Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Read the Fine Print

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the show-this-to-your-boss dept.

Microsoft 637

nihilist_1137 writes: "This story is about how MS changed its EULA and you just gave them control of your computer. In the section on Windows XP Professional, 'Internet-Based Services Components' paragraph says in part, 'You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

beyond the pale... (1, Offtopic)

jpellino (202698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982057)

What happened to "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

Correction (1, Offtopic)

Knunov (158076) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982132)

Actually, the quote is, "The right to swing your arms freely stops at the end of my nose."

It is a teaching from Hindu philosophy.


Re:Correction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982202)

That doesn't sound like Hindu philosophy. Aren't they the evil terrorists who deliberately kill innocent people to promote their wacko religion?

I think Hindu "philosophy" is more likely to be "I'm right to punch you in the nose if you're an infidel! And I'll corrupt the liberals so they whine about you punching me back!"

Re:Correction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982220)

wow you must be joking or stupid.
hinduism has produced far fewer
conflicts than christianity.

Heh heh... cute. Likely false, but cute. (2)

jpellino (202698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982221)

It's a basic principle of tort law, but I'd love to see the original reference if this is true.

First post once again (-1)

Ophidian P. Jones (466787) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982059)

suck my balls

Two Perspectives (1, Funny)

spongebob (227503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982060)

One is that Microsoft sucks for doing this... I think most people can agree to that.

Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements. They are so used to clicking next that anyone who has agreed to this deserves to give thier info to M$

Re:Two Perspectives (1)

egreB (183751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982088)

One is that Microsoft sucks for doing this... I think most people can agree to that.
Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements.
Now that's something else. I wouldn't call myself stupid. I have actually read the Windows 98 EULA, but all the software that's downloaded and tried through the years' EULAs, I don't bother to read. I mean, how many people actually read EULAs?

Re:Two Perspectives (3, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982118)

Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements.
Now that's something else. I wouldn't call myself stupid. I have actually read the Windows 98 EULA, but all the software that's downloaded and tried through the years' EULAs, I don't bother to read. I mean, how many people actually read EULAs?

If they don't, they are getting what's coming to them. Anytime someone enters a legal agreement it is their duty to make sure they know what their agreement actually is. Would you take a loan, buy insurance, rent an apartment or buy a book from Amazon without knowing the terms of the deal?

This is even worse, though, as it is about the volume licensing for companies. Sure, I can understand that someone buying a game for their kids don't bother with the EULA (consumers do have a layer of legal protection against onerous agreements), but this is about companies not even bothering to find out the terms of use for software that's expensive and critical for their operation. That is stupid.


Re:Two Perspectives (3, Interesting)

gdiersing (240179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982128)

I wonder how many people have read the EULA and then clicked cancel and returned the product...... oh wait nevermind, since most people get it preloaded they never had the chance.

Re:Two Perspectives (1)

shaunak (304231) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982110)

"Two is that people are stupid if they don't read those agreements."

If you actually read all the EULAs a reasonable computer user may expect to come across, you're either -
A> A lawyer looking for a nice easy way to sue some company for money
B> Seriously in need of some psychiatric help. Either that or you need some more work (or even a good hobby).

Re:Two Perspectives (2)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982179)

C> someone who want's to know what they are agreeing to before proceeding

I almost always at least skim through EULA's (and the GPL/LGLP/BSD licences make this easer, read once agree anywhere).

I certainly take the time to read the TOC of the web services I sign up to to see what they are going to do with my info etc.

not really (2)

gimpboy (34912) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982214)

most of the stuff i use is released under one of the following:




by reading the above licensing terms (the bsd one is trivial)
it would cover about 85-90% of the software i use (close to 95% of the stuff i have installed). the rest are some variation of the above. while it might be a pain in the ass your still making a legal agreement. weather or not you care to read what you are agreeing to is not really that important your still responsible for your actions (disclaimer: if you are an adult in the united states)

i would expect that most home users wouldnt be using windows 2000 professional, and i would expect the IT people of a company to be a little more accountable than the average home user. i'm a grad student and i manage computers for my advisor. when i install software, i check out the licenses. most of it is gpl'ed so i dont have to worry too much. it's my responsibility since i'm his IT person. i'm not a lawyer or in need of psychiatric help (i suppose you could argue about the latter).

Re:Two Perspectives (2)

PhotoGuy (189467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982199)

So what if I don't like the license agreement? By the time I've seen it, I've already paid for the damn product.

There should be a law requiring the EULA to be printed or summarized on the box, or published on the web site, so people can know before-hand. Once you've bought the product, what are you gonna do, try and return it because you didn't like the EULA, or put it on the shelf?

Once again, consumers need to spread the word about such EULA's, and kick up a stink about them, and let it be known what's going on. Simply clicking "disagree" isn't going to save the next poor bugger, nor yourself. :-)


I can just see it now (2, Funny)

yobbo (324595) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982065)

*Scanning software*
*1 Upgrade Found*
Applying Opera 6.01.exe

Okay, I can only wish :)

FIRST POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982067)

w000000h0000 am I first post?
yeah, me r0x

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982069)


Pretty reasonable (-1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982070)

Pretty reasonable.

It's their product and having it automatically install required components sounds like a good feature.

Re:Pretty reasonable (1)

seinman (463076) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982099)

You're damn right. This is Microsoft's software, not yours. If you don't like it, then don't install it. If you do like it, then go right ahead. Either way, Microsoft has the right to do what they want with software they create and own. Personally, I hate the idea, and that's why i'm sticking with 98SE.

This is Microsoft we're talking about, learn to deal with a little abuse if you're gonna use their software.

Re:Pretty reasonable (3, Insightful)

egreB (183751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982125)

You're damn right. This is Microsoft's software, not yours.
Agreed. Whatever they do or do not do to (wow) there software is their buisness.
If you don't like it, then don't install it.
*duut!* Not agreed. How many computers do you see in sales WITHOUT Windows? How many users would know what an OS is? Are the users given a choice? Nope - they have to stick with Windows. That's what's bothering me. And it all ends up in MS' marketing strategy - "if you sell ALL of your computers with Windows, we'll give you a BIG rebate!" Not many computer-sales-companies says no to that.

