On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2024-06-26 13:27, DFS wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 1:06 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-26 12:47, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Even you will have to admit it eventually: Microsoft has no
>>>>> interest in users having any kind of privacy.
>>>>
>>>> If MS has been 'invading my privacy', I've seen no negatives from it.
>>>
>>> That has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read in this newsgroup.
>>
>> Dumber than your statement that "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our bad
>> luck vanished."?
>
> I stand by that statement.

It's ludicrous. There are no ghosts.

>>> Because they didn't directly harm you, you consent to them knowing
>>> everything about you? How is this comment not self-defeating?
>>>>> Their optional telemetry will eventually become mandatory, and
>>>>> their optional client-side scanning will eventually be enabled by
>>>>> default. Using any previous operating system of theirs which
>>>>> doesn't have these "features" will become impossible.
>>>>
>>>> They will, huh?
>>>>
>>>> I know you believe in psychics, but I didn't know you actually were
>>>> a psychic too!  Congrats!
>>>>
>>>> So tell me: is MS really doomed?
>>>
>>> Microsoft is doomed in the eyes of people who value their privacy and
>>> their freedoms, including freedom of speech. The lemmings, however,
>>> will gladly go on with Microsoft's invasions.
>>
>> Last week you were a Windows lemming.  Today you're a Linux freedom
>> fighter.  From zero to hero in a week!
>
> I tend to keep an eye on tech news. Doing that is what made me iffy
> about Microsoft and Apple for as long as it has. I've forgiven their
> behaviour repeatedly in the past, but it now looks like they're doubling
> down. They don't even want you to have local accounts because
> "security!" The same way Apple's client-side scanning was about
> "security!" and Microsoft's client-side scanning is "security!" You are
> free to continue to be fooled.

You've seen the light... for the 20th time.

>>>>> Whether you like to admit it or not, you too will use Linux.
>>>>
>>>> VERY doubtful.  Too much crappy hobbyware forced on you, and I
>>>> DETEST Stallman, the "father" of the GPL.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, Stallman did not create anything other than GCC and
>>> the FSF. Everything that came after that was influenced by him, but
>>> not credited to him.
>>
>> Think about what a sick monster he really is.  He would rather videos
>> of your child being raped remain available on the Internet because in
>> his warped brain it's 'censorship' to destroy them.
>
> I understand his position though I disagree with it.

You "disagree" with it?

Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.

Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms. If
Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.

>>  > Either way, Linux will survive despite your resistance to it.
>>
>> Together we can beat it:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "*I* *GIVE* *UP
>> I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
>> am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
>> pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
>> basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up.
>> *I* *GIVE* *UP*."
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yep, and I am now using the exact distribution that made me react that way.

Is it not a 'steaming pile of garbage' anymore?

Andrzej Matuch wrote:

>How many privacy and usability violations are Windows and Mac users
>willing to put up with before they decide that they can't take it
>anymore. You're being forced to log into a Microsoft account (regardless
>of whether you even have a Microsoft account), you're being forced to
>save your data online, you're being forced to surrender to keylogging
>(to improve handwriting and typing predictions only, I'm sure), you're
>being forced to surrender to client-side scanning (only to catch the
>pedophiles, I'm sure). How much more can people take?

Well, as of today: With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
M$ account. You don't need to save your data online. The keylogging
(inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.

The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out. I think that
will be opt-out, too. But I agree that they really are making a huge
data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.

I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
Evilsoft.

--
"[cola is] attacked because it's a cess pit of second hand news,
paranoia and anti-MS lunacy by a bunch of know nothing, contribute
nothing clueless freetards." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

On 2024-06-27 15:06, DFS wrote:
> On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2024-06-26 13:27, DFS wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2024 1:06 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-26 12:47, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Even you will have to admit it eventually: Microsoft has no
>>>>>> interest in users having any kind of privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> If MS has been 'invading my privacy', I've seen no negatives from it.
>>>>
>>>> That has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>> Dumber than your statement that "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our
>>> bad luck vanished."?
>>
>> I stand by that statement.
>
> It's ludicrous.  There are no ghosts.

