Well it's nice to know that I can create a company in which I do things you considure unethical, yet people like you will still line up and give money no matter how unreasonable I behaive.
Originally posted by: Ichinisan
Originally posted by: drag
[stuff]
I'm do not hate Microsoft and I'm not looking for an alternative. I support Microsoft with cash for their product. I do not rip-off their software, but I also don't let them tell me what to do with the disc that I already own.
Originally posted by: Smilin
Works for Enron and Halliburton.
Originally posted by: Smilin
Ok, Halliburton then. Unless you want to stop paying taxes of course
Originally posted by: Smilin
The decision to use Halliburton was made because we needed a quick decision so we could get to work immediately. Halliburton was clearly up to the task and we didn't have time for a formal bidding process. We've paid for that dearly since there was little review or debate on the contract and little oversight now. It doesn't change the fact that that's what needed done.
What honestly burns me up is the "we needed a quick decision" part. It is further evidence of our haste to rush to war without the military or financial support of our allies (if not the whole U.N.) and further evidence of the lack of thought that went into pre and post war planning and exit strategies.
I didn't mention Cheney at all actually.
I have my gut feeling about him and the Halliburton decision but no evidence to allow an actual decision on the matter. It makes for interesting conspiracy theories but not much more. His secret advisors on the nation's energy policy may turn out to be some nasty stuff but for some asinine reason the supreme court decided Americans DO need to know who was on the the panel yet not until after the elections. Hmm.
I've been fairly happy with my Congressmen's decisions so I won't take it up with him. I'll take my true grievances up with Bush in November.
Edit: Geez can you tell I just got back from the politics forum or what hehe. Should've left my soapbox over there.
I didn't mention Cheney at all actually.
but I also don't let them tell me what to do with the disc that I already own.
Originally posted by: drag
I didn't mention Cheney at all actually.
I know. I was just guessing. (I am in that sort of mood right now)
And as far as the "secret advisors" things go, it's a red herring. A stupid politcal move. I think it's retarded that any time the president wants to talk to someone about something (after all, if you want to find out about energy policy, would it be better to talk to the top people in the industry or buerocratic government officials in some energy board that probably couldn't manage a 7-11, much less the country's energy infrastructure) he has the right to keep his contacts a secret, for the benifit of the individuals he talks to (and their jobs and livelyhoods).
(ya and I try to stay away from political forums, I have a hard time controlling myself enough here as it is.)
Originally posted by: SOB
I was wondering... if you install windows XP pro on 2 different computers will microsoft find out and make the cd key not valid anymore?
thanks
Originally posted by: McMadman
I'd have to say that my biggest "fear" about product activation will be when the next "latest and greatest" os comes along. Will microsoft refuse to activate an older install of xp in favor of forcing the user to upgrade to the newest version.
Originally posted by: dahunan
You aren't even allowed to install it twice on the same machine to dual boot it (one for testing and thrashing.. one for personal use etc..) if you wanted to..
Where did you get that from?
Originally posted by: uncleX
>Hope you had fun writing all that.
Thank you. I did. Have a nice day.
> Here's my lengthy response:
>Yeah, whatever.
So you couldn't find anything to disagree with?
>
>As for:
>
>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per >second whenever you think about what I've said.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How about: You agree to pay me 50 bucks for whiffing my fart. If I bust @ss next to you I'm not really
>giving you a choice just are you are in the above. There is no legally binding contract that I have
>agreed to. Despite your long windedness it's a stupid illustration that doesn't apply
Actually, the incidental prelude to my message which you replied to is shorter than your refutation. Your refutation is stupid and doesn't apply.
>A EULA is a bit different. You MUST agree to it before you use the software. If you don't then you can't
>use the software. You don't own it. It makes no difference whether you paid ahead of time or not.
>A retailer has already charged you money with the assumption that you will agree. If you don't then the
> retailer sold you nothing and you therefore must pay nothing. You get a refund.
All of what you said is a distinction without a difference. Opening a seal does not mean you agree to anything, and clicking a button does not mean you agree to anything. It is only the author of the EULA that claims it. It is exactly because you can't get at the software without these that makes my demo EULA similar, not dissimilar.
You don't get it because you'd rather not get it.