We have of course our beloved Macintosh, but that's a different story..

Nice troll attempt, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982144)

Troll Score : 3, Interesting

I think you were a little light on content. With only 2 lines of text, it is doubtful that potential victims would feel the need to moderate and or/reply to your post.

A decent attempt though. Keep up the good work Sir!

First "First Post" discovered! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982072)

First "First post" discovered!

NEWSFLASH: Archaeologists in Iran claim to have discovered the first ever
"first post" created by man. Following extensive excavations in a cave
system 200 miles West of the capital Tehran, a group led by Prof. Hilliard
Denson are currently using carbon-dating technology to establish the
period of history in which this artefact was produced.

Written in ancient script, the mysterious "first post" appears at the end
of a document prepared by the ruling king of the time. In it the king
discusses a recent incident regarding uprisings among the rural working
groups, with a request for comments at the bottom; this is set out in the
manner of a modern form, where recipients add their name and views beneath.

Several comments follow the king's outline, but it is the first that has
interested Prof. Denson so immensely. "We've never seen anything like this,"
he reported. "Beneath the king's text and just before all the other comments
appear, we can clearly see a 'first post', and surely this is a great day
for historians and humanity alike."

Of most interest is the content. While the chore of detailed translation
continues, researchers have successfully spotted references to Rob Malda's
sexuality and, shortly after, a line stating: "suck my fucking dick you
faggot homos". This incredible discovery even predates the announcement in
1997 of an "Abacuses are dying" first post found in China.

At the time of writing, no Trolls were available to comment.

Message from Microsoft (1, Funny)

Baalam (163817) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982073)

"All your computer belong to us"

Maybe the users want it (4, Insightful)

shaunak (304231) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982076)

"may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

If you would consider the average user for a moment. He does not give a damn about most issues you would start campaigns for. All she/he cares for is whether he can watch movies, listen to music and basically create word documents. So would he not like automatic fixes of bugs? From his point of view, it would be convenient.
It's about time you took note of the average userbase Microsoft are aiming for with XP.

This is in the PRO version... (3, Offtopic)

jpellino (202698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982095)

They're aiming for PROs, eh? Should be a lttile more enlightended than your base XP user, right? Unless of course "Pro" doesn't refer to IT or TECH pro features - but instead is a label designed to entice users to spend extra bucks for the "Pro" version...

Re:This is in the PRO version... (1)

shaunak (304231) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982119)

"Unless of course "Pro" doesn't refer to IT or TECH pro features - but instead is a label designed to entice users to spend extra bucks for the "Pro" version... "

Bingo (I think) ...

Re:This is in the PRO version... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982137)

Don't be silly. "Pro", as in "professional" means a professional business user, as opposed to a home user. If Microsoft produce a version of anything aimed at IT users, they tend to call it "Developer" or something like that.

Re:Maybe the users want it (1)

egreB (183751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982104)

You've got a point, but I think even the average user would like to have _some_ control of what's happening to its computer. Like a dialog that says "There is a new upgrade available for Windows XP. Do you want it downloaded and installed?" Lots of software (Winamp, for instance) has this feature. Even I get tired of checking for updates. I like it when programs to it themselves. But I do NOT approve that they install themselves without asking me!

Re:Maybe the users want it (5, Informative)

Discoflamingo13 (90009) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982131)

The problem isn't the "average user." The problem is the end-user who doesn't want software installed automatically, for stability/interoperability reasons. Our XP lab at school used to auto-update new patches and fixes, until most of the functionality for accessing the Linux/Solaris servers was completely shot, and several UI problems came up. Things that used to work (like the Zip drives) suddenly didn't. Just because Microsoft updated the software doesn't mean it got any better.

The other big issue is the DRM software Microsoft, or its partners/subsidiaries, will install. Even with prompting, if you don't upgrade, then you have no access to a content provider's new media. All in all, this sounds like a giant headache for everyone that isn't Microsoft.

Re:Maybe the users want it (1)

sparkyz (256676) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982150)

I don't think any reasonable person would debate the utility of such a thing. Exactly what this means and how it accomplishes it are subjects for much debate (I would think at least a prompt of some kind is warranted); but that's not the issue being raised. The issue being raised is that, assuming the wording is accurately represented here (I have not seen, and never plan to see, the XP EULA), by accepting the agreement you agree that you must allow this behaviour in order to use the software.

As to what the typical non-tech user wants, I won't pretend to know their minds enough to speak to that; but I would imagine that if they were properly apprised of the privacy issues such a service potentially creates, they would at least seek some specifics. And even if we assume good intent on the privacy front, the question begs to be asked: "When is a fix not a fix?" NT Service packs 1 through 4 come to mind.

Re:Maybe the users want it (1)

C_nemo (520601) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982153)

yes some users may want it, but to include this in the EULA. Didn't they have this thing going for users with windows update? click a icon and windows upgrades.

This thing basicly says that if you want to use Microsoft products you've got to give them right to scan your hard drive, and giving microsoft losts of feedback on what's actually installed on that machine. I see this more as a atemp to controll piracy. if Microsft can view a list of installed software and check if you've paid for it. I think *A LOT* of people will have some, not so friendly, knocking on their door demandig pay for office etc ... and even XP.

...hell im glad i don't use winXP.


Re: Maybe the users want it (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982174)

If the users want it, why is it in the EULA instead of the television commercials?

This reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon... (3, Interesting)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982077)

... where Dilbert installs some obnoxious program on his computer that scans his hard drive, steals his credit card number and automatically purchases software IT thinks HE needs. At that time, it was a joke. Now it's a chilling reality.

Woot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982078)


At least with previous ones... (2)

jpellino (202698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982080)

You could refuse - ditto MaOS - if this is no longer the case, they could be on very shaky ground. You cannot be successful in the long run by simply writing agreements that obviate existing rights, such as privacy.

