Paul Thurrott.... a software pirate.

[Ground Cover]

Thanks. Yes, there's the phenomenon of "Crown Corporations". These are
corporations owned by the government but which operate at arms length from
the government e.g. the CBC works independently of the government which
simply funds it. They usually exist to fulfill some need that it is felt
will not or cannot be met by private industry.

But you made some mistakes:

CN is now publicly traded, as is Air Canada. CBC operates at a decided arms
length. It's not the official organ of the government, rather quite often
its critic. And there are plenty of private television radio companies in
Canada. Canada Post has to compete with FedEx and UPS. I don't think CP was
ever a Crown Corporation.

Furthermore, beyond what you mentioned, the federal government's stake in
the once national gasoline company Petrocan was sold off.

There's a difference between universal health care and socialist health
care. In Canada, the goal is universal health care. But the providers of
said health care can be either government or business - it's just that the
government will provide the monies to make sure the care is universally
available. I admit for the time being that it is hugely a government run
project. The federal government funds the health care, but the provinces
administer it. The biggest problem they face is keeping it efficient
(enough) and timely. In my opinion, universality should be extended to
include prescribed drugs and basic dentistry.

But I think you think Canadians demand government-only health care - that's
not necessarily the case. Heck, almost all doctors are essentially private
business men who charge the government for services rendered. It's not
government-only health care most Canadians want, it's quality timely
*universal* health care we want. Rich or poor you get the cure. Ugly or fair
you'll get good care. Whether a particular service is delivered by
government or by private company is beside the point.

One of the generally accepted reasons for the CBC is that it is considered
stalwart vis a vis Canadian culture - a culture that would otherwise be
swamped by the huge cultural machine to the south. It provides a sort of
cultural common ground for Canadians. CBC's role varies from decade to
decade. For instance, it is the big hockey broadcaster. But now there's
discussion that the private companies should handle the Hockey Night in
Canada contract.

And, for sure, there's plenty of competition .. we have all the usual
channels on basic cable except, of course, FOX News <snicker> and the
channel that plays every al-Qaeda video bin Laden sends it, Aljazeera. FOX
News and the specialty channels you can get if you buy a bundle on digital
cable. Aljazeera is available, I think, only if you use "grey market"
satellite stuff if you can get it at all - let's just say Aljazeera is not
exactly welcome. But basic cable even includes some BBC News on the CBC news
network. And we even have stuff coming in from Paris on some of the French
channels. But there are plenty of privately owned television and radio
networks in Canada and, of course, we get the big American channels.

So overall I think you misunderstand how "socialist" Canada is. There are
some crown corporations, sure, but these usually [not always] have to
compete with private ones. Crown Corporations exist because there's a
perceived need for them, not to serve socialism. Yes, our flag is white and
red, but the official colours of Canada (white and red) come from Queen
Victoria in the nineteenth century not from socialism. The socialists in
Canada use the colour orange.

 

[Donald McDaniel]

I just couldn't resist, sorry.

I don't like the car analogy, it really isn't
the same- not even close.

Since it has been brought up, here's mine:

What Microsoft did with WGA and critical updates
would be similar to a car manufacturer issuing a
recall for bad brakes and while they were fixing those
brakes decided you needed new tires. Then put those
new tires on without your permission.

You have the right to know what is being done to your
car and why. The right to approve or disapprove of those
changes. By secretly putting beta software into a
critical update, Microsoft took away the user's right to
know and approve or disapprove. Regardless of what
one thinks of WGA- Critical Updates should be just that-
*critical* and *not* used as some mechanism to install
invasive beta spyware.

You DO have the option of turning off Automatic Updates,as well as the
option of NOT using WGA.

Or setting its configuration to have AU always ASK before downloading
or installing updates.

But when you agreed to the EULA, you agreed to ALL of it, not PART of
it. The EULA gives Microsoft the right to add or remove software
necessary to exercising their rights over the software, at their
pleasure.

But Microsoft USUALLY ASKS before it installs software or updates.

If you set AU to download and install without asking you, you gave
them the permission they needed to install any software they felt you
needed.

You DON'T have to use WGA, if you so desire. YOU decided to use it.
YOU can decide NOT to use it. Just UNINSTALL it, if you don't like
it, and stop complaining like a little child.

As for me, I have no fears of Microsoft. And I have no fear that my
OS will be found to be illegal by WGA, since I do not use illegal
software, XP being among that software. Nor am I afraid of
information being uploaded to Microsoft without my knowledge.
The fact is, information is ALWAYS uploaded to websites of one sort or
another. EACH time you click on most advertisements, or make a
purchase, or visit a Porn site, or visit a new website, information is
usually uploaded AND downloaded without your knowledge. Check your
cookies. How many of those websites were you aware were putting a
cookie on your HD?

So you really are shedding "crocodile tears".