I don't care what you think, my wife and I know what we experienced.

>> I tend to keep an eye on tech news. Doing that is what made me iffy
>> about Microsoft and Apple for as long as it has. I've forgiven their
>> behaviour repeatedly in the past, but it now looks like they're
>> doubling down. They don't even want you to have local accounts because
>> "security!" The same way Apple's client-side scanning was about
>> "security!" and Microsoft's client-side scanning is "security!" You
>> are free to continue to be fooled.
>
> You've seen the light... for the 20th time.

Honestly, it's probably more than that. Like you, I allowed myself to
believe that these privacy issues were no big deal way too often. I'm
sick of fooling myself. I might have a moment of weakness and reinstall
it. Lord knows my record isn't good. But I have no interest in allowing
a corporation to get away with the idea of not only forcing people to
save their data on the cloud, but to log their keystrokes and constantly
record their computer activities.

>> I understand his position though I disagree with it.
>
> You "disagree" with it?
>
> Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
> visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.
>
> Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms.  If
> Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.

Like everything else in life, his position is all or nothing. I
understand it. It's not up to me to judge him. To praraphrase Maude
Flanders on the Simpsons, I don't judge Richard Stallman, that's for
vengeful God to do.

>> Yep, and I am now using the exact distribution that made me react that
>> way.
>
> Is it not a 'steaming pile of garbage' anymore?

It's not perfect, but I'm not looking for it to be any longer.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-27 16:34, chrisv wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> How many privacy and usability violations are Windows and Mac users
>> willing to put up with before they decide that they can't take it
>> anymore. You're being forced to log into a Microsoft account (regardless
>> of whether you even have a Microsoft account), you're being forced to
>> save your data online, you're being forced to surrender to keylogging
>> (to improve handwriting and typing predictions only, I'm sure), you're
>> being forced to surrender to client-side scanning (only to catch the
>> pedophiles, I'm sure). How much more can people take?
>
> Well, as of today: With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
> M$ account. You don't need to save your data online. The keylogging
> (inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.
>
> The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out. I think that
> will be opt-out, too. But I agree that they really are making a huge
> data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.
>
> I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
> will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
> Evilsoft.

I hope so too. I have a 10 Pro license so I don't know what the
purchased 11 Pro installer is like, but the 11 installer downloaded
directly from Microsoft would still require you to log into your
Microsoft account.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>On 2024-06-27 15:06, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Rabid said] "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>>>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our
>>>> bad luck vanished."?
>>>
>>> I stand by that statement.
>>
>> It's ludicrous.  There are no ghosts.
>
>I don't care what you think, my wife and I know what we experienced.

I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
vanished.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-06-27 17:29, Joel wrote:
> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 15:06, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [Rabid said] "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>>>>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our
>>>>> bad luck vanished."?
>>>>
>>>> I stand by that statement.
>>>
>>> It's ludicrous.  There are no ghosts.
>>
>> I don't care what you think, my wife and I know what we experienced.
>
>
> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
> vanished.

There are countless stories of people having such visions but DFS
doesn't believe in ghosts, so they never happened.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>> Think about what a sick monster he [Richard Stallman] really is.  He would rather videos
>>> of your child being raped remain available on the Internet because in
>>> his warped brain it's 'censorship' to destroy them.
>>
>> I understand his position though I disagree with it.
>
>You "disagree" with it?
>
>Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
>visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.
>
>Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms. If
>Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.

I'm not certain Stallman implied that such a video should not be
removed. Do you have a cite on that?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>On 2024-06-27 16:34, chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Well, as of today: With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
>> M$ account. You don't need to save your data online. The keylogging
>> (inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.
>>
>> The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out. I think that
>> will be opt-out, too. But I agree that they really are making a huge
>> data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.
>>
>> I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
>> will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
>> Evilsoft.
>
>I hope so too. I have a 10 Pro license so I don't know what the
>purchased 11 Pro installer is like, but the 11 installer downloaded
>directly from Microsoft would still require you to log into your
>Microsoft account.

