Of course, as you don't want it make sense, it does not make sense to you. Tautological.
Dear Marco: please, tell me where I do defend piracy. I EXPLICITLY say the contrary, but I do also say that not any way of fighting it might be valid. Who is taking this personal? The one who (under whatever nickname) makes some clear arguments or those who claim that those arguments does not make sense but really have not clearly read them?
It is funny because my definition of malware is cut and paste from Wikipedia. Please read: ANY unwanted software. Of course, most of the unwanted software is damaging but I am applying the terminology very well. If documented, it is not a problem, but if not... I have said this from the beginning.
I am perfectly aware about licenses issues and product activation, thank you. But again (as I said before several times), not any practice is valid: it is so simple to document it. You don't seem to want to understand my point.
I just wanted to make user knows about potential obscure, unwanted code in Stata. It seems that users are perfectly fine with that, so it is ok. This is not new: citenzens in many part of the free world are happy with their rights being restricted in order to improve security.
This discussion is over for me.
--- El vie, 6/11/09, Neil Shephard <[email protected]> escribió:
> De: Neil Shephard <[email protected]>
> Asunto: Re: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
> Para: [email protected]
> Fecha: viernes, 6 de noviembre, 2009 13:34
> Demo Crazy wrote:
> > Therefore the original Stata itself (not version
> modified by others as gus from Stata suggest)
> > includes undocumented functions: this is definition of
> MALWARE. Is it including also other
> > undocumentd parts of code that allows it to steal my
> personal data?
>
> No idea where you're getting your definition of Malware
> from but its a
> portmanteau of "Malicious Software" and it means that the
> software
> will damage your system without you being aware. Try
> reading
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware for
> a better understanding of the
> terminology you are mis-applying before you start ranting.
>
> What you've described is simply that Stata does not behave
> as expected
> when used with an illegal license. This does NOT
> damage your computer
> (unless you have evidence that damage has been caused by
> doing so, but
> you've not mentioned it).
>
> Its not particularly surprising either, at least to
> me. If Stata is
> coded/written in such a manner that a valid license is
> required for
> functions to work properly its not surprising that it
> doesn't work as
> expected with an invalid license!!
>
> No one's stiffling your freedom of speech, but your not
> making much sense.
>
> You might also find the following article informative
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_activation for a
> better idea of
> how product activation, which is what is happening here.
>
> Neil
> --
> "The combination of some data and an aching desire for an
> answer does
> not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a
> given body
> of data." ~ John Tukey (1986), "Sunset salvo". The
> American
> Statistician 40(1).
>
> Email - [email protected]
> Website - http://slack.ser.man.ac.uk/
> Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
