Slashdot Mirror
"Smart Tags," Round Two
A few more stories about "Smart Tags" (see round 1 if you missed it) -- Liza writes: "According to Newsbytes, a new feature in IE 6.0, "Smart Tags," which inserts hyperlinks into pages so that users can get more information about a concept or company, could violate both copyright law and federal rules prohibiting deceptive and unfair business practices. Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them. Interesting questions!" Meanwhile, ZDNet has a nice piece examining smart tags in action.
People could blame that on the site and not the smart tag (knowing how dumb people can be.)
I agree with what you say, but I think you're being a little too gentle here.
People absolutely, positively would blame the web site and not the smart tag. They would send enraged e-mails and voice-mails to the web site authors and they flat out would not believe the authors when they were told the truth: that it's Microsoft's link, not the web site's link.
If I browse an article on the DeCSS code and IE gives me a smart tag pointing me to the original code, does that mean the M$oft could be attacked by the RIAA. M$oft Vs RIAA, that would be cool. huh huh huh
I asked this same question the last time this came up here. Never got an answer. (And like your comments: mine were modded-up--so it's not as if my question was "invisible.")
So how 'bout it: what is this mythical meta-tag that disables Microsoft's so-called "smart tags?"
I either disable "smart tags" or I prohibit IE6 and above access to my sites. Have it your way, M$.
Look, it's NOT MICROSOFT who decides where the smart-tag redirects go (OK, so they will have some defaults, but it's very very simple to replace them or add your own).
If you use windows XP and you save the following to a file called msdnodc.xml to {driveletter}\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Smart Tag\Lists...
You can't be serious. You think that learning XML, writing an XML document, and rooting around through the undocumented muck of the chronically disorganized Windows file system is "very very simple?" Explain this to my grandfather, an extremely intelligent man who doesn't happen know much about PCs. This almost couldn't be any harder without specifically designing it to be. Even if WinXP's IE came with dialog boxes to help you edit the smart tag setup (which it should) it would still be far to difficult for most Windows users.
There might actually be real debate over the viability of smart tags, but calling this crap "very very simple" is letting your geeky inferiority complex show.
Then again, this is Slashdot, what else should I expect?
The problem is that it alters a webpage from the way its author intended it.
Indeed. How dare I use a highlighter pen on a book, or scribble in the margins, altering the author's intentions. Need to enlarge the font to see it? No no no, that's *supposed* to be illegible fine print. And how dare I override that dayglow orange background, and disable the blink tags and dancing hamsters!
Ok, enough sarcasm. The smart tags look different from hyperlinks, so the original intent of the author is visible. As a reader, I am entitled to use a translator on information given to my, and a smart tag system is just such a beast.
The only real issue is whether Microsoft, as a desktop OS monopoly, is using its market position to extend into another market. But otherwise, if I want misspelled words underlined, or all pictures of Linus replaced by a penguin, that's my choice.
Particularly if one could choose the source of the added links. They would be great for reading about technical subjects like learning a new computer language - just click on whatever you need more explanation for, even if the author didn't write the page for beginners.
Imagine a new Linux user, looking at some online documentation, wondering what some of those funny-looking commands do: with Smart Tags, he can just click on the automatically added link to find out.
I do agree that Smart Tag links should be easily turned on and off, and appear in a distinct color or font so that the source of the new information is apparent.
How could there be copyright problems? If your computer adds information to YOUR copy of a file (that a website gives you for free,) I see that as similar to highlighting a book, or writing notes in the margins - perfectly legal and useful.I've had to use a "favicon.ico" image to stop those Internet Exploders to show up in the webservers error logging :-P
M$ is trying to embrace and extent by exploiting their large userbase. Now let's do the same to them by using open standards and Free Software.
DebianLinux.Net
Sorry Sloppy, but your argument is very hollow. Most of your points are non additive content modifying (translations are inherently additive, which can't be helped). What is damaged is the useablility or credibiliy of a site when references are added without the editorial control of the author or designee.
The site I work for is a Medical School. It is dangerous and wrong for non-medical profesionals to augment medical information and insert their own agenda (ie links to comercial sites or confilicting information) into our content. They can get their own damn host and acreditation if they want to make a medical statement. And the same could be said for other professions.
Unfortunately with Microsoft's system it is not inherenly possible to "not use it." There are several web authors all over our campus and not all of them are going to know that an outside, non medical authority has the option of augmenting their work without their permission or knowledge and protect themselves with a meta tag. Opt-in, not Opt-out, is the only correct solution.
Microsoft is way off base with smart tags. With NBCi we just laughed at them. Preinstalled it isn't so funny.
On a personal note:
People who may enjoy "Smart Tags" are:
A) those that buy books that are already written on (because high school and college students can often write very insightful comments in the margins)
B) people who like to listen to other people talk through a movie (because their plot points and critisms are usually on target and helpful)
C) when giving a public presentation, have their mother correct their grammer while they are talking (thanks mom)
D) don't mind graffiti and tags on their cars and houses (it isn't real property damage since the car and house are still useable, and it is quite obvious that the owner didn't do it because no one would mark up their own property, so there is no real editorial confusion)
(Posting Anonymously because I don't need YA Username/Password.)
Yes, it absolutely does create a derivative work.
It has always been understood that a link appearing in an HTML document implies that the author wishes to offer the user the opportunity to "follow" the link in order to find more information related to that word. This invitation is based upon the meaning attached to the word by the author. The author establishes this relationship knowing that it will serve his particular interests, whatever they may be. Software that adds link relationships that the original author has not explicitly defined changes or alters the meaning of the content and could very easily establish relationships that would be harmful to the author's interests (others have already made this case with the "Acme Widget Co. site having links to ABC Widgets, Inc.'s site inserted" example).
The descriptions of the implementation that I've read make this feature sound a lot sexier than your run-of-the-mill hyperlink. I imagine that your average luser would be inclined to use the Smart Tag links rather than the less attractive standard links. This will lead to confusion on the part of users, which will result in lost traffic (and in the case of corporate sites, lost business) for web publishers. It's easy to imagine that a user who didn't understand the difference between the two types of links would find most web sites virtually worthless since instead of allowing him to follow a series of links to gather increasingly detailed information on a particular subject, he would be lead through a series of sites with little relationship to each other or to the information has was seeking in the first place.
The basic idea, looking at the content and providing the user with links to sites with more information, is a good one, but the implementation is awful. Microsoft would scream bloody murder if a competitor's browser did the same thing with their content. Communicator and Mozilla offer a similar feature called "What's Related," but it lists related sites in a separate list. Something like this, which separates the third-party's links from the original content, would be much better since it wouldn't effectively add unintended relationships to the original author's content.
slashdot broke my sig
Also, there's a difference in who controls what words get Smart-Tagged, and where those links go. What do you bet that Microsoft's default Smart Tag library will link the word "Linux" to Microsoft's "Linux Myths" page, or to a copy of Ballmer's "Linux is a cancer" speech? (Sure, other people can write Smart Tag libraries, but how many people will ever bother to install them? And what do you bet that Microsoft has some way of making their Smart Tags "higher priority" than other people's Smart Tags?)
I think it's time for the Justice Department to begin writing Volume II of its briefs against Microsoft. Oh wait, Microsoft paid for George Bush to be elected. Guess they're just going to sit on their hands for this one. Microsoft, Microsoft, über alles, über alles in der Welt...
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
That said, what do you propose to do about it?
I wonder if the antitrust appeals court is being kept up to date on all this? It certainly is awfully contemptuous behavior. Absolutely justifies anything and everything Judge Jackson said about them. The question is, will Microsoft in doing this piss off even the appeals court?
In doing so they are for one, playing brinksmanship and taking NO effort at all to prepare for a loss, which means the breakup would be more catastrophic rather than less- and in addition, they are stepping over the line with regular people who use their products, killing off functionality and blatantly setting up tollbooths and preparing to milk people for all they're worth. This is not appealing to the consumer. In fact, Microsoft 'taking over' the web by putting their own tags in, is not appealing to the consumer per se, only confusing and perhaps intimidating. You no longer know who you're dealing with. This is damaging popular support for Microsoft. Who ever heard of a ZDnet 'report' on a MS technology zinging 'em that savagely? If they are losing even their lapdogs they must have lost consumers _long_ ago.
I know my take on copyright law (I record music) is that I distinguish between noncommercial and commercial uses. I reserve all commercial rights, but I openly encourage noncommercial copying. If someone wants to noncommercially play my music through a goofy EQ filter, of course they may. If, on the other hand, someone defaces it in that way and tries to SELL the result.. they are up a creek, because I have protections against that sort of abuse, being copyright holder.
By the same token, if someone doesn't like one of my links and, say, paints White-Out on the screen to conceal it, more power to 'em. But if Microsoft decides IT wishes to link my words to ITS interpretation of what it wants those words to relate to, it is making commercial use of my stuff on a large scale, period. I'll repeat that- it is making commercial use of my stuff. It's USING the material I put on the web, to try to place ITS paid links everywhere you look. It is advertising heavily and intrusively on my page without paying me a damned cent! There is absolutely no justification for this.
When they turn around and begin placing links to MY site, my music or whatever, all over THEIR pages without charging me a penny, then I will consider the idea that this is a service. You'll note they are not offering THAT. I can only wonder just how much it's gonna cost to get access to this technology. In theory, I could end up having to pay large sums of money to Microsoft in order to get 'rights' to certain words that they are going to grab out of my pages, without asking, and link to. It's an extortion racket- another sort of 'namespace', but this time it is literally the English language being seized and monetized. If this goes through, I will not have the capacity to clearly and unambiguously express my views on the Web even though I PAY for web hosting that will in theory allow me to put up what I want. The 'receiving end' is being compromised for commercial gain, and I don't even get a kickback.
If they're allowed to do this, I should be allowed to go add links to my stuff on THEIR homepage, and links to rebuttals on all their FUD pages without asking them. Hell, I should be allowed to go paint my company logo on their buildings in Redmond while I'm at it.
If they're allowed to use opt-in meta tags, I should be allowed to ask my friend Craig if HE minds if I add links to rebuttals on all Microsoft's pages and paint my logo on their buildings.
"Hey, Craig, do you mind if I stick my logos all over Microsoft's property?"
"Nah, go for it."
*dum de dum de dum* Gotta love the new rules! Where's my paint? My friend Craig opted in to letting me put logos on Microsoft's property, so off I go. I think I'll ask him if I can paint the White House pink, next.
It doesn't even make sense as opt-in. Let's say your house has a big front wall. I'd like to make it a billboard, because my neighbors drive past your place.
Opt-out means I paint stuff on your house, and then neighbors can choose not to look.
Opt-in means I can ask the neigbors, "Hey, do you mind if I paint a billboard on Maloi's house?"
How is their opinion relevant?
Not footnotes in the usual sense. Unpaid advertising from an entirely different publisher.
What justification is there for allowing this? There's not even the pretense of paying for this commercial use of your content! Not even opt-in makes sense. Opt-in and paying content providers a royalty for use of their words as tags would make sense. I daresay it would not pay as much as selling banner ad space, but you _can_ buy text-only web advertising. How is this different from text-only web advertising, and what possible justification could there be for not paying page-authors a royalty for use of their words as commercial advertising?
Perhaps it should be _more_ of a royalty because this is even more intrusive than those new huge web ads. It's no longer even a case of routing content _around_ an enormous animated GIF. In this case the advertisement IS the word being read, and you can't read the content without reading the word. Thus, the royalty paid should be proportionally higher, because it is the last word in intrusiveness.
If you want to add commercial links to words on the web content that I PAY TO HOST, I think you should pay me.
Period.
Write your own damn content if you want advertising links ;)
Of course. This is just advertising! All the same rules apply as if it was banner ads. The only difference is, Microsoft intends to not pay anybody no matter how much advertising they place on your page. There's no other difference- text-only web advertising even already exists. Actually, this _ought_ to pay higher royalties than that as it is more intrusive.
Of all the things you mention, the only one particularly analogous is Third Voice, and even that is not completely analogous. Third Voice is a parallel note-sticking technology. Smart Links is ubitiquous unpaid commercial advertising in a VERY intrusive way.
Web advertising costs money. None of the things you mention are anything like web advertising. If Microsoft wishes to place web advertising on every page in the world, they should be ready to pay a royalty to all those people for the commercial use of their content as advertising. It's no different if it's opt-in: they're still using other people's content as outright web advertising without payment. They need to come up with some form of royalty to compensate the content holders- particularly because, UNLIKE Third Voice, the advertising is directed by a central controlling authority, not just random commentary by web users.
Of course it is unlawful! Nobody gave Microsoft any sort of right to place unpaid advertising on every freaking page on the Web- even as a 'switchable' option. They have web pages of their own: they can place links there. They have the damn _browser_, they can place little buttons all along the window frame if that pleases them. They don't have rights to make COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING USE of the content on the web, unless they enter an agreement with content providers. Nothing you mention is commercial advertising. Do you propose that Microsoft be given television and radio advertising for free, too?
We would not either think this was a great idea if some Linux geek was doing it. We might think it was less potentially harmful because nobody would use it, but it'd be the same thing: unpaid commercial advertising actually made out of the content itself (can't get much more intrusive than that!). As such, it's a neat-ish idea- IF they pay me for use of my words. They are obliged to do so if they want to advertise on my content. If they just want links all over, they can put 'em on the window frame of the browser, which they own. They can't use _my_ words for it. Advertising should be paid for.
It's sort of like compulsory licensing in music. I can see arguing that global compulsory advertising should not be done in this way. But if compulsory advertising IS done, it's insane to not pay content owners a royalty for use of their words. If Microsoft wishes me to link to their site, they could get me to use banner ads and BUY a banner ad: they could get me to run text-format web advertising and buy a text link at a cheaper price because it is less intrusive. If they want a link right in the MIDDLE of my content, they should pay MORE because it is more intrusive and hence more valuable.
Woo! somebody who is less of a damn blabbermouth than I am please mod this poster UP! Talk about insightful (or interesting- no, I think 'they can get their own damn accreditation' is just flat insightful)!
Hmmm, you have a point. I'd like to suggest that perhaps it's not about the 'huge commercial entity' part either- whether it's a monopoly doing it or not is irrelevant. It is the _context_ of the modification. This draws a distinction between your ad-stripping example and Smart Tags, in that the ad stripping is on the reader end and is a refusal to 'read the page' the way the content provider is supplying it. With Smart Tags, the context is that of a _third_ _party_ interfering with the attempt to provide content to the reader (who can strip or not or even SwedishChefify for all it matters). The situation of a third party getting in between and changing things is significantly different from simply having a reader going 'I want to strip ads! I choose to strip ads, therefore although I _expect_ this content provider to want to put ads in, I'm not going to honor that'. The third party means the reader can be fooled into believing the intent of the content provider is different than it is- but more than that, it's granting the third party a 'right' to alter and change things that really only the reader is entitled to.
Not quite... You can't control the appearance of the content on the user's machine. You can control the content itself. This is the difference between an editor publishing a book in Braille (same content, different presentation) and the editor rewriting the last chapter himself (different content, not what the author intended).
A VBS virus that changes every entry in msnodc.xml to goatse.cx
You're confusing content with presentation. The web was always about separating the two out....well..for a while anyway. Today, you can still change the colors of links and font sizes and whatnot. But the content is still the same.
Until now. MS is intending on changing the content of a web page. This is no longer about changing how it looks, they're changing how it acts. Links that you as an author did not want are now popping up in your site, changing the flow of the content. This is very different from changing a font size.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
"Sanford said that the Smart Tags operate on an open architecture that will allow virtually any group to create a class of Smart Tag links, which Internet Explorer users in turn will be able to download and add to their files. Users will be able to determine whose Smart Tags they use under the IE platform, Sanford added."
"In the initial versions of IE 6.0, the Smart Tag technology will be set to a default setting of 'off.' Users who want to employ the technology will have to turn Smart Tags on, Sanford said."
And just how many users are going to understand what is going on?
The ones who don't won't turn smart tags on.
And just how the hell are you going to know which links belong to the author and which were generated by M$?
They look different.
And what makes you think that M$ will do anything other than have sets of links that favor them explicitly?
Maybe they won't. When you choose to activate smart tags on your browser, remember to change the default smart tag.
You're forgetting that this is already fully controlled by M$, there is no room for 'how it should or could be used properly' because Bill hasn't asked and isn't going to. He already knows what he's doing and he's relying on people like you to help him 'show everyone else' what a good thing it is.
It is a good thing. I could import tags from (say) CATO.org or slashdot (if they choose to provide them) and have a constant connection to the content which they find interesting.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
No it won't. You're an idiot.
Assuming they aren't lying about allowing a special HTML tag to disable this feature, The first thing I'm going to do is see if there's any such thing as boilerplate headers for Apache, and make that tag be a part of what goes in the boilerplate for all pages served on any site I'm running.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
This is worse than ordinary plagerism. Instead of taking credit for what others have said, you are alterting what they said without mentioning to the reader what those alterations were.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If I were to use a browser with this feature (which I doubt that I will), i'd simply disable it. The last thing I want is my browser using cpu cycles and network bandwidth to look up every word on the page so that it can link to advertising and corporate sanctioned sites. What a stupid bloated feature!
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I think all of that is within fair use. But to distribute your changes (in the case of Microsoft to millions of users) is not. You create a derivative work, and both you and the original author have a shared copyright in the result. You cannot distribute it without his consent. BTW, this most probably even holds for your modifications without the original work (unless they are trivial).
Stephan
We actually got a similar comment from a telephone solicitor once. My wife interrupted his spiel to tell him we didn't do business with anyone who calls us on the phone. He replied, "Then what do you have a phone for?"
We couldn't believe it.
Unlike this poor soul, we actually have friends that we enjoy talking to. Geoff
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Whatever benefit it may be to the user, it's not a benefit to the content provider. The message that the provider intended is at the least muddied up, or at the worst completely flipped on it's ear. It's like CBS digitally masking their competitors advetising. Yes, it's subtle, but it provides viewers with a skewed view of reality, however subtle the changes are. In CBS's case, it leads people to think that CBS has more advertising than it normally does. In Microsoft's case, people might consider Microsoft to be a viable (or truthful) source of information. Never trust a company to do things that are good for the public good.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
and the maddening thing is;
they planned, speced, and developed this feature, all without one single person standing up and mentioning this one fact; it's opt-out rather than opt-in. You change your site for us, not we change our browser for you.
the audacity.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"As for the spam argument, that's ridiculous. All a user sees is a dotted underline on a piece of text which allows the user to get more information."
Yes, but consider the source of that information - it can be slanted any way Microsoft wishes. No other power on earth has ever had that kind of editorial control. Anybody with half a brain ought to be terrified at the prospect.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
As long as the option to TURN THEM ON is left to the author of the page.
The way MS has it now, "I" have to explicitly turn them OFF. It should be OFF by default.
"I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game "
Now that's curious because it's not at all like Microsoft.
Why do you say such things when they are obviously not true?
"...detailing why Microsoft is not a monopoly) be able to force its technology down the throats of unsuspecting, uninformed or apathetic users (link to photo of lemmings) who might not realize the implications of the technology (link to Microsoft XP order info page).
I, for one, think so...
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
When you run a webpage through Babelfish or Smurfaliser you are voluntarily! altering it for your and your personal viewing alone in a conscious manner. Now imagine if your browser started running everything through either Babel or smurfaliser without you asking it to. That's what the IE6.0 will do.
If I have a site describing how dreadful pornography is, I don't want some other twat coming along and linking words to sex sites.
It utterly changes the meaning of the text. I have nothing in particular against pornography or in fact people who hate pornography, i'm just using it as an example.
Oh and don't tell me that trojan/virus writers won't find this xml file to be a fantastic target for exploitation.
How stupid Microsoft are.
Deleted
That ZDNet article is one of the funniest things I have ever read in a Ziff publiction (intentionally funny, anyway).
sPh
I would need to research it a little more, but my solution to this will be to try to detect if the browser is using smart tags and to deny access for said browser. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and a nice denial page which kindly informs the user about the reason should make the point clear. Mind you, this might mean that I lose some readership on my site, but that is preferable to allowing Microsoft to dictate content matters. The ability to turn off the feature with a meta tag isn't enough to satisfy me. I would prefer to "educate" the web user as to why I don't permit M$ tags.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
...so long as they give me the ability to ignore onexit, and newwindow calls.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
I agree that a keyword-context system such as this shouldn't be done as hyperlinks.