Why would the purchased installer be different? They sell keys as a
download, with the main download page as the source. The USB they
ship you is just a hard copy of that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 6/27/2024 5:29 PM, Joel wrote:

> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
> vanished.

It couldn't vanish because it was never there.

Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
spotted by one person, alone, at night.

I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
or BigFoot, etc.

On 6/27/2024 5:33 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Think about what a sick monster he [Richard Stallman] really is.  He would rather videos
>>>> of your child being raped remain available on the Internet because in
>>>> his warped brain it's 'censorship' to destroy them.
>>>
>>> I understand his position though I disagree with it.
>>
>> You "disagree" with it?
>>
>> Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
>> visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.
>>
>> Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms. If
>> Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.
>
>
> I'm not certain Stallman implied that such a video should not be
> removed. Do you have a cite on that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13 January 2011 (Censorship in Vietnam)
Vietnam has imposed stiff censorship on the Internet, following the
example of China.
[Reference updated on 2018-02-15 because the old link was broken.]

The EU could be next. There is an EU proposal to require filtering of
the Internet to block "child pornography". ISPs are fighting against it.

The article surrenders the first battle for freedom of expression by
granting that "child pornography" ought to be censored somehow. It
raises only the question of what method will really work and avoid
collateral damage.

When making pornography involves real abuse of real children, those who
distribute it under a business relationship with the abusers arguably
participate in the abuse. They could be prosecuted for doing so.
However, that does not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting
published works might be, censorship is more disgusting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jan-apr.html

I just wrote him asking for some clarification about this issue.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>> vanished.
>
>It couldn't vanish because it was never there.
>
>Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
>spotted by one person, alone, at night.
>
>I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
>or BigFoot, etc.

It was not a mere hallucination, it was a real phenomenon, a dead
person's spirit haunting that area.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-06-27 17:33, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Think about what a sick monster he [Richard Stallman] really is.  He would rather videos
>>>> of your child being raped remain available on the Internet because in
>>>> his warped brain it's 'censorship' to destroy them.
>>>
>>> I understand his position though I disagree with it.
>>
>> You "disagree" with it?
>>
>> Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
>> visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.
>>
>> Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms. If
>> Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.
>
>
> I'm not certain Stallman implied that such a video should not be
> removed. Do you have a cite on that?

He did, but there is context there. He's not saying that child
pronography should be produced, but he is against censoring whatever has
already been produced. It's a very difficult position to take because he
believes censorship in general is bad, even when the content is
objectively terrible, simply because the terribleness of content is
always subjective. In other words, a lawmaker will today decide that the
sight of a naked 12-year-old is abhorrent, but he can tomorrow decide
that the sight of a female in general is too.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 6/27/2024 5:33 PM, Joel wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2024 3:23 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about what a sick monster he [Richard Stallman] really is.  He would rather videos
>>>>> of your child being raped remain available on the Internet because in
>>>>> his warped brain it's 'censorship' to destroy them.
>>>>
>>>> I understand his position though I disagree with it.
>>>
>>> You "disagree" with it?
>>>
>>> Something's really, really wrong with you if you have anything but a
>>> visceral, almost violent response to a demon like Stallman.
>>>
>>> Grow a pair and condemn the foul creature in the strongest terms. If
>>> Biden said something like that you'd call for him to be jailed.
>>
>> I'm not certain Stallman implied that such a video should not be
>> removed. Do you have a cite on that?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>13 January 2011 (Censorship in Vietnam)
>Vietnam has imposed stiff censorship on the Internet, following the
>example of China.
>[Reference updated on 2018-02-15 because the old link was broken.]
>
>The EU could be next. There is an EU proposal to require filtering of
>the Internet to block "child pornography". ISPs are fighting against it.
>
>The article surrenders the first battle for freedom of expression by
>granting that "child pornography" ought to be censored somehow. It
>raises only the question of what method will really work and avoid
>collateral damage.
>
>When making pornography involves real abuse of real children, those who
>distribute it under a business relationship with the abusers arguably
>participate in the abuse. They could be prosecuted for doing so.
>However, that does not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting
>published works might be, censorship is more disgusting.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jan-apr.html
>
>
>
>I just wrote him asking for some clarification about this issue.

