MS OEM licensing
-
Richard Stringer wrote: But he does let the interns alone tell me how that matters. i find it absolutely f'ing incredible how GWB's defenders simply can not talk about their own guy without trying to define him in terms of "not-clinton" or "not-gore". and, no Mr. Stringer, I'm not referring to you only - there are plenty of others just like you on CP. is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
Chris Losinger wrote: is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. Actually its not. Rather than engage in a discussion that has so much that is opinion and party affiliation why not just compare one to the other. Or if you have an intellect that can span any length of time with out putting on the Rose Colored Glasses just compare him to his previous few Democratic peers ( Clinton - Carter - Johnson - Kennedy ). Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded , one issue , pied piper type, who thinks that just being a Republican or making money on ones own or succesful outside of politics makes you something to be sneered at and held up to riducle. I can point to the fact that most of our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials who were of the opinion that they were "Doing the right thing" without any thought as to what the ramifications of their ides of "The Right Thing" was. So please don't start an argument on politics without a basis of argument - an understanding of what you are saying from a historical viewpoint - something a bit more constructive that "GW IS AN IDIOT" or "GORE IS A TREE HUGGER". It is said ( I think by PT Barnum ) that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Politics is a lot like that . What is amazing to me is how namy people fall into that first catagory. I live in the state that GW was the Gov of. I met the man many years ago when he was a minority owner of the local baseball team. I liked him then and I like him now. Is he perfect -NO. Is he better than Clinton ? Time will tell but it is not going to be a difficult task. Spare me the ideaology please and bombard me with facts. And make sure of your facts because another Democratic trick is taking a fact, massaging it with a bit of ledgend, spinning a web of half truths around it, and presenting it to the world as a great feat of deduction. Kinda like "Tax cut for the very rich" or "The President should do something to stop the market decline". Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Chris Losinger wrote: is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. Actually its not. Rather than engage in a discussion that has so much that is opinion and party affiliation why not just compare one to the other. Or if you have an intellect that can span any length of time with out putting on the Rose Colored Glasses just compare him to his previous few Democratic peers ( Clinton - Carter - Johnson - Kennedy ). Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded , one issue , pied piper type, who thinks that just being a Republican or making money on ones own or succesful outside of politics makes you something to be sneered at and held up to riducle. I can point to the fact that most of our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials who were of the opinion that they were "Doing the right thing" without any thought as to what the ramifications of their ides of "The Right Thing" was. So please don't start an argument on politics without a basis of argument - an understanding of what you are saying from a historical viewpoint - something a bit more constructive that "GW IS AN IDIOT" or "GORE IS A TREE HUGGER". It is said ( I think by PT Barnum ) that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Politics is a lot like that . What is amazing to me is how namy people fall into that first catagory. I live in the state that GW was the Gov of. I met the man many years ago when he was a minority owner of the local baseball team. I liked him then and I like him now. Is he perfect -NO. Is he better than Clinton ? Time will tell but it is not going to be a difficult task. Spare me the ideaology please and bombard me with facts. And make sure of your facts because another Democratic trick is taking a fact, massaging it with a bit of ledgend, spinning a web of half truths around it, and presenting it to the world as a great feat of deduction. Kinda like "Tax cut for the very rich" or "The President should do something to stop the market decline". Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded you don't know if i'm a Democrat or not, do you? didn't think so. i could be anything, even a republican, and still think bush is an idiot. why? because i have a mind of my own. Richard Stringer wrote: Spare me the ideaology please ok, i will if you will. you have blamed everything ("our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials") on Democrats, as if a person can only be a Democrat or a Republican and nothing else - as if they subscribe to the party line and live to uphold the ideals of the Party. well, guess what? where i come from, a person can do the wrong thing from either side of the fence. i'll say it again, partisan politics is the worst part of US government. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Believe me, I wasn't defending Microsoft. I think their business practices (as well as many of their products) suck. I'm just not naive enough to think that ALL cases of this size and scope don't have political overtones. I don't like that they do, anymore than the next guy, but I'm not blind to it. Chris Losinger (the devout Bush basher ;P ) made it sound as if everything was perfect until Mr. Bush let MS off the hook. First of all, like Tim Smith pointed out, the initial aspects of the case were politically motivated. Secondly, the DOJ started to lighten up even during the last days of the Clinton era once MS started greasing some Democratic palms. In addition, during the Clinton administration the DOJ attacked where he wanted them to attack and they took a blind eye where he wanted them to take a blind eye. *cough* Gore's fundraising! *cough* I find it amazing how Democrats/Republicans always sound so righteous when criticizing the opposite party for doing the very same things their own party does every day.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Chris Losinger (the devout Bush basher ) made it sound as if everything was perfect until Mr. Bush let MS off the hook. that wasn't my intention. i merely pointed out that Bush is far nicer to MS than Clinton was. and if you think i'm strictly a bush basher - wait for the next sleazy president to take over. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded you don't know if i'm a Democrat or not, do you? didn't think so. i could be anything, even a republican, and still think bush is an idiot. why? because i have a mind of my own. Richard Stringer wrote: Spare me the ideaology please ok, i will if you will. you have blamed everything ("our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials") on Democrats, as if a person can only be a Democrat or a Republican and nothing else - as if they subscribe to the party line and live to uphold the ideals of the Party. well, guess what? where i come from, a person can do the wrong thing from either side of the fence. i'll say it again, partisan politics is the worst part of US government. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
Chris Losinger wrote: i'll say it again, partisan politics is the worst part of US government OK I'll accept that. Now just what do you not like about GW. Details - what has he done that you disagree with. Or are you simply playing Pavolovs doggie here. And you sir are a Democrat notwithstanding your own internal generalazations. Face up to it - admit it - get on with your life. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc... You apparently have too much intellegence to be a Nadar backer and not enough factual knowledge to be an Independant. By you signature you say that your not a conservative (REPUBLICAN) so that leaves DEMOCRAT (liberal). Unless , of course, you are atarting your own party. Just curious - who among us right now would you like to be President ? Or are you just one of those who point to the problem without offering a solution ? Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i'll say it again, partisan politics is the worst part of US government OK I'll accept that. Now just what do you not like about GW. Details - what has he done that you disagree with. Or are you simply playing Pavolovs doggie here. And you sir are a Democrat notwithstanding your own internal generalazations. Face up to it - admit it - get on with your life. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc... You apparently have too much intellegence to be a Nadar backer and not enough factual knowledge to be an Independant. By you signature you say that your not a conservative (REPUBLICAN) so that leaves DEMOCRAT (liberal). Unless , of course, you are atarting your own party. Just curious - who among us right now would you like to be President ? Or are you just one of those who point to the problem without offering a solution ? Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: what has he done that you disagree with. i don't like the way his employee Ashcroft has bent the law to imprison people without charging them, both in this country with US citizens and in Cuba with the people who may or may not be POWs, depending on which international law he's trying to avoid. i don't like the way he handles foreign policy. i would prefer the US to behave less like a power-drunk police officer and more like a strong friend. ie. good in a fight, but not looking for one. "walk softly, carry a big stick" if you prefer. i don't think his tax cuts were a good idea, or even necessary. yes, it's nice to have a few extra dollars per pay check. but, i'd rather that money went to education. for example, as of last week my county in NC is currently short over 400 school teachers. school started this week. i don't like his "faith-based" crap. religion is such a touchy subject, i think it's better if the givt. just stays as far away from it as possible. i could go on. i won't. -c
Conservative: Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: what has he done that you disagree with. i don't like the way his employee Ashcroft has bent the law to imprison people without charging them, both in this country with US citizens and in Cuba with the people who may or may not be POWs, depending on which international law he's trying to avoid. i don't like the way he handles foreign policy. i would prefer the US to behave less like a power-drunk police officer and more like a strong friend. ie. good in a fight, but not looking for one. "walk softly, carry a big stick" if you prefer. i don't think his tax cuts were a good idea, or even necessary. yes, it's nice to have a few extra dollars per pay check. but, i'd rather that money went to education. for example, as of last week my county in NC is currently short over 400 school teachers. school started this week. i don't like his "faith-based" crap. religion is such a touchy subject, i think it's better if the givt. just stays as far away from it as possible. i could go on. i won't. -c
Conservative: Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move.