Lack Of Knowledge The Key (3, Insightful)

Self Bias Resistor (136938) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982122)

Possibly, but I think you're missing the point here. Read this [slashdot.org] post to see what I mean. The point is that the average user doesn't know and/or care about these things. As long as he/she can play music, games, get his/her spam from Hotmail ;-) and write Word documents he/she couldn't care less because either they don't understand how this would work or consider it important. Hence, if your audience is ignorant of these things, you can get away with a hell of a lot under the impression that "it's for your convenience/benefit" because most people don't have the time or knowledge to question these actions. We (the technically literate) need to educate the rest of the community ourselves and not leave it up to Microsoft to utilise user ignorance to get away with such things.

I have one small phrase to retort this (0)

Dragnet (551689) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982081)

Let us leave it at: usa_2600__x86.pro_no_activation.iso

Automatic Update (1)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982083)

Umm... Wouldn't that be Windows Automatic Update?

It automatically downloads XP patches, updates, critical updates and bug fixes, etc, etc...

Did i mention the feature can be turned off? Whats the big deal then?


Re:Automatic Update (1)

Grax (529699) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982207)

The big deal is that since you agreed to the EULA they can turn it back on if they want to. Or they could make a version that can't be turned off.

No one is complaining about the Automatic Update feature. That is a "good thing". The problem is an overreaching license that lets them stick code in there to monitor your computer usage and software installations. Whether or not they do it, they should not have that "legal right".

Is is so drastic? (2, Interesting)

Glorat (414139) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982084)

Is this such a bad thing? OK so you have to trust Microsoft here but how else can Windowsupdate work?

Windowsupdate scans your computer for required updates and, depending on your settings, it downloads the appropriate updates and presents a notification on the taskbar that they need to be installed. One click and the updates are installed.

In principle, this system works great for your average Joe User. Of course, for this system to be "allowed", you need to grant Windowsupdate control of your computer hence this section in the EULA.

Now of course, this part of the EULA does open the possibility of Microsoft being malicious but I guess I would trust Microsoft just enough not to deliberately screw over all home consumers in this way

There is a difference (3, Interesting)

internic (453511) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982223)

It's true that for Windows Update to work, it must determine what versions of what programs are on your computer; however, in the past is explicitly said that no information was transmitted to MS in the process, presumably because all the checking was done client side. Now, obviously, if MS looked at what you downloaded they could make a guess at what you have, but such snooping could at least be said to be an invasion of privacy. Now they have made you explicitly say that such snooping is ok. Moreover, in this snippet of the agreement, at least, it does not say such snooping will always be for the express purpose of system upgrades. Finally, you always had the option of not using Windows Update, but it sounds like you have to agree to this now just to use the OS. So I think this is new, different, and shitty.

*GASP!* (1)

lyonsden (543685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982086)

Are we really surprised? How could Microsoft do such a thing? After all the trust we have placed in them - I'm going to stop using their products now! Oh wait - I don't use them now anyway.

Re:*GASP!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982145)

Oh, bad luck, old bean. I can spare you some shiny pennies for food, if you like. It must be *awful* not using proper software.

Barstards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982087)

now not only will we be fighting to keep hackers out of our windows OS, we have to fight to keep microsoft out as well.

you can turn this off i think (5, Informative)

irishmikev (39393) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982089)

Doesn't this just refer to the option to have XP auto-update your pc? You can turn that option off on the desktop if you don't want it, and the first time it runs it prompts you for what it's default behavior should be.

Re:you can turn this off i think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982163)

and then theres no tellin what it might do afterwards

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Xawen (514418) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982090)

Seems to me that this only applies to the volume licenses. Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall. If they have a hole large enough for MS to get in to do things like this, they have bigger problems than someone just scanning thier Windows versions.

On the other hand, it does set a very bad legal precedent...

Re:Hmmm (1)

gutigre (539743) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982148)

Seems to me that this only applies to the volume licenses. Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall. If they have a hole large enough for MS to get in to do things like this, they have bigger problems than someone just scanning thier Windows versions.

But, because the license gives Microsoft the right to look at your computer, it is illegal to block whatever searches they choose to do.

What's the difference..... (5, Funny)

mickwd (196449) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982092)

.....betweeen a Microsoft Product and a Virus/Trojan ?


Re:What's the difference..... (1)

belroth (103586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982112)

You have to pay to get infected by a MS product...

Re:What's the difference..... (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982161)

> .....betweeen a Microsoft Product and a Virus/Trojan ?

Viruses usually work as intended.

The Art of Cunniligus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982094)

Hey, I have a lot of respect for all you guys who like to eat pussy because there are too few of you out there. And I'm not the only woman who says this. Furthermore, some of you guys who are giving it the old college try are not doing too well, so maybe this little lesson will help you out. When a woman finds a man who gives good head, she's found a treasure she's not going to let go of him too quickly. This is one rare customer and she knows it. She won't even tell her girlfriends about it or that guy will become the most popular man in town. So, remember, most guys can fuck, and those who can usually do it satisfactorily, but the guy who gives good head, he's got it made.

Most women are shy about their bodies. Even if you've got the world's most gorgeous woman in bed with you, she's going to worry about how you like her body. Tell her it's beautiful, tell her which parts you like best, tell her anything, but get her to trust you enough to let you down between her legs. Now stop and look at what you see.
Beautiful, isn't it?

There is nothing that makes a woman more unique than her pussy.

I know. I've seen plenty of them. They come in all different sizes, colors and shapes; some are tucked inside like a little girl's cunnie and some have thick luscious lips that come out to greet you. Some are nested in brushes of fur and others are covered with transparent fuzz. Appreciate your woman's unique qualities and tell her what makes her special. Women are a good deal more verbal than men, especially during love-making. They also respond more to verbal love, which means, the more you talk to her, the easier it will be to get her off. So all the time you're petting and stroking her beautiful pussy, talk to her about it.

Now look at it again.

Gently pull the lips apart and look at her inner lips, even lick them if you want to. Now spread the tops of her pussy up until you can find her clit. Women have clits in all different sizes, just like you guys have different sized cocks. It doesn't mean a thing as far as her capacity for orgasm. All it means is more of her is hidden underneath her foreskin.