The point is: A contract is a meeting of minds. With that, there is a contract even without any added accouterments. Without it, there is no contract regardless of all the surrounding folderol.
The legal significance of a contract is that it is legally binding. But, like drag was saying, I don't personally give a crap about about the contract aspect, or the government. I know ways to get around practically anything concerning software protection, and so does anyone who has been around a while on the Internet. I could spell it out, if you like. My concern is what I should do even when no one is watching, no cops are going to beat on the door, and the person/company I am dealing with has no practical recourse. It is matter of personal integrity, not law or enforcement. Over the years, I have revised my thoughts, and reversed my thoughts quite a number of times, and I'm still not settled about it.
This subject has been around a long time. Bill Gates got into it with his computer buddies when the infant Microsoft produced Basic for the Altair, if people remember that. You remember how it was: Hippies urinating on the Amercan flag, their Chaiman Mao Red Books nestled closely to their hearts, side by side with their film can full of marijauna. Power to the people! That was normal. As usual, I was mostly against the norm, although I enjoyed their anti-authority attitude. Bill Gates power-to-the-people thing was low cost software for microcomputers. Gates systematic method succeeded unbelievably, while the lunies predicably failed, and indeed wrought grief that we have never fully recovered from. Anyway... back to today:
I don't steal people's property.
Ideas, software, programs, inventions, jokes are not property, nor should they be.
Copying is not stealing property. That doesn't mean there might not be some ethical considerations, but not because copying is wrong, or permission is lacking
The copying problem takes care of itself, it is just that people are unwilling to accept the balance. If the people involved in producing originals don't get enough payment (in their own judgement), they will quit producing it. If it got bad enough, software production would go into slump. That slump is just another way of saying that the people paying for software don't think it is worth the price. If the people producing software don't think it is sufficiently profitable, they should get out of that business. Once they do that, the matter is settled. If they think their occupation IS sufficiently profitable, the matter is also settled.
What software authors want, though, is MORE money, like we all do. That's not ethics. They hope to achieve this (MORE money) by restricting the supply. That's where the government comes in. Normally the market determines the optimum price. But, what is the market price of something that can be reproduced (possibly unlawfully) at a pitance? In the case of ideas, the matter was settled by our society ages ago. The price is zero. This would seem to be the logical optimum price (and morally correct?) for software -zero that is- except that the amount of new originals might drop off too far (in consumers judgement) if this were to happen, so it doesn't go to zero. In practice, it is a long way from zero. In short, there is a non-zero market price as long as somebody wants the production. If you don't like that price, don't get into the business. For ideas, the market price is zero, but even so the salaries of people in the idea-producing business are much above zero, so much so that anybody that can get into it, does.
In the case of music recordings, it is hard to believe there is shortage of originals, judging by the quantity for sale at Best Buy. In fact, judging just by the quantity in comparison to many things considered valuable, an economist might suspect there is a vast oversupply resulting from a misguided attempt to fix the price above a market price.
Are the owners, officer and employees of MS hurting because of copying? If so, they should get out of the business and find something to do people consider worth paying for. Obviously MS is not getting out. The news recently had a story about MS having so much cash it has to use new methods to unload it that it has never done before. I bring this up, not because I have sometthing agianst MS making fantastic amounts of money (they give good value for the money IMO), but just to show how far from being a problem copying is. The automobile companies would love to trade their problems for MS's. It is no coincidence that the basis of MS's fortune is that replication has practically zero cost. That's how it works when you sell things in immense quantity.
Just imagine people's reaction if the automobile companies produced automobiles at 50 cents a copy, were making money hand over fist, and they complained that they should be making more money. People would be amused.
Just to hammer it home, the point of all this isn't to promote moral relativism, or moral indeterminism; it is to show there is no foundation for the claim that copying is wrong by reason of harm. All the claims about some harm being done are false, as well as the claim that copying violates property.
>Silliness. I can't believe you morons are still ranting about this. By all means don't stop. Watching a
>retarded kid getting all frustrated and letting spittle fly everywhere absolutely cracks me up.
>The harder he tries the funnier it is.
If you can spew ridicule without the mods getting down on you, then so can I.
