The EULA was shown to you at if you used microsoft's window's update website. I know that I am looking at it right now.
"You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the.NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval."
That is the main right that you giveup with this patch, but I think that has been in all their supplimental EULA's since.NET has been available. Wonder why they are so "afraid" of people saying what their benchmarks were.... Makes you wonder how doctored the results that they are publishing are if you can't disclose the ones that you receive.
I did not see anything about forcing DRM on us in this patch, but don't think that will stay this way for long.
In reading the piece, "Internet can level the political playing field" by Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro, I felt the overwhelming need to stress a single point that seems to have been completely missed by the writers. They utterly failed to realize that e-mail costs the recipient of the e-mail message time and money. Be it the 3 seconds wasted downloading the message from their mail server, or the cost of the phone call for the internet access, or the usage of total monthly bandwidth that some ISP's allot to users, e-mail costs the receiving party money. This is the very heart of the problem with ANY unsolicited e-mail. Television, radio, and print ads all do not cost the recipient of the advertisement money. If it wasn't an ad for a politician, it would be an ad for some product or service; in any case, the recipient would still receive an ad. But e-mail is a very cheap way to mass sent advertisements to others while making them pay for the "privilege" of receiving the message. This is the very reason why people are not allowed to fax unsolicited ads to other fax machines. The cost is a lot more dramatic in the case of a fax machine, but the cost is still there even in e-mail. It should not matter whether it cost you $.10 because of paper and ink in the case of the fax machine or the $.01 it can cost for the bandwidth, memory needs, and time it can cost for an e-mail.
Here is a simple question that I would like answered. Should we, as consumers, have to pay every time someone sends an advertisement for their product to us? If we did we would all be broke very quickly. The people promoting and advertising products, services, or political campaigns are the ones who should foot the bill of spreading their information.
Unsolicited e-mail is like sending something cash on delivery without a way of refusing to receive the item. Any person or group of persons should be held accountable for any and all monetary charges they force upon others. Unsolicited e-mail in any form should be dealt with in the harshest manor available to the recipient. There is no such thing as unharmful unsolicited e-mail, if it costs anyone other then the sender money, then it is causing harm.
Being an @Home user (Comcast@Home) I have onl recently run into a bunch of NetBIOS scans. To my knowledge it was always allowed, but no one had been using it. I myself just downloaded a NetBIOS scanner to see what was up and running and only found a few comps, but I had FULL acces to them (I feal sorry for whoever runs them, cause it looks like they don't even know that they are completely open access to anyone).
Now where is an X-Server for Windows when you need one:)
Just joking on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Chocolate-covered coffee beans. You just pop them in your mouth like candy and chew away to an unbeatable caffeen high, wakes you right up.
The EULA was shown to you at if you used microsoft's window's update website. I know that I am looking at it right now.
.NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval."
.NET has been available. Wonder why they are so "afraid" of people saying what their benchmarks were.... Makes you wonder how doctored the results that they are publishing are if you can't disclose the ones that you receive.
"You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the
That is the main right that you giveup with this patch, but I think that has been in all their supplimental EULA's since
I did not see anything about forcing DRM on us in this patch, but don't think that will stay this way for long.
In reading the piece, "Internet can level the political playing field" by Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro, I felt the overwhelming need to stress a single point that seems to have been completely missed by the writers. They utterly failed to realize that e-mail costs the recipient of the e-mail message time and money. Be it the 3 seconds wasted downloading the message from their mail server, or the cost of the phone call for the internet access, or the usage of total monthly bandwidth that some ISP's allot to users, e-mail costs the receiving party money. This is the very heart of the problem with ANY unsolicited e-mail. Television, radio, and print ads all do not cost the recipient of the advertisement money. If it wasn't an ad for a politician, it would be an ad for some product or service; in any case, the recipient would still receive an ad. But e-mail is a very cheap way to mass sent advertisements to others while making them pay for the "privilege" of receiving the message. This is the very reason why people are not allowed to fax unsolicited ads to other fax machines. The cost is a lot more dramatic in the case of a fax machine, but the cost is still there even in e-mail. It should not matter whether it cost you $.10 because of paper and ink in the case of the fax machine or the $.01 it can cost for the bandwidth, memory needs, and time it can cost for an e-mail.
Here is a simple question that I would like answered. Should we, as consumers, have to pay every time someone sends an advertisement for their product to us? If we did we would all be broke very quickly. The people promoting and advertising products, services, or political campaigns are the ones who should foot the bill of spreading their information.
Unsolicited e-mail is like sending something cash on delivery without a way of refusing to receive the item. Any person or group of persons should be held accountable for any and all monetary charges they force upon others. Unsolicited e-mail in any form should be dealt with in the harshest manor available to the recipient. There is no such thing as unharmful unsolicited e-mail, if it costs anyone other then the sender money, then it is causing harm.
Now where is an X-Server for Windows when you need one :)
Just joking on that.