Whenever you touch a woman's pussy, make sure your finger is wet. You can lick it or moisten it with juices from inside her. Be sure, by all means, to wet it before you touch her clit because it doesn't have any juices of its own and it's extremely sensitive. Your finger will stick to it if it's dry and that hurts. But you don't want to touch her clit anyway. You have to work up to that. Before she becomes aroused, her clit is too delicate to be handled.

Approach her pussy slowly. Women, even more so than men, love to be teased. The inner part of her thigh is her most tender spot. Lick it, kiss it, make designs on it with the tip of your tongue. Come dangerously close to her pussy, then float away. Make her anticipate it.

Now lick the crease where her leg joins her pussy. Nuzzle your face into her bush. Brush your lips over her slit without pressing down on it to further excite her. After you've done this to the point where your lady is bucking up from her seat and she's straining to get more of you closer to her, then put your lips right on top of her slit.

Kiss her, gently, then harder. Now use your tongue to separate her pussy lips and when she opens up, run your tongue up and down between the layers of pussy flesh. Gently spread her legs more with your hands. Everything you do with a woman you're about to eat must be done gently.

Tongue-fuck her. This feels divine. It also teases the hell out of her because by now she wants some attention given to her clit. Check it out. See if her clit has gotten hard enough to peek out of its covering. If so, lick it. If you can't see it, it might still be waiting for you underneath. So bring your tongue up to the top of her slit and feel for her clit. You may barely experience its presence. But even if you can't feel the tiny pearl, you can make it rise by licking the skin that covers it. Lick hard now and press into her skin.

Gently pull the pussy lips away and flick your tongue against the clit, hood covered or not. Do this quickly. This should cause her legs to shudder. When you sense she's getting up there toward orgasm, make your lips into an O and take the clit into your mouth. Start to suck gently and watch your lady's face for her reaction. If she can handle it, begin to suck harder. If she digs it, suck even harder. Go with her. If she lifts her pelvis into the air with the tension of her rising orgasm, move with her, don't fight her. Hang on, and keep your hot mouth on her clit. Don't let go. That's what she'll be saying too: 'Don't stop. Don't ever stop!'

There's a reason for that - most men stop too soon. Just like with cock sucking, this is something worth learning about and worth learning to do well. I know a man who's a lousy fuck, simply lousy, but he can eat pussy like nobody I know and he never has trouble getting a date. Girls are falling all over him.

But back to your pussy eating session...There's another thing you can do to intensify your woman's pleasure. You can finger-fuck her while she's enjoying your clit-licking talents. Before, during or after. She'll really like it. In addition to the erogenous zones surrounding her clit, a woman has another extremely sensitive area at the roof of her vagina. This is what you rub up against when you're fucking her. Well, since your cock is pretty far away from your mouth, your fingers will have to do the fucking.

Take two fingers. One is too skinny and three is too wide and therefore can't get deep enough. Make sure they're wet so you don't irritate her skin. Slide them inside, slowly at first, then a little faster. Fuck her with them rhythmically. Speed up only when she does. Listen to her breathing.

She'll let you know what to do. If you're sucking her clit and finger-fucking her at the same time, you're giving her far more stimulation than you would be giving her with your cock alone. So you can count on it that she's getting high on this. If there's any doubt, check her out for symptoms. Each woman is unique. You may have one whose nipples get hard when she's excited or only when she's having an orgasm. Your girl might flush red or begin to tremble. Get to know her symptoms and you'll be a more sensitive lover.

When she starts to have an orgasm, for heaven's sakes, don't let go of that clit. Hang in there for the duration. When she starts to come down from the first orgasm, press your tongue along the underside of the clit, leaving your lips covering the top. Move your tongue in and out of her cunt. If your fingers are inside, move them a little too, gently though, things are extremely sensitive just now.

If you play your cards right, you'll get some multiple orgasms this way. A woman stays excited for a full hour after she's had an orgasm. Do you realize the full impact of that information? The potential? One woman was clocked at 56 orgasms at one sitting. Do you know what effect you would have on a woman you gave 56 orgasms to? She'd be yours as long as you wanted her.

The last advice I have for you is this: After you've made her come, made her your slave by giving her the best head she's ever had, don't leave her alone just yet. Talk to her, stroke her body, caress her breasts. Keep making love to her quietly until she's come all the way down. A man can get off and go to sleep in the same breath and feel no remorse, no sense of loss. But a woman by nature requires some sensitivity from her lover in those first few moments after sex.

Oral sex can be the most exciting sexual experiences you can have. But it's what you make it. Take your time, practice often, pay attention to your lover's signals, and most of all, enjoy yourself.

The G-Spot

This does exist. And in over half of the women out there, it works better than anything else you can do to cause a strong, prolonged orgasm. The original name is the Grafenberg spot, after a doctor, Earnest Grafenberg, who documented the area (which may have been known by people here and there throughout history) in the fifties.

This "spot" is a small "mound" of tissue inside the vagina, between a penny and quarter in size, which responds to being pressed upon. It's almost certainly not the skenes glands, (which are located around the urethra, which is behind the G-spot area), as has been suggested by a few people. In fact, the G-Spot is the tissue in that raised area of the vagina, which has a higher concentration of sexual nerves, and produces hormones similar to those made by the male's prostate gland.

A sort of map to the area -- Imagine your lover lying on her back, legs spread. Your position is between her legs. You would slide a finger inside her vagina, palm up. With your finger straight back, middle finger is best, you would curve it toward yourself, gently, as if you were gesturing to someone to "come here". In doing so, the area you press on should be pretty near her "G-Spot" area. If you know enough to follow the urethra (the tube that leads from the bladder to where the pee comes out), along the inside of her vagina, you may feel a slight swelling (if she's excited) at the point where the g-spot is.

She must be excited, especially if either you or she is new to the g-spot, for the g-spot to have any real effect at all. It's not the ideal area for getting your lover aroused.