The imbeciles taking your positiion are incoherent, because they can't think; they can only repeat. Their brains have atrophied from disuse, finally vanishing into a singularty up their rectums. Their frothing drool is drenching their clothes, while their mouths move as if an intelligent sound was about to be made, if that were possible, but only an incoherent grunt emits, reminicent of profanity, while their spastic limbs twitch obscenely and they defecate into their stinking shorts noisily, a fragrent puddle gathering at their pants legs.
I am laughing at this moment.
If you were to deal with something said here substantially, it could reveal the povertry of your thought, which is why you don't attempt it. I am at a loss to detect a thought in this part of your message. You are saying I am a a retarded kid. That's purely an insult, without substance. I do understand why you are doing it. You have nothing to say because you have given it no thought. For instance, try thinking on this: Is it because modern society is drifting in moral indeterminism that makes makes shallow, self-serving, baseless rhetoric, like yours, seem to have moral force?
BTW, if what you say is true about the way you way treat retarded people, the world would better off without this. Of course, I realize it is just a rhetorical device to circumvent the prohibition against personal insult. And it is no wonder you are in a terrible mood having been to the politics forum.
Have a nice day
----------------------------
The captain of the Titanic clearly was a flip-flopper.
Originally posted by: uncleX
[SNIP]
Originally posted by: uncleX
>Hope you had fun writing all that.
Thank you. I did. Have a nice day.
> Here's my lengthy response:
>Yeah, whatever.
So you couldn't find anything to disagree with?
>
>As for:
>
>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per >second whenever you think about what I've said.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How about: You agree to pay me 50 bucks for whiffing my fart. If I bust @ss next to you I'm not really
>giving you a choice just are you are in the above. There is no legally binding contract that I have
>agreed to. Despite your long windedness it's a stupid illustration that doesn't apply
Actually, the incidental prelude to my message which you replied to is shorter than your refutation. Your refutation is stupid and doesn't apply.
>A EULA is a bit different. You MUST agree to it before you use the software. If you don't then you can't
>use the software. You don't own it. It makes no difference whether you paid ahead of time or not.
>A retailer has already charged you money with the assumption that you will agree. If you don't then the
> retailer sold you nothing and you therefore must pay nothing. You get a refund.
All of what you said is a distinction without a difference. Opening a seal does not mean you agree to anything, and clicking a button does not mean you agree to anything. It is only the author of the EULA that claims it. It is exactly because you can't get at the software without these that makes my demo EULA similar, not dissimilar.
You don't get it because you'd rather not get it.
The point is: A contract is a meeting of minds. With that, there is a contract even without any added accouterments. Without it, there is no contract regardless of all the surrounding folderol.
The legal significance of a contract is that it is legally binding. But, like drag was saying, I don't personally give a crap about about the contract aspect, or the government. I know ways to get around practically anything concerning software protection, and so does anyone who has been around a while on the Internet. I could spell it out, if you like. My concern is what I should do even when no one is watching, no cops are going to beat on the door, and the person/company I am dealing with has no practical recourse. It is matter of personal integrity, not law or enforcement. Over the years, I have revised my thoughts, and reversed my thoughts quite a number of times, and I'm still not settled about it.
This subject has been around a long time. Bill Gates got into it with his computer buddies when the infant Microsoft produced Basic for the Altair, if people remember that. You remember how it was: Hippies urinating on the Amercan flag, their Chaiman Mao Red Books nestled closely to their hearts, side by side with their film can full of marijauna. Power to the people! That was normal. As usual, I was mostly against the norm, although I enjoyed their anti-authority attitude. Bill Gates power-to-the-people thing was low cost software for microcomputers. Gates systematic method succeeded unbelievably, while the lunies predicably failed, and indeed wrought grief that we have never fully recovered from. Anyway... back to today:
I don't steal people's property.
Ideas, software, programs, inventions, jokes are not property, nor should they be.
Copying is not stealing property. That doesn't mean there might not be some ethical considerations, but not because copying is wrong, or permission is lacking
The copying problem takes care of itself, it is just that people are unwilling to accept the balance. If the people involved in producing originals don't get enough payment (in their own judgement), they will quit producing it. If it got bad enough, software production would go into slump. That slump is just another way of saying that the people paying for software don't think it is worth the price. If the people producing software don't think it is sufficiently profitable, they should get out of that business. Once they do that, the matter is settled. If they think their occupation IS sufficiently profitable, the matter is also settled.