It appears that he's talking about forcing ISPs to filter this
content, as if they have the ability to police it. Not about removing
specific offending material, on a case by case basis. He says that
producers could be prosecuted. I agree with him, if someone has the
gall to expose this material online, nail them. But he's not wrong if
I'm correctly interpreting his point, that we shouldn't mandate
comprehensive censorship of network traffic, as Vietnam and China did.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-06-27 17:38, Joel wrote:
> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 16:34, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, as of today: With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
>>> M$ account. You don't need to save your data online. The keylogging
>>> (inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.
>>>
>>> The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out. I think that
>>> will be opt-out, too. But I agree that they really are making a huge
>>> data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.
>>>
>>> I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
>>> will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
>>> Evilsoft.
>>
>> I hope so too. I have a 10 Pro license so I don't know what the
>> purchased 11 Pro installer is like, but the 11 installer downloaded
>> directly from Microsoft would still require you to log into your
>> Microsoft account.
>
>
> Why would the purchased installer be different? They sell keys as a
> download, with the main download page as the source. The USB they
> ship you is just a hard copy of that.

Well, this isn't the first time someone tells me that the Pro installer
doesn't require you to log into your Microsoft account. Meanwhile, if
you download the ISO directly from Microsoft, it doesn't even ask you
whether you want the Home or the Pro version, the default is the lowest
common denominator. I imagine that a retail Pro version gives you more
options than the downloaded one because it always forces me to log in.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-27 18:26, DFS wrote:
> On 6/27/2024 5:29 PM, Joel wrote:
>
>
>> I saw a ghost once.  I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>> vanished.
>
>
> It couldn't vanish because it was never there.
>
> Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
> spotted by one person, alone, at night.
>
> I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
> or BigFoot, etc.

I recall seeing a video of a DFS-style dumbass also thinking that ghosts
don't exist when someone told him that their attic was haunted. With a
big smile on his face, he went up the ladder and, no joke, re-emerged
within five seconds with a look of sheer terror on his face. Of course,
DFS doesn't believe in this so the terror was fake as was the video.
Heck, the camera didn't exist.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 6/27/2024 7:35 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>>> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>>> vanished.
>>
>> It couldn't vanish because it was never there.
>>
>> Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
>> spotted by one person, alone, at night.
>>
>> I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
>> or BigFoot, etc.
>
>
> It was not a mere hallucination, it was a real phenomenon, a dead
> person's spirit haunting that area.

Yet no one but you has ever seen it. Funny how that works.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>>>> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>>>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>>>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>>>> vanished.
>>>
>>> It couldn't vanish because it was never there.
>>>
>>> Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
>>> spotted by one person, alone, at night.
>>>
>>> I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
>>> or BigFoot, etc.
>>
>> It was not a mere hallucination, it was a real phenomenon, a dead
>> person's spirit haunting that area.
>
>Yet no one but you has ever seen it. Funny how that works.

I would bet that other people who ventured onto that road have seen
the same ghost. They just aren't here to tell us.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-06-27 20:22, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I saw a ghost once. I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>>>>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>>>>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>>>>> vanished.
>>>>
>>>> It couldn't vanish because it was never there.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why there are zero real videos of ghosts, and they're always
>>>> spotted by one person, alone, at night.
>>>>
>>>> I'm amazed any adults believe in the supernatural, or alien abductions,
>>>> or BigFoot, etc.
>>>
>>> It was not a mere hallucination, it was a real phenomenon, a dead
>>> person's spirit haunting that area.
>>
>> Yet no one but you has ever seen it. Funny how that works.
>
>
> I would bet that other people who ventured onto that road have seen
> the same ghost. They just aren't here to tell us.

The people who saw a ghost didn't sign up for Usenet and venture onto
comp.os.linux.advocacy to write an off-topic post about what they saw,
so it never happened!