My suggestion: Select text with mouse. Right-click. Choose what you want to do with the selected text.
For example, have a "Search for ths text on Google" item, a "Lookup definition in Websters Dictionary" item, and a "Lookup definition in Oxford English Dictionary" item on that right-click menu.
Getting to a definition (from a dictionary of your choice, not MS's) or a search (again, search engine of your choice) could be VERY easy this way - but it gives up too much control, so MS won't do it.
MS wants to edit the content of the web to suit it's own purposes - it doesn't want to make anything "easier" except to give up control to them.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
/. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Ahh...but you see...we're still in the XP *beta*. Before that sucker goes live, MS will *probably* encode it into an encrypted (aka: DMCA-protected) DLL file that you can't remove, because they threw a couple of "vital" IE functions in there as well.
I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game -- maybe the first version will actually be accessible - but at some point, they're going to close it off - under the guise of "innovation", or "ease of use".
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
BWAHAHAHAHA - sorry. EVERYTHING MS does, is done because it gives them an advantage. Whether it's a financial one, or a marketshare one - it's all a game for control. MS wants to control your computer, the apps on it, your 'net access, what you see, what you read - everything. That's what they want. That's their "vision" of the future. It's scary as hell.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some
Look at how many people out there don't bother changing the default start page in their web browser. Do you really think Grandma is going to learn XML so she can deduce exactly what MS is feeding her? Doubtful she'll even realize they're feeding her anything - what little she knows of the web tells her that links on webpages are a part of the page - so if that link goes to an order form for Office XP, or to a favorable MS story, or to anothe MS-owned site - well, that must be what was meant by the author of the page!
Now, you or I could be perfectly happy editing a text file - whether it be HTML, XML, BASH, PERL, or whatever. Grandma wouldn't be. Grandma thinks editing a text file is "too hard". Grandma isn't going to do it. Then again, she probably wouldn't even know that she could, unless it was all gussied up with a GUI editor with a little pulldown field for which MS-owned site you want the word "is" to link to...
The idea of automatic tags is not terrible at all. But only if there is a way for users to change their "smart tags server" so that they can pick the company they want (or perhaps merge several lists). (I think something that points at a user-generated data like everything2 would be pretty neat). The fact that MicroSoft has not indicated any ability to change the server is a good sign of their actual intentions!
PS: a "pick the server you want" with an open-source database format would be an acceptable way to implement censorware.
I've been looking really hard on the web for the answer to that question. Christ, I even went to the MS site...
I suspect there was/is no tag; some flak just said "Oh, you'll be able to disable it with a Meta tag" when they got cornered by some journalist. They're probably working on it as we speak. Feh.
----- My opinions are my own, etc, etc.
The historical facts show that MS never gives up anything, no matter how much the users hate it, or refuse to use it. If MS has decided that you are going to get a feature, you're going to get it... maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but you will get it...
Some examples of "dead MS technologies":
Win32s = Windows 95
Wing = DirectX
BOB = Windows XP help
mandatory registration = attempted in past MS products, now in XP
...and many many more...
there are many others...
If MS has spent the money on Smart Tags and decided that you're going to get it, then like it or not, you're going to get it.
And if you didn't want spam why do you have an email address in the first place?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Those Microsoft guys are so good to be contributing this back like that. Giving up control over the protocol can't be easy. If they were evil they could, link your pages to whatever they want, make gobs of money, kill the (dumber half of) Internet with one move. Glad their on our side :)
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Do you realize it's not Microsoft who picks where you go, it's configurable? Do you realize that your stating that it's Microsoft who picks where you go shows that you don't know what you're talking about?
True, most user customizations are just appearance. But there are also things that change content - censorware and ad-blockers are the obvious examples, though they just remove information rather than alter it. What about the translation services provided by Babelfish and others?
Anyway, I don't agree that this is changing the content of the page. All that happens is that some words get purple underlining which the user _may_ choose to click on to visit some other page. There isn't any suggestion that the original author endorses these links, at least not to a user who understands what is going on. It's not much different from highlighting email addresses in plain text. The twist is that you can configure how words are mapped to URLs by downloading different sets of tags to your machine.
The only way in Microsoft is being less than honest is in having a default set of tags which favour their own sites and products.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
A while ago there was an app called Third Voice which allowed users to attach notes to websites. The notes would be shared with other users of the service. Obviously a really good moderation system would be needed if it got popular, but it sounded like a cool idea especially for websites that don't themselves have a comment facility.
Some site owners were outraged that people would be able to exchange information about their sites in this way. They threatened legal action claiming that it was a copyright violation to 'annotate' sites in this way. (Despite the fact that the annotations were shown in a separate window and clearly distinguishable from the main site.)
I had no sympathy for those over-sensitive webmasters then and I have, well, not very much sympathy for anyone who complains about his site being 'altered' by Smart Tags now. When publishing on the web, you do not and cannot expect to have control over how the user views your site. This applies to content just as much as presentation. If until now it has been mostly presentation that was customized, that's just for technical reasons, because it's easier to write programs to do that. But I fully expect that over the next few years, content personlization tools will proliferate. Like things that let users share annotations or add hyperlinks, or precis tools that filter out marketingspeak and attempt to distil a web page to a short passage of text.
I don't have a problem with these because users choose whether or not to use them. I would object if Microsoft shipped Smart Tags enabled by default with a set of links biased towards their own site. (Although isn't this what Netscape and others have been doing for years with home pages, 'Shop' icons, Internet Keywords and so on?) But as long as users are able to make an informed choice about whether to use this feature, and which set of smart tags to preload, I can't see any objection to it.
In short: bash Microsoft for crass commercialism if you want, but get used to the idea that users won't always read the content of your site in exactly the same form as you upload it.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I can't really see the problem with smart tags. One of the tenets of the web one which I expect most Slashdot readers strongly agree with - is that you cannot control how your site will appear on the user's machine.
If they choose to view it in an unusual font, that's their choice. If they disable JavaScript, that's their choice. If they run a program to filter out banner ads, it's none of your business. The same applies if they decide to run a program which adds new links to the page that you wrote.
Of course, you do have to question the common sense of the user who runs such a program, given that the standard set of links is unlikely to be impartial. But if you carefully choose which sets of smart tags to import, it could work.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Soon they'll decide if the shouting is too loud and abandon the idea ..., or not.
The same thing happened with
XP subscriptions: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/06/0038258.shtm l
Spamming: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/09/28/1341249.shtm l
Passport: http://slashdot.org/yro/00/07/29/1228209.shtml --
DWR is Ajax for Java
I'm out of order. Your out of order. This whole Internet is out of order!
Sue them under the DMCA for reverse engineering - and republishing your content.
nyuk nyuk nyuk
http://windows.scares.us
I hate to respond to my own post, but in case ANYONE should come back and read this, there has been an update on this front. The Register published an article today, June 25, 2001, titled "Web sites! Banish those WinXP, IE6 smart tag blues!". In it, they state:
I'm sureWithout you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
There is none yet. Microsoft hasn't decided on what it'll be.
They'll spring it on us at the last possible moment, so that we'll all have to scramble to "opt-out" of their little game.
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them.
Yeah, and concerned car owners can lock their doors, and concerned grocery store oweners can get video cameras, but that doesn't make stealing an open car or robbing an unguarded store alright... This all sounds pretty horrible to me. I don't want somebody sticking ads or other links onto my pages for me, making it look like I am endorsing something I may know nothing about. But since "IE won the browser war," I guess they can do whatever they monopolistically want...
Posted from the wireless couch.
than Netscape or Aol's browser having every link point to them. Is this any different than the $$ driven smart search put out by Netscape/AOL ? :)
Just because it is M$ everyone automatically assumes it is gonna suck. Let's give it time and let M$ prove it is gonna suck
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I am not Microsoft's biggest fan. I use very few of their products. But please, let's at least look at what we're talking about.
Flyswat has a pretty much identical add-on for IE5+. If you use IE, give it a try.
--
THE SOLUTION TO THIS IS AVAILABLE *NOW*
Message #109 contains a PHP line that blocks MSIE v6
You could do the same thing with Javascript.
IF ALL CONTENT PRODUCERS RALLY TOGETHER AND BLOCK MSIE V6, SMART TAGS WILL BE DESTROYED.
We've had web-wide movements in the past that were fairly successful. Make this another one: rally together to defeat Microsoft's stupid 'feature.'
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Ah, it looks like Microsoft prawns have attained moderator status: this message was marked down, because it offers a solution to this SmartTags problem.
Basically, the idea is that content authors (ie. webmasters) need to implement server- or client-side blocking of MSIE version 6.
If enough people rally together to do this, Microsoft will be forced to change their ways. And that's A Good Thing, regardless what any MS-pimpin' moderator figures!
Promote this meme!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
There's a delicious irony to the idea that Slashdaughters would look to copyright law to protect themselves against MS making changes to content for MS's own purposes, while claming that the same laws don't necessarily apply to DeCSS and other reverse-engineered source. You may believe that it's fair use when you reverse-engineer something, but that it's not when MS "enhances" your content.
Regardless of whether the nefariousness (nefarity? Nefertiti?) of Smart Tags is being overblown, when will something be done about making opt-in the law of the land, whether it be for the Web, phone service, cable, or whatnot? It's not enough for MS (or whoever) to say that a feature can be explicitly turned off. How well would MS stand up in court if a suit were filed against them on the grounds of copyright law?
:wq
In my analogy the webmaster is the receiver of the spam. Who like to think that, to some extent, he controls the look and contents of his site.
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
"Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them."
Its like when you can reply to a spam and you'll be removed from the list. No-one cares that I didn't want to be on the list in the first place, and I don't want to work in order to be not screwd. The same applies here I think...
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
Hate to break this to you, but Microsoft did not abandon or scale back the "Passport" centralized login service. It's still around, but the reason it hasn't been heavily marketed to third-part content providers is that it's been retooled with an XML-transport protocol and is now being tested under the name "Hailstorm".
As for XP subscriptions, they've put it off for single-user shrinkwrap versions of Office XP, but they're proceeding full steam ahead on the business licensing side. The newly retooled Open Licensing contract terms now require biannual renewals. Skip one or miss a payment, and you pay a penalty amounting to the price of a full, new version of the product plus the biannual "Software Assurance" fee. Just because they don't call it a subscription doesn't mean it isn't one.
Anyone actually played with this yet, or is this idle blather?
As a technology, it's a nifty one that's been done before, but this would be the first time it would get wide distribution. And it seems like a nice enough new developer feature for Office/VBA apps. However, the way it's being rolled out in IE, with Microsoft-selected kerword/link databases, is a nasty bit of hijacking.
Besides siphoning users away from everyone's sites and effectively placing text ads on everyone's pages without payment, there are privacy issues to be addressed. Do smart-tag clickthroughs send a referer request header? If so, MS or its marketing partner(s) will be able to collect traffic and even some user data that can be used to extrapolate usage patterns on other organizations' sites just as an ad agency could, only, again, without any kind of contract or compensation.
Boo, hiss.
Has anyone seen any of the original hypertext systems? The ones that ran on the Xerox Star and Alto?
Those worked like this does, for any given word or term, they consulted a database for the list of links, and they produced a feature on the screen that allowed you to access those links. So at the same time, as one could add new links to the system, you in a certain sense had no control over how your document was linked.
Read some of the early works by Vanevar Bush, his ideas on this were very modern for the time, adn I think that this is just getting the web to behave like the living document that it should be.
Flyswat is a really good product, but the one thing I didn't like about it is that they did the HTML evaluation at their headquarters which means that your browser told it every single page you visited (there's some privacy issues there), and it would then grab the page itself (I discovered this when I noticed logfiles with lots of weird attempts to access internal secure pages that employees were accessing), parse it, and send back an index file with all the links for the relevant text. I don't know if they still do it this way but that caused me concern when I first used it.
Albeit harder to maintain I would greatly prefer that there were a client side database of tags and links, as fundamentally it's a great idea that FlySwat has been pushing for greater than two years now.
I was not going to intervene in this hysteria, but I have to point out one thing.
Microsoft releases in Office XP functionality that allows any user to write HIS OR HER OWN SMART TAGS. Please people, get a grip and inform yourselves about the topic before spouting off at the mouth.
Also, some applications of this technology (its relationship to XML) will allow for a much smarter use of the web in intranets (order processing systems, etc.). I know, that's in the corporate environment. So many of the "carpers" around here will dismiss this point as irrelevant.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
Yes it is. I was at an Office XP release event two weeks ago, and this was one of the major functions demonstrated. They even had corporate types showing their specialized smart tags used for internal order processing and inventory control.
The corporations involved were Lockheed Martin and a smaller local database consulting firm.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
I find it amusing that M$ will enforce the DMCA and any other restrictive copyright technologies but ignore them whenever its inconvenient.
I own a web site. I write pages. They contain what I want them to contain, including links that I found relevant when I wrote the page.
I definitely do NOT want M$ or anybody else defacing my page by adding or altering MY links.
If they were sixteen year old european kids, they'd be hauled from their homes by the police.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
M$ in its facist wisdom will now decide to route you anywhere M$ wants you to go today (namely, to where ever someone has given them money to get their tags to the top of the list.)
There will be no possibility of garanteeing that the links that a visitor to your page has available on what they might surmise is your page are the ones that you, the author, actually placed there.
This gives M$ the possibility to redirect the entire content of the internet to their own advantage.
Imagine that you're a fundamentalist group and fork over enough dough to M$ to insure that links to your site's pages are used ahead of the competition WHEN PEOPLE WERE CLICKING TO GET TO THE COMPETITION'S PAGES!
The potential for misuse is staggering. I'm no sci-fi writer but I can follow this train of thought "five minutes into the future" and it smacks of every "benign humanitarian experiment gone wrong" scenario I've ever read or watched.
Crackers defacing a web-site for nothing but kicks have nothing on the potential for one-sided misdirection and misinformation of such a distopian web of deceit.
It make the WorldWideWeb into the WorldWideLie, by default!
I hope that we can find the moron who came up with this scheme, strap him down and McVeigh the idiot.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If its so easy to make web sites all go through the trouble to opt-out of this defacement, why doesn't M$ make it an opt-in option? So that sites would only need to go do something extra to their sites IFF they WANTED this crap???
I suspect it wouldn't make the pages that Microsoft links to open, although it may make the links themselves open. But links are (or at least shouldn't be) the same as the content that they point to. However, if Microsoft adds slogans and logos for products, I think those could arguably be opened as well.
I do think there are legal questions here-- is microsoft "republishing" your page by changing the layout/display/presentation from the author's intentions? I dunno though if it's really a copyright violation per se.
Microsoft better really be careful about stepping on other people's logos and stuff though, because they could possibly violate trademarks (?).
Dunno. Not a lawyer.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I've resisted the urge to do something like that in the past. I may have to reconsider if I begin hearing stories about too many sites' web pages having links to inserted to MS-approved partners. I wouldn't worry too much about ignoring the users of that browser with 90-percent market share. I would rather configure a web server once than to have to go through tons of web pages inserting code to block Smart Tags.
Anybody know of a way to have Apache generate a ``666'' error so I can create a special ErrorDocument to spit out when it receives a request from IE? (heh heh heh)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
ROTFLMAO! Am I the only one that expects to see things get inserted into web pages like:
Anyone betting that something like these will not be part of the defaults?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Not a lot methinks.. Still something prone for abuse, probably by Microsoft. I shudder at the customer complaints of 'bad linkage' or problems with the links to other websites (either in content or whatever) that are directed to the webmasters of these sites and yet they never created the links. Joe Schmoe won't understand the technicalities behind it.. as far as he sees, *your* site has these links. You can bet the disable tag won't work .. or will only work from an IIS web server or some such shit.
Control should be that of the publisher of the site. Thanks to the internet, anyone can become a publisher. Most sites have emails for the webmaster to suggest improvements, and linking to things is obviously one of them.
--
Delphis
Delphis
I first came across flyswat installed on my mom's computer. She uses the NeoPlanet shell for IE, something I set up for her in 1998. As it works, and because I can't figure out how to convert all of her email to Outlook, she is still using it. Anyway, I came to visit a year ago and found a bunch of brownish-green links on all her web pages. Links that were really commercial. After some investigation I found them coming from a program called flyswat running in the background. She didn't know how they got there, and didn't use them, so I uninstalled flyswat.
Let me say right away, the idea isn't bad. I would really use it if it didn't change the look of the document with ugly brown lines... if I could right-click on any word and get a contextual menu on it. Even information on where to buy, or similar things commercial.
And as long as it isn't turned on by default in MSIE 6, and it doesn't *replace* any functionality or links in a page I write, I'm not going to worry about it, and will likely be glad to have it as a browsing option.
On a side note, I've always wanted to set up some post-processor for adding contextual links to documents I serve. I'd especially like for all names in my Intranet web documents to be linked to people objects, and projects to project objects, etc.
How about "IntelliActiveDirectSmartPatchX"?
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Interesting...
So...if any exploit, trojan horse, or even simple "trick" exists to get smart tag files onto unwitting IE6 user's systems, someone could create a "goatse.cx" virus that puts the infamous trolling link all over not just slashdot, but pages everywhere (from the point of view of the IE6 user).
You can almost hear the goatse.cx guy frantically signing up to put banner ads on his page to cash in on all the hits he's going to get :-)
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
That takes care of client-side, but not "server-side", which I think is what most people are worried about.
The point is that people are worried that if Microsoft decides to "smart-tag", say, references to Linux to be links to Microsoft's amusing "Linux Myths" page, and the IE6 user turns on Smart Tags because he or she wants "smart tags" for their favorite stamp-collecting sites, Microsoft could then 'auto-deface' people's linux information sites with links to the so-called "Linux Myths" page, unless the operator of that site has gone through all of his or her pages and inserted the IE6-specific "smart-tag disabling" meta-tag.
In short - the concern seem to be that Microsoft is making extra work for anyone who doesn't want to accept any links that Microsoft may want to insert into your pages when displayed to IE6 users.
I'm personally less bothered by the fact that I'll have to go through and add tags to all of my pages than I am by the fact that I now have to add "Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0"-only tags, specifically. The notion that, as with file formats, Microsoft could potentially later change the format of the tags for IE 6.5, say, to add other features might "re-enable" the so-called "smart tags" for IE 6.5 users by default, until the page owners go back through and add/change "Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x"-only tags to all of their pages AGAIN probably also worries some of us...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
No...we wouldn't. We'd be wondering what the heck Linus was smoking to have inserted a web page filter into the kernel, where it really doesn't belong...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Ok, MS says you can put a tag in your page to disable smart tags. This forces thousands of people who don't want to be effected by smart tags to add extra tags to their html.
I think it should be the other way around. If somebody wants smart tags to be allowed on their site, they should have to put a tag to enable it. This way, people who don't want to be effected by smart tags don't have to change a thing. I also think MS would take less heat over this "feature" if that was the case.
Question is, who's attention should I bring this too to have the argument brought up to MS. Somehow I don't think MS would take a personal email from me seriously...
josh
Microsoft wants them. Microsoft's shareholders want them. Microsoft is hoping that few other people will consider whether they actually want them or not.
That's the beauty of all "opt-out"-based policies, from the point of view of people who implement them. They give everybody a "choice" that they hope few people will be aware of.
Well, I'm not familiar with the NBCi thing, but I'd guess that they did that on their own pages?
Guess what? Microsoft does it on _every damn page there is_ (except, perhaps, maybe, those who explicitly say "no thanks") and they control which links will show up.
Say, for instance, ZDNet, or Yahoo, or Slashdot, writes about TheNewCoolTechnology(tm), and IE links that story to a story about that tech on a Microsoft-owned page.
Both the original page and the MS-page depends on advertising. Guess who will score more ad money?
Correctamundo - the MS-page...
It doesn't have to be as blatant as in ZDNets example, but there are many other much more subtle uses which will guide the money into Microsofts greedy, greasy hands.
:wq!
Ok, I mitigate.
I didn't know this, thanks for enlightening me!
:wq!
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
You are oversimplifying this. Links most certainly are content because they help determine the overall function and intent of a page.
A simple text-only travelogue describing my trip to Japan is completely different from a fully-linked Web page pointing to the airlines I flew, the hotels I stayed at, the stores I shopped at, and the attractions I visited. Not only is the function of my page enhanced -- visitors could use my links to plan their own trip -- but some endorsement is implied by exactly which links I make.
