Legality issues

Just a simple question to the community, especially Jaclaz

• Member x$ (I hope this name does not really exist ) asks how to download the package 'M
• M$ can be download by everybody after walking some magic ways ...
• I PM the parts of my M$ package he needs, to the member

Legal or illegal?

@Jaclaz: If you give an answer, please try an (extended) 'yes' or 'no' rather then to insert too much links.

You know that I am an old man and when opening the third link, I already forgot what I'v seen in the first one

Peter

Hi Peter,

Just while you are waiting for Jaclaz to respond

You've got me curious, in respect of bullet point 2 in your post is "M$" freeware or commercial & what is "Walking some magic ways" mean?

Regards,

ispy

Hi Peter,

Just while you are waiting for Jaclaz to respond

You've got me curious, in respect of bullet point 2 in your post is "M{:content:}quot; freeware or commercial & what is "Walking some magic ways" mean?

Regards,

ispy

Of course I'm speaking about 'no charge'. You may it call 'freeware' or what else.
The name M$ is as random as the user name x$
And the 'magic way' is walking through a couple of WEB forms, where you have to check or uncheck several questions.
As a result, some days later you get a 'Daily Nwesletter' which I would call 'SPAM'
Or what is more bad, you are item number ??? in a data base containing several billions of people.

Peter

M$ can be download by everybody after walking some magic ways ...

Point is that if everybody can download it, there is NO need whatsoever to send it to user x$, you can publicly post the link, so that you will make the information available to everybody instead of just to user x$.

If it is "white" magic is probably allright, if it's some kind of black magic it is not.

What users do, say and write in their PM's (Personal or Private Message) is not my business, it's entirely up to their own conscience.

Look, mama, no links!



jaclaz

P.S.: and BTW x$ gave me an ERROR:UNDEFINED_VARIABLE


..and of course, you are right, I cannot avoid putting at least one link :
to a sentence that Machiavelli NEVER wrote:
http://www.answers.c...stify-the-means

and one to the sentence he actually wrote:
http://it.wikisource.../Capitolo_XVIII

Facci dunque uno principe di vincere e mantenere lo stato: e' mezzi saranno sempre iudicati onorevoli, e da ciascuno laudati; perché el vulgo ne va preso con quello che pare e con lo evento della cosa; e nel mondo non è se non vulgo;

http://en.wikisource...e/Chapter_XVIII

Wherefore if a Prince succeeds in establishing and maintaining his authority, the means will always be judged honourable and be approved by every one. For the vulgar are always taken by appearances and by results, and the world is made up of the vulgar,

i.e., contrary to popular belief, he never stated that the ends justify the means, only that a prince's actions will be judged only by the results, since (his) people has NO moral concerns, consequently a prince should if needed ignore his own conscience in order to please the people and thus keep his popularity and power.
But in the sentence just before:

e nelle azioni di tutti li uomini, e massime de' principi, dove non è iudizio da reclamare, si guarda al fine.

Moreover, in the actions of all men, and most of all of Princes, where there is no tribunal to which we can appeal, we look to results.

the particular context is made clear enough....

Point is that if everybody can download it, there is NO need whatsoever to send it to user x$, you can publicly post the link, so that you will make the information available to everybody instead of just to user x$.

If it is "white" magic is probably allright, if it's some kind of black magic it is not.

What users do, say and write in their PM's (Personal or Private Message) is not my busines, it's entirely up to theur own conscience.

Look, mama, no links!



jaclaz

P.S.: and BTW x$ gave me an ERROR:UNDEFINED_VARIABLE


..and of course, you are right, I cannot avoid putting at least one link:
to a sentence that Machiavelli NEVER wrote:
http://www.answers.c...stify-the-means

and one to the sentence he actually wrote:
http://it.wikisource.../Capitolo_XVIII



http://en.wikisource...e/Chapter_XVIII

Thanks Jaclaz.
Unfortunatelly, because there are three links, the Machiavelli information is lost.
Anywhere in my mind there is a feeling about something interesting ...

Now serious:

W2003 evaluation can be download by everybody, after some forms are filled out. But depending on the user's equipment it will take some hours.

And: For BootSDI there are only 3 files of this download necessary.

Can these three files be available for download anywhere here?

Peter

Can these three files be available for download anywhere here?

NO.

Re-read this:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=2960

Then read this also:
http://www.911cd.net...o...19676&st=27
Why three files?

TWO should be enough.

At least you can point user x$ to a smaller download.

jaclaz

Jaclaz for some reason forgot to mention, or he had a change of heart.
The (previous?) rule was:
That you can not distribute software against the stated or inplied wishes of the author.
If the Author wants people to walk magic ways, you are not allowed to tell anyone a shortcut, much less lead them the shortcut!
In case of Microsoft, you are not allowed to redistribute any of their software even the freeware.

The question if it is legal or not depends on your point of view on the topic.
A. Everything not declared somewhere legal is ilegal.
B. Everything not declared ilegal somewhere is legal.
C. Everything noone will sue you for is legal.

NO.

Re-read this:
http://www.boot-land...over-t2960.html

Then read this also:
http://www.911cd.net...o...19676&st=27

Why three files?

TWO should be enough.

At least you can point user x$ to a smaller download.

jaclaz

Inspite your second link has 'hundreds' of sub links:



Peter

@jaclaz
Where exactly do you see the difference between what Machiavelli wrote and the more common the ends justify the means?

@jaclaz
Where exactly do you see the difference between what Machiavelli wrote and the more common the ends justify the means?

@Medevil

My question here was seriously meant, and it should give some hints for members with similar questions.

Please do not disturbe by going 'OFFTOPIC'

Thanks.