What software authors want, though, is MORE money, like we all do. That's not ethics. They hope to achieve this (MORE money) by restricting the supply. That's where the government comes in. Normally the market determines the optimum price. But, what is the market price of something that can be reproduced (possibly unlawfully) at a pitance? In the case of ideas, the matter was settled by our society ages ago. The price is zero. This would seem to be the logical optimum price (and morally correct?) for software -zero that is- except that the amount of new originals might drop off too far (in consumers judgement) if this were to happen, so it doesn't go to zero. In practice, it is a long way from zero. In short, there is a non-zero market price as long as somebody wants the production. If you don't like that price, don't get into the business. For ideas, the market price is zero, but even so the salaries of people in the idea-producing business are much above zero, so much so that anybody that can get into it, does.
In the case of music recordings, it is hard to believe there is shortage of originals, judging by the quantity for sale at Best Buy. In fact, judging just by the quantity in comparison to many things considered valuable, an economist might suspect there is a vast oversupply resulting from a misguided attempt to fix the price above a market price.
Are the owners, officer and employees of MS hurting because of copying? If so, they should get out of the business and find something to do people consider worth paying for. Obviously MS is not getting out. The news recently had a story about MS having so much cash it has to use new methods to unload it that it has never done before. I bring this up, not because I have sometthing agianst MS making fantastic amounts of money (they give good value for the money IMO), but just to show how far from being a problem copying is. The automobile companies would love to trade their problems for MS's. It is no coincidence that the basis of MS's fortune is that replication has practically zero cost. That's how it works when you sell things in immense quantity.
Just imagine people's reaction if the automobile companies produced automobiles at 50 cents a copy, were making money hand over fist, and they complained that they should be making more money. People would be amused.
Just to hammer it home, the point of all this isn't to promote moral relativism, or moral indeterminism; it is to show there is no foundation for the claim that copying is wrong by reason of harm. All the claims about some harm being done are false, as well as the claim that copying violates property.
>Silliness. I can't believe you morons are still ranting about this. By all means don't stop. Watching a
>retarded kid getting all frustrated and letting spittle fly everywhere absolutely cracks me up.
>The harder he tries the funnier it is.
If you can spew ridicule without the mods getting down on you, then so can I.
The imbeciles taking your positiion are incoherent, because they can't think; they can only repeat. Their brains have atrophied from disuse, finally vanishing into a singularty up their rectums. Their frothing drool is drenching their clothes, while their mouths move as if an intelligent sound was about to be made, if that were possible, but only an incoherent grunt emits, reminicent of profanity, while their spastic limbs twitch obscenely and they defecate into their stinking shorts noisily, a fragrent puddle gathering at their pants legs.
I am laughing at this moment.
If you were to deal with something said here substantially, it could reveal the povertry of your thought, which is why you don't attempt it. I am at a loss to detect a thought in this part of your message. You are saying I am a a retarded kid. That's purely an insult, without substance. I do understand why you are doing it. You have nothing to say because you have given it no thought. For instance, try thinking on this: Is it because modern society is drifting in moral indeterminism that makes makes shallow, self-serving, baseless rhetoric, like yours, seem to have moral force?
BTW, if what you say is true about the way you way treat retarded people, the world would better off without this. Of course, I realize it is just a rhetorical device to circumvent the prohibition against personal insult. And it is no wonder you are in a terrible mood having been to the politics forum.
Have a nice day
----------------------------
The captain of the Titanic clearly was a flip-flopper.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: uncleX
[SNIP]
Using the software, whether you use it legally or illegaly (THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS!) is still supporting it. The only way to get some change is to not support it. Get over yoruself.
Originally posted by: uncleX
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: uncleX
[SNIP]
Using the software, whether you use it legally or illegaly (THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS!) is still supporting it. The only way to get some change is to not support it. Get over yoruself.
Hi, n0monkey,
Sorry if I POed people indirectly. It's my natural personality. I am naturally contrary. I can't help it. I try to be abstract. Somebody takes it personal and attacks. Then I get POed.
I not sure what you mean: Still supporting by using it?