However, if a visitor to my site has his luggage stolen at one of the hotels I linked to, am I liable? Of course not.
This is the argument against smart tags. No one could ever hold me responsible for what Microsoft tags, but that's not what I care about. What I care about is that Microsoft's tags alter the function and intent of my page.
Google does this with its search engine. As do other search engines. There should be no reason I need to have robots.txt files there should be no reason I need to add more and more meta tags to the .
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
If I create a a web page it IS MY content, even if I put it on a server and do not copyright it is is MY content. Who is Microsoft add their own links into it or google to cache the page?
I wonder how many pages Microsoft will not show or will break by doing that.....
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
An Open Source company Snort-Omicron today announced the the version 6.1 of their WWW-browser Eternal Imploder which contains the brand new Smart Ass-tags technology. The Smart Ass-tags insert hyperlinks into web-pages so that users can get more nasty jokes about the subject of the web page. The beta-version of EI 6.1 only contains material on certain quite big Redmond-based software house but the final release version has lots more interesting stuff Snort-Omicron finds relevant.
Web-page authors may turn of the Smart Ass-tags feature on their web-pages by using a meta-tag. For security reasons the meta-tag changes daily and license program for the daily meta-tags will be announced soon (you know, they have to make money somehow...)
You shouldn't, and you can't. Even if you insert these special tags, you have no guarantee that MSIE (or any other browser) will pay attention to them. There is nothing an author can do to control this behavior. At best, you can advise.
No, everyone who wants to opt out, will have to use a better browser. This is a client issue, not a server issue.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But that's when you're quoting it to someone, when you're redistributing it. If you have your computer display someone else's words in italics (or, more realistically, display it in an easier-to-read font) and you're not passing that modified version off to someone else, do you really need to add "emphasis mine"?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Fair enough, I agree. But if this new development is dangerous, then people are already in danger. Most web sites don't use https, and even when they do, it is rare within that subset for users to actually check the certificates. And that stuff even applies to non-MSIE users. For MSIE users, the risks are even higher. You never know that before going to your page, they didn't look at some other page with an ActiveX control, which MSIE thoughtfully downloaded and executed for them (or ran some trojan that was mailed to them and executed by Outlook). Their whole computer is wide open and anything they read can be subtlely and insideously altered in a way that makes this Smart Tags thing look benign by comparison.
(That might sonds fantastic and paranoid at first, but all it takes is one person to do it, and it can be installed on millions of computers for several years. Look at Melissa & ILOVEYOU stories for a hint at how far and fast a non-subtle one can spread.)
If people are using Microsoft products to look up life-or-death information, then they are already very screwed. The problem is Joe Schmoe doesn't understand this yet.
Of course it is, because this is an opt-in system. You opt in by running MSIE. Don't want to opt in? Don't run MSIE. I realize that Microsoft's monopoly and preloads make this appear futile, but that's just because users have been taught not to make choices.
And maybe this is just because most users still haven't grasped the risks yet. They don't understand things like Verisign certificates and ActiveX and other technical issues and online dangers, but this one is something that almost anyone can understand. And it even has a visible effect on the screen -- this is a godsend in disguise.
If Smart Tags gets widely deployed and publicized, it may very well be the best thing that ever happened to the security and integrity of the web, because Joe Schmoe will know that it actually matters what software he uses, and he'll have to make an informed decision. No more Smart Tags, no more auto-download-and-execute ActiveX trojans, no more email viruses, etc.
Right now, even pre-Smart Tags, you don't know whether or not users are seeing the same content that you publish. But if software integrity ever becomes a market force, you will.
But if we coddle people's ignorance, it will never happen. Integrity will never become highly valued enough to become a market force, because all products will have the illusion of integrity. If the government steps in and stops Smart Tags but leaves all the other vulnerabilities wide open, then we're left with a situation even more precarious and dangerous than before. As someone in the medical sector, this type of thinking should make you shudder: "If this medication were dangerous, then the government would have required that it only be sold with a prescription. Therefore I don't need to ask my doctor before taking it."
The only workable strategy is to encourage defensive thinking and selection on the part of the end user. Allowing Microsoft to dispel the illusion of software integrity, will help. The useability and credibility of your medical web site will increase.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ouch! I sure hope not. I'm giving arguments for allowing web browsers to implement Smart Tags. I'm strongly opposed to actually using that software. :-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think I've identified an important difference between that way I am seeing this issue, and my opponents. And it comes down to this:
Premise: X owns a computer, and uses it to lawfully download a copyrighted work, and then runs software written by Y, which then creates a derivative work on X's computer, and then displays that derivative work for X, without sharing it with any one else. (Do we all agree that this exactly matches what is happening with Smart Tags?)
Who made the derivative work?
I say it's X, and he is perfectly legally allowed this, as Fair Use. (My computer is acting as on behalf of me. I am responsible for what my computer does. It does not matter who wrote the software that my computer runs. It's my computer.)
EFF and others are saying that it's Y. And since Y is then passing that derivative work on to X, Y has just committed copyright infringement. (Microsoft is responsible for what their software does on my computer. Every time I run Microsoft's software, they (the actual company, not my inanimate box) is acting as an agent on my behalf.)
Which is it?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Dammit, I hate being on the side of MS and against EFF, but it seems like some people just don't understand what the WWW is.
You don't have any guarantee of how your page looks or acts. You might have typed in some Javascript that does something annoying, included an image tag that happens to be an advertisement, linked to a Nazi or porno site, and written your textual content in English, and included a bunch of tags that you believe specify a physical appearance and layout of exactly how your page should look. You may even believe that your web page should only be viewed on a video display screen, and never be read aloud to a blind person or displayed on a pocket pager. But you don't have any guarantee that any user agent will respect any of your wishes.
It is not a copyright violation for the user agent to heavily process your document prior to displaying it. If it were, then we wouldn't have web browsers (we would just use "wget" and "more" and read raw HTML). This is the nature of the web, and you know what you're getting into when you put a server on the Internet that replies to HTTP requests. Because the social convention for replying to HTTP requests is "anything goes" and everything is merely advisory. If the possibilities frighten you, then the WWW isn't for you. Run a dialup BBS instead, where people download PDFs. (And just hope that PDF-viewing developments remain stagnant.)
It's fine with me if Microsoft gets bitchslapped in the marketplace and press over this due to everyone simply hating it (after all, Smartlinks is a rather cheesy idea). If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's not unlawful. If we change the law (either by passing legislation, or having a judge "clarify" (*cough*) the existing law) to make this illegal, then there some other things will be theatened as well. Just off the top of my head:
- People's right to use translators
- People's right to link a web browser to a dictionary so they can easily look up
words that they don't know the meaning of
- People's right to use third-party annotations, such a Third Voice
- People's right to filter out ads or anything else they don't want to see
- People's right to use style sheets
- People's right to turn off Javascript, frames, ActiveX, Java, etc.
- People's right to use any browser that doesn't render a page exactly the same
way as whatever the market leader happens to be at the time
- And a little more indirectly (but not much): People's right to use caches,
anonymizing proxies, encrypted tunnels, or anything else that increases security
or performance
I hope Robin Gross rethinks this issue, because EFF is wrong this time.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Of course, $HTTP_USER_AGENT is just fiction anyway. You just filtered out a lot of other users too since everyone tells their browser to spoof as MSIE, due to incompetent web admins going to extra trouble to exclude non-MSIE users.
Due to a long history of abuse, that field has been rendered meaningless. Thus making any decisions based upon it, is always a bad idea.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
File and printer sharing are disabled by default.
It's not too hard to tell which links are created by the content creator and which links are put there automatically by the hosting company. So your average user is already quite adept at figuring out which links are "authentic" and which are extraneous.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
Because no one has a choice about what browser to use? Last I checked Opera and Mozilla both exist for Windows. No one's twisting your arm to use IE.
on my toolbar: javascript:location.href='http://www.google.com/se arch?q='+escape(document.getSelection());
tcboo
If a vendor is going to do something like this, and I don't personally think it is a good thing, then it should be opt-in, not opt-out. Web developers shouldn't have to insert a meta-tag to tell Microsoft not to rewrite their site, they should have to insert a tag to tell Microsoft it is O.K. for them to rewrite their site. Also, such a feature, if present, should be off by default, and should issue a warning to the user that it is going to alter site content for probably financial gain of the browser vendor before it lets them turn the feature on. Such a feature can also potentially infringe on the privacy of careless users. Many people strongly suspect that Microsoft is busy building a huge customer database through click analysis, and this sort of tool, where they get to put links to their site is a tremendously powerful one for that, because they can look at the referrer from sites that wouldn't normally link to them and be able to more closely track the browsing patterns of people even when they aren't on Microsoft's site or one that Microsoft already has their teeth into, such as LinkExchange member sites.
I personally am hoping that negative public reaction to this feature will get it removed, but I don't think it is something that Microsoft will give up on easily. It is features like this that really tend to make the arguments that Microsoft is trying to take over and proprietarize the Internet not look so much like conspiracy theories.
Your argument against Junkbuster doesn't really fly, because it is something the user has to choose to implement and it isn't something that is being done for commercial gain of another content publisher. It is the user choosing to opt-out of seeing banner ads, etc. Saying user's can't do that is like saying they can't fast-forward through commercials on a video tape -- oh wait. The people that make copy-protected DVDs are already doing that. Make no mistake, Microsoft isn't implementing this feature because they want to make life easier for users as much as they are doing it because they can redirect user's to their content to see their advertising, and so they can do clickstream analysis of people's browsing habits even when they aren't on Microsoft's pages. The idea of a hyperlink generator might be more palatable to me if the user had control over who they were going to be sent to whenever they went to one of those links, but not much. I think complaints about improper hyperlinking are still valid, and I don't think that this "smart tag" system represents proper linking.
If the mozilla group came up with this you'd love it.
If the Mozilla group was doing it, it wouldn't be motivated by a company trying to suck the advertising dollars away from every other site on the web. It wouldn't be motivated by a company trying to build a huge database of browsing habits of users in order to be able to make more money from them.
If it can be switched on/off in the browser (and can be switched off by those pages that really don't want to allow it - even if their reader does) then where's the issue?
The issue it should be opt-in for the web designer, not opt-out. It should be off by default in the browser, and should display a warning to the user that it will alter the content of pages for the commercial interest of the browser vendor, and that it has privacy implications to the user because it will be used to gather data from them for marketing purposes. And the user should be allowed, if the feature is enabled, to pick an alternate source for the "smart tag" references other than the browser vendor.
It should work the other way around. Instead of needing a particular meta tag to disable it, they should require a meta tag to enable it. That way I doubt many people would see anything wrong with it.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
The problem I see is that Microsoft is the one deciding what links to add and to what site it should point. I really like the idea of those smart tags, my two gripes about it are that it is on by default and has to be disabled and that Microsoft is the one deciding what to add.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
M$: hands off my editing till I tell you different!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Didn't the robots.txt start out this way ?
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
You are aware that the default installation of any software under windows is the same case and that it is of enormous value even for a company like AOL that its software is part of that default?
We are talking of a unprecedent editorial power over the majority of internet users, not about the fairly competent minority
They're assuming that by default, everyone wants to participate when the exact opposite is probably true.
They're not assuming everyone wants to participate. They're *forcing* everyone to participate because it's good for their business. Microsoft never assumes anything. They do things for specific reasons.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The article linked in the story is a good example of how a piece of information could be subverted using Smart Tags:
But then again, what if someone went through this entire column and underlined words, without my permission (link to unflattering photo of author) and then put in the links to Web sites and pages that made a mockery or subverted everything I wrote (link to photo of Karl Marx)? Yes, I could see how that would really be annoying (link to high school yearbook photo of author).
Frankly, if I write a story and post it on my website, I don't want Microsoft deciding what gets hyperlinked and what doesn't. I consider the hyperlinks to be part of the content that I "approve" for my article.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
ZDnet has a similar "smart tags enabled" article "Microsoft Tries To Get Smart", but your's expresses the idea much more succintly!
cpeterso
Some thoughts on the Smart Tag issue.
1) Would it be getting nearly as much attention if it was being done by someone else other than Microsoft?
2) Is the basic concept a bad idea?
3) What are the legal issues?
After thinking it over, I think #1 is only partially true. If anyone was making a display-alteration system and attempting to get distributed, there would be controversy. Microsoft doing it just makes it something people will pay attention to for a variety of reasons - including (well-placed) mistrust of the company.
The basic concept however, of finding ways to enhance web delivery and use, is one I think is pretty useful. I've seen a variety of software packages meant to enhance the web experience. I think the basic idea isn't one to toss out - it's the implementation we should be concerned about.
Finally, the legal issues. To that I say - are we surprised it's already being talked about in legal issues? The internet and computer legislation of today is an utter mess - and the insanity of the DMCA is clearly displayed where companies champion it one moment, and violate it the next. I'm sure that Smart Tags will merely expose more of the pathology of technology legislation today - and, of course, I'm going to enjoy it.
In closing, I think the idea of enhancing web display isn't inherently flawed - but the company that's suddenly championing it and the legal labrynth of today certainly complicate any issues of actual usefulness.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I believe it was ReplayTV that had a multibillion dollar lawsuit sitting on their head because they had an option to zap commercials *manually* (note: I'm not up on the details, feel free to give the specifics). Recently a theater owner was found guilty of modifying a film to remove a "dirty" bit to "clean up" the movie. The film industry said that theater owners can't modify the film, and it was backed up. So, how is the web different? It's merely a younger medium without a few powerful people controlling it.
Wait a second... scratch that last sentence. Microsoft through IE and .net will shortly be controlling it.
Hehehehe... here's an *evil* profit scheme... create a free ISP (the rest have just about died), and replace all inbound 468x60 banner ads with those of your choosing.
Why not? It's just the client modifying the content, and since it pays for your ISP, it's value added, right? If you were the biggest software company in the world, you might even get away with it.
--
Evan "Grumble, grumble..." E.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
<script>2 07&mode=thread";
if(navigator.appVersion.indexOf('MSIE 6') != -1) {
window.location = "http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/12/1250
}
</script>
(If you don't grok javascript, that makes anyone using IE6 get redirected to this slashdot article)
The thing is that it's another 'new' technology. The problem is the Microsoft is implementing it. Once an idea is out there it's hard to say you can't use it. This has become all to clear with the atom bomb. Now, I'll conceed that smart tags aren't actually a weapon, but it is a technology that just opens itself up the being abused. I'll grant you that closed sites are horrible, and I'll even agree that smart tags could be cool, but I just don't trust Microsoft in using a technology in ethical ways. They probably won't come out and replace every word with a link to their site, but those who fall out of favor with the regime will certainly not have their site smart-linked. I personally feel Microsoft just found another big stick to flail ...
I think this is 100% up to the end user. If I want my browser to automatically do this, that's MY choice. MS can make it a feature, it should be off by default. That's all there is to it.
I can view your web page however you like, and if I want my browser to automatically filter, link, and do other things.. that's my business.
So why don't we flip the choices and see what their responses are? Create say "Intelligent Links" on sites from within mozilla. And create a similar XML file that allows key words and links to sites that microsoft wouldn't like. So - any time there appears the words Microsoft - link to www.apple.com. M$ - link to www.linux.org. Windows - www.xfree.org or www.gnome.org, etc. travel plans -> www.travelocity.com not www.expedia.com. browser - www.mozilla.org. Internet -> www.google.com. And so on and so on.
-cpd
There a billions web pages. Micro$oft should be
using a Metatag that would authorize Smart tags.
If no Metatag was found, well do not fu*k with our WEB pages !
-1 Flamebait
:(
Where are my moderation post on the days when I really need them
Not true at all, Microsoft is adding links to third-party's web sites. This is exactly the same as the book store writing in the margins then selling the books.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Because then Microsoft would have to give people an incentive to do so. By having it on by default, the incentive is built in because everyone will want it turned off.
Microsoft has some good lawyers, and I'm betting they are confident that this behavior, however, devious and malignant it is, will be upheld as legal. I think people are just going to have to deal with it and do what they can to let Microsoft know we won't accept they're heavy-handed tactics. I hate to say it, but I think the users and the Web in general lose again.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
My E-commerce site:
Hi, welcome to my commerce site I sell widgets do you want to buy some?
Click here to be brought to my check out.
My Smart Tag enabled E-commerce site:
Hi welcome to my commerce site I sell widgets do you want to buy some?
Click here to be brought to my check out
In other news today....
More Dot com failure as E-commerce sales drop to an all time low.
Analysts are puzzled by this unanticipated drop. What can possibly be the problem?
There is no
If I offer up a slashdot-based XML file that turns every "microsoft" into a link to, say, http://go-linux/microsoft_bad?article=random, or article=latest, then every occurence of microsoft can bring up a new thing against it.
CNN could link words like "president" to an article list, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, you're going to come back and say "well, how could users find this file in the first place? it'd be buried in cryptic windows directories!", and I'd anticipate that the website could create an installer program for it.
Regarding the 'sanctity' of your 'content' : I would not be altering how you present it to visitors at all. I'm using an apparently opt-in (though admittedly that may change) option to help me alter content. The next visitor to your site won't see my changes; your content remains intact. In fact, given some expansion, they could increase how your visitors interact with your content.
The responses to this story are a little disappointing. Or funny, but disappointing mostly.
Good bit of trolling.
:) Surely playing the reactionary in an online forum is much less rewarding than playing one in real life? The reactions are so much more extreme when you, e.g., try to blockade a Gay Pride march...
Obviously Jon Erikson does not exist (read his user info, it is quite funny) but people like that do exist, and their not satires.
1 Menstruation is a sin posted on 05:57 AM June 13th, 2001 CAS (Score:4 Replies:11)
attached to Really Targeted Advertising
2 Ugh, tampons are not suitable for TV posted on 05:32 AM June 13th, 2001 CAS (Score:2 Replies:4)
attached to Really Targeted Advertising
...
4 Value added posted on 10:28 PM June 12th, 2001 CAS (Score:3 Replies:39)
attached to "Smart Tags," Round Two
Trolling his way to high karma, obviously
deus does not exist but if he does
Only a real conspiracy nut would believe in mysterious organizations like the 'Troll High Council' (a secret group available for hire by websites to generate controversial discussions and hence increase page hits).
:) would mention the possibility only to dismiss it, thus leaving open the tantalising possibility that this denial is just part of the cover-up...
:)
Apparently sometimes these guys are hired by senior management, and even the guys running the web site don't know that they have paid, professional trolls 'improving' their site on a daily basis.
Only a real conspiracy nut (and don't worry, that's a compliment
I blame the Illuminatus! books. Ever since reading them, my critical faculties are all shot to hell
deus does not exist but if he does
What about porn... will it give you links to other porn, and info about more porn. I'd give M$ props on that.
:)
That depends... does Microsoft have substantial investments in any porn sites?
Just because everybody seems to obey when Microsoft tells them to bend over and take it, doesn't mean that they will try and making a profit by selling the videos
deus does not exist but if he does
We have an article about "smart tags" at evolt.org that people might be interested in reading - includes a few more links and a screenshot of them in action:
Microsoft implementing 'Smart Tags' in IE release
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Microsoft is not the only company to use Smart Tags. UPS and LexisNexis are both going to use them. LexisNexis is going to use Smart Tags to provide LexisNexis users instant access to law cases, statutes, and other information. This is a service provided to their customers. It is not changing the content of a site, it is enhancing it for those who want it enhanced.
I realize that this new feature has been created by Microsoft, but that doesn't make it bad. I think it sounds pretty cool. It will allow companies to add functionality to their users. What is wrong with that?
If I view all websites from within a frameset, does that constitue a deriative work? I don't think so. It sounds to me like those objecting to this new feature are objecting to Microsoft earning a buck. Damn them for adding new features.
Someone using the term 'loosing' properly! Not a mistaken spelling for 'losing'! On the Internet! On Slashdot, no less! Yikes!
This is truly frightening. Perhaps something terrible is about to happen. Death awaits us all with sharp pointy teeth...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I can't wait for the worm that "fixes" a person's smart tags.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Could you code a (java|vb)script in this smart tag file that would execute if clicked or has a mouse over? Would this smart tag feature execute it?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Even better would be an apache module
shipped with the default apache setup
that adds the blocking meta-tag to all
pages with appropriate mime type
(text/html).
-- close but no sig
If they set it up such that a web-site author had to proactively adda meta tag to turn on this feature and let the benevolent Microsoft edit their web page, I think it would be acceptable. That way only the true sell-outs would use it.
