Vista slow sales....headline from Tom's Hardware today...

[Guest Charlie]

>Well I'll agree with one thing.>>I do have a narrow self interest-I think stealing is>wrong-from anyone -me,you, or a corporation.>No dispute there

[Johan_Dees 84]

>That would be true if I was dead like Elvis or not doing it>anymore like the Beatles-but I am currently active-so yes the>decline is due to piracy.>Elvis is dead? Who told you that nonsense?JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE..

[mgh 89]

You refer to the Fourth Amendment. I took the trouble to check it and it says:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (My emphasis.)I also Googled and found a commentary on this Amendment.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/This explains:"For the Fourth Amendment to be applicable to a particular set of facts, there must be a ''search'' and a ''seizure,'' occurring typically in a criminal case, with a subsequent attempt to use judicially what was seized. Whether there was a search and seizure within the meaning of the Amendment, whether a complainant's interests were constitutionally infringed, will often turn upon consideration of his interest and whether it was officially abused. (My emphasis again.)The commentary seems to make it clear the the Amendment applies only to actions by the State and that there must be both a search and a seizure. This view appears to be supported by the cases cited in that link. It's doubtful if Microsoft is infringing this Amendment - it isn't the State and it doesn't seem to be seizing anything. Also, if you have a legal copy of the software then you have accepted the EULA allowing Microsoft to check this - if your copy is illegal then why shouldn't Microsoft stop you using it?

[Guest wyoming]

Vista is not pirated enough, which is what Mr. Balmer probably feels. Who gets pirated? The best. Why because they are the best. Personally, whatever I do, I would love to be pirated, because that would signify very clearly that I am the best. In the same inverted but rational perspective, I would love to pay 6 figures in taxes.

[Geofa 108]

That must be who is taking my residuals! :-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Eek]

>You refer to the Fourth Amendment. I took the trouble to>check it If you are an American, shame on you for not knowing what the 4th Amendment is.>"For the Fourth Amendment to be applicable to a particular set>of facts, there must be a ''search'' and a ''seizure,''>occurring typically in a criminal case, with a subsequent>attempt to use judicially what was seized. Whether there was a>search and seizure within the meaning of the Amendment,>whether a complainant's interests were constitutionally>infringed, will often turn upon consideration of his interest>and whether it was officially abused. (My emphasis>again.)>>The commentary seems to make it clear the the Amendment>applies only to actions by the State and that there must be>both a search and a seizure. This view appears to be supported>by the cases cited in that link. I've seen this rediculous arguement before. This is like saying rape and murder are illegal. That doesn't mean there must be a rape AND a murder, for it to be illegal. It means BOTH rape and murder are illegal. BOTH are illegal.>It's doubtful if Microsoft is infringing this Amendment - it>isn't the State The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to set limits for government, not private citizens or organizations. I know of no limitations of government, that doesn't apply to private entities through legislation.>and it doesn't seem to be seizing anything.It is a physical impossibility to search something without seizing it in some way, shape or form.>Also, if you have a legal copy of the software then you have>accepted the EULA allowing Microsoft to check thisThe EULA that is jammed down my throat after I have purchased the software (notice I said software, not license)? This is just a game of semantics played by lawyers. I'm buying software, not a licnese. The average consumer doesn't know what an EULA is, nor should they. This is what I find infuriating. This incredible ease with which sheeple "accept" the EULA or any other infringement of their rights. This is exactly what Charlie was talking about. I'm befuddled by the calm willingness with which you submit to the EULA. What other rights will you give up so easily? I have a disturbing mental image of you wiggling in to your chains, as your master puts them on.>- if your>copy is illegal then why shouldn't Microsoft stop you using>it?For the same reason I don't have the right to shoot a crackhead who's stealing my hubcaps. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the gov't. The crackhead is entitled due process. I can't carry out vigilante justice and neither can Microsoft. I can't search the crackhead's house for anything else I'm missing, just like Microsoft can't search my drive for anything they are missing.That's a clever game of Language Twister you're playing, but make no mistake about it, it's unconstitutional, and certainly violates the 4th Amendment. Again, I must stress, there is no limitation placed upon the government, that doesn't apply to the private sector through legislation. I find it a little frightening the way you enable your slavery by disecting the Bill of Rights. There's something called "spirit" of the law. In the Declaration of Independence it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Would you like to disect that also? What if you don't believe in a creator? Does that mean these rights don't apply to atheists? Of course not. The spirit of what is written, is that we have these rights, simply by virtue of our existence. Frankly, I'm not sure who I fear more. The vast centralized power of the federal government, the litigious nature of businesses who endlessly scour for legal loopholes to place around consumers'necks, or the naive, meek myrmidons such as yourself, who are actually willing to justify their own oppression on a public forum.Does an EULA in and of itself constitute oppression? Probably not. However, it is another piece of liberty that people are increasingly and more readily are willing to let go, all in the name of security. Oddly, you are willing to let it go, not for your own security, but Microsoft's. At what point will you stand up and fight? Will you ever stand up and fight? An EULA here, a pre-employment drug screen there. Then an IRS audit. A ban on guns. The ability of police to seize your money without recourse, if you happen to be carrying a large amount of cash. The government seizing your money to give away to other people. Banning radar detectors. Requirement to hire a licensed contractor to build your house. Unionized government employees. Speed traps. No school choice. A military draft. A state "port of entry" and "agricultural inspections" on the interstate. Taking fingerprints when you get your driver's license. Hidden "security" cameras. Cell phone tracking. Red light cameras. A tax on your phone bill to pay for the Spanish-American War, that isn't repealed for 100 years. "Sobriety" checkpoints. All this and much, much more, and not a peep out of you. I could go on with this for days. Little by little, piece by piece. It all adds up.Where do you draw the line?Now, if you want to talk about nullifying the 4th Amendment, then look at the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax and gave birth to the IRS. I'd say the 4th is essentially dead, just based on that.If Mr. Ballmer wants to search me, I'd like to point him to the 2nd Amendment, which I exercise fully.EwingKATLMSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3Sound Blaster Audigy LSOCZ Powerstream 420WWinXPPro (SP1)

