Is it criminal:
Community Forums/General Help/Is it criminal:
| ||
| To have a moody copy of XP loaded even tho I have a genuine copy? |
| ||
| Moody? Although the answer is almost certainly no... |
| ||
| 'Moody'. Haha! I feel like I'm in an episode of 'The Sweeney.' |
| ||
| Well, that's a relief... but I think I'll load the pukka pie anyway. @John, :) that's the kind of thing I want to avoid! |
| ||
| :))))))) |
| ||
| Is it illegal to drive my car with a dodgy Number plate, cos I have a real number plate at home. It it illegal to erase the serial number from my gun, as long as I keep a record of it. Being serious, if you activate XP on the net with the real serial number, you could still be prosecutable if the cracked version has spyware inside and any illegal activity leads from info garnered from you. (You are considered not to be taking reasonable precautions). Also if your office was burgled and the computer taken, the insurance people need not pay out for hardware if they found out you had a dodgy copy of windows installed. |
| ||
| I would imagine it's a question of how many legal XP licenses you own versus how many computers you have XP loaded onto. |
| ||
| I was going to buy a copy of xp to install on my macbook but I didn't have the money to do it. but I do have a dell with a fried MOBO stashed away. I decided to try to install xp with that serial number and register it with. It went through with out a problem. It is fully registered with Microsoft. Now I have a dual boot mac With Windows XP professional. I never thought it would be possible. saved me some good money with there. |
| ||
| Depends on where you live but morally i would say no it isn't. Last edited 2011 |
| ||
| As far as I'm concerned, if you've paid for a license anyway then it doesn't matter if you use a pirated one or not. Technically I believe Microsoft COULD bring legal action for even possessing an unlicensed/unauthorized copy of any Windows version, but the likelihood of that actually HAPPENING is probably less than you getting killed by lightning. Just stay discreet and you should be fine. And if Microsoft ever comes a-knockin' on yer door, I don't know you. ;D |
| ||
| Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1 (per year) Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1 (Per year) Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years)7,200 to 1 Odds of being killed by lightning in your lifetime 29,000 to 1 Edited to add per year in line one. Last edited 2011 Last edited 2011 |
| ||
| Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1 How can the odds of being killed by lighting be greater than the odds of getting struck by it? Odds of being killed by lightning in your lifetime 29,000 to 1 |
| ||
| per year, in your lifetime. The numbers dont really add up, cos I took them from different souces, but they are ball park correct. The chance of you getting hit in your life time is the chance per year times your life time |
| ||
| The probability of getting hit by lightning in 80 years is not simply 80 x the probability of getting hit in one year. To highlight the point: Chance of throwing a head in a coin toss: 2:1 Chance of throwing a head in two coin tosses: 4:3, not 1:1 as by a simple multiply 2. Last edited 2011 |
| ||
| How can the odds of being killed by lighting be greater than the odds of getting struck by it? Not all lightning strikes are fatal, plain and simple. No word on whether you're in full possession of all your bits/limbs/mental faculties afterwards, of course. |
| ||
| Not all lightning strikes are fatal, plain and simple. No word on whether you're in full possession of all your bits/limbs/mental faculties afterwards, of course. You misread my statement. To restate in more common English, 'How can there be a bigger chance of being killed by lightning than of being hit by it?' |
| ||
| 1) The probability of getting hit by lightning in 80 years IS practicably 80 x the probability of getting hit in one year. To highlight the point: Chance of winning my 100,000:1 lottery is ... 100,000:1 Chance of winning my 100,000:1 lottery twice in two goes is ... 100,000:2.00001 Your coin analogy was mathematically correct, but with longer odds the Union portion of the calculation approaches zero (ie a head today And a head yesterday), and so its not worth the extra effort to work it out for a forum such as this. Having said that, I didn't just multiply by 80 to get the result, I looked it up, and I would assume that they are more correct than I would have made them. Dont forget what you are saying is "H&K, you are forgetting all the people who get hit by lightening MORE than once" 2) 'How can there be a bigger chance of being killed by lightning than of being hit by it?' One is per year the other per 80 years |
| ||
| Ah yes I stand corrected, however I don't understand what being hit more than once has to do with the argument? As to point two, this was obviously cleared up by your edit of your original post. I was merely discussing with Adam who raised it again and misunderstood. |
| ||
| If we accept the approximation of simply multiplying the probability of wining the lottery (in my example) by the number of draws you enter, then after 100,000 draws (And ignoring that the approximation no longer holds), everyone would have won. That is 100,000:1 *100,000 =1, which isn't true because it becomes more and more likely that someone wins twice. Equally, one person might get hit be lightening 2 million times in one year. Obviously both these variances are missed out in the approximation calculation of "*80" I was just making a joke about how low the odds that were being excluded from the approximation where In an exam I would expect that you would need to calculate in some of these things, but generally it much the same as how when they ask about pushing a block they want contact resistance to be included but probably not air resistance. |
| ||
| Well, I almost wish I hadn't started that. What a performance! Tomorrow I'm in the loft and garage again looking for a particular straw of hay in a haystack. I may have to hire some crampons to get past me the car I haven't driven since Eden was lost. Don't have to be struck by lightning to be killed by it. I know that sounds silly but it is to do with electrical tracking and where in it's cycle the heart is. There are, I believe, two points in the cycle where the heart is susceptible to interruption. So, more people are killed by lightning than are actually stricken. Strange but true? |
| ||
| I downloaded an ISO of Windows XP with SP3, because I couldn't be bothered to install from my own XP disc, then install SP1, then SP3 (which won't install without SP1 or SP2), then all the other updates since (about 75 of them). The licence is perfectly legal - all I did was save myself an extra two hours of fannying about. The licence is what I've paid for so I don't see anything wrong with doing this (unless you're planning on installing it on multiple PCs, then its a bit illegal). |
| ||
| As GfK says it's the license that you pay for. As long as your copy of Windows isn't cracked or in any other way altered then you're fine. |
| ||
| would you copy your orginal disk thats with your COA sticker to use as a backup to install from while your orginal remains safe? whats the differance if you own a genuine COA does it realy matter where your install disk is obtained? Last edited 2011 |
| ||
| The difference, as stated several times above in the Provence of the copy. Lets say for example I get win 7 pro, and use it to run my company from. On this computer their may be confidential client information. Now ATM installed with a genuine disc and then the relevant security added, I can be said to have taken adequate precautions to protect that data. If on the other hand I install a copy I downloaded from "Russian Mafia r us", and some of the Win root files are altered, then any data stolen was taken without me taking adequate precautions. Even if you think that to far fetched, its amazing how much data you have to keep under UK law. Mostly you would back this up. So lets say some file in the backup process is "ungood", not only would you suddenly find when you need it that your backups dont work, but you have broken the law. I agree with the making your copy argument, and would go further and say after sp1, 2 and 3 have installed, ghost the hd, and install from that next time. |
| ||
| Thanks everyone. I haven't yet completed my search for licensed disks, but am now on a mission to eradicate improper pies. |
| ||
| All machines pukka'd up... :) Thanks for the help and advice given. |
   |