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like the way his employee Ashcroft has bent the law to imprison people without charging them, both in this country with US citizens and in Cuba with the people who may or may not be POWs, depending on which international law he's trying to avoid. YOU don't like !!! Well Well anyone who does something YOU don't like is an idiot then. Wonder what that makes me ? If what is being done is against the law then the proper venue ( The Supremes ) will act to stop it. As far as I'm concerned anyone who acts against the US in the current conflict is a POW if captured and if that someone is a US citizen the he/she is a traitor and does not deserve any constitutional protections. But thst just MHO. Chris Losinger wrote: don't like the way he handles foreign policy. i would prefer the US to behave less like a power-drunk police officer and more like a strong friend. ie. good in a fight, but not looking for one. "walk softly, carry a big stick" if you prefer. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is what got the big stick shoved up our ass at Pearl Harbor ( remember that ). By you definition we should just let these little piss ant countries develop CBN weapon systems, train terrorists, etc.. any ole way they want to. Do you even know ... never mind. You must have really thought James Earl Carter was a great President. Chris Losinger wrote: don't think his tax cuts were a good idea, or even necessary. yes, it's nice to have a few extra dollars per pay check. but, i'd rather that money went to education. for example, as of last week my county in NC is currently short over 400 school teachers. school started this week And this is GW's tax cut that caused this ? Are you really that mixed up? The Federal Gov. should get the hell out of education completly - it does not belong there. get rid of the NEA - get rid of the stupid teachers and make the pay scale be based on merit not tenure - get rid of the red tape that drains 40% of the education dollar - raise local taxes if thats what the local population wants - but don't blame GW's tax cut on federal income for this. Don;t tax ME for YOUR education problems. Do you have any idea how much of you income goes toward taxes ? Do you actually believe that the federal gov should tax at the rate it does. Go read the Constitution on just what the function of the Federal Gov. really is. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like his
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like the way his employee Ashcroft has bent the law to imprison people without charging them, both in this country with US citizens and in Cuba with the people who may or may not be POWs, depending on which international law he's trying to avoid. YOU don't like !!! Well Well anyone who does something YOU don't like is an idiot then. Wonder what that makes me ? If what is being done is against the law then the proper venue ( The Supremes ) will act to stop it. As far as I'm concerned anyone who acts against the US in the current conflict is a POW if captured and if that someone is a US citizen the he/she is a traitor and does not deserve any constitutional protections. But thst just MHO. Chris Losinger wrote: don't like the way he handles foreign policy. i would prefer the US to behave less like a power-drunk police officer and more like a strong friend. ie. good in a fight, but not looking for one. "walk softly, carry a big stick" if you prefer. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is what got the big stick shoved up our ass at Pearl Harbor ( remember that ). By you definition we should just let these little piss ant countries develop CBN weapon systems, train terrorists, etc.. any ole way they want to. Do you even know ... never mind. You must have really thought James Earl Carter was a great President. Chris Losinger wrote: don't think his tax cuts were a good idea, or even necessary. yes, it's nice to have a few extra dollars per pay check. but, i'd rather that money went to education. for example, as of last week my county in NC is currently short over 400 school teachers. school started this week And this is GW's tax cut that caused this ? Are you really that mixed up? The Federal Gov. should get the hell out of education completly - it does not belong there. get rid of the NEA - get rid of the stupid teachers and make the pay scale be based on merit not tenure - get rid of the red tape that drains 40% of the education dollar - raise local taxes if thats what the local population wants - but don't blame GW's tax cut on federal income for this. Don;t tax ME for YOUR education problems. Do you have any idea how much of you income goes toward taxes ? Do you actually believe that the federal gov should tax at the rate it does. Go read the Constitution on just what the function of the Federal Gov. really is. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like his
Richard Stringer wrote: As far as I'm concerned anyone who acts against the US in the current conflict is a POW if captured and if that someone is a US citizen the he/she is a traitor and does not deserve any constitutional protections. Who determines what an act against the US is? We have our constitution protections for a reason. Anyone who suggests that they should be suspended is the traitor. That kind of talk is completely un-American. Richard Stringer wrote: Get youself into the 10% of voters that understand the issues. Please don't tell me that you think that none of that 10% are liberals. Richard Stringer wrote: If more people did then we could end partisian politics overnight. Very doubtful. It is possible to see the same situation and come to different conclusions. Ryan Johnston
