XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
still be blissfully ignorant.

But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the
person is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.

Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.

To you, a total conformist to the whims of your business partner.

Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

This shows exactly how deluded you are.

Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.


If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make
any difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the
licensing details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.

I though Wallyworld was a fictional place made up by National Lampoon.

It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
documents too.

1.) You have gotten an opportunity to accept, reject, and/or negotiate
the terms before you spend a dime.

2.) Both parties are known to each other, or in other waords neither
party is anonymous to the other.

3.) Both parties have a copy of the signed agreement.

4.) The car is a material object, not copyrighted material, and as
copyrighted material, an individual has the right to "fair use," which
no copyright owner has the right to limit.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

I do not know the exact figure

Then you know nothing, except how to put MVP in your siggie. Just as I
suspected. You'd do better attaching a photo of yourself shrugging and
giving a dumbass deer-in-headlights look.

Yet your confident the price for WinXP Home Upgrade is set correct? That's
truely unreasuring.

Q. What's price for WinXP Home Upgrade based on, in a pie chart example?

A. Doh!

There's my money at work..

Alias wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote

Ethics are akin to philosophy, not mathematics, and only an automaton
wouldn't understand that.

--
Peace!
Kurt

You have to understand that "Leythos" thinks that 2 and 2 are 5.

Alias

Yes. His programming is flawed.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

In article ,
says...
Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

This shows exactly how deluded you are.

Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.

While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
crime.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

"BNR" wrote:

I do not know the exact figure

Then you know nothing, except how to put MVP in your siggie. Just as I
suspected. You'd do better attaching a photo of yourself shrugging and
giving a dumbass deer-in-headlights look.

Yet your confident the price for WinXP Home Upgrade is set correct? That's
truely unreasuring.

I never said that.

Manufacturers of any product are free to set their prices at whatever
level they want. It is then up to the purchasers to decide if the
want to pay that price or not.

My comments were with respect to Kerry Brown's statement about the
number of people involved in the development and testing of Windows
XP. He said "If they had 1,000 programmers working....." implying
that he considered that to be more that what would be necessary. My
opinion is that there were away more than 1,000 people working on the
development of Windows XP, and I subsequently cited an item from
Microsoft's web site which supported my opinion.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"kurttrail" wrote:



I could even on only a 20% profit margin.

Based on what costs? Just the incremental costs of manufacturing,
packaging, and shipping each copy of the finished product?

Or the total costs of developing the product to begin with, the
ongoing costs of product support and development, and all the other
overheads?


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"BNR" wrote:

Where are these Freebies Carey mentioned?! I pay for tech calls, that's all
the aftermarket parts I need. If your product needs patched, that's faulty
manufacturing, manufacturing expenses shouldn't come out of my pocket,
should they?


Paid tech support fees do not cover the full costs of providing that
support, according to every report I have ever seen (and not just from
Microsoft). The "rule of thumb" for providing services is that your
revenues should equal 2.5 times the wage rate of the front-line
worker. And while many paid support calls are handled in less than
an hour, others do take many hours or even days to resolve, and the
fee is still the same.

And if manufacturing expenses should not be recovered from the
purchaser's pocket, whose pocket should they come out of? Some magic
mystical money tree?


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote:



I could even on only a 20% profit margin.

Based on what costs? Just the incremental costs of manufacturing,
packaging, and shipping each copy of the finished product?

Or the total costs of developing the product to begin with, the
ongoing costs of product support and development, and all the other
overheads?


Based on that that is less than a quarter of MS rakes in after its
expenses minus taxes, and almost any company would be happy to have an
operating profit margin of 20%.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

This shows exactly how deluded you are.

Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.

While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem
there is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the
impact of the offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason
of insanity"

No such thing as "innocent by reason of insanity."

individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in
a regular prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is
guilty, and that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them
just as guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of
insanity", which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate
them for the crime.

The insanity defense is a defense that relies on stress mitigating
circumstances, such a not being able to understand the difference
between right or wrong. And it is one of the hardest mitigating
circumstance defenses to actually win. How many have you heard of?
Huh?

Are you trying to say that there are NEVER any mitigating circumstanse
defenses to crime?

Oh, and I loved how quickly you dropped your financing agreement for a
car analogy, after I blew it totally out of the water! I would runaway
from such a poor analogy myself, IF I was ever stupid enough to make one
as poor as that!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Guilty by reason of insanity"

Guilty or Innocent, it only matters what the arresting Officer said when he
reported in at triage. Doctors use a completely different care procedure
for caring for violent patients, regardless if they're insane or sane. Care
is all that matters. People in some jails live better than in real life.
Look at Martha Stewart, she made 8mil in prison. I never knew who she was
before her demise.

Here is a professional, a doctor, that swears an oath, treat all unbiased,
breaking it everyday there is a domestic squable. I highly doubt the casual
installer of an OS takes the time to read it, if these professionals don't
read and act on theirs, isn't it a kind of oath this EULA.

If accused or suspected of being accused, a person will prolly reread it
with a lawyer present, spending valuable time to do so if the accusation
involves recompensation. At which time they can come up with all kinds of
backwards and confusing alibies before a Judge and Jury for why they didn't
read it before the time of installation.

A jury with more females is more likely to aquit, on grounds of insanity
than males anyway. Just look at the trends and layout the best excuse.

Any agreement that reads longer than a resume, is too confusing to the
average Joe anyway. Just look at a nondisclosure agreement in your
employers application. Are they really gonna list every single item of code
in the program they sell there?!? If they don't, a mere coincidence excuse
works just fine. What's crazy is the employer expects employees to read it.
Hell its enough to make someone insane spending that much unpaid time
reading such dribble. That's slavery.

And on the topic of Federal courts. Why does the Jury get a LCD display at
these big trials, and not a pen and pencil? Jurors are expected to consume
all the facts and figures off an LCD nowadays, with out saving or agreeing
to an EULA... Who made them agree to it, before they took the seat? Uncle
Sam agreed to this EULA, I suppose. If he did, I have no choice really,
kinda dumb that they ask at installation.