[Guest Charlie]

>>You refer to the Fourth Amendment. I took the trouble to>>check it >>If you are an American, shame on you for not knowing what the>4th Amendment is.>>>"For the Fourth Amendment to be applicable to a particular>set>>of facts, there must be a ''search'' and a>''seizure,''>>occurring typically in a criminal case, with a subsequent>>attempt to use judicially what was seized. Whether there was>a>>search and seizure within the meaning of the Amendment,>>whether a complainant's interests were constitutionally>>infringed, will often turn upon consideration of his>interest>>and whether it was officially abused. (My emphasis>>again.)>>>>The commentary seems to make it clear the the Amendment>>applies only to actions by the State and that there must be>>both a search and a seizure. This view appears to be>supported>>by the cases cited in that link. >>I've seen this rediculous arguement before. This is like>saying rape and murder are illegal. That doesn't mean there>must be a rape AND a murder, for it to be illegal. It means>BOTH rape and murder are illegal. BOTH are illegal.>>>It's doubtful if Microsoft is infringing this Amendment - it>>isn't the State >>The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to set limits for>government, not private citizens or organizations. I know of>no limitations of government, that doesn't apply to private>entities through legislation.>>>and it doesn't seem to be seizing anything.>>It is a physical impossibility to search something without>seizing it in some way, shape or form.>>>Also, if you have a legal copy of the software then you have>>accepted the EULA allowing Microsoft to check this>>The EULA that is jammed down my throat after I have purchased>the software (notice I said software, not license)? This is>just a game of semantics played by lawyers. I'm buying>software, not a licnese. The average consumer doesn't know>what an EULA is, nor should they. >>This is what I find infuriating. This incredible ease with>which sheeple "accept" the EULA or any other infringement of>their rights. This is exactly what Charlie was talking about.>I'm befuddled by the calm willingness with which you submit to>the EULA. What other rights will you give up so easily? I have>a disturbing mental image of you wiggling in to your chains,>as your master puts them on.>>>>- if your>>copy is illegal then why shouldn't Microsoft stop you using>>it?>>For the same reason I don't have the right to shoot a>crackhead who's stealing my hubcaps. Law enforcement is the>responsibility of the gov't. The crackhead is entitled due>process. I can't carry out vigilante justice and neither can>Microsoft. I can't search the crackhead's house for anything>else I'm missing, just like Microsoft can't search my drive>for anything they are missing.>>That's a clever game of Language Twister you're playing, but>make no mistake about it, it's unconstitutional, and certainly>violates the 4th Amendment. Again, I must stress, there is no>limitation placed upon the government, that doesn't apply to>the private sector through legislation. >>I find it a little frightening the way you enable your slavery>by disecting the Bill of Rights. There's something called>"spirit" of the law. In the Declaration of Independence it>says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men>are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with>certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty>and the pursuit of Happiness" Would you like to disect that>also? What if you don't believe in a creator? Does that mean>these rights don't apply to atheists? Of course not. The>spirit of what is written, is that we have these rights,>simply by virtue of our existence.> >Frankly, I'm not sure who I fear more. The vast centralized>power of the federal government, the litigious nature of>businesses who endlessly scour for legal loopholes to place>around consumers'necks, or the naive, meek myrmidons such as>yourself, who are actually willing to justify their own>oppression on a public forum.