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 6/27/2024 7:51 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2024-06-27 17:38, Joel wrote:
>> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-27 16:34, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, as of today:  With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
>>>> M$ account.  You don't need to save your data online.  The keylogging
>>>> (inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.
>>>>
>>>> The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out.  I think that
>>>> will be opt-out, too.  But I agree that they really are making a huge
>>>> data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.
>>>>
>>>> I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
>>>> will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
>>>> Evilsoft.
>>>
>>> I hope so too. I have a 10 Pro license so I don't know what the
>>> purchased 11 Pro installer is like, but the 11 installer downloaded
>>> directly from Microsoft would still require you to log into your
>>> Microsoft account.
>>
>>
>> Why would the purchased installer be different?  They sell keys as a
>> download, with the main download page as the source.  The USB they
>> ship you is just a hard copy of that.
>
> Well, this isn't the first time someone tells me that the Pro installer
> doesn't require you to log into your Microsoft account. Meanwhile, if
> you download the ISO directly from Microsoft, it doesn't even ask you
> whether you want the Home or the Pro version, the default is the lowest
> common denominator.

Your license key determines Home or Pro.

> I imagine that a retail Pro version gives you more
> options than the downloaded one because it always forces me to log in.

This guy found a trick to bypass the MS account login during setup:

https://youtu.be/ZMKl9wBJYD0?t=438

On 6/27/2024 5:33 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2024-06-27 17:29, Joel wrote:
>> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-27 15:06, DFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Rabid said] "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>>>>>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our
>>>>>> bad luck vanished."?
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand by that statement.
>>>>
>>>> It's ludicrous.  There are no ghosts.
>>>
>>> I don't care what you think, my wife and I know what we experienced.
>>
>>
>> I saw a ghost once.  I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>> vanished.
>
> There are countless stories of people having such visions

You're way too smart to believe in such drivel.

> but DFS doesn't believe in ghosts, so they never happened.

That's right: they never happened.

I'd love to be 'visited' by members of my family who died. Any
incontrovertible sign that they're watching from another plane of
existence would be overwhelming. But it can't and won't ever happen,
because they're dead and unfortunately there's no such thing as a ghost
or a soul or a spirit that lives on past our physical existence on Earth.

On 2024-06-27 21:25, DFS wrote:
> On 6/27/2024 7:51 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 17:38, Joel wrote:
>>> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-27 16:34, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as of today:  With the Pro version, you don't need to log into a
>>>>> M$ account.  You don't need to save your data online.  The keylogging
>>>>> (inking and typing personalization) can be turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>> The client-side scanning, we will how that pans out.  I think that
>>>>> will be opt-out, too.  But I agree that they really are making a huge
>>>>> data grab, and that the default behavior is fscked.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm *hoping* that the AI chips, coming soon to a motherboard near you,
>>>>> will be able to be disabled in the BIOS, putting them out of reach of
>>>>> Evilsoft.
>>>>
>>>> I hope so too. I have a 10 Pro license so I don't know what the
>>>> purchased 11 Pro installer is like, but the 11 installer downloaded
>>>> directly from Microsoft would still require you to log into your
>>>> Microsoft account.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would the purchased installer be different?  They sell keys as a
>>> download, with the main download page as the source.  The USB they
>>> ship you is just a hard copy of that.
>>
>> Well, this isn't the first time someone tells me that the Pro
>> installer doesn't require you to log into your Microsoft account.
>> Meanwhile, if you download the ISO directly from Microsoft, it doesn't
>> even ask you whether you want the Home or the Pro version, the default
>> is the lowest common denominator.
>
> Your license key determines Home or Pro.

No shit! However, the installer doesn't ask you for your product key and
uses the one tied to the hardware which is Home. You can only use the
Pro key to do an upgrade once the installation is complete.