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like the way his employee Ashcroft has bent the law to imprison people without charging them, both in this country with US citizens and in Cuba with the people who may or may not be POWs, depending on which international law he's trying to avoid. YOU don't like !!! Well Well anyone who does something YOU don't like is an idiot then. Wonder what that makes me ? If what is being done is against the law then the proper venue ( The Supremes ) will act to stop it. As far as I'm concerned anyone who acts against the US in the current conflict is a POW if captured and if that someone is a US citizen the he/she is a traitor and does not deserve any constitutional protections. But thst just MHO. Chris Losinger wrote: don't like the way he handles foreign policy. i would prefer the US to behave less like a power-drunk police officer and more like a strong friend. ie. good in a fight, but not looking for one. "walk softly, carry a big stick" if you prefer. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is what got the big stick shoved up our ass at Pearl Harbor ( remember that ). By you definition we should just let these little piss ant countries develop CBN weapon systems, train terrorists, etc.. any ole way they want to. Do you even know ... never mind. You must have really thought James Earl Carter was a great President. Chris Losinger wrote: don't think his tax cuts were a good idea, or even necessary. yes, it's nice to have a few extra dollars per pay check. but, i'd rather that money went to education. for example, as of last week my county in NC is currently short over 400 school teachers. school started this week And this is GW's tax cut that caused this ? Are you really that mixed up? The Federal Gov. should get the hell out of education completly - it does not belong there. get rid of the NEA - get rid of the stupid teachers and make the pay scale be based on merit not tenure - get rid of the red tape that drains 40% of the education dollar - raise local taxes if thats what the local population wants - but don't blame GW's tax cut on federal income for this. Don;t tax ME for YOUR education problems. Do you have any idea how much of you income goes toward taxes ? Do you actually believe that the federal gov should tax at the rate it does. Go read the Constitution on just what the function of the Federal Gov. really is. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't like his
Richard Stringer wrote: And this is GW's tax cut that caused this ? did i say that? no. i said the tax cut was unnecessary, and that i'd rather the money went to education. you quoted it, for christs sake! Richard Stringer wrote: By you definition we should just let these little piss ant countries develop CBN weapon systems, train terrorists, etc.. any ole way they want to where does it say, in the Constitution, that the US has the responsibility to ensure that no other country can have the same weapons we do? where does it say that our president gets to decide who leads other countries? i know the iraq situation is complex. but GWB gives the impression that he doesn't know that. Richard Stringer wrote: You strike me as an intelligent person so whay are you just regurgitating the liberal line you are determined to see everything as democrat vs. republican. and life is too short for such things. i give up. see you in a different thread. -c
Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: As far as I'm concerned anyone who acts against the US in the current conflict is a POW if captured and if that someone is a US citizen the he/she is a traitor and does not deserve any constitutional protections. Who determines what an act against the US is? We have our constitution protections for a reason. Anyone who suggests that they should be suspended is the traitor. That kind of talk is completely un-American. Richard Stringer wrote: Get youself into the 10% of voters that understand the issues. Please don't tell me that you think that none of that 10% are liberals. Richard Stringer wrote: If more people did then we could end partisian politics overnight. Very doubtful. It is possible to see the same situation and come to different conclusions. Ryan Johnston
Ryan Johnston wrote: Who determines what an act against the US is? We have our constitution protections for a reason. Anyone who suggests that they should be suspended is the traitor. That kind of talk is completely un-American. The President does. And I'll also bet that when our Constitutional rights are bent to try to make it illegal to own fire arms or to legalize murder or to take rights away from the States and give them to the Federal Gov. you don't say a word. Selective reasoning does not work. If one is a traitor by definition ( treason being the ONLY specific crime mentioned in the Constitution ) then I would suggest that he/she has surrenderd any claim to Constitutional protections other than that prescribed by Law. Ryan Johnston wrote: Please don't tell me that you think that none of that 10% are liberals It is rather hard to be a liberal and understand the facts at the same time. It is much like a religious person when confronted by science. They have to ignore the facts and conclusions and fall back on beliefs. Hey some of my best friends are raving liberals but I have hope :) Ryan Johnston wrote: Very doubtful. It is possible to see the same situation and come to different conclusions. This is true in many cases but the gap between the liberals and the conservatives is such that one can only come to the conclusion that they are seeing different things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: Who determines what an act against the US is? We have our constitution protections for a reason. Anyone who suggests that they should be suspended is the traitor. That kind of talk is completely un-American. The President does. And I'll also bet that when our Constitutional rights are bent to try to make it illegal to own fire arms or to legalize murder or to take rights away from the States and give them to the Federal Gov. you don't say a word. Selective reasoning does not work. If one is a traitor by definition ( treason being