>>Does an EULA in and of itself constitute oppression? Probably>not. However, it is another piece of liberty that people are>increasingly and more readily are willing to let go, all in>the name of security. Oddly, you are willing to let it go, not>for your own security, but Microsoft's. At what point will you>stand up and fight? Will you ever stand up and fight? >>An EULA here, a pre-employment drug screen there. Then an IRS>audit. A ban on guns. The ability of police to seize your>money without recourse, if you happen to be carrying a large>amount of cash. The government seizing your money to give away>to other people. Banning radar detectors. Requirement to hire>a licensed contractor to build your house. Unionized>government employees. Speed traps. No school choice. A>military draft. A state "port of entry" and "agricultural>inspections" on the interstate. Taking fingerprints when you>get your driver's license. Hidden "security" cameras. Cell>phone tracking. Red light cameras. A tax on your phone bill to>pay for the Spanish-American War, that isn't repealed for 100>years. "Sobriety" checkpoints. All this and much, much more,>and not a peep out of you. I could go on with this for days.>Little by little, piece by piece. It all adds up.>>Where do you draw the line?>>Now, if you want to talk about nullifying the 4th Amendment,>then look at the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax>and gave birth to the IRS. I'd say the 4th is essentially>dead, just based on that.>>If Mr. Ballmer wants to search me, I'd like to point him to>the 2nd Amendment, which I exercise fully.>>Ewing>KATL>>MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum>AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz>2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM >eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3>Sound Blaster Audigy LS>OCZ Powerstream 420W>WinXPPro (SP1)Heh...heh.... Ewing, much as I was flattered by your earlier comment, there can now be no question about the best post ever to appear on Avsim. This one wins, hands down. My hat

[mgh 89]

Not everyone on these forums is US citizen."I've seen this ridiculous arguement before. This is like saying rape and murder are illegal. That doesn't mean there must be a rape AND a murder, for it to be illegal. It means BOTH rape and murder are illegal. BOTH are illegal."The "ridiculous" argument seems to be the accepted one, based on the commentary and cases cited in the link I gave - I didn't deveop it. Legal language is precise. Search and seizure means what it says. If search and/or seizure was meant the law would have said so. Your analogy with rape and murder is the ridiculous argument. They are both separate offences and there is no need for both to be committed in order to prosecute for one of them. However, in many jurisdictions new offences may be created from two existing ones. For example robbery with violence which requires both robbery and violence to have been committed to obtain a conviction, even though both robbery and violence are separate offences."The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to set limits for government, not private citizens or organizations. I know of no limitations of government, that doesn't apply to private entities through legislation."As far as the Fourth Amendment's application to private citizens is concerned, none of the cases cited in the commentary in the link that I can find involves action being taken against private citizens. If the Fourth Amendment does limit the actions of private citizensdon't you think that there'd have been at least one case cited in all the years since it came into force? I can't find one, can you? If the Fourth Amendment is applied to private citizens by legislation you should be able to provide a link to that legislation "It is a physical impossibility to search something without seizing it in some way, shape or form."It's perfectly possible to carry out a search without seizing anything. The police may search you (given probable cause) and yet not seize anything if they don't find anything seizable."For the same reason I don't have the right to shoot a crackhead who's stealing my hubcaps. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the gov't."I wasn't aware that Microsoft tries to shoot infringers! But anyway you do have the right to go out and stop him from stealing your hubcaps don't you?EDIT"Law enforcement is the responsibility of the gov't."Only criminal law enforcement is the responsibility of the government. The government has a very limited role in enforcing civil/commercial/contact law. END OF EDIT"... after I have purchased the software (notice I said software, not license)?"I did note that because it shows that you claim the protection of the law when it suits but are prepared to ignore it when it doesn't. It also enables me to discount the remainder of your post.

