Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218654 > unrolled thread

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Started by	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
First post	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Last post	2021-10-08 07:27 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 224 — 41 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →

#219257

From	Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>
Date	2021-10-03 21:43 +0100
Message-ID	<sjd4l6$u35$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#219189

On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>
>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
> 
> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
> 

I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.

Do you have a source for that assertion?

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219258

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-10-03 21:14 +0000
Message-ID	<a3p6J.117345$2Q_3.19964@fx35.iad>
In reply to	#219257

On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>
>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>> 
>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>
> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>
> Do you have a source for that assertion?

No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
estimation felt you should not have.

That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
has always amazed me.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219259

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-03 17:56 -0400
Message-ID	<7f9klg54d3k490hallkvsl179odl2f8aag@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219258

On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 21:14:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>> 
>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>
>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>
>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>
>No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>estimation felt you should not have.
>
>That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>has always amazed me.
>
>Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

It's rather distressing the degree to which big corporations will
trust other big corporations.  If everything you do runs on computers
that are in someone else's physical posession and all your
communications with those computers travels over a route that neither
of you control, security is pretty much a joke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219261

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-10-04 01:56 +0000
Message-ID	<abt6J.217100$T_8.102568@fx48.iad>
In reply to	#219259

On 2021-10-03, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 21:14:46 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>> 
>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>
>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>
>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>
>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>
>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>> has always amazed me.
>>
>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>
> It's rather distressing the degree to which big corporations will
> trust other big corporations.

It's just as distressing the degree to which individuals will trust
big corporations.

> If everything you do runs on computers that are in someone else's
> physical posession and all your communications with those computers
> travels over a route that neither of you control, security is
> pretty much a joke.

Ditto for the Cloud, in which all your data lives on servers that
you don't control.  Even if you could encrypt your data unbreakably,
you're still subject to ransomware attacks (possibly by the owners
of those servers), not to mention accidental loss.  I can't see why
more people don't find this obvious and arrange their own backups.

"All your data are belong to us."

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219303

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-10-04 17:32 -0700
Message-ID	<620710578.655086652.392609.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#219258

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>> 
>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>> 
>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>> 
>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
> 
> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
> estimation felt you should not have.
> 
> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
> has always amazed me.
> 
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
> 

I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219304

From	Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-04 20:59 -0400
Message-ID	<sjg821$e48$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#219303

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>> 
>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>> 
>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>> 
>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>> 
>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>> estimation felt you should not have.
>> 
>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>> has always amazed me.
>> 
>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>
> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.

Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.

If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
The book is reloaded when you try to access it.

I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
to access them.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219306

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-10-04 19:29 -0700
Message-ID	<1954610967.655093724.990735.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#219304

Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>> 
>>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>> 
>>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>>> has always amazed me.
>>> 
>>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>> 
>> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
>> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.
> 
> Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.
> 
> If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
> The book is reloaded when you try to access it.
> 
> I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
> books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
> cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
> to access them.
> 

Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books

https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/



-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219313

From	Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Date	2021-10-05 06:23 +0000
Message-ID	<sjgr10$dg$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
In reply to	#219306

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:

> Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books

> https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/

Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and
for buying DVDs instead of streaming).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219320

From	Maus <Greymaus@mail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 07:50 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnslo0to.2lp.Greymaus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#219313

On 2021-10-05, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books
>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/
>
> Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and
> for buying DVDs instead of streaming).

I am sitting here surrounded by dead-tree books which I no longer find a
pleasure to read. Eye problems. I can increase the font-size in Kindle.


-- 
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219330

From	Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 03:47 -0700
Message-ID	<2d4a8962-fffc-45e6-b1f7-f1dbfd79d074n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#219320

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:50:18 PM UTC+11, Maus wrote:
> On 2021-10-05, Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote: 
.
> I am sitting here surrounded by dead-tree books which I no longer find a 
> pleasure to read. Eye problems. I can increase the font-size in Kindle.
.
Get a magnifying glass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219361

From	Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid>
Date	2021-10-05 22:36 -0400
Message-ID	<0r2qlgltoib4596uiq80sss8835f3949t7@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219330

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 03:47:32 -0700 (PDT), Robin Vowels
<robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:

> Get a magnifying glass.

Works only when you have natural indirect sunlight to read by.

-- 
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219335

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-10-05 06:48 -0700
Message-ID	<1615590257.655134082.079266.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#219320

Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-05, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>> 
>>> Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books
>> 
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/
>> 
>> Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and
>> for buying DVDs instead of streaming).
> 
> I am sitting here surrounded by dead-tree books which I no longer find a
> pleasure to read. Eye problems. I can increase the font-size in Kindle.
> 
> 

I discovered how useful this is when I recently had cataracts removed and
before I picked up some reading glasses.

I read mostly Amazon eBooks, and library books, these days. I used to have
shelves full of books in every room of the house until I moved. I kept only
a few and now seldom buy any dead-tree books.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219321

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-10-05 09:11 +0100
Message-ID	<20211005091158.d7569b12323c67718455199a@eircom.net>
In reply to	#219313

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 06:23:28 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> 
> > Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books
> 
> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/
> 
> Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and

	A calibre server loaded with epubs running on my own NAS works for
me - at least for those books I can get that way.

> for buying DVDs instead of streaming).

	I think of streaming as being like borrowing books from a library.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219339

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2021-10-05 14:13 +0000
Message-ID	<x4Z6J.72491$ol1.41145@fx42.iad>
In reply to	#219313

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books
>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/
>
>Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and
>for buying DVDs instead of streaming).