I am not against paying for software or MS. I have paid MS for their software. I don't have anything special against MS, and the price of XP upgrade or OEM is not bad. (IAC you can't buy a ready-built without it, because MS charges by the number of computers, not by the number of computers XP is installed on. Not that I have any ready-built computers.) MS has done a lot of good. I just don't buy into the rhetoric. I don't think I would be doing anything wrong to use an unpaid or unpermitted copy. People need to be circumspect about it, obviously, if they want to do it. I am not the kind of person who thinks there is just one right way, and everyone must conform. The day politicians succeed in their vision of conformity, is the day something good about America died. If people don't want to pay for software, they shouldn't have to, and the government should not attempt to enforce payment. If authoritarians can't bring themselves to do that, don't go beyond a possible couple of years or copyright, or somewhat longer for legitimate literary works, just to subsidize original and new works.
I not sure what you mean by "get over yourself." However, I do think the whole concept of linux, GPL, etc. is better. Drag has persuaded me on a couple of points concerning quality. And if MS would "wither on the vine," due to a better alternative, I think it would be a fine, beneficial thing.
[SNIP STUFF ABOUT LINUX]
As I said, I also have Windows programs that were exasperating to figure out what should have been straightforward, and never worked as they apparently should. They never fixed the screwups in sucessive upgrades, which cost me, until I finally had it with them. Linux takes exasperation to a new level, but unaccountably, they do seem to progressively fix mistakes. Commercial operations could learn something on the latter point. So I have grown to like linux, with KDE. But in the end, there are still too many defects and incapabilities I can't find a way around for me to abandon XP. I can probably narrow that some, but not enough. We shall see.
Originally posted by: uncleX
>Hope you had fun writing all that.
Thank you. I did. Have a nice day.
> Here's my lengthy response:
>Yeah, whatever.
So you couldn't find anything to disagree with?
>
>As for:
>
>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per >second whenever you think about what I've said.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How about: You agree to pay me 50 bucks for whiffing my fart. If I bust @ss next to you I'm not really
>giving you a choice just are you are in the above. There is no legally binding contract that I have
>agreed to. Despite your long windedness it's a stupid illustration that doesn't apply
Actually, the incidental prelude to my message which you replied to is shorter than your refutation. Your refutation is stupid and doesn't apply.
>A EULA is a bit different. You MUST agree to it before you use the software. If you don't then you can't
>use the software. You don't own it. It makes no difference whether you paid ahead of time or not.
>A retailer has already charged you money with the assumption that you will agree. If you don't then the
> retailer sold you nothing and you therefore must pay nothing. You get a refund.
All of what you said is a distinction without a difference. Opening a seal does not mean you agree to anything, and clicking a button does not mean you agree to anything. It is only the author of the EULA that claims it. It is exactly because you can't get at the software without these that makes my demo EULA similar, not dissimilar.
You don't get it because you'd rather not get it.
The point is: A contract is a meeting of minds. With that, there is a contract even without any added accouterments. Without it, there is no contract regardless of all the surrounding folderol.
The legal significance of a contract is that it is legally binding. But, like drag was saying, I don't personally give a crap about about the contract aspect, or the government. I know ways to get around practically anything concerning software protection, and so does anyone who has been around a while on the Internet. I could spell it out, if you like. My concern is what I should do even when no one is watching, no cops are going to beat on the door, and the person/company I am dealing with has no practical recourse. It is matter of personal integrity, not law or enforcement. Over the years, I have revised my thoughts, and reversed my thoughts quite a number of times, and I'm still not settled about it.
This subject has been around a long time. Bill Gates got into it with his computer buddies when the infant Microsoft produced Basic for the Altair, if people remember that. You remember how it was: Hippies urinating on the Amercan flag, their Chaiman Mao Red Books nestled closely to their hearts, side by side with their film can full of marijauna. Power to the people! That was normal. As usual, I was mostly against the norm, although I enjoyed their anti-authority attitude. Bill Gates power-to-the-people thing was low cost software for microcomputers. Gates systematic method succeeded unbelievably, while the lunies predicably failed, and indeed wrought grief that we have never fully recovered from. Anyway... back to today:
I don't steal people's property.
Ideas, software, programs, inventions, jokes are not property, nor should they be.