[Guest Eek]

@Charlie: Thank you for your kind words, sir. Your post certainly inspired me. I also wholeheartedly agree that the infringements on personal liberty make us less secure. Though we are outnumbered, it's still possible to wake people up, if we are vocal enough. You have to keep in mind, the American Revolution wasn't sparked by a single event. It only came about after decades of abuses and citizens becoming more vocal over time. Even when the war broke out, the majority of citizens were against the Revolution, but there was enough momentum to effect change.@mgh:>Not everyone on these forums is US citizen.I'm aware of that. That's why the first five words of my post were "If you are an American".>The "ridiculous" argument seems to be the accepted one, based>on the commentary and cases cited in the link I gave - I>didn't deveop it. That was an opinion on a commercial legal website, not a ruling from the Supreme Court. Here is the disclaimer from that same website;"The information contained in this web site, and its associated web sites, including but not limited to FindLaw, the CyberSpace Law Center, the LawCrawler, LegalMinds and the University Law Review Project, is provided as a service to the Internet community, and does not constitute legal advice. We try to provide quality information, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this web site and its associated sites. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel."Give it as much weight as you wish.>Legal language is precise. Search and>seizure means what it says. If search and/or seizure was meant>the law would have said so. Legal language is anything but precise. That's why the Supreme Court and even lower courts have to issue rulings on cases af ambiguity, and the judges write "opinions". The founding documents of the United States are written in archaic language. As time has passed, there has been increasing debate of both meaning and intentions. The founders, obviously, had no idea of what a litigious society America would become nearly two and a half centuries later.>Your analogy with rape and murder>is the ridiculous argument. They are both separate offences>and there is no need for both to be committed in order to>prosecute for one of them. I didn't mean it as an analogy, but rather an example of how two offenses can be combined in a single sentence, the way search and seizure are. Perhaps, I should have put it this way; The whole notion that search AND seizure is prohibited, but either, independent of the other, is perfectly fine and dandy, is simply preposterous and defies logic and reason.>However, in many jurisdictions new>offences may be created from two existing ones. For example>robbery with violence which requires both robbery and violence>to have been committed to obtain a conviction, even though>both robbery and violence are separate offences.More idiocy from government. I expect no less. Robbery itself, is an act of violence. Even if no physical harm comes to the victim, the threat of violence is there (otherwise, he's a panhandler), thus making it a violent act. Clearly, this is a means for imposing tougher sentences. You can't have a police state without tough sentences.What's even more frightening about this tactic, is the various states, and from what I understand, some Euro countries, that have attatched "hate crimes", to other crimes. Imagine that. We actually live in a day and age, where one can spend time in jail for their thoughts. This has no place in a free society, yet those laws have passed with little opposition.>As far as the Fourth Amendment's application to private>citizens is concerned, none of the cases cited in the>commentary in the link that I can find involves action being>taken against private citizens. If the Fourth Amendment does>limit the actions of private citizensdon't you think that>there'd have been at least one case cited in all the years>since it came into force? I can't find one, can you? If the>Fourth Amendment is applied to private citizens by legislation>you should be able to provide a link to that legislation Legislation on the 4th is called "Invasion of Privacy". Congress plus 50 states is 51 links. I'm not going to go to that much trouble. However, if you put invasion of privacy and the name of any state you wish, in Google, it will give you the specifics. If you find a state where it isn't illegal, let me know. I will give you a link to chew on; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy You might find something of particular interest near the bottom of the page under the heading "Privacy and the Fourth Amendment"Also, kidnapping, burglary and robbery are pretty much illegal in any state, so I suppose they could get you there, as well.>It's perfectly possible to carry out a search without seizing>anything. The police may search you (given probable cause) and>yet not seize anything if they don't find anything seizable.They have to seize you to search you. They have to seize your vehicle to search it. Again, it's a physical impossibility to search something without seizing it, first. Maybe I should add, unless it's in plain view.>I wasn't aware that Microsoft tries to shoot infringers! But>anyway you do have the right to go out and stop him from>stealing your hubcaps don't you?I'm sure Mr. Ballmer would love to. :-lol Though, I didn't say they did.No, I don't think you can in all states. I know there are some statesthat actually require you to run away, if your home is invaded, and call the police, instead. A perfect example of "less liberty=less security". I'd never live under such restrictions. Florida recently removed it's deadly force restrictions. I live in a "blow their friggin' head off" state. In fact, a nearby town has a gun ownership requirement (http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm (since you like links ;) )). As for saving my hubcaps, I've had several cops tell me to just take them in the house and shoot them there. Looks like a home invasion and they don't have to fool with them later.>Only criminal law enforcement is the responsibility of the>government. The government has a very limited role in>enforcing civil/commercial/contact law.More of a mediation role in civil and contract matters, certainly, but the ultimate responsibility lies with government, even if they don't send the SWAT team. >I did note that because it shows that you claim the protection>of the law when it suits but are prepared to ignore it when it>doesn't.I most certainly claim protection under the 4th. I'm not ignoring any law. Microsoft is in violation of the 4th with their EULA. Microsoft is ignoring the law.>It also enables me to discount the remainder of your>post.I don't blame you. The truth is irrefutable.~EwingKATLMSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3Sound Blaster Audigy LSOCZ Powerstream 420WWinXPPro (SP1)

