Microsoft outdoes themselves again, in a bad way

But there may be a moral issue if it explodes and kills my dog.

Well, I would say that she clearly isn't. So how shall we get past here beside mere assertion?

A: I'll look after your all your stuff for you, for free.B: Thank you very much, here's all my stuff. You're my hero!A: Now I will keep all your stuff and never give it back to you.B: Well, now I am pissed.Jon: You have no right to complain, person A clearly said that this was a free service.

Right, but then we're perfectly entitled to say: "Gee, Hotmail is rubbish, isn't it, not half as good as Gmail." It's not as though Theodoric was leading a mob with torches and pitchforks to MS headquarters. If the user has no other rights, then kvetching is still covered by the First Amendment.

In a general way, I'd say that there is a moral, if not a legal, question about the supplier of free stuff. But let us distinguish.(1) If someone gives me a free toaster, and tells me what an awesome toaster it is, and how I don't need to buy a toaster 'cos they're giving me one for free, and then it breaks, then I'm just back to square one. I had no toaster, briefly I had a toaster, now I have no toaster again. I can always resolve this problem by buying another toaster.(2) If, on the other hand, someone gives me a free parachute, and tells me what an awesome parachute it is, and how I don't need to buy a parachute 'cos they're giving me one for free, and then it breaks, then I am not just back at square one. I'm plummeting to my death. And I cannot resolve this problem by buying another parachute.Now it seems to me that if my free email stops working, this is more like the second case than the first. I am not just back to square one, and I can't resolve this problem just by buying another email service.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.