Peter

@jaclaz
Where exactly do you see the difference between what Machiavelli wrote and the more common the ends justify the means?

As clearly stated, what Machiavelli wrote, which was NOT "the ends justify the means", can be rendered as:

the ends justify the means to the eyes of the people

with the needed preamble that "The Prince" can use any means he sees fit as he is not subject to the Law, and that he should use them to "keep the faith" ( the title of the chapter is "How Princes Should Keep Faith") of the people, but in this context the people is NOT "The People" considered as, for an example, in the Declaration of Independence:
http://en.wikipedia....of_Independence
but rather "el vulgo" ("vulgar", same radix as modern English "vulgarity") the people that had no knowledge, no culture, no rights, an inferior class.

The sentence could be reverted as follows:
"people is so stupid and ignorant that they will fail to perceive the morality of an action and thus judge it uniquely from it's results"

In other words, Machiavelli is not saying that "the ends justify the means" applies to everyone, only that a (wise) Prince can take (and should if needed) actions even against his own morality and conscience in order to keep his people's faith, as people is so ignorant and ungrateful that they will never appreciate his rectitude in case of failure.

jaclaz

So you don't see a difference in the concept itself, but that Machiavelli limits the group of people it applies to.
Which of course could spawn a discussion about who are princes and vulars today?
If the level of education tells the one from the other, then the questions would be, means Machiavelli with vulgars people who are educated below a certain absolute threshold or people who are educated below a certain threshold in relative to the education of the prince?

btw. How do you judge the imo similar phrase, history is written by winners?

history is written by winners?

I would say: "law is written by winners"...

(in many cases, the law of the jungle...)

I would say: "law is written by winners"...

No law is written changed and (mis)used by people, who would never dare to face you in an honest fight.

So you don't see a difference in the concept itself, but that Machiavelli limits the group of people it applies to.
Which of course could spawn a discussion about who are princes and vulars today?
If the level of education tells the one from the other, then the questions would be, means Machiavelli with vulgars people who are educated below a certain absolute threshold or people who are educated below a certain threshold in relative to the education of the prince?

btw. How do you judge the imo similar phrase, history is written by winners?

No, sorry, but you are still missing the point, which is that Machiavelli was misinterpreted, supposedly intentionally by luterans and protestants, in order to somehow discredit the philosophy of Renaissance, so that it seems that he actually approved the bypassing of morality in order to reach the scope.

He actually wrote rather the opposite, stating that though there can be morality problems when a Prince takes an action there is a necessity to ignore them.

I.e. Machiavelli is commonly perceived as a cynical, or at the best as a cynical realist, while in reality he was more an early pragmatist than anything else.

http://en.wikipedia....lli#Il_Principe

Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he outlines his definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions (it must be swift, effective, and short-lived). Machiavelli also does not miss the irony in the fact that good can come from evil actions. Notwithstanding the mitigating themes in The Prince, the Catholic Church put the work in its Index Librorum Prohibitorum and it was viewed in a negative light by many Humanists such as Erasmus.

The primary contribution of The Prince to the history of political thought is its fundamental break between realism and idealism. Pragmatism is a guiding thread through which Machiavelli bases his philosophy. The Prince should be read strictly as a guidebook on getting to and preserving power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, the ideal society is not the aim. In fact, Machiavelli emphasizes the need for the exercise of brute power where necessary and rewards, patron-clientalism etc. to preserve the status quo.

The term "Machiavellian" was adopted by some of Machiavelli's contemporaries, often used in the introductions of political tracts of the sixteenth century that offered more 'just' reasons of state, most notably those of Jean Bodin and Giovanni Botero. The pejorative term Machiavellian as it is used today (or anti-Machiavellism as it was used from the sixteenth century) is thus a misnomer, as it describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results. It fails to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint.

jaclaz

Just a simple question to the community, especially Jaclaz

• Member x$ (I hope this name does not really exist ) asks how to download the package 'M
• M$ can be download by everybody after walking some magic ways ...
• I PM the parts of my M$ package he needs, to the member

Legal or illegal?

I think the problems start with sending just parts of the package Racer X needs. It's kinda like the system builder XP packs. Those XP packs have a seal in which the system builder must break - and agree too - the EULA for that product. It's okay for retail shops to sell System Builder XP packs because they hand the whole thing over and allow the customer to agree to the EULA. If you send just a few files from a service pack you might be violating the EULA. If you send the whole service pack and the recipient violates the EULA, *you* should be okay.

He actually wrote rather the opposite, stating that though there can be morality problems when a Prince takes an action there is a necessity to ignore them.

So, the ends justify the means, as long as you feel really, really bad about it? Is that it?

Some websites manage to survive by providing nothing but windows kb.
--For how long is the question.
I don't always agree with the policing that goes on here, but the welfare of boot-land is more important in the long run.
..

To impose my opinion on any of you regarding this ethical dilema is a waste of time.
You're all over 13, aren't you?


...all I want to know is, why ntdect.com?

So, the ends justify the means, as long as you feel really, really bad about it? Is that it?

NO, but it would be wasted time to repeat for the third time the same things.

If you are happy oversimplifying Machiavelli's thoughts and twist his words to your liking, as it has been done for a few centuries, you are very welcome to do so, of course.

...all I want to know is, why ntdect.com?

Why three files?

TWO should be enough.

jaclaz

@Thunn
@Jaclaz

Many thanks for the 'ntdetect.com' hint.

When I added the script to nativeEx, I accepted it as 'history' w/o testing.

Now I tested and saw, that the ISO boots w/o the W2003 ntdetect.com.

Thanks again.

new BootSDI.Script version 051 on the nativeEx_server.

Peter