<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Windows Updates the New Deceptive Advertising Platform?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.centernetworks.com/are-windows-updates-new-deceptive-advertising-platform/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.centernetworks.com/are-windows-updates-new-deceptive-advertising-platform</link>
	<description>Web 2 and Social Media News and Reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:27:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean McGee</title>
		<link>http://www.centernetworks.com/are-windows-updates-new-deceptive-advertising-platform#comment-14520</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean McGee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-14520</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know if it&#039;s being deceptive so much as it&#039;s being un-user friendly.

I would imagine that clicking on the &quot;More Information&quot; link would give you information about downloading OpenOffice, not install it.

AND I would also imagine that it would not install OpenOffice just by updating Java.

It is a confusing and puzzling marketing ploy, but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s deceptive.

As a side note, OpenOffice is free whether or not you upgrade Java.  

And, even though the fact that OpenOffice is free, it&#039;s still a great product.

Just because something&#039;s free also doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s unethical.

Look at Google Docs, Flickr, Twitter, and the best of all, Firefox...they&#039;re all free.  Does that mean that they&#039;re unethical?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s being deceptive so much as it&#8217;s being un-user friendly.</p>
<p>I would imagine that clicking on the &#8220;More Information&#8221; link would give you information about downloading OpenOffice, not install it.</p>
<p>AND I would also imagine that it would not install OpenOffice just by updating Java.</p>
<p>It is a confusing and puzzling marketing ploy, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s deceptive.</p>
<p>As a side note, OpenOffice is free whether or not you upgrade Java.  </p>
<p>And, even though the fact that OpenOffice is free, it&#8217;s still a great product.</p>
<p>Just because something&#8217;s free also doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s unethical.</p>
<p>Look at Google Docs, Flickr, Twitter, and the best of all, Firefox&#8230;they&#8217;re all free.  Does that mean that they&#8217;re unethical?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.009 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 333/334 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.centernetworks.com @ 2012-02-13 02:00:09 -->
