Microsofts new plan.........

[KlingonPansy]

It's not that they waive your right to sue, it's that when you sign the end user license agreement you agree not to sue Microsoft over anything.  A variant is put in a lot of other EULAs where youy agree not to sue the software manufacturer if it borks your computer.

And my sig is from the Alan Parsons Project debut album "Tales of Mystery and Imagination"; specifically, the song "The Cask of Amontillado", based on the story of the same name by E.A. Poe.

[Say]

Its a bit spooky for me, Fortunato its the last name of your Art Assistant director, lol, and Four Winds its the name of our newsletter's Issues, I sort of related it somehow else, lol, oh well , dont mind me

[Jeysie]

Its a bit spooky for me, Fortunato its the last name of your Art Assistant director, lol, and Four Winds its the name of our newsletter's Issues, I sort of related it somehow else, lol, oh well , dont mind me

(laughs) Pansy's a pal of mine, and when he accepted my invitation to come and post here and I remembered his signature, I mentioned the same thing. Although I forgot about the Four Winds thing, hee. I am familiar with Poe's story, although I didn't know somebody had based a song on it.

Of course, now there's two Mikeys running around. I'm going to get so confused...

Anyhoo. Back to the topic at hand... aside from all the crap that's already been covered, I'm also troubled as to what this could mean for the free software concept. I mean, would all your apps have to have this chip license? I use a *lot* of old apps and freeware, because one, I'm too broke to upgrade or buy stuff, and two, even if I did have the money I would upgrade and/or buy very little because what I have now generally suits my needs just fine. (Not to mention that I'd likely devote most of the spending to fire off some payments to the people who created the freeware software I currently use, anyway, if they wanted any.)

Of course, the fact that I have an old computer doesn't help any either. Oh, and the fact that even if XP didn't suck up more RAM and hard disk space than any OS has a right to, and didn't have all those stupid "security" issues, and didn't have a horrendous interface, I still wouldn't use it because 90% of my game collection wouldn't work on it. So if they start some crap where you need a modern computer and a modern OS to access the Net and share files and stuff, well, I'm screwed.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[KatieHal]

It's that once you sign/agree to a user agreement, bushie, you can't sue them for anything stated in that agreement because you signed to it, you agreed that those terms were okay with you and you are aware of them.  Why they always say "read the fine print."

Hmm..okay, first amendment was the wrong thing there; I had a feeling it was, but couldn't think of what it was violating. In any case, it *IS* violating the privacy of priavte citizens, and that's going to be difficult to get around and try and excuse. Though with this administration, not as difficult as it SHOULD be, sadly...

[Oldbushie]

The right to privacy is nowhere in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights... some people claim it is but sadly it is nonexistant.

I just hope they don't reconfigure power so that only TCPA-certified computers will run on power grids, that would be the suckiest thing ever and make no sense. I'd have to buy a power generator to run my old computers, unless they're making those required to be TCPA-certified as well.

[KlingonPansy]

Well, it depends on how you define "right to privacy".  In the fourth ammemdment, we're granted the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizures, which extends to electronic surveilance of phone lines (and logically, private messages on the internet), as the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times.  People have an expectation of privacy within their own homes (or other places where they can reasonably expect a degree of privacy, e.g. a phone booth [c.f. Katz V US, 389 U.S. 347]).  The Supreme Court rulings have shown time and time again that we have a right to privacy within our own homes unless the police get a warrant and follow due process.

[KatieHal]

Aha! Yes, that is what I wanted to say but done much much better. Way to go KlingonPansy!    Exactly, and therefore the Courts have set precedence, which means they are unlikely to suddenly rule in favor of invasion of that privacy.

Excellent work, KP! I'm impressed.

[copycat]

I've got only one answer to that Intel-crap: AMD rules!

Bad news there as well, AMD has joined the TCPA ranks.  

Look at it from the bright side, they (AMD) have, as of yet, not anounced they will be implementing that into their chips.
As for the open-source software, big software corporations are lobbying the EU hard to pass legislation making it (nearly) impossible for open-source software to continue to exist, which is obviously why I'm against that legislation.
Yes, the right to privacy isn't in our constitution either, but it's in our legislation nonetheless.

[Drunken Chinchilla]

Well at least you've got a constitution to prtoect you! If our dear Prime Minister wanted this chip in the UK all he'd have to do is sign a bit of paper and away we go! Somehow tho, just somehow, I doubt the Labour party would be in power for some time if that happened  

[copycat]

Well at least you've got a constitution to prtoect you!

I haven't got a constitution to protect me from an invasion of my privacy, that's just a normal law doing that. So if our government should happen to find a majority in parliament to revoke that law, that's it. Not that I think that's likely to happen though.