But when she is excited, this area (more often than not) is the best way to bring her to orgasm. You work your way back to it gradually, teasing her (typically, this works best) with your fingers, slowly and gently. It's easier to hit the right area with two fingers, but this may not be comfortable for her, depending on how "tight" she is at that moment. When you have your fingers around the right area, try gently pressing, not too quickly. The movement should be fairly rhythmic. It's typically best if you're licking her clitoris (or near it, depending on the woman) at the same time...don't make a big deal out of the "quest", this will often make her feel self-conscious, or distracted. The licking should seem to be the primary activity.

When you find the right area, she should respond by getting more excited. Most of the vagina's inside surface isn't really that sexually sensitive, believe it or not...most of the excitement of randomly inserting fingers is more psychological than from the actual stimulation.

While more complicated techniques work with some women, some of the time, the best basic technique, upon finding the g-spot, is to continue to slowly, rhythmically press on it, while licking her clitoris (for a few women, the labia (lips) are sensitive to licking, too).

This should cause her to build up to an orgasm.

A G-Spot orgasm is different (always, when it works at all) than any other kind women have. It is possible, with some women, to have different qualities and kinds of orgasms from vaginal, clitoral, anal, and even breast stimulation...but with other women, those kinds of orgasms are all pretty much the same. But the G-Spot orgasm not only feels different; it also causes her body to react in a different way.

First, it often causes a "push out" orgasm. The area around, or "above" (farther inside, that is) your fingers seems to swell up or to contract toward the opening of her vagina.

If you find the right combination of pushing back when this happens, and slacking off to let it push out, you can cause (in perhaps half of the women) her orgasm to continue happening, long after normal ones would have subsided. In some women you can even keep her at a "plateau" (raised level) of sexual excitement, like a prolonged orgasm (or a little less than one) afterward, building up to an even bigger climax.

That brings me to another important point; G-Spot orgasms sometimes causes a huge amount (relatively speaking) of lubrication (juices, wetness)...far more than even the most excited woman gets from "conventional" stimulation.

When that extra wetness combines with the push-out orgasm, you get actual ejaculation...like a guy, but much better tasting. The built up juices can shoot out in such volume that you, or she, may be afraid that she lost control of her bladder. That is (almost always) not what happened. The fear that she peed can be enhanced by the fact that the urethra is behind the g-spot, so that in rare cases the woman can sometimes get the feeling that she needs to pee, even though she does not.

In reality, in both men and women, enough sexual excitement prevents peeing, unless you try really hard. This is a built-in reflex, because urine is something of a spermicide. The "pee hard-on" that men get in the morning is partially his body taking advantage of this reflex, to keep him from accidentally wetting the bed with the urine that built up while he was sleeping.


Anyone who likes, say, coffee or beer should have no room to complain about the way most women taste. No, I don't mean it tastes like coffee or beer, genius...I mean that beer and coffee are, at best, acquired tastes...they are not naturally pleasant to a human being, no matter how much your addiction to one or both has convinced you otherwise. Most people, whether they remember it or not, had to learn to like the taste of beer/coffee, and had the desire to be Like the Adults to help them along. Well, I'd list taking pleasure in cunnilingus above drinking addictive beverages on the list of things that prove maturity. Aside from that, there's the fact that many people who give it an honest try genuinely enjoy the taste/smell.

If this is "Offtopic"... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982167)

If this is "Offtopic", I don't want to be ontopic.

Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both ways (4, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982100)

We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.

But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly. So we complain that Microsoft isn't doing enough -- that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically, whether or not the stupid user asks for it or not. This, we argued, is the only way Microsoft can stay ahead of security holes and make sure we take them up on the patches.

So Microsoft does this. But because doing so requires the user to agree to let Microsoft access and update their system, they have to add it to the EULA.

And then Slashdot complains that MS is taking too much control.

The mind boggles.

strawman (4, Insightful)

coltrane99 (545982) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982135)

(1) I have not seen any credible posts demanding that auto-download and install of patches be on by default on Windows systems. There have been buggy patches before for Windows, could be again.
(2) Slashdot isn't a unitary entity. If you make the mistake of expecting every J. Random Poster's comment taken together to represent a coherent position on anything, you will be disappointed.

Re:strawman (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982154)

1) you're an retard
2) see 1

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (2, Insightful)

belroth (103586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982149)

And what about the patches that cause bigger problems than they fix? I don't download most new patches immediately (unless it's a major bugfix), I wait until the dust settles.
MS have been known to release service packs that do just this.

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (5, Interesting)

Thomas Marsh (452064) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982159)

Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.

But that's not good enough, because too many users/sysadmins are too stupid to turn this on or check it regularly.

On the contrary, sysadmins are advising that users disable automatic updates on XP because the tendency of the auto update facility to replace, for example, working drivers with faulty ones, as well as not providing information on which packages are being downloaded. (Read that in an article somewhere. Never used auto update myself.)

I do see this as a privacy concern, because it is only with XP that windows update does not say "this is done without sending any information to microsoft." All other versions of windows use the anonymous facility, so they already have a working production update system which they've replaced with this more invasive version. -Coinciding with the EULA changes.

Whether it is an intentional attack on privacy/piracy or simply that MS decided the old mechanism wasn't efficient enough over a slow connection (or some other technical reason) is speculation.

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (2)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982160)

And who says that this will be used only (or even primarily)for security upgrades? It would be just as easy to introduce subtle file incompatibilities in Word or major differences in the .NET environment to screw potential competitors. How long before an automatic download kills MP3 playback and suggests conversion to Media Player?

A lot of us lost all trust in Microsoft a long time ago. Once lost, trust is a very difficult thing to regain.

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (1)

hangdog (8755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982169)

"...that they need to make the OS download security upgrades automatically..."

What exactly included in Windows XP? IE? Media Player? MS Money? MS Office? Outlook? (has anybody checked the EULA on their other software to see if this new provision has been included in them?).

Give MS total control? Sounds like a great plan. That way they have ultimate responsibility and can probably be taken to court to pay for any damages done because of exploits....Of course this is already covered in the EULA also....

