. Hell you’d have a hard time convincing people who already agree with you with an argument as flimsy as that.
Maybe you should find some facts before you act like they’re all on your side. All you’ve provided so far is hot air, and personal slurs, which only proves that you’ve not got a clue what you’re talking about.
And yet still much much better than yours.
I hope English is not your first language, because your grasp of English comprehension is worse than you claim my grasp of the law is. The fact that contracts can be broken if there is a legal reason to do so, or that some laws override others doesn’t preclude people being sued over contract law. It just means that sometimes they lose, and if you bothered to pull your head out of your arse you’d realise that not every case for breach of contract is successful.
Maybe the concept is too nuanced for you? It’s interesting you haven’t replied to other posts pointing out how contracts aren’t immutable.
It’s also not a matter of opinion that you’ve brought nothing but a gross level of undeserved arrogance and pathetic attempts at ad hominems. Neither is it a matter of opinion that people who resort to such measures are doing so because they have no argument or case, and are hoping to win through sophistry. You claim I don’t know what I’m talking about, and prove you haven’t got a leg to stand on, bravo you.
What is a matter of opinion is you argument, and pretty poorly supported opinion it is too.
Go ahead.
But I bet you don’t, I bet you didn’t read it at all, and so just weasel out of the discussion again by throwing out personal attacks.
You’re making a completely baseless assumption. Just because UK courts decided to let the EULA be used in the UK, does not mean that the UK Government can’t negotiate a different usage contract with Microsoft.
>
> I don’t know; you tell me; My router does not allow any outside port
> calls into my computers; And it is all DHCP so IP addresses change
> frequently.
>
>
But it doesn’t stop your computer initiating a conversation
Come on people, there’s about 6.5 billion of us. All equally individual unique. All equally deserving respect, on behalf of the fact we’re born. Calling names, disrespect have not brought anything good to this world. Stick to the thread and accept there’s no other thinking, nor feeling exactly like you.
None of us deserves to be spied upon without a very good reason. But the reason has to be there first.
I remember seeing a documentary in the early eighties about the CIA’s connection to the coup d’etat in Chili on 11th september 1973. They were said tp have financed Pinochet c.s. with money they withdrew from the Chilian State Accounts through, what was already then called, a backdoor…so eventually Allende’s killing was said to be financed from his own government’s funds.
On MS shutting down government offices (advice given to use Google) it appears to be based on Win Genuine Advantage calling home even after activaton.
The aftermath of them doing using such a technical measure against a significant number of machines, owned by some of their biggest & most powerful customers, would be the destruction of MS as a company as we know it. If the UK Gov can get Icelandic banks with anti-terrorism laws, why not MS if they actually did act to undermine the government in such a way?
What country government could go on relying on MS products? What large businesses?
It’d become a strategic imperative to diversify. MS know that, and it’s why they did so little against piracy but went for market share growing the market and encouraging dependence.
I’ve already read the stories on it, but that was also years ago. Why should I just hand the work over to you, when you have the ability to do it yourself. That is why I said Google it. It’s not that I don’t have the evidence, it’s more of why should I do the work for you.
I guess you’re not familiar with lawyers and scientists, and doctors, and…, well the list goes on, all these people do their own research. Just because I haven’t “handed it to you” on a silver platter, doesn’t mean anything, except that your lazy.
See, you have made all kinds of claims, saying all this stuff is non-sense, yet you haven’t provided any proof. You talk about the OSA, with no proof. You talk about the UK, and Parliament, with no proof. You make all these claims with no proof. But all through out this, you have stated how that we’re all wrong, and this is all rubbish, and not offered up a shred of proof. So why should I? You have google where you are, USE IT.
No, it’s YOU that thinks my argument is flimsy. See if you read EULA, it does have terms for government. It also states that you don’t own it, or anything on it. Say you create your diary on it. That diary does not belong to you. You lease it, with Microsoft’s permission.
Funny how you challenge me to throw personal attacks, yet your the one to do that. In my reference to contracts, all I said was sued and violation. I didn’t go deeper than that, and that was deliberate. It’s not that I don’t have the ability, but rather I don’t wish to get into a 2 or more hour dissertation on contractual law. Especially when you can read it yourself.
It was another member that went on talking about contracts, not I. I only mentioned it one time, till now. So perhaps retracting what you said about my grasp of English, along with a little apology, since you are getting on to the wrong person.
I have offered to go over documents with you line by line, yet you don’t even read the documents line by line. So before you accuse me of
pathetic attempts at ad hominems.
Maybe you should take me up on my offer first. So why don’t you decide if you are really going to do this or not. No double standards. If you’re going to get on to me for lack of references, then you better make sure you are providing references. If you don’t want personal attacks, then don’t you do it. Personal attacks are also against the forum rules, and they are also beneath me. I do however report personal attacks to the forum staff.
See, I did quote part of the EULA, and referenced UK law. You missed both. With the UK law, you didn’t even dig into it. What are the terms and conditions with Microsoft and the Education system?
To do this right, we really should dissect the EULA, line by line, and then compare it to the law, then cross reference it to news articles, past and current.
Now I have seen, and heard of Microsoft shutting down government offices for EULA violations. But then, if you read the EULA…
Or in other words you’ve got nothing but bluster and ****. The best argument you’ve got is “why should I support my own argument, you have to do it for me!” Oh and also that I’m ignorant and naive, lets not forget that.
I did enjoy where your “argument” managed to scale the heights of “I know you are but what am I”.rotfl!
And by the way I did google it, nothing came up. So if you have something to bring to the forum, do so, otherwise shut up. Because all this shouting about all this evidence that isn’t forthcoming proves, is that you’ve got nothing, beyond bluster and ****.
I’ve presented an argument, you’ve presented bluster and hot air, it’s really not my fault you can’t grasp the concept of logic. All you’ve presented so far is your complete lack of knowledge on the UK government or law, and a gross mind-numbing arrogance that makes you assume you know these things based on the fact you believe you know everything, despite all the evidence to the contrary…
I’ve already accepted your offer to go through the paper you found line by line, and just as I predicted you’ve already weaseled out of it. With every line of puff you only manage to prove you’ve got nothing. The only thing you’ve brought up so far is an educational initiative from 1999, where the only mention of Microsoft is in regard to their role in helping provide said service. It’s not even a law like those we’re talking about, and it certainly has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. So please, go ahead, lets go over this law line by line. Or you can pathetically ignore that I’ve already accepted your offer and try to weasel out of doing it again. Works for me because that goes further to prove you’ve got nothing.
So what UK law, what proof do you have for anything you’ve said. Hell I’ll accept even a logical argument, it’s still more than you’ve provided so far. Where’s you’re proof, where’s your argument, none from you so far…
Baseless assumption? In the original statement of claim by Microsoft to the UK courts was specific that their EULA be upheld on the basis that it offers choice of agreeing or not to it and installing or not installing. And the statement of claim by the UK was that the product not have a permanent built-in Internet Explorer and Mail Client which limits users choice. The courts ruled that the EULA stands and Microsoft must not ship IE and Mail apps inbedded into the OS. I don;t understand the full context of the ruling written in all legalese but it seems pretty specific as there was no caveats attached to the EULA.