[mgh 89]

" I will give you a link to chew on; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy You might find something of particular interest near the bottom of the page under the heading "Privacy and the Fourth Amendment""I did indeed. Under that heading, I found the words:"The amendment, however, only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government."That was the point I made in my original post which you said was "ridiculous".I'll say no more on the subject.

[Guest Eek]

>" I will give you a link to chew on; >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy> >You might find something of particular interest near the>bottom of the page under the heading "Privacy and the Fourth>I did indeed. Under that heading, I found the words:>>"The amendment, however, only protects against searches and>seizures conducted by the government."More importantly, I was referring to "Invasions of privacy by persons who are not state actors must be dealt with under private tort law." My assertion all along was the 4th restricted the government, but that doesn't necessarily exclude the private sector from violating the 4th, as there is pertinent legislation under invasion of privacy laws, based on said amendment.>That was the point I made in my original post which you said>was "ridiculous".What I was referring to as so rediculous, was, as I put it, "The whole notion that search AND seizure is prohibited, but either, independent of the other, is perfectly fine and dandy, is simply preposterous and defies logic and reason." >I'll say no more on the subject.Losing battles have but one outcome. However, I hope you don't consider my responses to your posts, as personal attacks, as that wasn't my intent. I hope you don't take them that way. I was, perhaps, being opportunistic, "pouncing" on your "anti-liberty" posts, but I feel the end justifies the means. I mean no disrespect, and I certainly appreciate your respectful posts. It isn't an "American" thing, it's a freedom thing. As I get older (and hopefully wiser) it has simply become unbearable, as I watch people, particularly on a Euro-heavy forum such as Avsim, simply excuse tyranny, all in the name of security, or fighting piracy (a losing battle, if there ever was one). I have been lurking here for a long time (much longer than my join date suggests) with relatively few posts. I have tried to stick to FS posts, as a rule, but as I read other peoples' posts, particularly, those from Europeans, I can't help but be alarmed. Sometimes, it's as though I have stepped in to the Dark Ages, when I read the blissful ignorance, in which people are living. I welcome this debate, and any future debate, on the virtues of personal liberty. I can't, in good conscience, sit here in silence, as people promote tyranny. Enough is enough. I think I should change my signature, now.EwingKATLAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a store, not a government agency.MSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3Sound Blaster Audigy LSOCZ Powerstream 420WWinXPPro (SP1)