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (1)

TheRowk (155768) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982173)

It's not M$ updating my computer with security /bug patches that's the problem here, it's M$ apparently having the right to determine what I have on my computer, steal that information about my software and privacy without me even knowing it.

I don't but what if I had a pirated copy of a M$ product, or better yet a pirated copy of a Adobe product and M$ is scanning my harddrive for illegal software to sell the information to Adobe so they know they I have their copy of their software and could try to sue me? Where's my legal protection there?

What's to say they couldn't do something else with this statement that's beyond my imagination at the moment? Anyone remember the clause in the Frontpage agreement that stated you were not allowed to make negative comments towards M$ using Frontpage?

This especially bothers me because I just installed XP pro 2 days ago. :( I read through the license agreement and don't remember seeing this however I didn't read it that closely either.

Where's my copy of RH...?


Nice Troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982178)

No one with half a brain has ever suggested that the solution to Microsoft's security problems involves automatically downloading and applying security upgrades.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

One small difference (2)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982193)

There is a difference here. There are two ways to do this:

  1. The operating system logs into a remote site, and checks for new files. It then checks a local list/database/registry/etc and decides "Ah, that's a new patch. I need that." See Windows 98/2000/Sierra Auto-Update.
  2. A remote server logs into a workstation computer, scans a database/files/MP3's (yes, fear on the last one, but it's always fun to take these to the far extreme), then recommends upgrades.

The difference between the two is who has access to my files. Right now, with my Windows 98 machine that I use for games and video capture, I don't mind hitting the auto-update as long as that message saying "We're not sending any information to Microsoft" stays on.

As soon as I sit down to my computer, and it by itself says "Oh, Hi, I just checked your stuff, and we noticed that you need patches. And while we're at it, we checked your MP3 list, and we don't think you legally own 'Rinbo Revolution'."

Extreme? Yes. But it's no different in my mind between letting the plumber in to fix my pipes, or giving him a key and saying "Come in whenever you like and just look around and tell me what I need." I don't trust anybody (except my wife ;) well enough to just give them the key to my house. Or my computer, for that matter.

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (1)

C_nemo (520601) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982200)

you think Microsoft wan't to keep home users secure? why include it in the EULA, norton antivirus updates pretty nicly by just telling people
"Hey, its been a long time since youæve updated the virus definitions... etc..., you lacy batard do it NOW!"

that works pretty well, what about a windows update wich behaves the same way? prompting on startup every two weeks?

hell this is more like: "we want to know if you pirated some software, bastard of a end user! you are evil, we know you steal why don't just tell us"

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (4, Informative)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982201)

We've been complaining on this site for months, if not years, about Microsoft's security. They have a bug? We want a patch right away. We complain about downloading patches? Microsoft makes the system able to download and install them itself. All the user has to do is set up auto-install of new updates.

The problem is when you not only tell it you do NOT want auto-updates but also you STOP THE AUTO UPDATE SERVICE and then, when your computer becomes unbearably slow and unresponsive you check the process list and, uh, what's that, autoupd using all my CPU time?! But I told it I didn't WANT auto updates! ARGH..

It really happens... You cannot turn off auto updates in XP.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w (1)

boaworm (180781) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982216)

Perhaps you are missing the actual problem ? I dislike MS products not because they are so hard to patch, but because I _have to patch_ all the time.

Security holes are not supposed to exist at all. Making a licence that allows MS to upgrade their own buggy products without telling customers is.. better than not, but not good.

They should create bugfree software from the beginning instead :-)

Software auto-update is common (2)

Merry_B.Buck (539837) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982101)

Google's Toolbar does the same thing, according to their official-until-we-change-it legalese [google.com] :
"Periodically, the Google Toolbar contacts our servers to see if you are running the most current version. If necessary, we will automatically provide you with the latest update to the Google Toolbar."

Well, that's it... (1)

edo-01 (241933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982103)

Unless the next version of 3DSMax is cross platform I'm learning Maya/Softimage XSI and moving to OSX.

At least then I can wear this polo-neck I got given for christmas...

This sort of stuff is why so many of the big visual effects houses (ours included) are moving to linux...

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982105)

*Windows scans hard disk*
Internet Explorer 6.0 detected
Upgrading to IE 6.1.

Wow, Microsoft is violating my privacy!!! How dare Microsoft do something useful!!!

So... (1)

trifster (307673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982107)

...and we are supposed to be suprised by this? What's the chances this be held up in court. Im not a contract law scholar but I do recall that there needs to be a full knowledge of the terms of a contract. Forceing users to agree to terms of an agreement to run software, some forced to be used as part of the Windows empire, is tantamount to extortion.

This might be MS's answer to security, update the broken software w/o our knowledge and no one will know how poor they are with security.

EULA for this post:
I reserve the right to automatically update this post to with new words and punctuation marks w/o you express knowledge. Then when you comment on my errors and ommisions i can fix it so i seem intelligent.

XP antispy Program (5, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982109)

This program [xp-antispy.de] controls how your computer "interacts" with M$. Damn fine german engineering

From the website
"XP-AntiSpy is a little utility that let's you disable some built-in update and authetication 'features' in WindowsXP. For example, there's a service running in the background wich is called 'Automatic Updates'. I don't know what this service transfers from my machine to other machines on the internet, especially the MS ones. So I play it safe and disable such functions. If you like, you can even disable these function manually, by going through the System and checking or unchecking some checkboxes. This will take you approximately half an hour."

Re:XP antispy Program (1, Troll)

jerw134 (409531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982164)

Yeah, I guess it would take a half hour to click the radio button that says "Disable all automatic updates" the first time you run XP. Even if you enable it, disabling it is easy since it tells you about how you can disable it every time it pops up with an update. I can't believe the lengths people will go to in order to put down Microsoft. IMHO, Windows XP is the best operating system ever released by Microsoft. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

Re:XP antispy Program (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982198)

This program also allows you to uninstall windows messenger, disable automatic IE updates, and the like. IF you actually downloaded the program and looked through the 20 or so odd ways in which your computer can "jibber jabber" with good old M$ you'd be surprized, I was.