-Michael

The fact is, the EULA is a "warranty" itself. Microsoft "warranties"
that you will be able to get updates and additions as long as your OS
is legal and you abide by the terms of the EULA, and as long as your
OS is supported (usually several years).

And WHY should Microsoft warranty its OS if YOU damage it by not
taking proper precautions to protect yourself? They have every right
to deny you support in that case, since YOU caused the damage
(indirectly, it is true) yourself. Just as our ficticious auto
manufacturer has EVERY right to deny you support if YOU YOURSELF cause
damage to your automobile (either through not keeping the terms of
your warranty, or failing to insure your automobile from OTHER'S
causing damage.)

Or because they are being PROACTIVE in ensuring that YOU have a
properly running automobile, because of their COMMUNITY consciousness.

Don't you know that ALL IP addresses are PUBLIC, whether you want them
to be or not? The ONLY IP addresses which AREN'T public are those in
the LOCAL NET, BEHIND your router (if you have a local network set up,
that is). ANY TIME you access Google or Yahoo, your IP is available
to them, and accessed by them. ANYTIME you access ANY ADDRESS on the
Internet, your IP is PUBLICALLY available to them.

By the way, there is no such thing as a "Corporate license" of XP. ALL
such licenses are ACTUALLY referred to as "VOLUME LICENSES", and
ANYONE may purchase one, with a minimum of 5 seats. Even home users
may purchase them. And they DO require activation (or actually, the
VOLUME LICENSE itself is activated by its administrator).

And did you know that it is CASUAL copying by HOME USERS which Windows
Activation is meant for? When 60 million copies of XP are not
genuine, Microsoft has to do SOMETHING to keep its lawful revenue.
Wouldn't YOU? Or are you such a BIG philanthropist as you want
Microsoft to be? Somehow, I doubt it.

You, sir, are an alarmist. Or a Pirate. I don't quite know which one
at this moment.

http://www.aacsla.com/support/AACS_Interim_Adopter_Agreement_060215.pdf

See p 82 [the section is 1.7]

Analgoue sound no doubt will also be on the chopping block!

<sarcasm>But I suspect they've figured that's a tougher challenge - but,
hey, SONY and the rest have the resources to meets these challenges in the
ever evolving marketplace! Isn't it nice they are working so hard for you,
their customer? Why, they even will root-kit you for free.</sarcasm>

Notice that they've gotten the U.S. government to shut down analogue
broadcasting of television signals. I suspect the big media corporations
want complete digital control of all media. No rabbit ears on your TV for
you - you must pay a company for a digital signal! Imagine that - rabbit ear
police. Anyone found operating rabbit ears is in violation of the DMCA.
Stiff fines for first violation, jail time for any subsequent.

Are you
supposed to give up your freedom to WGA-N DRM DCMA and (soon AACS)
and live your life like a criminal on parole? Are the USA, Canada
and Australia supposed to be police state tyrannies or free
countries? For the time being you are still free to not care. But
if things keep going the way they are going you will not be free.

Well, if you ARE a criminal, you COULD be in PRISON, rather than "on
parole". But you know that solution to that, don't you? DON'T be a
CRIMINAL!!! Don't steal software. Don't steal music. Don't STEAL,
and the Law will not apply to you, and none of your "freedoms" will
be taken away from you. We certainly have no "rights" to ANOTHER
person's property under the rule of law.

The US Constitution tells us we have the "fundamental rights to Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". I assure you, there is NO
happiness to be gotten by STEALING. In fact, it will only make one
UNHAPPY, in the end.

And the "Right to Liberty" does NOT give us the "right to commit
crimes". In fact, commiting crime only leads to LOSING that right,
not GAINING it.

You just didn't read a word I wrote, did you? You could care less
about the rights of the software producers. All you really care about
are your OWN "rights", and actually think these "rights" include the
"right" to STEAL other people's work, and the food out of their
children's mouths.


What do I care about what is happening in Canada? You people have to
take care of your OWN back yards. You're the ones who've been
electing extreme left-wing parties to your Parliment, not us.

"Vigilant" in your case is another word for "reactionary and
criminal". Glorify crime, and everyone will become criminals. Maybe
you should stop listening to all that "gangsta rap" we are exporting
to the rest of the world.

I'm not worried about the government, stud. I'm more concerned about
Hollywood and the Liberal Media.


==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[Mark D. VandenBerg]

--
Mark

My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

Thanks. Yes, there's the phenomenon of "Crown Corporations". These are
corporations owned by the government but which operate at arms length from
the government e.g. the CBC works independently of the government which
simply funds it. They usually exist to fulfill some need that it is felt
will not or cannot be met by private industry.

But you made some mistakes:

CN is now publicly traded, as is Air Canada. CBC operates at a decided
arms
length. It's not the official organ of the government, rather quite often
its critic. And there are plenty of private television radio companies in
Canada. Canada Post has to compete with FedEx and UPS. I don't think CP
was
ever a Crown Corporation.