The whole issue is about control (isn't it always). What sort of smart links do you suppose will be generated with the word browser is encountered (Mozilla? think again), or when the phrase 'operating system' is encountered (hint: not BEOS). Suppose an anti-abortion website has the word 'abortion', and the so-called smart tag links to a pro-abortion website. This is obviously not what the authors had intended, and it brings up the question of who should be allowed to change the look (and content) of a website. I know that you can put some stuff into your website to disable smart tags being used on it, but this puts the burden on the author, not to mention that it is a requirement for only Microsoft browsers. This should be an opt-in type thing, where you can add stuff to your web pages if you want smart tags to work with it. Of course, then the use of the feature would depend on web site authors actually wanting it, which might be unacceptable to the company pushing it.
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
If Microsoft won't allow OEM's to change the applications that show up on the desktop (one of the minor issues at trial), what makes you think they'll let the OEM's change the default "Smart Tags"?
To be fair, they aren't really "killing" mp3 in the new os, so much as not adding mp3 encoding. MP3 decoding wills till work great, but it will ship with a new media encoder that just doesn't contain a high quality MP3 encoder. So even then you can still view your file library and download a good MP3 encoding program if you ran windows. (Right now you pretty much have to download an encoding program anyway, so it won't make things harder, just make it easier for the unwashed to use the WMA format). Of course this smart tags stuff, along with so much other stuff is just BS. XP is just Microsoft's response to everything else being themeable and trying to fix the home series by migrating to NT style. I wonder if they'll actually do that this time. Ever since NT-4 they've been saying the next release of the home line will be based on NT. Maybe they think how nice it would be, and then figure out that there wouldn't be enough of a difference between the home and professional edition to warrant a lot of people to pay the extra cash.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It is a conincidence that they went on "vacation" before news of this broke? hmmm . . .
- daniel
- daniel
Turn off your computer and go outside
What's the difference between this and something like if Microsoft made it so that any program that runs on Windows has to add an extra command at the beginning telling it that you want it to come up with a random number when you use a randomiser, rather thanthe new added functionality where it always comes up with 0.5
Oh, you mean like Microsoft's anti-interoperability socket-initialization crap. Too bad they couldn't have stuck to the core when they scarfed the open-source BSD socket-handling code.
And as you said, for the 99.99% of users who aren't "aware" of any possible web options, they're going to absent-mindedly click OK, thinking that it's some required part of the internet.
This almost reads as if you would expect Microsoft to include a "Decline" button on that panel.
There is some middle ground. Perhaps Microsoft could check the page for the '©' symbol, and if it is found, then search for the inclusionary tag, granting them license to modify the page.
Microsoft doesn't need to bother with anything like this; they just need to purchase new legislation to create SULAs (Start-User License Agreements). "By having any user access your site with a Microsoft product, you hereby agree to the following terms...". You would, of course, be free to opt-out of this agreement by including a special meta-tag to deny your page to all users of Microsoft products.
HTTP allows you to determine the type and version of browser that is accessing a page. You could always write a little script that detected whether a smart-tag-capable browser was accessing your page, and redirect it to an "error" page, instructing the reader to get a different browser before visiting the page again.
Or Apache could just be modified to have an option send back the special disabling meta-tag with all content returned to an IE client. Of course, this option would be enabled by default...
(It's a good thing that Microsoft doesn't own the web-server market.)
What do you mean more restrictive variable scope for classes? You mean private variables? That might be cool. What I really want is try catch exception handling and more uniform API not to mention better implementation of the HERE syntax.
War is necrophilia.
Font changes are applied universally wheas smart tags are applied selectively. To the user the smart tag adds emphasis. To you it's disaster. Your competitor will buy smart tags which will lure your customers from your site to their site.
War is necrophilia.
Which asshole MS astro turfer marked this down as flamebait. Somebody nail that bastard on meta.
The degree of astro turfing on slashdot is getting ridiculus.
War is necrophilia.
Great if you are VB or VC++ developer running windows. Sucks if you are using some other OS.
War is necrophilia.
You forgot to add.
Smart tag SDK only works on windows. You must purchase windows and windows developement tools and learn them in order to create tags to defend yourself from microsft hijacking your customers to whever pays MS the most money. Great for MS sucks for you.
War is necrophilia.
I don't know why you keep insisting that the USER is modifying the page. The users are cluless moron sheeple who have smart tags installed on their machine. It's MS who is modifying the page the user is a pair of eyeballs MS sells to advertisers.
You seem to know something about this technology so tell me this. What happens when MS tags a word and I tag a word? Whose tag appears and in what order?
War is necrophilia.
Heh, that's a good one. Being as my personal home page is 100% cached/buffered templated PHP with a custom written news and forum system.
Ah, PHP. Food of the gods.
Now, if they could only add taint mode and more restrictive variable scope for classes. But, nobody's perfect. ^_^
--
Shaun Thomas: INN Programmer
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Exactly. I just finished "Weaving The Web" by Tim Berners-Lee, and I just have to wonder how he takes things like this. His chapter on what he thinks the future of the web would be is fairly englightening on where the W3C will go.
The impression I get is that he wants the web to be self-building to a point. This would certainly aid that development, but I'm not so sure he'd agree with doing it this way. If the W3 came up with this, I'd be all for it. But there's no way in hell I'll trust any one company to use something like this responsibly.
Ah well. We'll just have to see.
--
Shaun Thomas: INN Programmer
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Oh, don't worry about it. I knew who the comment was directed at. It's nice to see people advocating the use of PHP. ^_^
--
Shaun Thomas: INN Programmer
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
What, has everyone forgot the point of the internet?
So there's a meta tag. And when company X makes another new feature I don't want my site to participate in, I'll need yet another meta tag, and another meta tag, ad infinitum. Why can't there be a meta tag to TURN IT ON instead of turn it off. Isn't that what meta tags are for? To give browsers extra information?
Retrofitting the entire internet IS NOT going to make friends. This should be more of an opt-in than an opt-out. They're assuming that by default, everyone wants to participate when the exact opposite is probably true.
::sigh:: Embrace and extend. Yay.
--
Shaun Thomas: INN Programmer
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
This word "Real"... I don't think it means what you think it means...
Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY
page.
"Smart Tags"(TM), somebody else put the link on MY page.
(i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real
Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
Not true at all. In DeCSS, you put the link on your page. With
Smart Tags, the reader puts the link (remember they chose to turn in on) on the
page as they read it. This is exactly the same as complaining if someone
goes out, buys a book and then writes in the margins. No one is touching
your page - they are annotating their own view of it.
Real Fact: The code is written, works, and
exists in Office XP already.
So what? A lot of code is written, works and never gets published.
The Office XP code doesn't link you anywhere but to the help (and in fact I've
been using it for the past 2 or 3 months and quite like it).
I've got code that will make any GPL source a binary only module. Who
cares unless I use it?
Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files
on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard
drive available to third parties!
WTF? How does the fact that the filters are XML mean that the user's
drive is open to 3rd parties? They aren't even cookies - they are not sent
to a web site, they aren't published anywhere, they are simply installed like
software. This is akin to saying that since bash scripts are files on the
local machine that you can edit then bash is making the user's hard drive
available to third parties. What utter crud!!
Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes
on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
It's in beta. What did you expect?
Perhaps you don't know this, but all IE distros are customizable by the
supplier through the 'branding.cab' file. This file can be edited to
provide whatever you like with your download of IE, and I expect plenty of 3rd
parties to be dumping lots and lots of effort into this. In fact, I'd be
surprised if it doesn't end up like ActiveX controls where the tag engines can
be downloaded from anywhere.
On a side note, have you ever hit the "what's related" button on IE? I
just did on the slashdot page and not one of the links went to a Microsoft site.
Guess that dispels your paranoid ravings for a little.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Sorry, but that's no different from me standing in my competitor's store and handing out information about my store.
Umm... you can do this until they ask you to leave. I guess that means MS can put tags on your page until you ask them not to (use the META tag).
Aside from that, your argument is a strawman. This isn't like handing out leaflets in a store at all. It's like someone getting your mailorder catalog (your web page) and asking the postman (Internet Explorer) to scribble on any related info that he knows. As it is an optional service, the user can ask the postie to stop providing that extra information at any time.
Personally I see no problem with this. If someone else has cheaper hammers then as an end user I want to know about it. If someone is browsing Microsoft's site and 'Operating Systems' links to linux.org then is this a bad thing? You don't have to be Microsoft's partner to create a Smart Tag filter - go to msdn.microsoft.com and build one yourself if you care.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
You are correct, except for one thing: The user has chosen to put the links there. It's not Microsoft - they are providing the service, and they are not changing Bob corp.'s web site at all, just performing a reference lookup on behalf of the user.
IE already does this (in case you didn't notice) - just click on the "What's Related" button and you'll get a sidebar with everything on it.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
That aside, the choice to link or not to link is up to the web publisher, this is a different issue than responsibility for the content that was linked to.
True, but are you saying the user doesn't have the option of adding their own content to what you provide? If this is the case then you'd better also disallow scribbling on any textbook in college because that is EXACTLY the same thing.
First, probably is not good enough.
Agreed.
Second, the user can decide how my site looks, but the content is my business, hence it being MY site.
Garbage. The user has the right to do whatever they like with your site for their own personal use. They can wrap it around a three-dimensional naked sheep that sings a lewd ballad about goats if they want to. The user can decide to only look at every third word, or run a filter to remove every single link to doubleclick. You have NO rights as to what the user does with the published work as long as they don't republish it themselves.
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
To me this is one of the most disturbing issues. I don't want political, religious or any other type of special interest group to have any oppertunity to bombard me with propoganda. I especially don't want them able to bombard my web site with their propoganda.
So either include the META tag on your site. You still have no rights as to what users do once they have downloaded your site. If they want to interpret it by rearranging the words until they get Nazi war slogans then it's up to them.
And once again links are content. People choose to link or not link for specific reasons, and it is not the place of microsoft or anyone else to add or take away links. Especially when they do it in a way that may confuse users as to the provider of the content (and no, the squiggly purple lines are NOT different enough... many users won't get the distinction, and what about colorblind persons?)
Now you are hitting on something. If Microsoft doesn't give the user the option of what smart tags are in use, or even enables only 'partner' tags by default then there is an issue (especially now IE is the dominant browser). Assuming the default tags are just the benign ones in Office XP (name lookups, phone number etc.) then I don't see the problem.
The fact remains though that the user has the right to add and remove links as they like from your site for their own viewing. This is completely outside copyright restrictions and completely outside publisher's rights. If you honestly believe that Addison Wesley has the right to demand that no annotation be done on a textbook then you can feel free to continue your line of discussion.
If I was the type of insecure scoundrel that had to mod my own posts up I certainly wouldn't admit it.
Umm... you can't mod up your own posts. You can't even use moderator points in the same thread. I'm quite secure in my posts though - I believe that I should always be responsible for what I say and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
No, I'm saying a third party doesn't have the right to modify the user's experience for me. Remember the user is not creating these links for themselves, a third party is doing it. While I agree that a technical user would understand the difference and could put the smart links to good use, the typical user won't.
Ah. I agree with that sentiment. I've trimmed most of the rest of the post because we have hit what I believe is the central issue.
What I am saying is that Smart Tags as they currently stand are just fine because they don't actually do anything pro-Microsoft by default. The user has to make an active decision to turn that on. Currently the default tags (looking at my Office XP install and the SDK - I don't have the appropriate beta of IE6 or WinXP) are harmless - names, phone numbers and the like. There's no company specific things there that I can see that are enabled by default.
Given that the web browser has the ability already to rewrite your site in pretty much any way it likes through the use of filters and plugins, I don't see Smart Tags as anything but a method of simplifying the browser customization. If a company can convince users to run their Smart Tag filter then it's good for them.
If Smart Tags become an opt-in technology rather than opt-out then (IMHO) they become useless because the whole purpose is for the user to find more links to information that is relevant to the page they are currently browsing, not for the web designers to just get lazy and turn on the tags. This destroys their whole reason for existing, and as a result I'd just call them bloatware in that case.
My argument is that a third party DOES have the right to modify a user's experience IF the user gives them that right. The user has the right to apply whatever rose-colored glasses to information you provide, including the rose-colored ones provided by whatever Smart Tag filter they install on their machine.
I just don't want someone else modifying their perception of my site.
My take on this is that if the user has enabled the Smart Tag, then the user has delegated the modification of the site to that (trusted) 3rd party. I believe this is allowable.
I would say that Addison Wesley has the right to demand that Barnes and Noble can't annotate books prior to sale.
Sure, but my take on Smart Tags is that they are equivalent to the customer bringing along a representative of their choice to annotate the book before they read it, after they bought it. I believe this is much closer to the real nature, as the Smart Tag is part of the User Agent and not part of the HTTP transaction.
Umm... you can't mod up your own posts. You can't even use moderator points in the same thread.
I'm well aware of that, but by your comment I wasn't sure you were... or I figured you might have a second account with mod points waiting to mod yourself up. In regards to that comment I would say that I misrepresented you as a scoundrel. I might think you are misguided, and I'd still like to know what that line about wishing you had mod points meant, but the scoundrel comment was probably uncalled for.
Scoundrel didn't offend me at all - I've been called far worse. You learn very quickly not to take offense at anything on Slashdot, Usenet or pretty much any public forum (or you go postal in a hurry). All I meant was I had moderator points that I really wanted to give other posts on this article, but decided to post instead. I just have this incredible ability to put across a message that is only passingly similar to what I really mean, and never exactly.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Your problems doesn't exist. It's a strawman. The way Smart Tags work is the user has to enable them. Sure - it's possible that the user could turn on Microsoft's smart tags, but they could just as easily turn on Netscape's, Corel's or Sun's.
There is nothing that stops a Chevy salesman coming onto a Ford car lot except for the fact that he will be asked to leave (he's not trespassing until that point). Asking him to leave is the equivalent of putting the META tag on your site. Your analogy only serves to show that Smart Tags indeed mirror the way things work at the moment.
It is in no way illegal as the tags are turned on by the user and so the user is in control of what they are reading.
If someone wrote a perl script that did the same thing for use on an Apache or Squid proxy would you feel the same way? I think a lot of people need to get over their knee-jerk MS reaction and see the technology for what it really is - a way USERS can get more information (possibly on competitors) from a web site. The USER is in control - that is a good thing, remember?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Smart tags are just COM components. Download the SDK and write one for yourself. They are NOT controlled by Microsoft, they are NOT only provided by Microsoft.
Fact is, you don't get it and from the sound of it you didn't stop frothing at the mouth long enough to even try.
Download the SDK (it's available on msdn.microsoft.com). Have a long look at it. Figure it out. Learn something for once.
Whoever the idiots are that modded you up to +5 are just as bigoted and closed-minded. (There goes all my karma in one hit). Time to metamoderate...
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Anyway, the Smart Tags service probably will be controlled mainly by Microsoft for the main reason that most users never download updates and it's highly unlikely users will bother updating their Smart Tags with other sites information...
Besides, if MS made the word Linux go to their "Linux myth" page, do you think any users would ever download the Slashdot updated tags? And even if they did, would the MS version preempt third party SmartTags?
(Sigh). Go to MSDN. Download the Smart Tag SDK. Go to Office eServices Smart Tags page. Look at the number of different (independent) companies providing Smart Tag filters. You may learn the following:
So, in other words, your desire to believe MS is evil seems to have gotten in the way of your reasoning somewhere.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
From the information I've seen:
:-(
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not.
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content.
...and I wasted all those moderator points I would have loved to spend on this thread to bring you this.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Advertising == Skewed view of reality. If you skew it even more, will you get closer to reality?
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I, too, have admired your web pages for a long time now.
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
You have a right to modify your copy of a copyrighted work. Take a book and black out the offensive sections, rip out the dull chapters, etc.
exactly..... but how would you like it if the book store ripped out that dull chapter or blacked out offensive words from every copy of that book before they stocked it on their shelf....thats more or less what this is... you wouldnt be very happy about that...and neither would the author!
Microsoft is notorious for matking "On" the default selection for a potentially unwanted "feature". The metatag should at least turn this feature on, not off...so authors can permit microsoft to tag up their page. For example, you dont see signs on all the walls in the world specifying that grafitti is not permitted....although sometimes owners of buildings DO give graf-artistis permission to tag up their walls because they appreciate the art for whatever reason. What microsoft is trying to do should be illegal....for the same reason that spray-painting all over somebody's building without permission is illegal.
James Rudee
Now that poster says "What are you talking about? I never said that!". Big argument starts.
How much do you think this is going to happen on a site like this?
This is what happens when meta tags get stuck into pages without notice or control.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.
And give up that potential profit base? Not bloody likely! Even if they did direct to an open directory, they could detect based on money, all the while tracking user usage.
As I pointed out in round one, software already exists that allows users to do a quick web search with any text selection; no MS approval, no funky presentation changes. In fact, it can work from any application, not just a web browser! I'm talking about InstantLinks, which I wrote. The only hitch is that it requires Mac OS X for its coolness to work, but a limited version could be done for other systems, perhaps directly as a browser plugin.
Create a module that will insert this meta tag in every page sent out from the server. People who don't want their pages screwed with, put them on a website run by Apache. Then you don't have to worry about forgetting that stupid meta tag, it will be inserted on all your pages.
But the problem is that hyperlinks add context to a page or article. What is stop them from marking up linux articles with links to FUD? Or use the links to sell advertising? Or getting a kickback from one of the online encyclopedias so that they can be linked to?
The worse part is that most people won't even know that these links are different from links the author put in, even if they are presented different.
Spencer Ogden
Posting something like this won't matter. /.ians are too excited over the POSSIBILITY of something new to bash microsoft about that they don't care about the truth, or even any dissenting opinions. There have been a couple posts to this effect, in both this article and the previous one. I'm surprised they arent being marked as flamebait - because articles who's basic gist is "Windows sucks! Linux is the tool of the gods!" are getting modded up to +5, Insightful.
Unfortunately, I don't agree:
(i) The link itself IS part of the content of the page. What is referenced to is not. There is a difference in a link called "abortion" to a anti-abortion website and a link called "abortion" to a pro-abortion website: it represents the view of the author of the page in the sense that is states what (s)he agrees with. This is exactly why the DeCSS case still stands when this idea is sunk: the link is different from what is linked to. The link is yours, what you link to could be of someone else.
(iii) Even if smart tags are disabled by default, they can still be enabled, thus allowing others to modify your content. This is copyright infingement.
(iv) Even if others can provide smart tags, this still means that those others can infringe your copyright.
Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things. -- Robert Heinlein
Which reminds me, what's up with the opt-out crap?
(Oh right, this is Micros~1, and anticompetitive practices are their bread and butter.)
The right way to implement this crap would be for IE6 to look for a meta tag to turn ON smart tags. No meta tag? No smart tags.
This way, only site authors who wanted smart-tagging turned on would have to do work to support it. You like smart tags? Opt-in and make your site support 'em.
But the Micros~1 way was to make every site maintainer on earth jump through a hoop to add a meta tag to turn it off. Don't like the feature? It's opt-out - as in "tough titty, we're turning the smart tags on for your page unless you add the tags to make sure our browser behaves normally again."
Fuck 'em.
Reminds me, I should write a proxy to detect Shakespeare and upgrade it to current slang.
"Yo, like, should I put a cap in my ass, or not? Dat's what I gotta aks myself."
- Hamlet.
No longer will we need to be constrained by the linguistic laziness of 16th-century authors.
When I write a web page, I, in my capacity as author and/or editor, decide what terms are worth (or not worth) linking to other sites.
If you don't like the way I write my websites, you can go fuck yourself and read someone else's stuff.
By the way, there wasn't one single hyperlink in your original post that suggested that you (or even funnier yet, an automated agent) somehow knew what the "right number" of hyperlinks per page was. What's up with that? Are you lazy, incompetent, or both?
Oh, that's fine then.
I mean, bundling IE as the default browser didn't do any harm to Netscape and other competitors, did it?
The reason msn.com is one of the top web "properties" is because most users are too clueless to realize their home page can be changed from the default.
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Joe Sixpack is gonna have sufficient clue to find and edit XML to remove smart tags he doesn't like and replace them with ones of his own choosing?
The whole point of "smart tags" is that they're "smart" -- as in "they do the thinking for the user". (As in, "they dumb down the user", but that's another XP thread entirely.)