Buy the ebook, so the author gets a pittance from the publisher,
then pick up a copy sans DRM from the internet (or usenet) so you can read
it forever.    Many authors also have Patreon for more direct support.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219368

From	Maus <Greymaus@mail.com>
Date	2021-10-06 07:57 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnslqlnq.2ds.Greymaus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#219339

On 2021-10-05, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> Why Amazon is within its rights to remove access to your Kindle books
>>
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-amazon-is-within-its-rights-to-remove-access-to-your-kindle-books/
>>
>>Yuck.  The author makes a very strong case for paper-based books (and
>>for buying DVDs instead of streaming).
>
> Buy the ebook, so the author gets a pittance from the publisher,
> then pick up a copy sans DRM from the internet (or usenet) so you can read
> it forever.    Many authors also have Patreon for more direct support.

In Ireland, there has been a surge of `coffee table' books with
beautiful pictures of trees, gardens, etc. I have bought some of them. 



-- 
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219319

From	Maus <Greymaus@mail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 07:47 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnslo0pe.2lp.Greymaus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#219304

On 2021-10-05, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>> 
>>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>> 
>>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>>> has always amazed me.
>>> 
>>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>>
>> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
>> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.
>
> Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.

Details are unlikely if you want to remain friends with Amazon.

>
> If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
> The book is reloaded when you try to access it.
>
> I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
> books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
> cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
> to access them.
>


-- 
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219328

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 06:29 -0400
Message-ID	<b5aolgt7nhufpqpusv2ln3lvatg0tlngmb@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219304

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 20:59:45 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>> 
>>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>> 
>>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>>> has always amazed me.
>>> 
>>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>>
>> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
>> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.
>
>Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.
>
>If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
>The book is reloaded when you try to access it.

If Amazon removed it, why would Amazon allow you to reload it?

>I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
>books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
>cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
>to access them.

That's not what is under discussion.

<https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219337

From	Maus <Greymaus@mail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 13:54 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnslom8p.474.Greymaus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#219328

On 2021-10-05, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 20:59:45 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>>> 
>>>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>>>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>>>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>>>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>>>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>>> 
>>>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>>>> has always amazed me.
>>>> 
>>>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>>>
>>> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
>>> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.
>>
>>Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.
>>
>>If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
>>The book is reloaded when you try to access it.
>
> If Amazon removed it, why would Amazon allow you to reload it?
>
>>I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
>>books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
>>cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
>>to access them.
>
> That's not what is under discussion.

IMHO, if you didn't like amazon's policy, you had an alternative. Start
your own ebook selling system, and publish  your stuff yourself.

My own policy since leaving school early was, if anyone asked you to do
a job, you did it, regardless of who they were. Once I left a job
because of an argument, and i regret it still.


>
><https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>


-- 
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219342

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-10-05 11:49 -0400
Message-ID	<3tsolgpl47779torjn6outrka2it5g8gn1@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219337

On 5 Oct 2021 13:54:33 GMT, Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:

>On 2021-10-05, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 20:59:45 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-03, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 01/10/2021 18:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality,
>>>>>>>> they just plug security holes that someone has found.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
>>>>>>> don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm paranoid, but I'm not _that_ paranoid.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you have a source for that assertion?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No definite examples, but I did read the entire Windows EULA back
>>>>> around the XP days.  I found a clause in which Microsoft claimed
>>>>> entitlement to walk into your machine whenever they felt like it,
>>>>> take a look around, and remove anything which they in their sole
>>>>> estimation felt you should not have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That nobody recognizes automatic updates as a wide-open back door
>>>>> has always amazed me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>>>>
>>>> I know of situations where someone, maybe Amazon, has gone into peoples’
>>>> eReaders and deleted eBooks which they had purchased.
>>>
>>>Need details, exact details to make sense of that story.
>>>
>>>If they were purchased from Amazon, there's no problem.
>>>The book is reloaded when you try to access it.
>>
>> If Amazon removed it, why would Amazon allow you to reload it?
>>
>>>I used to have Amazon's free book deal.  Download and read up to 10
>>>books at a time.  To get the 11th, you have to return 1.  When you
>>>cancel, all books currently in the deal get deleted when you try
>>>to access them.
>>
>> That's not what is under discussion.
>
>IMHO, if you didn't like amazon's policy, you had an alternative. Start
>your own ebook selling system, and publish  your stuff yourself.
>
>My own policy since leaving school early was, if anyone asked you to do
>a job, you did it, regardless of who they were. Once I left a job
>because of an argument, and i regret it still.

Well that's all nice but we aren't talking about selling books, we're
talking about buying them and then having bought and paid for them
having them taken back by the book seller.


>><https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219355

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-10-05 23:04 +0000
Message-ID	<3S47J.25970$nh7.24328@fx22.iad>
In reply to	#219342

On 2021-10-05, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2021 13:54:33 GMT, Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> My own policy since leaving school early was, if anyone asked you to
>> do a job, you did it, regardless of who they were.

Only if you agree to the terms beforehand.

>> Once I left a job because of an argument, and i regret it still.

If they move the goalposts, walking might be the moral thing to do.

> Well that's all nice but we aren't talking about selling books, we're
> talking about buying them and then having bought and paid for them
> having them taken back by the book seller.

But they don't consider you to have bought them, only rented.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Software as a Service (SaaS).
Its goal is the same as that of Karl Marx: the elimination of
private property.  (Large corporations are no longer private
entities, but another layer - or a parallel form - of government.)

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Contents

#219257

#219258

#219259

#219261

#219303

#219304

#219306

#219313

#219320

#219330

#219361

#219335

#219321

#219339

#219368

#219319

#219328

#219337

#219342

#219355