Furthermore, beyond what you mentioned, the federal government's stake in
the once national gasoline company Petrocan was sold off.

There's a difference between universal health care and socialist health
care. In Canada, the goal is universal health care. But the providers of
said health care can be either government or business - it's just that the
government will provide the monies to make sure the care is universally
available. I admit for the time being that it is hugely a government run
project. The federal government funds the health care, but the provinces
administer it. The biggest problem they face is keeping it efficient
(enough) and timely. In my opinion, universality should be extended to
include prescribed drugs and basic dentistry.

But I think you think Canadians demand government-only health care -
that's
not necessarily the case. Heck, almost all doctors are essentially private
business men who charge the government for services rendered. It's not
government-only health care most Canadians want, it's quality timely
*universal* health care we want. Rich or poor you get the cure. Ugly or
fair
you'll get good care. Whether a particular service is delivered by
government or by private company is beside the point.

One of the generally accepted reasons for the CBC is that it is considered
stalwart vis a vis Canadian culture - a culture that would otherwise be
swamped by the huge cultural machine to the south. It provides a sort of
cultural common ground for Canadians. CBC's role varies from decade to
decade. For instance, it is the big hockey broadcaster. But now there's
discussion that the private companies should handle the Hockey Night in
Canada contract.

And, for sure, there's plenty of competition .. we have all the usual
channels on basic cable except, of course, FOX News <snicker> and the
channel that plays every al-Qaeda video bin Laden sends it, Aljazeera.
FOX
News and the specialty channels you can get if you buy a bundle on digital
cable. Aljazeera is available, I think, only if you use "grey market"
satellite stuff if you can get it at all - let's just say Aljazeera is not
exactly welcome. But basic cable even includes some BBC News on the CBC
news
network. And we even have stuff coming in from Paris on some of the French
channels. But there are plenty of privately owned television and radio
networks in Canada and, of course, we get the big American channels.

So overall I think you misunderstand how "socialist" Canada is. There are
some crown corporations, sure, but these usually [not always] have to
compete with private ones. Crown Corporations exist because there's a
perceived need for them, not to serve socialism. Yes, our flag is white
and
red, but the official colours of Canada (white and red) come from Queen
Victoria in the nineteenth century not from socialism. The socialists in
Canada use the colour orange.

Excellent information. Thank you.

Believe it or not, CBC Radio could stand against any radio station I have
ever listened to, IMHO. In fact I routinely stream CBC 2 because it is by
far the best classical music station available on the internet. HNIC should
not go to the highest bidder, or we will get OLN II, or ESPN involved and
neither of them know how to broadcast a hockey game to save their collective
lives. Besides, can you see Grapes on OLN? Didn't think so. I spend two
or three weeks every Christmas with my family in Alberta, and I have seen
the cable (both Rogers and Shaw) channel line-up first hand. Not my cup of
tea, but, hey to each his own. If those are the channels that are most
popular and by that virtue, generate the most advertising dollar, great. If
there is legislation mandating Canadian content...

You state a few times "perceived need;" perceived as an alternative to what?
Tilden Mines setting up shop in Sudbury? Duncan Donuts buying Tim Hortons?
Does this mean the Canadian Parliament takes an active role in legislating
the "Canadian Identity?" That is a slippery slope.

I will always maintain that I personally am better off if I am in control of
what I spend, not a government entity. Why pay someone to do what I can do
myself? This includes healthcare. I would be curious to compare what I
spend in medical premiums versus what you spend in tax dollars and to what
medical coverage this money equates.

I noticed you left out utilities. Nationalized in Canada versus private
enterprise elsewhere. I have no numbers to compare who pays less for
natural gas or electricity, so I can't say one way is better than another.
The USA is witnessing the slow regrouping of the old Bell Telephone anyway.

Each country in the world has to do things their own way, whatever works
best for them is best. I just bristle, though, when the USA is criticized
by people in countries whose very existence is made possible by the welfare
cheques they receive from the USA in the form of "Foreign Aid" or "Disaster
Relief."

 

[Ground Cover]

Inline:



But if one is connected to the Internet, it's not a realistic option for
most people.



That's good.



Usually. Technically speaking Microsoft "asked" with WGA N .. but many
spyware softwares technically "ask" before installing. The offence is that
it is done in a way that takes the user off guard. Microsoft did precisely
that.



No, I don't either, although I'm getting wary. I do assume that the people
there are all hard working and honest. Big assumption to make I guess.



Same here.



That concerns me and it should concern you too.



I've installed a hosts file that sends most advertisements to localhost
127.0.0.1



I try to avoid those now .. although I have to admit in the past I've been a
bit of a brat angel and peeked a few times.



I manually control cookies and disallow most and erase the rest soon
thereafter.



Not many because most weren't.



Not me.