Or better yet, an ActiveX thingy that'd overwrite msdnodc.xml (the client-side file that controls smart-tag appearance) with "appropriate" smart tags.
Wouldn't be a trojan, technically speaking. You'd just pop up a dialog box saying (in typically Microsoftian language):
"This link will upgrade the file that contains your smart links. Do you want to upgrade your smart links? (Yes/No)"
(OK, I'm in an evil mood today. Deal.)
Ok. So, can I apply the GPL to my website? If so, and if it turns out that M$ is creating a derivative work of my website, can I then force them to release the source code to that derivative work? And if so, what exactly would be the source code to the derivative work?
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Not really; the proxy wouldn't be altering the data, only preventing the original data from being altered by IE. In fact, the proxy could look for a meta tag that would specifically enable smart tags (which is how MS would have done it if they had any interest in benefitting their customers) and if present not insert the smart tag blocker. I would consider this a public service along the same lines as cancelling spam on Usenet.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
This reminds me, Mac OS X has a very similar feature called Services, which allow applications to export functionality that can be accessed from anywhere. For example, I can select a URL in a text editor (or terminal window, or any other app), select "Open URL" from the Services menu, and the URL opens in OmniWeb. It would be easy to write a service that would perform dictionary or Google lookups on the selected text, in fact I may do that because it's a good idea.
This technology is more flexible than a static list of words to link, and it keeps the user in control, as opposed to Microsoft's view that they know where you want to go today.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I think they have that backwards. M$ could simply provide a metatag that publishers could insert to ALLOW so-called 'smart-tags'. If the tag isn't there, don't screw with the content.
Like opting out of junk email, the burden should be on the spammer, not the spammed.
--Ravin'
No, HTTP allows you to determine the type and version of browser that the client has been configured to pretend to be.
ME: the web page design serves as a specification.
YOU: No, it serves as a suggestion. As I said in another thread, you have no control over the users' browser, and never have. Get over it.
Legally, HTML is copyrighted expression that is treated as software literary work. The very act of rendering it produces a derivitive work, just as compiling or interpreting any source code produces a derivitive work. This is copyright infringement unless explicitly authorized, however the HTML itself explicitly authorizes display consistent with its commands, which contrary to your implied assertion does not create a unique formatting requirement, but rather authorizes a whole range of derivitive renderings. Smart-tags are not in that range.
You can play wordgames if you like and call it a "suggestion", but please state where you get the legally needed explicit copyright authorization to render it in any way other than consistent with the "suggested" display. Choosing not to load images, whether by filtering ads based on the linked location or simply not providing that functionality in the browser (lynx) does not produce a rendering that is inconsistent with the HTML. Tags can be rendered in a variety of ways including not rendered, but the untagged text cannot be changed. The same thing applies to not executing javascript.
Your examples all share this trait: the browser chooses to render only a subset of the specified HTML commands. That is entirely different than rendering something not expressed.
Go write "I have no control over other people's browsers" on the blackboard until you get it.
In fact I do have a control over other peoples browsers: under the copyright Act, I have a legal cause of action against anyone who uses a browser to commit copyright infringement against me. I can petition a Court for an injunction to force compliance, and if that is ignored, eventually the government will send people with guns to get compliance to the injunction by force.
Go write "17 USC 106(2)" on the board until you get it.
Some people have made much of the fact that html is designed to allow different presentations. This may be true, but the web page design serves as a specification. Presentations of the page must vary within those bounds, other wise a derivitive work is created. In general, creation of a derivitive work is copyright infringement unless it is authorized by the copyright owner. An "opt out" strategy is not availing -- an explicit affirmation is required by law.
There can still be a defense of fair use. For example, if I write a script to add links and run it in my own browser, I haven't done anything that affects the market value of the page, because my affect as a single user is insignificant. Also such a personal script is noncommercial in nature.
Not so for Microsoft. They have been found to be a monopoly specifically in the browser market. As such, when they change your web page, it will be changed for the masses and it will alter the statistics significantly of your click patterns, which clearly affects your ability to profit from you copyrighted content.
Additionally, Microsoft is attempting to profit from this feature, whereas an individual user is probably not doing so. Thus two critical factors of the fair use equation weigh against smart-tags, however this does not mean that all modification of web pages are infringing. Fair use is a case by case analysis.
Microsoft could be accused of creating "derivative works,"
If you placed some GPL code on a web page and left "Smart Tags" on. Would IE be forced to use the GPL license because it took, incorporated, altered, and re-released your GPL code?
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Sure, it's a great idea, but...
A) Microsoft controls the "defaults" where "Smart Tags" take you. 100% of those defaults will be Microsoft sites.
B) Users will not EVER edit that XML formatted file to add their own. They won't even use a GUI to add them.
C) The META tag will break in SP1 or 2. How many times do YOU want to update your page to keep these from showing on it.
D) Junkbuster: user's were crying out for this feature. "Smart Tags": Microsoft is telling users they want this.
(Watch what you say sarcastically about Microsoft or you may find your words in their next PR piece. Ex. "'Smart Tags' Rule! Now it's so easy to get to Microsoft websites, I almost don't have to think about it!!!"
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY page.
"Smart Tags", somebody else put the link on MY page.
(i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea.
Real Fact: The code is written, works, and exists in Office XP already.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not.
Real Fact: Probably
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard drive available to third parties!
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content.
Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
I'm sorry, but what you "approve" or not for display on my browser has absolutely no relevance. The adding of links happens at the client, and is the prerogative of the client. What if I wrote a little proxy that sat between my browser and the server, and changed every word (not part of a hyperlink) into a hyperlink to the Merriam-Webster dictionary? There would be *nothing* you could do about it.
Let's face it, once you publish on the web, you have *no* editorial control whatsoever. The client does with your HTML as it damn well pleases.
H.
Another problem with this whole approach to hyperlinking is the lack of context. Since the SmartTag parsing engine is simply doing a keyword search, how accurate can those links really be once you drift away from things like proper nouns (Microsoft, Ford, Tupperware, Scientology, etc.)? But can it tell the whether I want to fold an origami crane or the fact that they'll need a crane to pick the broken ruins up again. These are the kind of smart tags that could be potentially useful. Anything less is really just advertising.
Look at it this way, though: What if you wrote a book that was to be published and the publisher added all sorts of footnotes referring people to other books and articles? Footnotes can be a rather annoying distraction in a book, and I have a feeling links added by Microsoft would be the same. An author of a book wouldn't stand for such additions, and I don't think there is any reason we should, either. If someone wants to do further research on something on my web page, he can go to a search engine and type it in.
Um, your anology isn't quite right. Imagine if i went to a book store and modified every copy of a certain book...not just with a highlighter, but actually rewriting part of the story. Thats what this is doing, not simply 'highlighting' parts of it. And people WILL think thats how the authors wrote the page; most people barely know enough to get around on the web as it is, and just b/c somethings underlined in blue instead of green or whatever won't clue these people in.
Dude, adding a link where there was none before IS rewriting. If the authors wanted certain words to be links, they would have done so themselves.
While you and I may turn it off, do you really think the clueless masses will even know they can? Its doubtful, and its not unreasonalbe to think that these same people won't know the original authors didn't put in those links.
Why should the onus be put on me to do work that prevents microsoft or another third party from profitting from my efforts?
:)
On the other hand, I'm the publisher and writer of a website, and it is the responsibility of the creator of "property" to safeguard it from misuse and illegal use. It's not *your* job to protect my site and writings, it's mine. So suing microsoft over this could provide a precedent for the whole "circumventation device" thing (ala DeCCS). This aspect of smart tags breaks my control over copyright. So it's a circumventing (not quite the right word but i haven't had enough caffine yet to remember) technology like DeCCS and is barred by the DMCA, even if there's a fair use. In the past though, up until DeCCS, the producing company wasn't really liable if there were bona fide uses. If someone sues M$ over this it could backfire and give more leverage against companies who write software that have dual purposes or can be misused.
I wish this were more coherant but sometimes a little incoherancy is good for a discussion
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
If Microsoft does release this technology, even with-out microsoft controlling the database, I can also see a way that content/advertisers providers could abuse this to make it appear that the tag provides endorse their view.
All they would have to do is cause obscured words to trigger the smart links. These words could be chosen to get the desired smart tag links, the same way web pages used to fool search engines by including lots of hidden text matching valuable search terms.
I have to admit if they do release this technology, I wonder how easy such tricks could be done.
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
There is no question that some applications of the Smart Tag technology will be illegal, and I can't believe Microsoft's legal department is letting this slide. If the meta tag were to turn on the feature (as opposed to disabling it), things would be different. However, the bottom line, is that Microsoft will be walking into serious trademark and copyright infringement. The banner-ad, the portal and the retailer companies will send a law suit so quick up Microsoft's ass that the publicity alone would not be worth it.
Someone you trust is one of us.
...in a million kids trying to get the definition of cunnilingus, fellatio or labia? they'll probably get taken to a closed microsoft sites like encarta. what's wrong with using a meta tag to include them instead of one to exclude them? serves the same purpose, right? JunkBuster isn't installed by default on any machine. AOL or Freeserve pages aren't altered by a 3rd party when they are used in 'closed sites.'
neopets.com
exactly.. Microsoft is claiming sanctuary by providing everyone with a way out of "smart tags", but they set themselves up as the default setting, a huge gain. When people are forced to go to some trouble to disable a feature, inertia will keep at least some of those people from doing it.
After a while, web site visitors might complain if a site has smart tags disabled. You can see the rock/hard place argument that could turn a feature into a forced neccessity.
-mparcens
--------------
Perhaps I'm just a lousy reader, but I have yet to see somebody who actually tells me what meta tag I have to use to disable this - I want to put this on my web site, but I'm unable to find out how. Getting the SDK for this from microsoft.com failed miserably as well on both my Mac and NetBSD machines, so if there's a kind soul on /. that can help...
Or do get what only Microsoft want you to see.
For instance if I am liberal/conservative can I select smart links that are liberal/conservative in nature? For example providing me links to NRA for the word "radicals" or pointers to the Wilderness Society for the phrase "oil wells"?
FYI smart tags are not something that happens when you go to a particular site, which is cool, but is something that modifies other people content.
Actually I consider adding hyperlinks is akin to adding content in a hyperlinked world.
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them.
I think there is something fundamentally different between adding information then selectively removing ads. If I post content on my site then Microsoft can alter the original intent of my content by adding "additional information" that they control. The key difference is that the information is being added and controlled by a 3rd party.
It won't let them "breat out onto other pages" really, they'll still be confined to another Online Content Provider.
All this will do is allow Microsoft to start monopolizing the web now...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Don't you know anything about Scientology? Scientology doesn't tell people their side of the story, they do everything they can to promote their cult, even when they have to kill people which they have done more than once.
And that doesn't have a fucking thing to do with anything anyway, as my example was showing how M$ smart tags will allow powerful people with money to control the content of people who appose them.
I'm talking about leveling the playing field, not giving myself more control.
Christ, I didn't say that I wanted to put my own smart tags on Scientology sites...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole"
I stopped reading right here. Venture out into the web? WTF? Don't you mean "venture out into MSN and other Microsoft affiliated sites"?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is wrong, just plain wrong. Not because of copyright, not because of unfair competition, but because it gives someone else control of content I created(but not in a copyright sense).
What I mean is, let's say I make a website dedicated to exposing Scientology for what it really is, a sick twisted cult that extorts money from people.
Now, with Microsoft smart tags, if someone visits my site there will possibly be links to pro-scientology articles. What's really scary is that Microsoft actually does have an affiliation with some Scientology-owned companies.
This is the ultimate example of Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" strategy, using their web browser monopoly to create a monopoly on, well, the web as we know it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In response to the concerns raised in this article (http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/columns/0,41 64,2772297,00.html), please read the following e-mail thread. Thanks.
6 4,2772297,00.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Kelly [keithkel@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:35 AM
To: Steve Ballmer; Money Developers
Subject: RE: SmartTags: An Extremely Bad Idea
Thanks for your time SteveB, but I should have done my homework first:
(Information found by searching http://www.microsoft.com "smart tags" as used in IE6)
- When you see a word or phrase underlined with a purple dotted line, you can
place your mouse pointer over that word or phrase, and then a list of links to
more information about the item is displayed.
- To turn on smart tags for the operating systems in the preceding list, click
Internet Options on the Tools menu, click the Advanced tab, and then click to
select the Enable smart tags check box.
So you can turn the feature off, and the links are visibly different, but the press (and concerned users) are unaware of the facts. We need to combat this confusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:40 AM
To: Keith Kelly; Money Developers
Subject: RE: SmartTags: An Extremely Bad Idea
Customers can pick their own smart tags !!! thanks for the input
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Kelly [mailto:syrinx2000@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:33 PM
To: Money Developers; Steve Ballmer
Subject: SmartTags: An Extremely Bad Idea
The appearance of impartiality is just as important as actually being
impartial. Apparently someone within Microsoft doesn't understand that
principle.
SmartTags may not be used to impose political bias upon unsuspecting users,
but they definitely remove any appearance of Microsoft's impartiality: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/columns/0,41
My personal belief: to be successful, give customers what they want to have,
not what you want them to have.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
I often research various mental illnesses on the web hence your reason for being here.
Also, Why would anyone even care to change the redirects? it makes no sense for an end user to even care about that.
first of all, it costs too much effort.
second, bookmarks are a better facility for this (from an end-user point of view).
Gee it's configurable.
So who's going to want to change it.
Microsoft (#1 canditate, prime suspect).
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
Last but not least, ISP's. (I'm sure they'd love to redirect you to their corperate sponsored Shopping channels)
End users arent going to want to change this. They'd have no reason to.
I have no problem with that.
:P except for duping the masses into visiting your profit centers. (You'd have to dupe them initially just to get them to install the damned thing. lets face not many people are.)
.NET to come. Sure other people can play in microsoft's "innovated" new marketplace that they created.. But really, it's not for them. It's for MS. It's so they can leverage (that word is used too much, really) windows users into more and more MS profit centers. Of course they couldn't do this without a monopoly.
Not that I see much use in it
So what's the practical value of this new feature? Really no practical value for every day users. There's alot of value for microsoft in this, and they stand to gain the most. All other players in the Microsoft Innovated Net of the future will really be bit players at best.
I really think this is a taste of the
Sorry to disappoint you. But this is MS turf. You gotta be defensive and on-gaurd. Saying "well we can all do what MS is doing with this feature" is lying to yourself. Technically, you can do what MS will do, but in practice it aint worth two shits (for a business, not a hacker's ego).
Cheer up buddy. If you're so sad smoke a dube, and turn on some dylan.
From a practical standpoint, and an OEM standpoint, MS probably will have total control over them. (lets say they control 80% of smart tag implementations).
.xml file? That's irrelevant. You may not care about 80% of the people who use operating systems, but I have a tiny nook in my soul for them, poor fellows.
:) hahahha, sorry ol' chum ol' pal. Maybe we can make up and drink a few pints at the pub? On me.
Who cares if a hacker-type can change an
Heh, You got me on the offensive thing though. I confess, I berated you
That's a very good point. The more publicity this gets, the more MS's hand will be forced into concessions. Although another way of looking at is, the more we let MS do monopolistic things, the sooner they will be broken up. I dont know the path of least resistence to MS devolution. You got any ideas?
>then we should applaud this feature, as it will
.NET proprietary internet.
>allow millions to finally venture out into the
>web as a whole, and increase connectivity
>massively.
Do you realize that it's microsoft that picks the sites that other people can go to with this new "feature"?
So if there's an AOL page, MS could redirect you to MSN on some tricky word or phrase having to do with getting a subscription or whatnot.
(copyright)
>well you could say the same thing about proxy
>services like Junkbuster, which strip certain
>elements out of webpages before the user sees
>them.
The difference here is that you are exercising your fair use rights by removing unsightly material from the webpages you view. Whereas with Microsoft's "innovation" they are altering the copyrighted material for _commercial monetary gain_, which could be in direct competitive conflict the the very sight it's altering. You'd have to have your head up your arse not to see the lawsuits this will spurn. Maybe someone should slip an email to the appealate justices hearing the MS antitrust appeal. I hope their clerks are on the ball here, passing along important developments in monopoly abuse.
It's clear, to me at least, that microsoft is abusnig its monopoly again - on the way to turning the Web into the Microsoft
I dont think you understand the issue.
.xml file to change their redirects.
Ok let me point out something to you.
95% of windows users aren't going to edit a
Ok Clue time.
Why would ANYONE want to change a redirect file?! THAT"S WHAT BOOKMARKS ARE FOR.
Who has an interest in changing this?
1. Microsoft (obviously they have alot to gain)
2. OEM's (Changing copyrighted material to gain financially is what every OEM worth its salt guns for)
3. ISP's, again profiting from changing other people's copyrighted material..
Final thoughts.
How dare you try to deceive us? Who cares that the end user can change the redirects?! The end user has NO USE DOING THAT. It provides NOTHING for the end user, to change them himself. HE HAS BOOKMARKS for that purpose.
(sorry for the anger, but this schmuck is obviously clueless and/or deceitful).
I do believe the "feature" to disable right-clicking is a few bits of java code. Easy enough to turn off in most browsers.
off-topic, I know, but...
It's almost the same as someone loosing a worm or other virus onto the net.
Someone using the term 'loosing' properly! Not a mistaken spelling for 'losing'! On the Internet! On Slashdot, no less! Yikes!
[
Uh. Running Windows XP and that doesn't happen. And it won't happen.
There are thousands of features in Windows XP which are disabled by default.
Microsoft spend hundreds of millions on IE and didn't make much money off it either...
I expect Microsoft will be forced to shift from the exclusionary tag model to an inclusionary tag model where only sites with an inclusionary tag can be modified in this way. That way content owners have to give their eplicit permission to microsoft to edit their page in ways they would be completely unaware of.
*sigh* All these posts just prove that most drones here don't even know what smart tags is. Microsoft need not get exclusive rights from content owners to edit their page in ways they are completely unaware of. The pages aren't being edited. Certain keywords on the page are being hyperlinked.
For example, the word "hogwash" on a website could be linked to a dictionary definition. The links look different from standard HTML links and modify the HTML of the page in NO WAY.
Do you think there should be a META tag to allow Mozilla to increase the text size of a page? No. That'd be stupid, cause chances are the user will want to be able to ZOOM in on ANY PAGE. The same thing applies to smart tags. No matter what page I'm browsing, I may want nouns or foreign words to be highlighted so I can get dictionary definitions.
In the end it is the choice of the user. I could write a plugin to IE NOW that would scan the HTML of the currenlty loaded page and hyperlink important words (a program called flyswat already does this). Am I modifying the content of the original author? No.
If I buy a book, underline some words and scribble on the side of the page references and comments, would this be illegal? Am I modifying the original content of the author?
For god sakes people. The page isn't being modified. Think of it as a layer on top on the page.
Lets take an example of an accessibility tool. Lets say I write a tool which reads out definitions of words currently under the mouse. Would this be illegal?
Now lets say I write another tool that'll open up a webpage that gives me definitions of words that I click on with my mouse. I find that the new tool I created is hard to use cause it is hard to figure out which words can be clicked on. I draw swiggles under these words. Now, is this illegal?
Now, another example. Windows XP has this new 'skinning' feature. It makes programs look and sometimes act differently from when they were originally written. Is this illegal?
Funny, last I checked MS still hadn't bought a copy of my web site.
But it has nothing to do with Microsoft buying your site. It is the USER who is doing the highlighting by turning the option on. Microsoft simply supply the highlighter for the user to use (if they choose to).
Are you saying I can't view your website, print it out and then highlight it?
I wasn't the one who mentioned money. I was responsing to a post.
And if IE is there to CONTROL the internet, why does ASP.NET directly support netscape?
I don't think the problem is really that it's coming from Microsoft. The problem is that it alters a webpage from the way it's author intended it. I've written some nice HTML before, and I've been very proud of the way it looked. I don't want some CLIENT altering the look of it. Especially if it's altering (or providing alternatives to the presented data).
I can just imagine going to consumer reports, and reading a bad review of something a Microsoft company produced, and being presented with a link to a more favorable report. It's just not kosher.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Web sites are content. Who has the right to choose how and when that content is presented to a user: the content creator, or the user? If you say "content creator" then yes, Smart Tags should be banned. Let's also say users don't have the right to use their own style sheets to alter the look of your page, and they can't use ad blockers either. IE will let users control this feature, it can be turned off, and it can be customized with add ins. So who's trying to limit user control, your site or Microsoft?