the ONLY specific crime mentioned in the Constitution ) then I would suggest that he/she has surrenderd any claim to Constitutional protections other than that prescribed by Law. Ryan Johnston wrote: Please don't tell me that you think that none of that 10% are liberals It is rather hard to be a liberal and understand the facts at the same time. It is much like a religious person when confronted by science. They have to ignore the facts and conclusions and fall back on beliefs. Hey some of my best friends are raving liberals but I have hope :) Ryan Johnston wrote: Very doubtful. It is possible to see the same situation and come to different conclusions. This is true in many cases but the gap between the liberals and the conservatives is such that one can only come to the conclusion that they are seeing different things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: The President does. Fine, but no American should be arrested with out charges brought against them. If these people are traitors, then charge them and send them to a trial of their peers. That is our way, and that is what our nation is founded on. Richard Stringer wrote: And I'll also bet that when our Constitutional rights are bent to try to make it illegal to own fire arms or to legalize murder or to take rights away from the States and give them to the Federal Gov. you don't say a word. Not true. Unless constitutional amendments are passed, then they sure as hell better not try to pass laws that obviously violate our constitution. As for the legalizing of murder, I suppose you are referring to abortion or doctor assisted suicide. I happen to support both, and wouldn't define either as murder. By the way, is murder specifically mentioned in the constitution? I don't remember that, but then I wasn't looking for it(I fully admit that I am not a constitutional scholar, nor am I a lawyer). Richard Stringer wrote: It is rather hard to be a liberal and understand the facts at the same time. It is much like a religious person when confronted by science. They have to ignore the facts and conclusions and fall back on beliefs. Haha, I could say the same of conservatives (actually I believe I have been guilty of that in the past). I mean you are really grasping at straws there. Not all liberals are the "bleeding-heart" morons that all liberals are portrayed to be. Here is the basic difference in philosophy that sets the two camps apart: One side believes that government should play as little part in our lives as possible, and the other believes that government can be a tool to help society. Neither idea is inherently flawed. Admittedly, it is a lot easier to pull off the first option (it is always easier to do nothing than something). That doesn't mean the second option is impossible. Richard Stringer wrote: This is true in many cases but the gap between the liberals and the conservatives is such that one can only come to the conclusion that they are seeing different things. Liberals want a better world, conservatives also want a better world. The world they envision is not always the same one. Be that as it may, I would die to protect the freedoms you (and all other Americans) enjoy. R
-
Chris Losinger wrote: tell me how that matters. For me it was a matter of honesty and integrity. I expect more from our president. "I did not have sex with that woman." :|
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Why did it get so big anyway? So what if a guy cheats on his wife? It happens every day. This guy just happened to be your president. I think it would have been more fair to the guy if he'd settle it in court with his wife. Why did they have to drag his ass through every mud pit in the US? And I can't blame the guy for trying to get away with lying. If you cheated on your wife, would you admit it on national tv? FreeBSD is sexy. Getting closer and closer to actually submit an article...
-
I have a question for anyone out there: How is it that an OS software company (Microsoft), can dictate to hardware OEMs like Dell, Gateway(? are they even still around), IBM et al how they can sell their products ? The question relates to the whole selling of an OEM machine with no OS. How can MS legally make the demand that they (the OEM's) not be allowed to sell PC's without an OS? I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? Just wondering...
You've hit it on the head. Jim Crafton wrote: I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? No it's not illegal, but if you want to stay in the computer business, you have no choice but to comply. That's why we got out of the computer scene; the terms and conditions were too ridiculous. This was around '97. MS said that we had to include a modem with our consumer PC's in order to be PC97 compliant. Systems that were to be sold as professional systems (i.e. servers) were not required to have modems in order to be PC97 compliant. As for MS saying "you must", it related to the logo compatibility testing. Most consumers like to see "Windows x compatible" or "Runs on Windows" blah blah... A similar MS tactic is this new driver signing. Pay them and you're clear, don't and Windows shows a nasty message box stating that the driver you are about to install has not been certified with MS and could destroy your entire system ...ok, not that bad, but I get a funny feeling when I see that popup on my screen…More MS Brainwashing!!! Another example of MS power: When we were in the PC business, we had to include MS-DOS x . MS said that we had to buy X number of copies of the OS over the next few years to get a decent price on that current OS. However, MS also stated that they were releasing a newer version and they would not be supporting (in the OEM sense) the older OS that we were still required to buy. If we didn't by the older OS, fine, but the next time we wanted to use a MS OS, it would be at least twice the price! MS charged us $75 for each PC that went out with DOS. Regards, Paul...