 

[MICHAEL]

Mark, the link below is to a recent interview with
Milton Friedman. As always, he has some interesting
thoughts.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
Milton Friedman is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
and a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from
1946-1976. Dr. Friedman received the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Science in 1976, and the
National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1988.

--
Mark

My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

Thanks. Yes, there's the phenomenon of "Crown Corporations". These are
corporations owned by the government but which operate at arms length from
the government e.g. the CBC works independently of the government which
simply funds it. They usually exist to fulfill some need that it is felt
will not or cannot be met by private industry.

But you made some mistakes:

CN is now publicly traded, as is Air Canada. CBC operates at a decided arms
length. It's not the official organ of the government, rather quite often
its critic. And there are plenty of private television radio companies in
Canada. Canada Post has to compete with FedEx and UPS. I don't think CP was
ever a Crown Corporation.

Furthermore, beyond what you mentioned, the federal government's stake in
the once national gasoline company Petrocan was sold off.

There's a difference between universal health care and socialist health
care. In Canada, the goal is universal health care. But the providers of
said health care can be either government or business - it's just that the
government will provide the monies to make sure the care is universally
available. I admit for the time being that it is hugely a government run
project. The federal government funds the health care, but the provinces
administer it. The biggest problem they face is keeping it efficient
(enough) and timely. In my opinion, universality should be extended to
include prescribed drugs and basic dentistry.

But I think you think Canadians demand government-only health care - that's
not necessarily the case. Heck, almost all doctors are essentially private
business men who charge the government for services rendered. It's not
government-only health care most Canadians want, it's quality timely
*universal* health care we want. Rich or poor you get the cure. Ugly or fair
you'll get good care. Whether a particular service is delivered by
government or by private company is beside the point.

One of the generally accepted reasons for the CBC is that it is considered
stalwart vis a vis Canadian culture - a culture that would otherwise be
swamped by the huge cultural machine to the south. It provides a sort of
cultural common ground for Canadians. CBC's role varies from decade to
decade. For instance, it is the big hockey broadcaster. But now there's
discussion that the private companies should handle the Hockey Night in
Canada contract.

And, for sure, there's plenty of competition .. we have all the usual
channels on basic cable except, of course, FOX News <snicker> and the
channel that plays every al-Qaeda video bin Laden sends it, Aljazeera. FOX
News and the specialty channels you can get if you buy a bundle on digital
cable. Aljazeera is available, I think, only if you use "grey market"
satellite stuff if you can get it at all - let's just say Aljazeera is not
exactly welcome. But basic cable even includes some BBC News on the CBC news
network. And we even have stuff coming in from Paris on some of the French
channels. But there are plenty of privately owned television and radio
networks in Canada and, of course, we get the big American channels.

So overall I think you misunderstand how "socialist" Canada is. There are
some crown corporations, sure, but these usually [not always] have to
compete with private ones. Crown Corporations exist because there's a
perceived need for them, not to serve socialism. Yes, our flag is white and
red, but the official colours of Canada (white and red) come from Queen
Victoria in the nineteenth century not from socialism. The socialists in
Canada use the colour orange.

Excellent information. Thank you.

Believe it or not, CBC Radio could stand against any radio station I have ever listened to,
IMHO. In fact I routinely stream CBC 2 because it is by far the best classical music station
available on the internet. HNIC should not go to the highest bidder, or we will get OLN II,
or ESPN involved and neither of them know how to broadcast a hockey game to save their
collective lives. Besides, can you see Grapes on OLN? Didn't think so. I spend two or
three weeks every Christmas with my family in Alberta, and I have seen the cable (both Rogers
and Shaw) channel line-up first hand. Not my cup of tea, but, hey to each his own. If those
are the channels that are most popular and by that virtue, generate the most advertising
dollar, great. If there is legislation mandating Canadian content...

You state a few times "perceived need;" perceived as an alternative to what? Tilden Mines
setting up shop in Sudbury? Duncan Donuts buying Tim Hortons? Does this mean the Canadian
Parliament takes an active role in legislating the "Canadian Identity?" That is a slippery
slope.

I will always maintain that I personally am better off if I am in control of what I spend,
not a government entity. Why pay someone to do what I can do myself? This includes
healthcare. I would be curious to compare what I spend in medical premiums versus what you
spend in tax dollars and to what medical coverage this money equates.

I noticed you left out utilities. Nationalized in Canada versus private enterprise
elsewhere. I have no numbers to compare who pays less for natural gas or electricity, so I
can't say one way is better than another. The USA is witnessing the slow regrouping of the
old Bell Telephone anyway.

Each country in the world has to do things their own way, whatever works best for them is
best. I just bristle, though, when the USA is criticized by people in countries whose very
existence is made possible by the welfare cheques they receive from the USA in the form of
"Foreign Aid" or "Disaster Relief."

 

[MICHAEL]

You are wasting your time with him.