Re:XP antispy Program (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982224)

Yeah, and if you don't love the big oil companies, then don't buy gasoline. And if you disagree with the RIAA, then quit listening to music. If you dislike the Food and Drug Adminstration, forgo all medications and foods. That'll learn 'em.

Nothing more than Windows Update (2, Redundant)

jerw134 (409531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982111)

This is nothing more than the automatic Windows Update feature which IS NOT EVEN ON BY DEFAULT!!! It specifically asks you whether or not you want to enable the feature, and explains exactly what it is used for. This is nothing new. Just the typical "IT'S MICROSOFT SO IT MUST BE EVIL" attitude of /.

Re:Nothing more than Windows Update (3, Informative)

iceT (68610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982184)

OK. YOU need to re-read that sentence from the EULA... Windows update is an ACTIVE process. You have to enable it. You have to run the update. You have to select/agree the downloads.

This little 'phrase' is saying that they reserve the right to make those decisions FOR YOU.

And THAT is a bad idea, if for no reason other than their track record of patch management and hidden 'features' in their patches.

Re:Nothing more than Windows Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982213)

It's really quite simple why this is such an issue.

You see, right now, the software is set up as being geared towards an opt-in model. The license, however, doesn't really ever clarify this point. Suppose that a future update that you install (or allow Windows Update to install) patches everything up such that the update features are always enabled, regardless of the settings. You have no legal recourse due to the phrasing in the EULA.

Now, I'm not saying that MS would ever do this. After all, doing this would be damned stupid. MS may be a lot of things but they're not damned stupid.

But it does make one wonder why they would *bother* to have such a clause in the first place...

And...... (1)

lkaos (187507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982113)

Who cares what's in an MS EULA.

I do not need to have reiterated the reasons why I _don't_ use MS products every two seconds on /.

Yes. MS is bad. We've all figured that out. If the battle is going to be fought though, make it a battle fought on the grounds of content and stability, don't just complain about a EULA.

No one has a right to complain about what MS puts in their EULA because if you don't like it, don't agree to it!

Re:And...... (1)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982155)

Yes. MS is bad. We've all figured that out.

Apparently, "we" haven't, since most Slashdot readers are running Windows.

OH MY GOD! (0)

sjwt (161428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982117)

hmm seems to me,
that this kind of evil MS thingy was
was what was sugested after all those
worm attacks on sytemes that hadnt
insttled 3 month+ old pathes..

Red Hat's up2date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982130)

How does this differ from red hat's up2date, which has a red hat network daemon running in the back ground and automatically checks for updates every 120 minutes. Give microsoft a break already, xp is a decent product.

Well, Does 'Random Joe' *like* his auto-update? (1, Flamebait)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982134)

Take Random Joe, he is sitting infront of his new Windows XP machine.
He is watching a streaming movie (which incidentally he had to jockey a server for 30mins to connect to) when all of a sudden the quality begins to deteriorate and the stream stops. What could have gone wrong?? - Has the streaming server crashed?? Was the movie file defective??

Nope, as it turns out, Windows XP decided that it wanted to update itself for the 5th time today and ate poor old Joe's bandwith for breakfast.

Roll on something intelligent like HAL 9000!
"I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that..."

Re:Well, Does 'Random Joe' *like* his auto-update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982204)

Your ignorance scares me.

Windows XP has a service that downloads its updates only when there is available bandwidth, it's called the intelligent background transfer service and it's quite well documented on msdn and in Windows help.

Maybe you should have *some* clue about what you're talking about before you post to public forums? Nah

Wait a second (1, Flamebait)

cluge (114877) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982136)

Didn't we already give MS this right when we D/L and install IE? How many times to I have to agree to the non-privacy of my computer!!

It Makes Me Angry (2, Funny)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982139)

It is this sort of this that angers me. It angers me deeply and profoundly.

This Type of survics should always be an opt-in.

Most US law is on the basis of the ordinary citizen is automaticly opted-out of things unless they opt in. People do not have to opt out of buglary, rape, robbery, murder, slavery, etc.

Businesses now assume that you should be automatically want what they offer, and that we should automatically agree to any condition they impose. Microsoft is one of the largest sinners in this regard.

May Bill Gates be tortured by the demons of all worlds religions in the after life. May he be forced to suckle from the 16 poisoned leathern teats of Gophahmet, Whore of Betrayal, until he bursts from an unwholesome engorgement of curdled bile. And may many other such joys [theonion.com] await him as well.

Don't mind me. I'm pissed, it's early, and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Re:It Makes Me Angry (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982157)

"Oh my GOD! NIMDA! CODE RED! Oh, if only there was a way to automatically upgrade all these computers with the security fixes." "There's a way to automatically upgrade all these computers with security fixes." "OH MY GOD! INVASION OF PRIVACY! RAPE! BURGLARY!"

MY EULA to MS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982140)

You have the right to SUCK MY FUCKIN DICK if you think even for a MINUTE I'm going to install that assfuck OS WinXP.

Re:MY EULA to MS (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982156)

WTF? You guys are retards. So what if Windows can check if running the latest version of the software? Windows Update has been doing this too. Oh no, what's Microsoft going to do? Put a virus into your computer? Get a life.

Re:MY EULA to MS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982171)

Yea but I can CHOOSE to have MS do that when I go to the Windows Update website. This EULA says they can access my PC any time they want. They can eat me. And so can YOU, tard fucker.

Frost pist, first post,
I'm STILL the AC with the most

So? (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982146)

Oh, big fricking whoop. There is a HUGE difference between 'automatic downloading' and 'automatic downloading and execution.'

Resistance if futile (1)

soybean (1120) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982151)

Wow, this really gives that bill gates borg icon a new significance.

Re:Resistance if futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982190)

Yes, previously it was puerile. Nowadays, it's both puerile and dated.

Same legal team (3, Insightful)

cluge (114877) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982158)

Straight from the article : MS says "...is not intended to force upgrades on customers."