Smart Tags are a relatively benign way to add more dynamic content to a web page. All that happens is that the existing words get a special markup. It's not like you say "Save the whales" and they change it to "Kill baby seals."
Geez, if you want to bash Microsoft then you can use the old "they always steal their ideas" saw because this has already been done by programs like Flyswat for many months. Flyswat doesn't provide a way for content creators to turn it off!
Jakob Nielsen, Mr. web usability guru, has some interesting views on smart tags other than "smart tags are evil" (though he does point out they can be abused). Apparently, smart tags are a legitimate part of hypertext theory. I did not know that.
You can find it at http://www.useit.com/
No I think this will work out well for everyone, and I hope that minority browsers like Mozilla and Opera follow suit. No longer will we need to be constrained by the linking laziness of web authors :)
I am going to have to disagree with you on this... in an ideal world this system might work, however, we don't live in an ideal world. The "example" links in the article were a bit absurd, but I can envision something like that happening. I simply don't believe that Microsoft, nor any other corporation that produces a web browser will automatically generate links to "favorable" information about their competitors. They will simply use it to their own advantage and it will become a tool for sales and marketing, not a tool to provide more (unbiased) information to the web site reader.
Of late, the NYTimes online has stopped posting "clickable" links along with their stories (i.e. no href tags). They simply include the URL in the text (like this: www.nytimes.com). As a side effect of Smart Tags, we will undoubtedly have the browser converting such strings into active links, much like many email clients do nowadays. If the browser on the vast majority of the population's computer's does this, it becomes effectively impossible to post a link which requires a copy and paste to activate.
Now, this might well be regarded as a good thing by many; but it removes the loophole that 2600 exploited to get around Judge Kaplan's ruling. Similarly, I'm sure the NYT does the "non-linking" only to protect their legal backside, not to annoy.
Here's hoping that if Smart Tags come to pass, we won't have some judge ruling that the 2600 page is now in violation of the law.
Hell, even in academia you can do it. As an IT guy in a university, I've taugh nobel laureates how to print. It's not that they are stupid; it's that their PC is a tool and not something they want to fiddle with.
/. at 2 ;-)
Have you souped up your car? No? Why not, any slashdot reader is clever enough to be able to do it! Well, of course I'm only saying that because I read
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I believe NBCi's little gadget worked on *all* your software, not just the browser. And as you said (or implied), the user has to take a positive action to install it. Then again, now that NBCi is gone, we don't have to worry about that...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
...the internet is a client-server environment. The only hope is that MS doesn't start giving away free servers like it did browsers....
My problem with this, is that Microsoft is not trying to give the user better content, they are trying to make the entire internet their portal. It would be great if the browser noticed that the page was not in my native languange and offered to
translate it, or gave me references of technical words in technical pages, but since these are not (as far as I know) services provided by Microsoft these are not the kind of services provided.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Smart tags is quite the opposite. It is the addition (or in my view saturation) of content that neither author nor user can control. Meta tags be damned. How myopic a solution is that?
The real acid test of whether Smart Tags will make the release of XP will be whether the Big Boys (e.g. CNN, Yahoo, Amazon, on-line newspapers worldwide, etc.) put their feet down and send MSFT the message that this dog doesn't hunt. Because this is more of an editorial/authoring issue than it is an end-user issue. Authors and editors have a more at stake what with their content being perverted.
Uh...there are major differences between the Google and robots.txt examples and the SmartTags Microsoft is proposing. With Google, the user specifically installs the Google application. It is not the default way to use Google or to search the Web. It is available to users who find that feature of Google useful. SmartTags happen without ther user specifically requesting them--by default on the browser that is tied to the most widely distributed operating system. Quite different. Robots.txt are used to enhance the ways that search engines capture the data on a site. You certainly don't need them and it does not harm your site. SmartTags are a proprietary technology that every site will have to respond to so that the creator or owner's interest is not harmed. BTW, I have a copyright on the Meta tag syntax.
I just can't wait until a web-site owner with a bit of money takes MS to court on this.
- View it in Netscape
- View it in Lynx
- Derive some data and stuff it in a database (what search engines do)
- Run it through a filter that removes words I find offensive
- Have it read to me by a text-to-speech program
- Hyperlink the name Bill Gates like this.
Since I believe this in general, I can't make an exception when Microsoft provides the tool.There is a search interface to Google that allows for Microsoft free searches (http://www.atrium.com/msfree.html). Microsoft related sites have an option to be included in search results of this interface if they change the spelling of "microsoft" in their pages.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. [H.S.T.]
Internet Explorer already told me which sites weren't approved by Microsoft, scaring me such that I would not visit such a hacker site. After attacking the obvious enemy, they're now attacking the subtle enemy with those smart tags?
--
Bizar technology?
I hate to say it, but I think the biggest f*ck you any of us can give to MicroSloth is to not give them our time, money and intelligence. Don't buy into this stupid idea. Avoid that version of Internet Exploiter (or IE altogether) if you can. Find out how to disable stupid things like Smart Tags and tell all your friends. Don't make personal pages that only look good on IE, it only forces your viewers to use it.
You may not have a choice at work, but you have a choice at home and the choice to offer options at work always exists as well.
Remember Microsoft Bob? I rest my case.
---
Actually I like fridgeOS. Its pretty straight forward: door open = light on.
Of course, IE 7.0 will have yet another wonderful feature that edits out any negative reference to Microsoft, or favorable reference to non-Microsoft software. So your "IE sucks, get Mozilla" page will be helpfully rewritten as an innocuous 404 error. After all, even members of Congress think censorware is a great idea, so how can you blame Microsoft, the great Innovators, from taking the idea to the next level?
Great, so you can opt out of it with a META tag.
However, the Lusers who come to your site and don't see all the purple squiggly lines think your site sucks because it doesn't provide all these cool links.
Therefore, in order to compete with other sites, you need to re-enable that tag.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
According to MS (find your own link :) the feature is "ON" now but will come "OFF" in the actual release. Could be true. Could be damn lies.
G.H.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
...because this stupid feature is disabled by default*. In Microsoft-land this means that 99.99% of users will never enable or even be aware of it - ala the "Don't spam everyone I know with e-mail virii" check box in Outlook.
* - This, of course, could change. That would be something to fight about.
G.H.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Author: WHAT HAPPEN? ....
Webmaster: SOMEONE SET US UP THE SMARTTAG
Webmaster: WE GET LINKS.
Author:WHAT?
Webmaster: MAIN EXPLORER TURN ON.
Gates: HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN !!
Gates: ALL YOUR CONTENT ARE BELONG TO US.
Gates: YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO ASSIMILATION.
Author: WHAT YOU SAY!
Gates: YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME.
Gates: HA HA HA HA
...because this stupid feature is disabled by default*. In Microsoft-land this means that 99.99% of users will never enable or even be aware of it - ala the "Don't spam everyone I know with e-mail virii" check box in Outlook.
Heheheh...I'm surprised you haven't realized yet what Microsoft means by "default." They're not going to spend millions of dollars in time and development just to have something "disabled by default."
What that means is this: you install Windows XP, and near the end, you get this dialog box: "Microsoft has furthered its internet innovation in pushing the limits of technology by bringing to you a new technology known as Smart Tags! With this option enabled, you will have the power to further your web-browsing experiences by being provided with new links on existing websites, expanding your browsing capabilities within the new Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0! Push OK to enable this feature."
And as you said, for the 99.99% of users who aren't "aware" of any possible web options, they're going to absent-mindedly click OK, thinking that it's some required part of the internet.
...of course, it's still disabled "by default."
What worries me about this is that MS could, and not necessarily would, take it even further. Technically there is nothing preventing a browser writer (e.g.MS) from scanning for links to non-favoured sites (e.g. redhat) and replacing the authors intended URL with another (e.g the MS linux myths page) with no indication to the browser user that such redirection has been done? There is nothing to prevent these 'smart tags' from having the same appearance as a 'proper' hyperlink with the users browser preferences on colour etc.
It doesn't have to look different. Links could be edite/replaced as well as added. This re-written page can then be presented to the user if the option is taken to view the page source so that's no use....
Is this not the time to start explaining this to the press and pointing out the disadvantages of closed source, and that this is unlikely to be possible with open source (providing you use a comopiler which doesn't have a back door..)
I have a bad dream about a combination of censorware and hidden smart tag technology - wouldn't it be great to have some software in libraries which doesn't just block access to some sites but totally blanks them out (404) and also removes any links to them as well. They might as well not be on the net.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
The quicker MS shoots itself in the foot, the quicker my MS waking nighmare will end. GO MS!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft was quick to respond to the outcry over the Smart Tags with "It seemed like a good idea." They proceeded to backup their statement with the example of Microsoft Bob.
<LI>Good idea, done right it could really help the mess that is today know as the web. It's close to impossible to find anything sometimes. It's always easier with companies and sites such as sourceforge or freshmeat, but in general it's a far cry from easy to find information out there. How many times have your searches in google or altavista given you nothing?
<LI>The idea done wrong. XHTML, etc should have been extended etc. And to me it seems like the idea is driven by "how can we make more money?"...
</OL>
As long as there is an option to turn it ON I don't see any problems with it. If surfers want MS commersials on every other word that is ok with me.
Of course It should be off as of standard. To bad they mention nothing about user-controling this.
The most disturbing thing with this would be how to distinguish from "in-site" links and MS provided links.
- Third Voice allowed anyone to add a comment on anything. MS will only allow itself to edit anything. (Even if they did allow others, 99% of browsers will not be affected.)
Now I actually think that the ability to edit web pages is very good, but then I am partial. Check out Open Zezame.Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Consider also the webmaster's perspective. Many people who browse the web don't know jack about chosing a web browser. Hell they don't even know or want to know what a browser is. They just want to surf the web. And those people will have the feature turned on, and will see links in your site, that you did not put in there.
~
~
~
~
:wq
Here is a MSIE plugin (with source) that allows you to highlight any text in the browser window and press a hotkey to perform a Google search of the text, for instance. It is configurable so you can do anything you want with text. It's a bit rough but it works well.
Here is a MSIE plugin (with source) that does what you are looking for. It is configurable so you can do anything you want with text. It's a bit rough but it works well.
Jesus Christ, you would think that if developers WANTED that feature, they would include a metatag to ENABLE it, not disable it. I know a few extra characters in an HTML file won't affect the download that much, but Hell why would I want Microsoft to require me to do this? end of steamy rant
-jc
This page should not contain any pink squiggly lines. If you see any, someone modified the page in transit, or more likely in your browser. You are reading a forgery and should not trust any links on this page, they may be added by third parties without the consent of the author, and are likely to add bias or misinformation to the page.
If this happens on a new computer you have just purchased, return it to the shop, and demand one that can show web pages without forgeries!
If this happens just after you "upgrade" your web browser or operating system, remove that "upgrade", or upgrade again to a more trustworthy system.
If this happens on a publicly accessible computer, complain to the owner of the computer that it is falsifying web pages, and have him read this notice!
In any case, do not trust any web pages this computer shows you.
In Murphy We Turst
this is EXACTLY like spam. why not go in from the other direction? disable your "smart tags" by default and allow a meta tag to ACTIVATE them.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I said:
...feel free to edit {driveletter}\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Smart Tag\Lists\msdnodc.xml
If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that "Smart Links" are all hard-coded to point to MS properties, and the fact that the user cannot change that
TomV replied:
Edit an XML document? Yeah, right. I can do that. I'm assuming that you can do that. Joe Sixpaque can't do that. As far as he's concerned, if it ain't got a Wizard, it can't be done.
Having said that... yes, I should have said "the average user cannot change that." Mea Culpa.
My choice is that they aren't going to be using them on any of my sites, period.
And how, precisely, do you intend to stop them? Are you going to visit each and every user's home, making sure they use a browser you like, and have turned off anything that interferes with your Holy Vision????
Wow. You really need to get over yourself... You're not that important or that powerful.
Where is the HTML spec does is say the user agent is nothing but a dumb display? Where does it say that the user agent may not fold, spindle, or mutilate a document in any way it sees fit? Where does it say a user agent may not insert "extra" links if it so wishes?
I'm reminded of the scene in "Instinct," where Anthony Hopkins roughs up Cuba Gooding Jr. "What have I taken from you?" Hopkins asks. "I haven't taken control from you, because you never had it. All I've taken is your illusions."
You have no control over your users' browsers. Get over it.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that "Smart Links" are all hard-coded to point to MS properties, and the fact that the user cannot change that. That is the kind of monopolistic, abusive practices that make me hate MS.
This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time! This gal forgot to actually add the links to her article, and just left references to them instead! This one shows that she was going to deliberately seek an "unfavorable news story" about a company that was spouting anti-Microsoft information!
Don't get me wrong, I love Microsoft. I don't like these new tags, though--they're just annoying. But guess what? Dig into Tools | Options, and you can turn them off. Problem solved.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Go easy on me, fellas.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
I like Microsoft. I'm not bashing them. The new feature is interesting, but more annoying than anything. However, when I hit a web site recently that had University of Colombia in the text, but no link, MS had graciously (hehe) provided me with one. I got all kinds of info about the university, and links to relevant info, including their site.
Your initial response, though, is incorrect. It is not disabled by default. At least, not in the latest builds. RC-1 is due out soon, and that may change.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Could They(tm) implement this so that they have some idea of which links you click?
--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Anybody's grandmother could easily overwrite the defaults just by a little creative grepping through the latest MSDN docs.
Additionally, web authors can include meta tags to disable Smart Tags 1.0. Of course, nobody can guarantee that the same meta tags will disable Smart Tags 2.0 and the new, improved Smart Defaults that come with it. But hey, if you want your content to keep the meaning you intend, it's YOUR responsibility to stay on top of every patch to I.E. and every revision of Smart Tags, so you can effectively "opt out" of any editorial changes made by Bill Gates.
You have no right to say what you mean when viewed through I.E. Get over it.
Something missing from the debate on Smart Tags is their inherent lack of trust. When IE parses a word of text, it trusts the Microsoft Smart Tags server to pony up an authentic set of links to content that is relevant and legitimate. Someone's name should ideally bring up links to their home page, photos, software/articles on-line that they've written, pages about them, etc.
.NET, right? Move from selling OSes to OEM to services to .com's. If people are willing to pay several times for high placement in several different search engines, they will not balk to have MS put their URL on every browser on the the planet that happens across their company name on the web.
Two problems with this scheme:
1) Web content is no longer static. It hasn't been for YEARS. CGI, ASP, Javascript, ActiveX, META redirects, TARGET tags, frames, Flash and Java -- each makes the web more dynamic, interactive, and untrustworthy. The crudest example is a deceptive URL which takes you to a different site (or kind of site) than what you expected. Goatse.cx is a social engineering example of this. But a different, innocent sounding URL could use any of these to redirect you there (meta, sub-frame, asp redirect, onmouseover Javascript to disguise the URL in the status bar) against your will or without your intent.
Now, are smart tags so smart that the same can't be done to them?
- hijack the DNS of the Smart Tag servers and serve up your own links, for good or evil
- compromise the Smart Tag database and substitute URLs for innocent subjects with indecent subjects (whitehouse.gov? No, whitehouse.com!)
- mess with the Certificate of Authority for the keypair that signs these so-called "Smart" tags. (They are _signed_, aren't they?) so that all Microsoft's hard-won ST's seem to IE to be signed with an invalid or untrusted key. Bill, what else does DOS stand for?
- trojan the HTML at the end of a Smart Tag with malicious javascript, redirects, framesets, applets, ActiveX components, etc.
Think about it. Smart Tags cannot _only_ link up to Microsoft content. That would be too obvious, even for the BG. It would be unprofitable too. MS is going to sell "spots" (like ad spots on TV) to its partners, so when you see "laptop" in the page text the smart tags point to the OEM's who bid 1st, 2nd and 3rd highest for that privilidge. Do you think Microsoft is doing this just to improve your "browser experience"? They're trying to become an ASP with
And some of those Smart Tags will point to public domain URLs out of Microsoft's control (like the US Government's web sites -- for now) to expedite the illusion of goodwill on their part for gifting you with this (say it with me) "innovative" technology.
So you're sifting your web logs at your job at an ISP or collocation host. And you notice innordinate hits on a particular web page. Checking the referer pages reveals that none of the pages have ONE SINGLE LINK to the page hit in your logs, and the URL is not alluded to in the text of the referer pages, ever. You may have found the terminus of a Smart Tag. May? A look at the agent/browser ID string will settle it.
If the URL at the end of a Smart Tag becomes unmaintained but the DNS stays good (until the domain name fee comes up for renewal) the Smart Tag server will never know until it gets:
- a 404
- or a page with radically different textual/meta content
So you leave the text alone and add a trojaned javascript pop-up or ActiveX to beat up on IE users. (The windows world on-line seems to be so inclined to do this to one another...)
It's only a matter of time before crackers, bored ISP employees, and prankster webmasters of free web sites (Geocities, Anglefire, et al) figure out how to tell when their site gets "smarted" by Microsoft's Smart Tags.
And then they will poison their HTML and wait for the lemmings to rush the cliff.
2) Semantics
English words do not now and never will map one to one with discrete meanings. Use a search engine to seek out advice on caring for the "free kitten" you got from those kids in the Safeway parking lot. See how many links you get that are on caring for cats.
Is Microsoft's software so smart that this will not happen with it? The word "drive" in the BSD docs isn't going to point to Autobytel.com or Honda.com? Ever?
So they get to pick and choose which words they want Smart Tagged. When the subject of the smart tag links doesn't semantically match the content of the text, it going to get amusing. Think what USENET gateways and mailing list archives are going to light up like... Those messages are pure context caught mid-conversation, full of abbreviations, slang, and inside jokes (name 3 Enlish words that end in "gry", right?)
The "Smart" in Smart Tags is going to force the W3C to add the SARCASM tag to the standard at the gunpoint-assisted insistence of the journalists and users.
"Smart", huh? Makes me think of that kid's joke:
Smart Kid: Whatsa matter?
Not-so-smart: I'm so stupid. I can't find the answer I'm looking for on the internet. This "Google" is so confusing. Why, God, does it have to be so hard?
Smart Kid: Mm-hm. Well, I have just the thing. These "Smart Pills" will make you smarter. Then you won't need a search engine to know stuff. Want some? They're free!
Not-so-smart: Hell yes!
Smart Kid: (hands over black, warm, moist, and spongy confections, not unlike raisinets...)
Not-so-smart: (begins to gag, then face alights with signs of insight) Ack! Those weren't Smart Pills!! Those were rabbit droppings!!
Smart Kid: See! You knew that instantly! And you didn't even need a search engine...
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
Who needs smart tags? emedicine.com aleady does this. Just click on an "unexplained term" and a dictionary meaning pops up. Check it out in this Capral Tunnel article.
(btw, I am stuck with IE at work, ymmv...)
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
The internet is a free (or was anyway) forum where readers / users / clients could choose the information they did or did not want to receive. People could vote with their feet. Popular and interesting sites would be visited frequently. Dull, rarely updated sites would not.
I've found that it is a lot easier to maneuver the mouse using your hands, rather than your feet... Just kidding.. Trying to lighten the tone a bit around here.
I would love to have "external" links added to many of the pages I browse so I can see alternative opinions and articles on similar subjects to what I am reading. The web has turned in to a mess of marketing and this is something that could allow it to be a web of information that I control again.
I will give you this, the defaults will certainly all pull you into microsoft sites and a great deal of them will have to be changed. All that is needed now is little "update-packs" distributed by other vendors (slashdot for instance) that changes the XML that drives smart tags and points me to other things than MS.
I love how MS makes a feature that lets the user control and heavily customize his computer and they get railed for trying to dominate a users experience.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I don't see your point. Every work is copyrighted as soon as it has an author (even a pseudonymous will do), unless explicitly put in the public domain. And I don't see how the DMCA applies here, since there is no "copy protection device" involved.
Maybe I'm just slow today, but it took me a REALLY long time to catch on to the author's joke here.
Worse: I actually clicked the first "link".
This article is hillarious!
What's gotten people like Winer and others (link to photo of protestors burning the flag) riled is concern that Microsoft (link to Microsoft stock chart showing how well company is performing) might, because of its OS monopoly (link to article by anti-trust expert detailing why Microsoft is not a monopoly) be able to force its technology down the throats of unsuspecting, uninformed or apathetic users (link to photo of lemmings) who might not realize the implications of the technology (link to Microsoft XP order info page).