He just likes to take it without even a
whimper. They, corporations in general,
appreciate his willingness to bend over
backwards for *them*.
He obviously prefers to be their beeatch.


--
Michael
______
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools,
but that the lightning ain't distributed right."
- Mark Twain

 

[Ground Cover]

Inline:


There is. It's not that you can't play something - it's not censorship ..
it's just that they have to come up with a certain percentage of Canadian
content. I reluctantly agree with those laws. I think the airwares and
cables in Canada should be available to and promote Canadians. It's
artificial, but hey, our neighbour is the mega-gigantic USA and the flood
from there just wipes everything here out otherwise.



Yes. E.g. Take our thin population but vast expances. Air Canada used to
have to fly to certain places even though it was at a loss. The government
wanted certain areas to receive airline services even though they are at
great distance (therefore cost) but without great traffic (little revenue).
Private companies on their own couldn't do the work. Or they would have to
charge huge fares etc. etc. A Crown Corp could have it written into its
mission statement and receive the monies necessary to do the job.



It came out of the dirt poor west. Many people simply didn't get health care
at all because they couldn't afford it. The idea that anyone could get it
rich or poor caught on and it became part of our national identity. I think
it is appropriate to my country. When it first came in doctors were amazed
with how little care many people were getting by on and how much suffering
was being endured - simply because they were poor.



Neither do I.



Yes, successive governments make plans to de-nationalize then pull back. So
far it seems to work. We've never been without power save for a weather
storm or freak accident. So to me, the idea that some things are
nationalized doesn't bother me one bit. Anyway, I'm not sure I like the idea
of private nuclear companies quite frankly .. it's the USA that suffered
Three Mile Island, not Ontario.


Better yet, is if governments encourage personal power generation through
small wind mills and solar panels. Then we could develop a real democratic
subset of clean power generation.



I don't think that is the case here. Canada doesn't get welfare cheques ..
we do a lot of trading. I think we are the USA's number one trading partner.
And a major supplier of energy to the USA. Heck, so much so Russia is
coming to us to deliquify natural gas before selling it to the States!

You'd think I'd like that, but in my opinion Canadians have put too many of
the eggs in the USA basket. If there's a problem, then we're in a real
pickle. Circa the seventies, Canada's foreign trade was about 50% with the
US. Now it is more like 85% and a disproportionately huge part of our
economy. What if Bush closes the borders again, only for longer? I'd like to
see a real push to trade, not less with the USA - because trading with the
USA is good - but more with Europe, Asia and so on because we rely too much
on the USA as a market. There's no reason why Japan and Korea couldn't
accept more Canadian goods and resources.

LOL

 

[Mark D. VandenBerg]

--
Mark

My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

.




I don't think that is the case here. Canada doesn't get welfare cheques ..
we do a lot of trading. I think we are the USA's number one trading
partner.
And a major supplier of energy to the USA. Heck, so much so Russia is
coming to us to deliquify natural gas before selling it to the States!

Didn't mean to infer Canada, here. More like certain Mid-Asian countries
who almost put their burning effigies down long enough to cash the
cheques...

You'd think I'd like that, but in my opinion Canadians have put too many of
the eggs in the USA basket. If there's a problem, then we're in a real
pickle. Circa the seventies, Canada's foreign trade was about 50% with the
US. Now it is more like 85% and a disproportionately huge part of our
economy. What if Bush closes the borders again, only for longer? I'd like
to
see a real push to trade, not less with the USA - because trading with the
USA is good - but more with Europe, Asia and so on because we rely too much
on the USA as a market. There's no reason why Japan and Korea couldn't
accept more Canadian goods and resources.

Couldn't agree more. A diverse trade portfolio is necessary for a stable
economy; with 85% from one place, if the USA hiccups, Canada has problems
too.

Anyways, I always enjoy hearing from those who live in our 51st state...

 

[Donald McDaniel]

Yes, when one takes freedom of speech away from one person - even if their
opinion is considered vile, it's been taken away from everyone essentially.
I am one of those here against the "hate speech" laws and would like to see
them repealed.

Our own liberals are trying to get the same sort of "hate speech" laws
enacted here in the US, and to a great extent, are becoming rather
successful of late. We already have "hate crime" laws, and many would
like to see it a crime to speak disparagingly about the homosexual and
lesbian lifestyles, even when that speech would be otherwise lawful
according the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Funny you mention guns. It would be nice [there's the Canadian in me], it
would be nice to have a society free of guns [some say "all guns", some say
"handguns"]. I think many Canadians want that.

Believe it or not, I agree with you, to a great extent. No one wants
to live in a violent society except criminals and anarchists. But it
really is not very rational, especially in our modern socities.