This is the same team that told the DOJ that MS isn't a monopoly and if they were they wouldn't do anythign illegal. Yeah I believe them, don't you?

Hacked DNS fun (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982162)



or /etc/hosts file on your LAN's DNS server

mirror windows.update or connexion.com or wherever the packages come from

sit back and have endless fun

okay okay so all auto update systems probably suffer from this vulnerability not just MS systems but at least you don't have to go to the trouble of finding out where the victim get's their updates from. Ubiquity & market penetration are the mischief's friend

Why do companies tolerate this? (5, Interesting)

Phil Wherry (122138) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982182)

[IANAL, so consider these comments accordingly]

I'm really quite surprised that there hasn't been a big backlash from the legal departments of corporate customers over the text in the license agreements from software makers like Microsoft.

Most of the large organizations that I've worked with have relatively paranoid legal departments. The average person cannot, for example, sign a non-disclosure agreement, vendor contract, or do anything else that binds the company without having the document scrutinized in excruciating detail by the company's legal department. And, as anyone who's ever been through this process knows, excruciating is the correct word for this situation.

Yet people install software all the time that binds the company to ridiculously one-sided terms: This software is ours, not yours. Unless it breaks: then it's yours, not ours--and we're obligated to do everything up to and including nothing to help you.

It seems to me like two possible explanations exist--neither of them pleasant:
  • Legal departments aren't challenging shrink-wrap licenses because they feel they're not really enforceable contracts. This seems to fly in the face of things like UCITA, though, which allow the software vendor to say "W3 0wn j00" in their license agreements with the force of law to back them up.

  • Legal departments aren't challenging shrink-wrap licenses because they realize that most of the time they're dealing with a powerful monopoly--and that the choice is to accept unconscionable terms or simply be unable to perform essential functions. Most legal departments don't understand open-source software, and I think Microsoft's done a good enough job with its fearmongering campaign about the GPL that there will be a lot of hesitation even if the light bulb ever does come on.
There's also the issue of who's allowed to "sign" these things. In most corporate-user situations, the user doing the software installation (and therefore "agreeing" to the click-wrap terms) isn't a corporate officer or someone who's been delegated the authority to bind the company to a set of terms--no matter how reasonable. This seems to me to be pretty dangerous. In the case of a dispute with the vendor, it could potentially put the user at personal risk for representing they had the authority to bind the company when, in fact, they did not. While the economics of pursuing an individual over a company's breach of the license "agreement" probably don't make sense, this remains at least a theoretical risk.

If it isn't broke... (1)

empesey (207806) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982186)

I'm sure there is some kind of mechanism in place to turn off this feature, but there is a very good reason why many people don't get the updates right away. What if the update breaks more than it fixes (it's happened). Then a company can lose productivity and money. Will Microsoft be responsible for that? Also, our company is very good about keeping everyone on the same revision level. Things are thoroughly tested before patches are installed.

In previous jobs, I cannot tell you how many hours were spent, fixing the faux pas of others who had just enough knowledge to apply upgrades to software. These were human beings who had a working knowledge of the company. Now we have autmatons who have no knowledge at all, making corporate decisions on our behalf.

The horror. The horror.

Joy (2, Insightful)

The Pi-Guy (529892) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982187)

Just wait until their servers get hax0red...

A patch that is supposed to fix an Outlook virus becomes a virus? Methinks I'm gonna turn off autoupdate and tell it to warn me first...


For those of you who don't know... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982189)

Just about every decent Windows program checks for updates these days -- some install them silently and some ask you ahead of time.

Unless you're a fat, obsessive compulsive geek, auto-updates make life easier. Of course, coming from the slashdot crowd... I can picture most of you sitting on an FTP site typing "LIST" again and again hoping for kde2.242342342343's release.

A Bridge too far? (5, Insightful)

mikethegeek (257172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982211)

" Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of its right to access their computers would force their companies into noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy laws. This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same Windows XP section. In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to download updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology to protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured Content" providers. It says Microsoft may "download onto your computer such security updates that a secure content owner has requested that MS, Microsoft Corporation, or their subsidiaries distribute." In other words, it would seem Microsoft's idea of a security update is one that protects the property rights of vendors, not the security of customers' systems."

What Microsoft is preparing us for is the next step: No root access to a machine.

This is scary ass stuff. Note that MS's EULA gives them the right to change these license terms on a whim. Your license with MS is one sided, MS can change anything they like, and you have no rights other than those MS chooses to grant you.

Running a business on such a system to me would see m an unwarranted risk, especially given MS's pathetic record when it comes to security related bugs and holes.

What MS is saying is that they have "root" access to your machine and can read anything or install anything at will.

This is clearly over the line. NO OTHER industry in the USA can sell a product and attatch the kinds of "strings" to it's use, while disclaiming any and all liability for defects as the software industry.

MS and other proprietary software vendors have had it totally their way for too damn long. We need some sort of law limiting what can be in a EULA, restoring the "first sale" doctrine, and at the very least, a right to "opt out" of new license changes made AFTER the sale.

The best solution is to use Linux or other OSS software. Sooner or later, Microsoft and their goons will go a step too far, and the business world will realize the danger of allowing such meglomaniacs THAT kind of control over their information system arteries.

If this little nugget isn't it, WHAT will be?

This can be done without the EULA. (4, Insightful)

Crixus (97721) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982215)

I think the most important issue here is that MS can have its OS's download and perform upgrades WITHOUT having to have this kind of language in the EULA.

All it would need to do is have an automatic wizard pop up ever week (or month) or so and ask your PERMISSION to check for and download the latest updates. The Wizard can even provide a lengthy explanation of what it's about to do for those who want more information.

That is all that's required for REAL updates.

This language in the EULA sounds like it might be giving them EXTRA permission to do other things. Checking version numbers of WHAT software? As someone else pointed out, will this include OfficeXP? Is it checking for pirated warez?

So despite all of the people up here screaming that ONCE AGAIN the /. crowd will do anything to bash MS, there is something to be concerned about here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?