I know more than you drink.
Did you know that Office XP contains the same smart-tags feature? I bet you didn't. Guess what? That one is disabled by default too. And Microsoft has not promoted it like you say they will.
As was mentioned elsewhere, IE6 ships with smarttags disabled by default.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation"
:-)
That's satire, right? Having read the artical, I can see where MS is really stepping in the doo-doo here, and I'm sure that the meta-tag to turn off the Smart-Tags will change to a meta-tag to turn the Smart-Tags on for the page. Take for example my Icecream page (which btw the link above onloner works, I need to fix it; http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/Henry/Icecream/icecream. html is correct), what is stopping MS and IE 6 from linking every time I wrote Icecream to link to Eddy's or Ben and Jerry's or 31 Flavors? If I wanted them to be lined to somewhere else I'd have done the work myself.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Imagine if the next versions of Apache and Squid were changed so they inserted the "no smart tags" metadata by default. It would kill smart tags technology stone dead.
Who's going to provide the Smart Tag parser for this tough, technical document? If it's really all that tough and technical, the best (often the only) candidate is the person who wrote the document.
So basically, it's more effective for the document author to provide a Smart Tag parser for the user to download and install, than it is to simply put the links in the document in the first place?
If you make Google your home page, just highlight the term, press Ctrl+N, paste in the search box, and hit enter. In Opera under Linux (fast new window creation, 2 button copy and paste) this process takes about 2 seconds.
There are any number of ways this functionality could be achieved with equal convenience to the user. I personally like the idea of "Google search" or even an XML-determined list of links, popping up upon right-clicking on a word. Microsoft's strategy is (IMO) a typically heavy-handed attempt to wrest control from page creators. If you don't think Microsoft will start selling spots in their default listings, I think you're seriously deluded.
Seems like this brings up the same issues, unless of course MS owns the rights to all mail sent over hotmail (haven't read their latest terms of service ;).
Microsoft are evil
becomes
<NOBR>Micr</NOBR>osoft areev<NOBR>il</NOBR>
etc...
fun, fun, fun....
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Isn't already something that does this smart-link stuff?
At the school where I teach, one of the computers had a IE-plugin that underlined some words in a diferent color of normal hyperlinks, and linked them to some search engine... I can't rememeber the name of the program. Alexa, or Copernicus, or something like that...
Not that it was intrusive, but useless to me.. As it was said already in here, I'd rather have that off by default. I hate those msn.com searches I get when I just mispell the URL in IE...
just my Euro 0.02
with this is that it forces everyone to opt-out. It's almost the same as someone loosing a worm or other virus onto the net. What a model!! Depending on your point of view this technology is either a) the holy grail or b) a fucking nightmare.
I chose b. I do however run a website so maybe I'll pick up the sdk or whatever developer stuff is available and make my own smart tags....:)
Has anyone visited the Microsoft page on Smart tags? A quick skim clued me in on a program to create my own smart tag xml file. A file I create and control to insert links of my choosing! Think about it. If I ran a company that offered tons of info and I was able to create one of these files and give it out for free imagine all the links that would exist back to my site. People could get the xml file from my site purely out of their own choosing!!! They install it and then run around the web. Since I assume they installed it they want it there so they will click the links.
Instead of seeing this everyone is whining about a browser they shouldn't even be using since you all hate the windows plateform so much. On the other side of the pipe insert the damned tags and shutup. Most major websites now use a template system it wouldn't be that hard to insert a single meta tag into every generated page using that template system.
Also this technology is not new. People having been using plug ins for both netscape and IE for a few years that do this. They have apparently generated enough buzz to make it seem like a very neat feature to add. I am just so baffled at all the whining going on. There isn't a need. Turn it off, insert a tag, don't use the browser, start helping with mozilla do any of those other things since it is much more productive than whining.
If the common user mom & pop doesn't know how to edit this XML file or if worse yet they can't find it what's the difference?
They are stuck with the MicroShaft defaults. Although not as hard to fix, I see this as being no different than having IE already on the machine. Why would mom/pop download Netscape, Mozilla, or yikes, pay for Opera.
MicroShaft is well aware that the VAST majority of users won't edit the defaults to this file. So in effect they get to hijack the HTML pages of 80% of the internet by default.
So for all intents an purposes "oh, Lordy, MS is going to change my links" is closer to the truth than even MicroShaft will admit.
-DF.
How are the smart tags described here different than a similar functionality that was given by third voice? -hj
Any given smart tag implementation would be acceptable if, and only if it has the following properties:
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Why would you want to explain it? Wouldn't it be more productive to find a nice xml parser and write a utility for editing the msdnodc.xml file? It's a severely trivial programming challenge. Except that you'd have to build a Joe-Sixpack-compliant UI for it. But it's hardly Nobel material. Couple of hours in the hated VB, tops.
TomV
OK, now that's a little bit personal, and just a pinch of offensive, to boot. Maybe just a tad insecure, but YMMV.
Who cares that the end user can change the redirects?!
Well, I care. Or I imagine I wouldn't have bothered with the post in the first place.
And if the nub of the argument against smart-tags is that Microsoft has total control over them, then I would think that the fact that it just ain't so might be of some interest to a few readers
The end user has NO USE DOING THAT. It provides NOTHING for the end user, to change them himself. HE HAS BOOKMARKS for that purpose. (sorry for the anger, but this schmuck is obviously clueless and/or deceitful).
Sorry again, but that really is needlessly offensive. Believe the 'clueless' part if you want, that's up to you. But 'schmuck' doesn't advance the discussion, and 'deceitful' is downright aggressive.
TomV
No problem, mate. Mine's a pint of Pedigree. Can you make it to Oxford for lasties?
TomV
If you use windows XP and you save the following to a file called msdnodc.xml to {driveletter}\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Smart Tag\Lists, then every time a page you're browsing contains the words microsoft, innovate, office, windows, 95, NT, XP, it will be squiglined and a right click will give you the choice to follow it to any of slashdot, red hat or goatse.
And that's a bad thing? remember, this is all client side.
just think, a single click to goatse every time you see a reference to XP... <FL:name>m s">
slashBot</FL:name>
<FL:lcid>
1033</FL:lcid>
<FL:description>
A list of MS related terms and suitable SlashBot comments on them.</FL:description>
<FL:moreinfourl>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office</FL:moreinfour l>
<FL:smarttag type="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:smarttags#msdnter
<FL:caption>
SlashBot Links</FL:caption>
<FL:terms>
<FL:termlist>
microsoft, innovate, office, windows, 95, NT, XP</FL:termlist>
</FL:terms>
<FL:actions>
<FL:action id="ODCWebSite">
<FL:caption>
&SlashDot Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://slashdot.org</FL:url>
</FL:action>
<FL:action id="SlashdotWebSite">
<FL:caption>
Red Hat &Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://www.redhat.com</FL:url>
</FL:action>
<FL:action id="Goatse WebSite">
<FL:caption>
Goatse &Office Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://goatse.cx</FL:url>
</FL:action>
</FL:actions>
</FL:smarttag>
</FL:smarttaglist>
TomV
No. I don't 'realize' that at all.
Because it's simply not the case.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some /. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Would you like me to pick up the toys and put them back in the pram for you now?
TomV
See this article:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/18/2122249.shtm l
I seem to recall that this did not turn out to be very popular with people and many of the arguments raised this time were raised back then as well - copyright issues, misrepresentation, etc.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
If we could just add the meta tag to the default template in all of the non-Microsoft HTML editors, we could cut down on the impact of this "feature."
Not that it addresses all of the problems, but it's something simple and practical that you can do to avoid having your web pages altered.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
As others have pointed out, stripping ads would then also be illegal. So would things like the Jesus filter.
Yes, it should be clear what's from the original page and what's not, but please don't start arguing that web pages are legally inviolable, or we'll all regret it.
They have it all wrong, "Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them."
They should have it so you can add a tag that turns them on, not be forced to add a tag so they are turned off.
By and large I'd think less people want them than more.
Despite your optimistically high opinions of the population, 80% of them are not able to change screensavers without help desk assistance. More than 50% don't even know that screen savers can be changed. A giant screaming banner at the top of every modified page saying "DANGER: THESE LINKS ARE ADDED BY MICROSOFT, AN EVIL CORPORATE MERCHANDISING MACHINE! BY CLICKING ON THEM YOU WILL EXPOSE YOURSELF TO MICROSOFT SELECTED ADVERTISING! CLICK HERE TO CHANGE THESE LINKS" will go unclicked by that same 50%.
Any time you have a default setting, count on it being used, and used heavily. Believe me, Microsoft does.
I certainly don't want to be as offensive as barneyfoo, but you really need to leave acadamia and get out into the real world. Take a summer intern job on a help desk. Answer a few phone calls from people who are not stupid, but uninformed to a degree you cannot ever imagine until you've experienced it first hand. Go home that night shaking your head in disbelief at the questions you're asked. Then answer that phone every day for the next three months.
AOL exists for a reason. Most people simply cannot ever expand beyond what they're spoon fed. That's why Microsoft will "own" these links.
John
John
Netscape did themselves more harm by putting out a good browser then getting distracted by a boatload of other projects. They failed to realize that they didn't have the resources to make their browser better and do everything else that they wanted to do. Microsoft had the resources and used them -- boo fucking hoo.
Just don't buy the damn OS. Don't install it. Don't support it. Tell your jackass end-users that unless they can prove that there is a need for some flaky feature it provides, it's not an option.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
[ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jun0 1/06-04UshersPR.asp ]
The above is a parody, and isn't necessarialy meant to harm the company in question. Just in case you couldn't notice...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
This is the wrong way round!!! It means someone has to go back and put these tags in every single page they have ever created.
It should be "a site operator could insert a metatag enabling Smart Tags".
But then again, ?not many? ppl would use them so this might harm Microsoft's steps to world domination. *golly*
-- .
<META NAME="Microsoft" CONTENT="Fuck Off">
I've used the same thing in other software as an addon to IE5. My comments follow:
1) It slows things down. Your browser basically goes to a search engine with a list of non-common worlds, and builds hyperlinks to the results inside the page you are looking at. This takes time, so expect pages to load 2 or 3 times as slowly.
2) It's a great way for companies to track what you are looking at. The search engine they look at knows who is doing the requesting, and is used to track data for advertisers. This (besides being immoral) may be used as general data where they don't know specifically who you are, but are tracking the general population, or direct, where you start finding more spam in your mailbox about the places you've been to.
3) The references that the hyperlinks bring up rarly have anything significant, so not only is this technology slow and immoral, but it's useless.
IMHO
It will be interesting to see how this effects government web sites. They are not allowed to endorse commercial products. It sounds like there is a clear distinction between normal hyperlinks and M$ smart tags. However, somehow I don't think this will be enough.
Bad news for JunkBuster, huh?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
What is the metatag to disable Smart Tags?
The "example" links in the article were a bit absurd, but I can envision something like that happening.
Exactly. The links in the article were absurd they were meant to be, but there will be many cases were this feature will not be funny at all..
There is no way in hell, Microsoft isn't going to miss the opportunity to cause the word travel to link back to Expedia. This is something that in no circumstances should be allowed to happen by default. Microsoft can and will use this to draw people from other travel sites to their own.
What about the word "news", will it link to MSNBC? What about people with names similar to the names of celebrities or companies? Is John Dell's personal home page going to be littered with links to Dell Computers? What about critical software reviews? This technology is not intelligent. It doesn't know when and where it is appropriate to insert a tag or not, it merely does so blindly and without forethought.
IMHO, the only acceptable use of this technology is in the form of a wizard in a MS tool. If I create a page in Front Page, I could be asked if I want FP to create links based on the smart tags technology and then modify them. This would be convenient and put full control of web content in the hands of the author where it belongs.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Quote from article: "We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content they want to look at," Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of this like we're going to expose (users) to a lot of bad content ... I think we're going to expose people to a lot of good content."
Well, see? They are only going to link to "good" content, so I guess that is that, eh? Why didn't they just say they were for sure only going to do the "right" and "good" thing so that we could stop worrying. Phew.
What Would Sutekh Do?
I am an unemployed dot.commie, and a few weeks ago I answered an ad for a one day gig testing software for browsers. It turned out to be a form of smart tag. In this case, I think it was not what MS may be up to: they looked like they worked for advertisers.
In any case, what was added was squiggly, colored lines beneath keywords tht related to the advertisers' interests. If you right-clicked the special mark, it offered to take you to a site of the advertiser. They were annoying, for sure. But they were ignorable, also for sure.
Yes but you have to ask to see the related sites rather than have them some MS gnome linkify them for you.
The defaults will of course be set by Microsoft and probably for 90% of all users will never be changed.
Nicely done!
All your links are belong to us!
Sorry about that.
Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags
It's good to see Microsoft is smart enough to give the option to opt-out, but it seems to me that this technology is invasive enough that it really ought to be an opt-in situation. I think I would rather have to put a metatag in my page if I DID want the Smart Tags to appear.
1. Preferences that they set, which will mostly link to pages they already know about.
2. Preferences that Microsoft sets, which will mostly link to where MS marketing folks would like them to go. (Some of which, they might have added in return for compensation. For example, AOL might choose to pay MS to have their service linked to for a variety of words.)
In other words, this thing is a huge ad generator for Microsoft's browser, and the "opt out" feature will be one hell of a mailing-list generator as well. Win-win, if you are Microsoft. No value really added for the user.
Even in your best-case situation: most of the "update-packs" are just going to be a collection of links to commercial sites. Who the hell wants to download a database of advertisment links to "enhance" their client with?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Aside from all the "Big Brother" bashing, has anyone thought of the time it will take for the browser to lookup all of those references and render them onto the user's page? IE does some weird things already and the last thing I need is it doing dozens of searches and content reformats ON MY TIME.
Maybe it does it in the background (does anyone actually know how it works?), but I'd rather have my processor working for ME than for someone else seeking to spam up my desktop. What's next, a mandatory Active Desktop with a rectangle devoted to banners? Where does it end?
There are a million web sites out there that are unkept, billions of documents that aren't regularly updated and fixing all of them with a new meta tag would be absolutely horrendous.
What the hell does Microsoft expect? That only web sites from this point on will decide to insert their meta tag to disable these Smart Tags? Do they actually expect web masters and owners of Geocities sites that haven't updated their Area51/4234/main.htm page since '98 to go back and disable XP's content-bending features? The pages might not be updated regularly, but damn, they're still somebody else's content.
And what about things like archived mailing lists available online and such? Most of them have links in them and they're static pages that, once posted, are rarely if ever changed. There are hundreds of thousands of these static pages that are never updated. Now, all of a sudden, if we don't want other people's words, ideas and meaning to automatically be pushed aside by some links pointing to any of Microsoft's sites?
This is seriously fucked up.
J
Auto-generated hyperlinks to places, people and products may not be a bad idea if it is done in a fair way. If MS provides a database of links that appears to have a specific agenda, they'll be trashed by the media. I expect they know this. I expect they'll try to provide a balanced set of links. And I expect they'll make a few mistakes anyhow.
;-)
From what I've read, the Smart Tag feature has to be turned on by users -- it is not enabled by default.
Unfortunately, most online internet coverage is ridiculously biased -- and is often owned by tech competitors (VA Linux owns Slashdot for example). Like many other MS stories, this one has been simplistically reported -- as if the browser will actually MODIFY web pages sitting on a server.
The question I have is this: will "Smart Tags" be cached on a user's system, or will they reach out and lookup URLs on an MS server. If it is the latter, I think most people will turn off the feature to speed up browsing, if nothing else.
Anyhow, perhaps the best way to deal with the IE "problem" is to contribute to the Mozilla project.
Is this sig nificant?
Obviously Jon Erikson does not exist (read his user info, it is quite funny) but people like that do exist, and their not satires.
The answer to them is: imagine your company makes widgets. You have a page about what makes your widgets great. MS's browser inserts a link on the word "widget" to another company's site. This site has a table comparing various widgets on the market and shows, by their criteria, that you widget sucks.
Still think it's a great idea? Better insert those meta tags in ALL you pages.
The better answer is to block IE6 with a page explaining why and a link to proper browsers.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Think of how useful something like a really tough, technical document (like a scientific or engineering paper) could become if your own Smart Tag parser could rip through it, and add hyperlinks to pre-defined words and phrases to, say, an online technical dictionary, or textbook? If there's a phrase or word you don't understand, a link through to an explanatory site is only a click away
I think customised, user defined or 3rd party Smart Tag libraries could really supercharge the web...making a lot of documents even more useful and accessible.
When did they stop abusing their monopoly? They may have toned it down a bit during the trial, but they have never stopped their predatory practices. The only reason they aren't getting broken up right now is because of who is in the White House. They haven't changed at all, they don't need to. They can just BUY their freedom (through our wonderful political process).
Enigma
Enigma
Yes, but the Netscape links do not appear in the webpage you are viewing, they appear in the toolbar, sidebar, etc. No, I don't condone these links either (that's why I use Mozilla), but there is a world of difference between having a "search" button go to your site and editing ALL HTML pages to provide links to your site.
Enigma
Enigma
Thatswhy we integrate digital rights management and kill MP3 in our fine new OS.
Wankers!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
It looks like M$ is killing off MP3 support for good.
Of course you can still use 3rd party products. However, that could also have been said for Netscape (RIP) as an alternative to M$-Internet Explorer.
Now combine that with their brown tonguing of the recording industry and Microsoft is well posed to obtain yet another monopoly.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
If you're fixated on how it looked, you've already got the wrong idea. Looking pretty is all nice and good for the golly, gee marketing guys, but that completely fails to address such things as:
As the page author, you may not have considered the features, and implementing them server-side would probably result in excess linkage, but there are people who will want to be able to take advantage of them.
As a far as specifics go, I often research various mental illnesses on the web out of personal interest. While I understand that the web isn't exactly the safest place to get medical information, it's all just to satisy personal curiosity, so misinformation isn't going to hurt. While reading, it's not infrequently that I'll come across the mention of various neurotransmitters. Most of the time, it's either assumed that I already know what that neurotransmitter is (in the more sophisticated material) or the details of the neurotransmitter are glossed over. It's not that it isn't important -- it's that an author can only cover so much at a time. I fully appreciate and can understand that the author didn't want to bother with this. But to tell the end users that they can't add their own hyperlinks to fulfill personal needs is just selfish and egotistical. In my mind, it's on the par with those idiots who disable right clicking (which prevents me from doing my favorite "open in a new window"), in a lame attempt to prevent people from stealing the page source.
I already use manual smart tags when browsing the web. Using a combination of lynx, gpm, and Surfraw, I can highlight any word or phrase, switch to another virtual console, type in either "webster" (for a dictionary lookup) or "google" (for a google lookup), then paste in the term I'm interested in. I then hit return, and *BAM* I've got my results. I do this a lot. I would jump at the chance of having a one or two click process to do this for me. I might be willing to switch to IE as my Windows GUI browser for this functionality. I would be willing to start trying Mozilla if it added this feature. I would definitely be willing to install a proxy to filter out the META disabling tag, if it seems necessary. Any web authors out there who have pages that already provide Merriam-Webster and Google search links for all possible terms and phrases in the page can feel free to ignore me. The rest should get off this moral high horse of "I don't want them changing my web page."
Last year, EBay won a case against some of the meta-auction sites that were displaying EBay content on their sites. EBay's argument was that their web pages are their copywritten material and by a meta-site taking that and altering what was originally intended, was infringement. The court agreed. This could be bad news for MS if they push forward with altering sites they did not author.
I apologize that my memory of the details is a bit hazy, and more info is not immediately available to me. No, IANAL.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Besides isn't it just using a few concepts from Xanadu?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Currently there are already products out there that do this. One that I use sometimes at work is called FlySwat (www.flyswat.com) and it adds so-called HotSpots on the page that you can click on to take you to the information you need. An example is when I am on a page with the word 'Slashdot', which then shows up with a yellow line under it and when I click it, I have the option to go to www.slashdot.org.
Now there is a difference here because FlySwat was installed by me with a choice whereas IE 6.0 will have this 'feature' enabled by default and it takes you to www.microsoft.com URLs.
If MS wants to have this feature in IE 6.0 it will have to leave it up to the user whether or not to have it enabled.