Street Gangs are growing stronger, and our Government's missplaced
laws against drugs and drug use have made it easier for hard-core
addicts to obtain their drugs through violent means, which only leads
to home invasions and muggings on the street and murders over drug
deals. Leaving the citizenry with no means to protect themselves
(especially when our own constabularies are become more and more
corrupt and brutal themselves) would be inhumane, to say the least.

You know, as when even the
"Bobbies" had no guns in England.

That worked for the British while their population was relatively
homogenous, but when the Island grew a little more "mixed", it stopped
working for them, so they started arming the constabulary. Probably a
very wise move on their part. However, an armed constabulary without
an armed citizenry can certainly lead to excesses by that government,
as well as a rise in violent crimes against that unarmed citizenry,
especially when the nation's population is no longer homogenous.

Handguns are really generally hated here.
Few people have them. Although we have higher crime rates than the USA, our
murder rate is only about a tenth. The guns Canadians tend to own are
"outdoorsman" type guns - shotguns and rifles.

I have a handgun - it's an historical/collector's piece of sorts - German
from WWII, but I lost it somewhere in the house. I deliberately hid it so
well somewhere that now I can't find it. No bullets anyway! I think I may
have put it in the rafters. I wanted to make sure it couldn't be found by
anyone and I over did it.

I myself, nor my brother, own even an "outdoorsman" type of gun, much
less a handgun. But we live out in the Boondocks, where there is
almost no violent crime, and the population is very homogenous.

He does own an air-rifle, which he uses to attempt to kill the pocket
gophers which are trying to take over our yard. But like as not, it
usually sits against the wall, unused.

In the past five years the murder rate here has climbed. Immigrant gangs,
not well integrated into the Canadian culture are smuggling guns in from the
USA. There's been some terrible shootings in Toronto. We are not used to
this and the reaction is calls to ban the gun outright.

But the legal lockdown on handguns is already incredible. You must make a
poilce report if you decide to move one from one place to another other than
on a pre-registered route. There's all kinds of paper work and restrictions.
Like I said, in general we hate them and the idea of arming ourselves is
resisted.

Well, I guess you can use your excellent beer-making skills to scare
away the "new criminals" rather than shoot them as they rape your
wives, sisters, and daughters. I guess some people LIKE to stand and
watch, eh?

Guns have been debated here quite a bit. The federal government brought in a
"gun registry". But with the election the new government has basically
canned the regisrty [it was a cost overrun disaster with poorly conceived
objectives]. Instead they plan to have a minimum sentence for any crime
commited where a gun is involved.

Nevertheless, your point is taken about tyranny. It's a bit of a dilema. On
one hand is a strong desire to be rid of handguns altogether and on the
other, like you say, making sure the government has a very healthy respect
for the rights of the citizenry.

Looks like our citizenry has forgotten our earlier lessons, my friend.
Our present government seems to have lost its former "very healthy
respect" for the rights of the citizenry. It must have gone somewhere
down the tubes with President Nixon, while we were whooping it up here
in the States after his defeat, and gotten even worse with the
so-called "War on Terror" of our President Bush the Second.

In a way up to now, it's less in a Canadian's nature to want to own a gun.
The quick explanation is that we didn't throw off the British, we just sort
of grew into our own. So it's not as built into our ways and political
thinking. My explanation is: that it's the fact that the entire country is
freezing cold ... the stark reality of minus forty is the root of our whole
way of thinking and all our politics (in my opinion).

That's very possible. But y'all chose it, in most cases. Not like
the Aussies, who were originally sent there against their wills,
either as political prisoners (the Irish) or petty criminals, or to
help empty out the "Work Houses". Seems like your "aristocracy" likes
to send its poor to the poorest places on Earth to get them out of
their hair. But you Canadians took your lemons nevertheless and made
lemonade instead, to which I offer a rousing "Huzzah! "Stiff upper
lip, and all that."

'Have a nice one.

Only if it's a Molson "Canadian", eh? All we get around here is the
"Export", and the nearest we have to it here in the Lower 48 is
Budweiser (much like watered-down piss), which is not quite as tasty
as even Molson "Export"). Personally, I prefer a STOUTER beer.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[Bernie]

What is the worst thing Microsoft or Walmart or MacDonalds can do with
information gathered about you? Try to sell you something.

Compare that with what the state might do with information gathered
about you. And you're afraid of a sales pitch??

 

[MICHAEL]

What is the worst thing Microsoft or Walmart or MacDonalds can do with
information gathered about you? Try to sell you something.

Who said anything about "information gathered"?

Compare that with what the state might do with information gathered
about you. And you're afraid of a sales pitch??

Depends on which corporations the government is "working"
with.

Who said anything about a "sales pitch"?

Go back to sleep.

Good night and good luck, Bernie.

Sleep well.


--
Michael
______
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools,
but that the lightning ain't distributed right."
- Mark Twain

 

[Donald McDaniel]

Inline:




But if one is connected to the Internet, it's not a realistic option for
most people.