>> I imagine that a retail Pro version gives you more options than the
>> downloaded one because it always forces me to log in.
>
> This guy found a trick to bypass the MS account login during setup:
>
> https://youtu.be/ZMKl9wBJYD0?t=438

The fact that you require a "trick" to bypass something which should
easily be circumvented speaks volumes. No Linux installer forces you
into using the cloud. Heck, they don't even force you to install
proprietary drivers or codecs. One respects user freedom, the other doesn't.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-27 21:26, DFS wrote:
> On 6/27/2024 5:33 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 17:29, Joel wrote:
>>> RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-27 15:06, DFS wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Rabid said] "Once we moved out [of a haunted
>>>>>>> house], we suddenly had no trouble getting pregnant and all of our
>>>>>>> bad luck vanished."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stand by that statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's ludicrous.  There are no ghosts.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care what you think, my wife and I know what we experienced.
>>>
>>>
>>> I saw a ghost once.  I was on a very rural road at night, north of
>>> Baltimore, random place, an image of a person looked at me through the
>>> car window for a moment, and when I looked behind as I passed, it
>>> vanished.
>>
>> There are countless stories of people having such visions
>
> You're way too smart to believe in such drivel.
>
>> but DFS doesn't believe in ghosts, so they never happened.
>
> That's right: they never happened.
>
> I'd love to be 'visited' by members of my family who died.  Any
> incontrovertible sign that they're watching from another plane of
> existence would be overwhelming.  But it can't and won't ever happen,
> because they're dead and unfortunately there's no such thing as a ghost
> or a soul or a spirit that lives on past our physical existence on Earth.

I recall one moment when I was in the car with my wife and she was
driving. Suddenly, she told me that she was feeling someone stroking her
hair. Immediately thereafter, she explained to me that she was being
told to ask me why I keep myself at a distance from my family. I
explained it and, by the time we got to the exit leading to our home,
she was surprised at our location and said "we're already here." She
then pointed out that she had no recollection of driving whatsoever. In
other words, it was as if someone had taken over her body momentarily.

Take that for what you will. I believe that was the first of our
experiences living in that house.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>On 2024-06-27 21:25, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>> if you download the ISO directly from Microsoft, it doesn't
>>> even ask you whether you want the Home or the Pro version, the default
>>> is the lowest common denominator.
>>
>> Your license key determines Home or Pro.
>
>No shit! However, the installer doesn't ask you for your product key and
>uses the one tied to the hardware which is Home. You can only use the
>Pro key to do an upgrade once the installation is complete.

Ah, what a quirk, I never would've realized that because my hardware
had no embedded license, being self-assembled. When I reinstalled
clean, in 2022, I didn't really need to type my product key, but I did
anyway, but it would've recognized my hardware as having that Pro
license, but your OEM device's included license would be recognized by
the generic installer from what you're saying, such that you'd have to
manually convert it with a retail key afterward. Good ol' commercial
software.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:43:11 -0400, RabidPedagog wrote:

> He did, but there is context there. He's not saying that child
> pronography should be produced, but he is against censoring whatever has
> already been produced. It's a very difficult position to take because he
> believes censorship in general is bad, even when the content is
> objectively terrible, simply because the terribleness of content is
> always subjective. In other words, a lawmaker will today decide that the
> sight of a naked 12-year-old is abhorrent, but he can tomorrow decide
> that the sight of a female in general is too.

It is a tough call. My wife was a librarian. iirc the state of
Massachusetts, home of the Puritans, passed a law declaring the female
nipple obscene. Quick, lock up the art books!

Then there was that Blind Faith album cover with the topless 11 year old.
Is possession of the album child pornography? Wikipedia provides a photo
of the cover; are they liable?

I have made no secret of my dislike for Stallamn but he is being
consistent. Well, not really consistent; afaik he is not calling for child
pornography to be GPL v3.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:46:54 -0400, RabidPedagog wrote:

> . No Linux installer forces you into using the cloud.

Well, sort of... Any distro I've installed lately first sets up an
internet connection so it can phone home and get the rest of its stuff.
The Lubuntu install I did recently was very unhappy with the Broadcomm
wifi chip. I had to use a USB wifi dongle to get to the internet to
install the Broadcomm driver.

That SiSE 8.1 box set I found in the shed was the good old days.
Everything was on the multiple disks in the box.