Copying is not stealing property. That doesn't mean there might not be some ethical considerations, but not because copying is wrong, or permission is lacking
The copying problem takes care of itself, it is just that people are unwilling to accept the balance. If the people involved in producing originals don't get enough payment (in their own judgement), they will quit producing it. If it got bad enough, software production would go into slump. That slump is just another way of saying that the people paying for software don't think it is worth the price. If the people producing software don't think it is sufficiently profitable, they should get out of that business. Once they do that, the matter is settled. If they think their occupation IS sufficiently profitable, the matter is also settled.
What software authors want, though, is MORE money, like we all do. That's not ethics. They hope to achieve this (MORE money) by restricting the supply. That's where the government comes in. Normally the market determines the optimum price. But, what is the market price of something that can be reproduced (possibly unlawfully) at a pitance? In the case of ideas, the matter was settled by our society ages ago. The price is zero. This would seem to be the logical optimum price (and morally correct?) for software -zero that is- except that the amount of new originals might drop off too far (in consumers judgement) if this were to happen, so it doesn't go to zero. In practice, it is a long way from zero. In short, there is a non-zero market price as long as somebody wants the production. If you don't like that price, don't get into the business. For ideas, the market price is zero, but even so the salaries of people in the idea-producing business are much above zero, so much so that anybody that can get into it, does.
In the case of music recordings, it is hard to believe there is shortage of originals, judging by the quantity for sale at Best Buy. In fact, judging just by the quantity in comparison to many things considered valuable, an economist might suspect there is a vast oversupply resulting from a misguided attempt to fix the price above a market price.
Are the owners, officer and employees of MS hurting because of copying? If so, they should get out of the business and find something to do people consider worth paying for. Obviously MS is not getting out. The news recently had a story about MS having so much cash it has to use new methods to unload it that it has never done before. I bring this up, not because I have sometthing agianst MS making fantastic amounts of money (they give good value for the money IMO), but just to show how far from being a problem copying is. The automobile companies would love to trade their problems for MS's. It is no coincidence that the basis of MS's fortune is that replication has practically zero cost. That's how it works when you sell things in immense quantity.
Just imagine people's reaction if the automobile companies produced automobiles at 50 cents a copy, were making money hand over fist, and they complained that they should be making more money. People would be amused.
Just to hammer it home, the point of all this isn't to promote moral relativism, or moral indeterminism; it is to show there is no foundation for the claim that copying is wrong by reason of harm. All the claims about some harm being done are false, as well as the claim that copying violates property.
>Silliness. I can't believe you morons are still ranting about this. By all means don't stop. Watching a
>retarded kid getting all frustrated and letting spittle fly everywhere absolutely cracks me up.
>The harder he tries the funnier it is.
If you can spew ridicule without the mods getting down on you, then so can I.
The imbeciles taking your positiion are incoherent, because they can't think; they can only repeat. Their brains have atrophied from disuse, finally vanishing into a singularty up their rectums. Their frothing drool is drenching their clothes, while their mouths move as if an intelligent sound was about to be made, if that were possible, but only an incoherent grunt emits, reminicent of profanity, while their spastic limbs twitch obscenely and they defecate into their stinking shorts noisily, a fragrent puddle gathering at their pants legs.
I am laughing at this moment.
If you were to deal with something said here substantially, it could reveal the povertry of your thought, which is why you don't attempt it. I am at a loss to detect a thought in this part of your message. You are saying I am a a retarded kid. That's purely an insult, without substance. I do understand why you are doing it. You have nothing to say because you have given it no thought. For instance, try thinking on this: Is it because modern society is drifting in moral indeterminism that makes makes shallow, self-serving, baseless rhetoric, like yours, seem to have moral force?
BTW, if what you say is true about the way you way treat retarded people, the world would better off without this. Of course, I realize it is just a rhetorical device to circumvent the prohibition against personal insult. And it is no wonder you are in a terrible mood having been to the politics forum.
Have a nice day
----------------------------
The captain of the Titanic clearly was a flip-flopper.
By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.
By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per second whenever you think about what I've said.
Silliness. I can't believe you morons are still ranting about this. By all means don't stop. Watching a retarded kid getting all frustrated and letting spittle fly everywhere absolutely cracks me up. The harder he tries the funnier it is.