And why is it not "realistic" to turn off Automatic Updates if one is
"connected to the Internet"?. I am connected to the Internet most of
the time, and have AU turned off. Many do not use AU, for the simple
reason that they like to do their updates themselves, without
Microsoft's prompting. They may or may not be concerned about
Microsoft suddenly installing software they don't won't without their
knowledge. Big deal. So they turn it off. In addition, Windows
Security gives one the option of turning AU off. Why would Microsoft
make it so easy, if it is "not realistic"?

In fact, it's just as easy and convient to turn it back on, if one so
desires.

Microsoft gives us CHOICE. Some will choose to use it, some will not.
You don't HAVE to use it, my friend.

But if you keep AU on to make sure you get necessary updates when
needed, and are worried about viruses and such, simply install a good
AV package, and use XP's Firewall. There really is no need to worry
about malware nowadays. Many companies make excellent products, some
better than others. Most AV packages are priced very reasonably. Even
those who can't truly afford a good package can download one for free.
I suggest Avast Antivirus Home Edition.

That's good.

Usually. Technically speaking Microsoft "asked" with WGA N .. but many
spyware softwares technically "ask" before installing. The offence is that
it is done in a way that takes the user off guard. Microsoft did precisely
that.

Microsoft doesn't HAVE to ask, my friend. They do it only as a favor
to their customers.

Calling Windows Genuine Advantage "spyware" is rather extreme. In
fact, NOD32 or Kaspersky Internet Security 6.x do not call it
"spyware". If either of them gives it an "Ok", I see no need to
worry.

The only ones WGA is "spying" on are those with unlicensed software.

No, I don't either, although I'm getting wary. I do assume that the people
there are all hard working and honest. Big assumption to make I guess.

The people who work at Microsoft are much like those who work anywhere
else. Some are honest and hardworking, some are not.

But Microsoft itself has been rather honest with its users up till
now. I see no reason for them to change that policy anytime soon.

Same here.




That concerns me and it should concern you too.

Why should it concern me? If I decide I don't want to put up with
Microsoft anymore, all I have to do is stop using Windows and use OS X
instead. I have them both on my Intel iMac, and it really is no
trouble to just delete my Windows partition. In fact, doing so would
extend my Mac partitions back to 160GB (XP uses 80GB), leaving OS X
untouched.

I've installed a hosts file that sends most advertisements to localhost
127.0.0.1

Many advertisements and other popups do not use the Hosts file.
Have you ever seen a popup your popup stopper didn't stop? These do
not use the Hosts file. But they STILL put cookies on your HD.
Sometimes, not in the Cookies directory.

I try to avoid those now .. although I have to admit in the past I've been a
bit of a brat angel and peeked a few times.

As we all have, I feel sure.

I manually control cookies and disallow most and erase the rest soon
thereafter.




Not many because most weren't.




Not me.

I really do think you are being paranoid to an extreme, or just like
to complain (I know how that is: I tend to be a "complainer" myself).

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[Ground Cover]

What the hosts file does is prevent scores of ads from ever loading. Let'
say a website, www.website.com has an ad embedded on its page. The URL of
the ad might be to doubleclick.com or one of the many other ad companies
online. If the hosts file is set so that doubleclick.com equals localhost
[127.0.0.1], then the ad never loads. Some of these ads are heavy in
graphics and macromedia flash and they set cookies and track via long coded
files names etc. etc. etc. If it never loads in the first place, my system
escapes their scutiny and tracking techniques to some extent:

Here's an example of a hosts file:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

Rename it to hosts (no file extension) and put it in System32\drivers\etc

Windows might pick it up right away or you might have to reboot for it to
take effect.

 

[Donald McDaniel]

What the hosts file does is prevent scores of ads from ever loading. Let'
say a website, www.website.com has an ad embedded on its page. The URL of
the ad might be to doubleclick.com or one of the many other ad companies
online. If the hosts file is set so that doubleclick.com equals localhost
[127.0.0.1], then the ad never loads. Some of these ads are heavy in
graphics and macromedia flash and they set cookies and track via long coded
files names etc. etc. etc. If it never loads in the first place, my system
escapes their scutiny and tracking techniques to some extent:

Here's an example of a hosts file:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

Rename it to hosts (no file extension) and put it in System32\drivers\etc

Windows might pick it up right away or you might have to reboot for it to
take effect.

I do not use a Hosts file. It is very dangerous. Most security
companies do not recommend it either.

If the ad is actually one of the ActiveX ads (such as those which most
popup stoppers cannot stop), its address will NEVER be placed in the
Hosts file.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[Bernie]

I'm aware of a possible danger with host files in that you could
download one that directed requests for www.mybank.com to an ip address
hosting a page made up to look like mybank. If you download such a file
it is easy to see such a thing as all the ip addresses from a site
promoting the file as a solution to ads should be 127.0.0.1 so one that
isn't kind of stands out.


