Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 14:56:37 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 15:55:14, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 13:15:56, Alberto Rezza wrote: > >>>That is true and you still have that right. >> >>So you accept that one can throw away one's old computer and transfer the >>Windows license to the new one. Actually Microsoft does not accept this, and >>they are trying to prevent PC makers from selling PC's without the OS >>(preferably a preinstalled copy of Windows). Isn't that one of the reasons why >>MS should be split in two? >> >>>You do not have this right. If you read the EULA that you agreed to carefully >>>you will find that you never had this right. One copy of the OS per computer. >>>If you don't like it, use some other OS like linux where there are no EULAs. >> >>Sorry, Scott, but this is total bullshit. (I noticed this word is acceptable in >>this forum, so I'll use it.. :) If you accept that I can recover the Windows >>licence from my old broken PC, then you also have to let me disinstall the OS >>from the PC at home, install at the office, disinstall at the end of the day, >>reinstall at home, an so on. >> >>If, when I work at one computer, the other is turned off, then by skipping the >>install/disinstall part I am only saving time, but there's no way I can be >>breaking a licence. Keeping a copy of Windows on a switched off PC's hard disk >>is just like keeping on its installation CD! >> >>Scott, you must not believe EVERYTHING Bill Gates tells you.. >> >>Alberto > >I was never a philosophy student -- I always believed that a hammer was worth >more than any amount of philosophy. I'm willing to believe that I've been wrong >about this, and so I will attempt a meager philosophical argument. > >I think that your statement is a form of solipsism -- the theory that the only >reality comes from inside one's self. > >Here's the deal. In my neighborhood, the posted speed limit is 25 mph. That's >as fast as you are supposed to go. > >I can imagine someone thinking approximately as follows: "The speed limit is 25 >mph. However, I am 22 years old so I have quick reactions, I'm in good health, >I have a car that's in good working order so if I hit the brakes it will stop, >and I'm paying attention. Therefore it is fine for me to go 40 mph." > >This person may do this for several years, without experiencing any trouble. >The reason is that what they have said is somewhat true, and it's not terribly >likely that the remaining fallacy will be exposed. > >This does not mean that the guy is right. It just means that there is nothing >that effectively contradicts him. > >Of course, if a cop does pull him over, or if he hits a kid, or if he runs >head-on into a fool taking a wide corner out of the zoo parking lot, he will >have at least some evidence that his position has flaws. Assuming he survives, >if it's my kid he hits. > >I call this solipsism because it's a case where someone makes their own reality, >and declares that their reality must be true because they haven't gotten busted >yet. There are plenty of other examples that I won't go in to -- and it >probably happens to everyone. One of the strengths or weaknesses (you decide) >of being married is that you have a spouse who sometimes busts you when you try >to do this. > >What you are saying is the same sort of deal. You are wrong. The fact that >nobody has busted you, and that nobody is likely to bust you, does not mean that >you are right. If you ask any software company if they think you have the right >to operate this way, they will all say "no". If you ask any court, I believe >you will hear the same answer. > >The fact that you are unlikely to engage in a discussion about this with a >software company, and that you are unlikely to end up explaining this to a >judge, makes absolutely no difference. > >I think that you probably know that your position is flawed, but you are lying >to yourself for whatever reason. > >bruce Alberto might be wrong, but your reasoning would drive an insane man more insane. What Alberto says does make sense. It just isn't the way the world works and whatever the software company says must be law because they have very expensive lawyers working for them. Who was it that said 2 plus 2 equals 5? Jay
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.