I've also seen some hosts files that had been hijacked by malware of
some kind to again substitute a genuine ip address for something more
sinister. So when you say it is very dangerous do you mean that kind of
thing or something else? If something else could you give us a clue as
to what?

 

[Ground Cover]

Donald McDaniel wrote:
Many advertisements and other popups do not use the Hosts file.
Have you ever seen a popup your popup stopper didn't stop? These
do not use the Hosts file. But they STILL put cookies on your HD.
Sometimes, not in the Cookies directory.


What the hosts file does is prevent scores of ads from ever
loading. Let' say a website, www.website.com has an ad embedded on
its page. The URL of the ad might be to doubleclick.com or one of
the many other ad companies online. If the hosts file is set so
that doubleclick.com equals localhost [127.0.0.1], then the ad
never loads. Some of these ads are heavy in graphics and macromedia
flash and they set cookies and track via long coded files names
etc. etc. etc. If it never loads in the first place, my system
escapes their scutiny and tracking techniques to some extent:

Here's an example of a hosts file:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

Rename it to hosts (no file extension) and put it in
System32\drivers\etc

Windows might pick it up right away or you might have to reboot for
it to take effect.

I do not use a Hosts file. It is very dangerous. Most security
companies do not recommend it either.

If the ad is actually one of the ActiveX ads (such as those which
most popup stoppers cannot stop), its address will NEVER be placed
in the Hosts file.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

Um, your system already has a hosts file doesn't it? Did you manually remove
it?

 

[Donald McDaniel]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:06:18 -0400, "Ground Cover"

Donald McDaniel wrote:
Many advertisements and other popups do not use the Hosts file.
Have you ever seen a popup your popup stopper didn't stop? These
do not use the Hosts file. But they STILL put cookies on your HD.
Sometimes, not in the Cookies directory.


What the hosts file does is prevent scores of ads from ever
loading. Let' say a website, www.website.com has an ad embedded on
its page. The URL of the ad might be to doubleclick.com or one of
the many other ad companies online. If the hosts file is set so
that doubleclick.com equals localhost [127.0.0.1], then the ad
never loads. Some of these ads are heavy in graphics and macromedia
flash and they set cookies and track via long coded files names
etc. etc. etc. If it never loads in the first place, my system
escapes their scutiny and tracking techniques to some extent:

Here's an example of a hosts file:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

Rename it to hosts (no file extension) and put it in
System32\drivers\etc

Windows might pick it up right away or you might have to reboot for
it to take effect.



I do not use a Hosts file. It is very dangerous. Most security
companies do not recommend it either.

If the ad is actually one of the ActiveX ads (such as those which
most popup stoppers cannot stop), its address will NEVER be placed
in the Hosts file.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

Um, your system already has a hosts file doesn't it? Did you manually remove
it?

My Hosts file is empty.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[Donald McDaniel]

I'm aware of a possible danger with host files in that you could
download one that directed requests for www.mybank.com to an ip address
hosting a page made up to look like mybank. If you download such a file
it is easy to see such a thing as all the ip addresses from a site
promoting the file as a solution to ads should be 127.0.0.1 so one that
isn't kind of stands out.


I've also seen some hosts files that had been hijacked by malware of
some kind to again substitute a genuine ip address for something more
sinister. So when you say it is very dangerous do you mean that kind of
thing or something else? If something else could you give us a clue as
to what?

That's a very good example of the danger of the Hosts file.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================

 

[rockwell]

Donald McDaniel wrote:

Well, if you ARE a criminal, you COULD be in PRISON, rather than "on
parole". But you know that solution to that, don't you? DON'T be a
CRIMINAL!!! Don't steal software. Don't steal music. Don't STEAL,
and the Law will not apply to you, and none of your "freedoms" will be
taken away from you.

But that is the whole point you are missing! One of the rights we have
as Americans is the rights to see our civil liberties respected! But
that is all going down the toilet as Bush and the NSA take any info on
any and all of us they want with out requiring a checks and balances
system for it. I can tell you that I did nothing to have my civil
liberties abused like that, and I'm sure many other Americans didn't do
anything to deserve that either.

Another right we have as Americans put forth in the bill of rights is
fair use rights! No one should be able to tell me or anyone else what I
have the right to do in the privacy of my home for non-commercial use
with my copy of a CD of software! Corporations DO NOT have the power to
strip me of my fair use rights, no matter how unconscionable their post
sale shrink wrap license is for their software.

 

[Mark D. VandenBeg]

<snip>

Another right we have as Americans put forth in the bill of rights is fair
use rights! No one should be able to tell me or anyone else what I have
the right to do in the privacy of my home for non-commercial use with my
copy of a CD of software! Corporations DO NOT have the power to strip me
of my fair use rights, no matter how unconscionable their post sale shrink
wrap license is for their software.

<snip>

But what if you don't own the software?