I am
Typical MS Apology from Hiawatha Bray
Mr. Bray:
First of all, I'm not sure you really understood Ms. Guglielmo's intention at all. The words in parenthesis are for effect--to more clearly display where the links could point. If you think she was suggesting that additional words would be added, you missed it entirely.
Now put aside your amorous feelings for Microsoft for just a minute and try to look at this technology as a writer (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
Let's say you've written an article--you've include what links you feel pertinent, revised it countless times, perhaps even had others review and edit it before finally posting it on the internet. In a world with "Smart Tags" your own words which you carefully chose could now be underlined and take readers to other websites which you may or may not agree with. This very much could change the meaning readers get from your article. Links on a page have definite effect on readers understanding of the page. It really wouldn't be any different than letting some one add their own footnotes and annotation text to a printed article. Are you starting to get this?
Flip things around. Pretend that it was Apple instead of Microsoft toying with this technology. Now imagine you've just published an article slamming Apple. But interwoven as links so as to not change the "content" of your article Apple, has set "Smart Tags" to words that take you to sites that are overly flattering of Apple, slam Microsoft, and undermine your credibility.
Aside from just being wrong from a moral and copyright/intellectual property standpoint (though that's a whole other can of worms) I don't see how any of the "benefits" (and I will readily admit that there are a few) could come close to outweighing both the number of and magnitude of costs.
steve snyder
Vote Quimby.
Jakob Nielsen thinks it's a useful feature and he says so on his homepage.
If Microsoft were to create a metatag that web editors could use to OPT-IN, than they would have no problem with copyright. Instead, we see the mentality of American business, that of opt-out. Microsoft obviously feels that they are the only correct opinion in this case, and that the default environment should be what they select.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
MS would never do that, the whole point of designing this feature is that the tags will be in there by default, as 95% of people aren't going to disable them, at least not for a while.
Well I'm damned if I want some script kiddie turning every word on my home page into goatse.cx links. The only progress here will be a change from Outlook virii to IE ones.
What is the main advantage of the web over other networked forms of information? That's right, it's the fact that it is hyperlinked, allowing people to veer off from what they're reading to related sites, and then return when they're done.
People here often complain about how hyperlinks aren't used properly, and yet when Microsoft implement an automatic hyperlink generator, they complain!
Since people writing websites are often engaging in practices such as closed sites (where there aren't any external links, keeping novice users within their system of sites - i.e. AOL or Freeserve) then we should applaud this feature, as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole, and increase connectivity massively. No longer will you have to waste valuable time searching for the meaning of an unexplained term on a page - there'll be a Smart Tag leading directly to useful information!
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them. At the end of the day it's less offensive to copyright holders, because it adds value to their pages at no cost or effort to them, whereas Junkbuster removes any chance of them being able to fund their efforts, leading to the closure of many people's pages.
No I think this will work out well for everyone, and I hope that minority browsers like Mozilla and Opera follow suit. No longer will we need to be constrained by the linking laziness of web authors :)
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Deactiving such tags is not the operator's work.
Imagine if everybody invented new tags like this everyday !!!
We'd have to spend our days correct numerous websites.
I think Microsoft should deactivate them by defaut and document the way to turn these smart tags on.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
If MS were serious about this feature, they could create a meta-tag where the web page author could specify that Smart Tags should be used, and what Smart Tag library to use, e.g.
[smart lib="slashdot"]
(page)
[/smart]
Then it would be under the control of the page author, as it should be.
I certainly don't trust any opinions on Slashdot where MS is concerned. The hatred for anything the company does is so rife I'm sure that even if they gave away free money, you'd claim they were just doing it in order to put Fort Knox out of business.
But anyway.... smart tags.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I can see exactly where MS's thinking was going with this one. If you're doing research on a particular subject (quantum physics for example) wouldn't it be great if all those complicated terms that were used, or all the times prominent physicists (sp?) were mentioned that they were squiggly underlined with a link to more information about that subject or person? Without you have to open up Google and search yourself?
It sure sounds like a good time saver to me, cross referencing everything with everything else is exactly why sites like Everything2 or IMDB are so useful. MS are bringing that to the whole web.
If it can be switched on/off in the browser (and can be switched off by those pages that really don't want to allow it - even if their reader does) then where's the issue?
If the mozilla group came up with this you'd love it.
Secondly as all coders know, if you have a feature off by default, most people don't know it ever exists. On the other hand, if you put opt-in meta tags then you run the risk of no-one using the feature. Which for a PHB, this is not a nice thought - but tends to piss people off less.
Finally, those people who complain about the site changing their design obviously never looked at it from different browsers. Every one interprets it in their own way, coupled with whatever mods the user has installed. I can make google hightlight words on the page, use junkbuster to remove adverts etc. etc.
At the end of the day, once its left the server I don't really have any control on how it is displayed. It could look how I intended or totally different (say html on avantgo or pocketie).
Finally, didn't some other company have this first? I remember using something years ago that produced a yellow line under key words that popped up a menu which would like to other "key" sites, a dictionary, the company etc.etc.
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Now we only need to invent the "real link" to distinguish between "real links" and "pc links".
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Actually, no. All your content is still there in its original form. The only thing that has changed is the presentation of that content, and presentation is entirely in the realm of the client software.
Ever noticed that pages don't look the same when viewed with different browsers? That's because the client can render the page any way it likes. The HTML formatting codes are at best a guideline which the browser need not follow (think Lynx).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
NOOOOOOOO!
Even if it would find its way into OpenBSD
I wouldn't approve it.
This just has the bonus that one can remove
and recompile.
--
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
This is ludicrous.
I will never accept this.
Perhaps when M$ allows me to put links on THEIR home page will I accept this new feature.
Don't let them do it!
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
If you go into a store and highlight and underline certain passages, and then pass it off to a clueless (l)user who doesn't know the difference between your highlighting and the author's writing, then yes. There is a reason why if I quote something in my writing and add italics or underlining or something I have to say "emphasis mine" or "emphasis added."
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Developers can turn this off.
Microsoft seems to do the wrong thing by default.
Auto tag generation has been around for about two years in plugins. NBCi has had "smart linking" where you can clickon any word in the text of a page and it will do what amounts to a web searchon that word and return you a little list of links. Why is it that when microsoft does anything it is BAD BAD BAD, yet when somone else comes up with the idea it is stupid at worst and insanely great at best.
Yes, I agree that a page might be copyrighted even if it doesn't have a '©' symbol on it (but that character is easy to scan for), but I'm trying to make it easier for Microsoft to comply with the DMCA, after all, we do want Microsoft to comply with the DMCA (and other copyright regulations dating back to 1893 and earlier) right?
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I expect Microsoft will be forced to shift from the exclusionary tag model to an inclusionary tag model where only sites with an inclusionary tag can be modified in this way. That way content owners have to give their eplicit permission to microsoft to edit their page in ways they would be completely unaware of.
There is some middle ground. Perhaps Microsoft could check the page for the '©' symbol, and if it is found, then search for the inclusionary tag, granting them license to modify the page.
Along the same lines, has anyone thought about how much they want to charge Microsoft for such a content license?
I'll be sure to put a click-thru license (enforceable through the wonders of the DMCA) on my website, requiring Microsoft to pay some reasonable fee per page modification, per user - how about $100 per occurance
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I would prefer a "code this to opt in" in your site, rather than horking up my code with version specific HTML.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
The idea of opting OUT of something like this is deeply troubling. This needs to be something that web designers choose to opt IN to. The reason is that Microsoft will target all pages which opt out, and develop a database of sites which need to be targeted for pro-MS tactics. Whenever this dangol XP arrives, everyone who can needs to immediately opt out of every such option, to protect the innocent... that's what I think.
information is immaterial
It could be usefull when searching for pr0n.
I'd be able to deal with this if they provided easy-to-select options for choosing the "relater".
Just another NT and IE-loving, M$-loathing user!
GTRacer
- Less than a month to go now...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
h is-in) 10. After investing 100 million (link to MS stock valuation page) dollars in research, this new version will literally suck (link to www.HouseOfPorn.com) down data at rates(link to MSN Money page) surpassing (link to dictionary.msn.com) those of other leading systems(link to Windows XP 2nd-week-in-October edition). Even Microsoft(link to MS home page) fans(link to www.WorldwideBlindDeafAndDumbSociety) will find(link to MSN's search page) something to love(link to MSN-sponsored dating advice page). Oracle(link to picture of WWII internment camps) will release(link to MS-partner www.UrologyDisorders.com) its new version(link to dictionary.msn.com?lookup="aversion") in August 2001(link to press release notice at MS's site that Windows 2000 has been delayed yet again).
Oracle, Inc. (link to skewed performance analysis from MS-sponsored benchmarking lab) is pleased to announce the release of its new database(link to SqlServer product page), Oracle(link to MS FUD page explaining why Oracle is the database choice of anti-what-ever-country-you-happen-to-be-reading-t
Oooh! Here's another one. The next time that you're shopping at FatBrain, and go to click on the checkout link
Yeah, I can't see anything wrong with this either.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
2)With the addition of smart tags, the internet is STILL "a free forum where readers / users / clients could choose the information they did or did not want to receive". We just have the EXTRA freedom to have smart links inserted into web sites. Note that we have ADDED to the freedoms a client has here, not SUBTRACTED from them.
Thinly veiled astroturf? NO! AC actually uses the 1st person! I'm so glad you have ADDED to my freedoms! But really man, you're a little high strung. Maybe you should innova^H^H^H^H^H^H take a pill!
also by 2ndPersonShooter: Voices Inside My Head - The Unauthorized Autobiography
The Third Voice software also inserted content into other people's sites. And unless these tags there was no easy way to stop it.
Anyways, they had words of usenet posts changed to links that would link to some ot their advertiser's page in posts that you were reading.
Anyone remember what happened with that?
'I am a negative Karma whore'
AC comments get piped to
Seriously, this is soooo close to being a good idea. Slashdotters love everything2.com - just imagine the entire WWW like it.
SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.
As it is, who the hell wants to always be redirected to Microsoft's web site? Besides the pointy haired bosses. :-)
mozilla coders began looking into putting smarttags in mozilla, and linking them off to everything2. Slashdot rejoices.
-
How about there be a metatag to opt IN for this "feature." That way, anyone who DIDN'T want it wouldn't have to change anything? Why? Because that would make since.
well, hell then. if this is legal, im goning to make a plugin for IE6 that automaticly defaces websites with anti-MS propaganda. that will be a hoot. ... I think we're going to expose people to a lot of good content."
---
"We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content they want to look at," Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of this like we're going to expose (users) to a lot of bad content
---
who exactly decides what is good or bad content for you?
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
And DCMA will have paved the way -- although speech will remain free, the technology to reproduce it will be illegal.
-B
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
If I create a webpage, I own that page. No one is legally allowed to modify it. We all know that browsers might change the appearance of a page (color, font, images, etc.), but it should stop short of modifying the content of a page.
I definitely agree with you, this should be something that you can opt IN to. What about all of the websites in existance already that aren't being actively maintained? Should their content be altered just because they didn't know that Microsoft was requiring them to add a special "Don't violate the copyright on my page" tag? IANAL, but Microsoft's "feature" certainly seems to violate the intent of copyright. -Sean
The keyword is "if." Knowing Microsoft, the only choice a user might have is whether or not they are running a Microsoft OS.
Your other examples have the common thread that they are not turned on by default. The user (or his school, company, etc) has to add that "feature" to the browser. Smart Tags will most likely be added by default. This means that the pages will be modified unless the user can hunt down the option to turn it off in the maze of mysteriously-titled options that Microsoft software tends to have.
Leaving out any legal questions, I think the ethical thing to do is deliver the content that the author intended. That should be the default action. The user could then have the option of modifying the content. The same should apply to the author of the page. They should have the option of allowing Smart Tags, but the tags should be disabled by default.
Yeah, someone who sees the light!
Who else has noticed how Smart-Tags are used in OfficeXP? Well, it's actually a quite useful implimentation, automatically linking names, numbers between apps etc, could be quite handy...just like it is quite handy to have IE load almost instantly...but does it make it right or is this just the switch part of the bait?
The way this stinks to me is that they have built a useful technology that has great potential for abuse. But: First they are going to release OfficeXP which uses the same technology in a viable and reasonable fasion so when they release the feature in IE6 and all of a sudden the whole internet becomes M$ friendly and directed they will be able to say "but you didn't complain about it in Office, actually you liked it there". Gives them a mighty good platform for any lawsuits thereafter.
I have a suggestion: If IE6 ships with this 'feature', I suggest that ALL developers LOCK their pages out to this browser.
if bws == IE6 then pissoff and get a real one.
No Comment.
IF prior posts are true and the MS version is disabled by default, I see NOTHING wrong with this functionality. I know if I use NBCi that they are going to point me to what THEY want me to see. Nothing different here.
Almost the same as a banner ad. I know the site op didnt put that PARTICULAR ad there, I know the angle the ad is coming at me from. I am not going to hold that against the site op.
If I am aware enuf to go somewhere and enable this feature, I am aware enuf to deal with the propaganda thrown my way.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Check out NBCi's QuickClick, it does the same thing: It adds additional links to words it recognizes and gives you a seperate float over to get more info (these additional links are "controlled" by NBCi, just as MS is going to do)
If I go to your webpage, can I not look at it through filters that I decide to add???
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Can you imagine what this technology would do to a search engine like Google? It's all a conspiracy. It's always a conspiracy. Is there anywhere to go to get away from all this?
All this talk of MS' abuse of power reminded me of this: http://wtf.rotten.com/wtf/wtf.01/final.html
As for the autotags, I'll just use Netscape or Mozilla thank you. If I want, I'll find the way to reconfigure that xml file.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Isn't the lookup of smart-tags going to clog all the bandwith, or will it use a huge local database with keywords and urls which get outdated really soon? (Or can be emptied? :)
I don't see this how feature should work better than those "Channels" were supposed to, 3 years ago.
He has a good point about accountability, and the legal ramifications of altering someone else's copywright. THIS IS THE STUFF OF A WONDERFUL, EXCPENSIVE, PAINFUL MS LAWSUIT. Apply liberally.
I don't know what you're talking about with the Replay TV but to my knowledge there has been no sucessful attempt to prevent people from using playback technologies to circumvent commercials. There won't be. You can't force people to consume media in a particular way. You can't force people to stay and watch commercials. They can go to the kitchen or the bathroom and, with appropriate technology, just jump right over them. This is all legit, all protected by fair use.
Imagine I hacked my teevee so I had a window over regular content that allowed me to engage in an internet chat with a friend, where we discussed the program we were both watching. By your reasoning this would be illegal - simply because I had integrated the display of my "content" over the copyright protected teevee content. I think our real beef is with the fact that M$'s monopolistic OS dominance has allowed them to make IE virtually the default browser for non-AOL internet consumers, and that you fear (rightly, I would guess) that the metacontent they choose to layer over the internet will be self-serving corporate garbage. So? support an alternative browser project like Mozilla and get over it. This is not illegal.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
There is something to the argument that by making this metadirectory the default, Microsoft is forcing this down people's throats. But the issue and problem in this case is not the smart tags - it's just the sameold same old of Microsoft's OS Monopoly and the attendant prevalence of Explorer. Want a solution to this problem? Find another browser. Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
What will happen when the links to the sites Microsoft preapproves to "Smart" link to are moved or changed?
It's bad enough that it's turned ON by default, but if no one turns it off and people actually use it, you may have hundreds of dead links. And that's going to drastically deter viewers of your website.
"Embrace and Extend"? What ever happend to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
"Every computer Crashes, cause Every OS Sucks.. Everything since Apple/DOS..Just a bunch of crap"
And now we're back to the same situation - a service that lets its users get information from a page that the author didn't put there or authorize. But now because it's Microsoft and a feature-not-a-bug, it's all good and we can support it. How fickle the PTBs at Microsoft are...
Cue The Sun...
This seems to be just another way in which Microsoft is trying to fragment & otherwise "extend" standards to suit there own purposes. I wish M$ would just get with the program & make IE a 100% W3C standard compliant browser.
I thought one of the purposes of the W3C's XLink standard was to do similar informational links. The difference being who has control over what additional content is added to the website. The website owner or Microsoft.
I certainly don't like the idea of Microsoft controling or changing any content associated with my website.
Also, since this apparently only works with Windows XP and Office XP, it tries to perpetuate (in typical Microsoft fashion) usage of their products over any others.
I am no DMCA expert, but I could see how the DMCA could actually be used for good not evil. SmartLinks would alter content that IS copyrighted.(remember, all things you originally create ARE copyrighted automatically). IANAL, but altering copywrited content seems like a DMCA violation...
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Actually, This kind of a thing is already implemented for IE. Check out QuickClick. Which does exactly what Windows XP is attempting to do.
Of course, QuickClick was implemented by a third party (I dont know if MS helped them in this development or not). And there used to be Ads that used to run on TV about this. Now that NBCi is sort of dead, I guess there might not be any more development in this regard.
If someone took pains to download QuickClick, That person might be interested in the SmartTags as well.I guess its just a matter of choice of the user.
As a web site developer, I can never have a say about what they do with end result HTML.For all I care, They might feed it to a HTML scraper and show it in an application.
Hmmmm, I don't know.
Some enterprising lad could write a little smart tag alterer to redirect Microsoft smart tags to some goofy, alternative OS site, maybe, or a joke-of-the-day site. Put it on download.com with full, honest documentation to what it does, and let people get it and download it.
If some lad wanted to, of course...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Thanks.
Try visiting http://www.bookmarklets.com/.
It's very easy to set up searches in almost any engine, plus much more. Right now i can select a section of text in a webpage, and just clicking one bookmark I can open a fresh window (since I usually just want to check something before reading on) with a search google, yahoo, IMDb, freshmeat or several other engines.
Also, it's easy to do all sorts of other stuff, like jumping to an url, eventhough it's not a link, ROT13 decoding, resizing the screen or changing simple layout stuff, like backgroundcolor (on any site that is, right in the browser)
Anyway, the first thing to note is that by default Smart Tags are disabled - but they are really easy to enable. There is also an advanced setting to "always display smart tags" - giving users the option to override meta tags found on individual sites. It defaults to off, and as long as it stays that way I'm okay with it.
After switching on Smart Tags, the only smart tag I could find in this thread was the word Microsoft - and smart tags don't look like links. They are underlined with a dotted black and purple link. When you click on them, they don't take you anywhere - they pop up a tooltip with a little "information" icon in it and a pull-down list of pieces of information you might want to see. Very innocuous, very obviously not a link supplied by the document's author - and very unobtrusive.
The current IE6 beta also has some nice privacy features, particularly the option to block third-party cookies. Opera and Mozilla have had this for a while, but it's nice that IE has caught up!
I have to say, I think that this is a storm in a teacup (unless you are in the habit of making your links not act like links, and look different...)
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
YAAFINSO = Yet Another Annoying Feature I Need to Switch Off
Anyone willing to bet against me when I say that this will rival JavaScript powered, OnClose event triggered, Pop-Up-Window explosions for being the most annoying thing on the Internet???
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If an otherwise reasonably intelligent person (who spends 8 hours a day surfing the internet) can get suckered in like this, the affects on Joe Lunchpail really REALLY scare me :(
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
This is just like the "What's Related" button that we find in Netscape 4.X and is no different then the what's related pane that is found in Netscape 6/Mozilla. The only difference is that Microsoft allows the site owners to disable it with XML or control it with XML. Netscape doesn't let site owners control what links are shown in the what's related tab. If everyone is so upset about smart tags, why don't they complain about Netscape doing it today with "What's Related."
If MS alters a web page, do they become the contact for DMCA violations? ISP's/web hosting companies, etc are supposed to register an official DMCA contact person to handle complaints about DMCA violations. If MS alters the page, do they then become the official contact?
to link to Microsoft's site and see how well their server stood up
Microsoft have so many servers that they make sure they're always running at 50% capacity (until the DDoS attack, of course.)
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
this is most clearly a violation of the copyright held by the page owner. modifying how content is displayed to the user without the consent of the author?
what if i owned a bookstore and 'edited' the books on the shelves to promote my own philosophies? i'm sure the authors would get upset - and get every last penny i had in this world.
this differs greatly from services that 'censor' content, because you install/subscribe to them expressly for the purpose to remove words and materials that are offensive to you (because, you had no expectation to see them. people don't install filters then visit pages they _know_ will contain the very material they want to block).
"smart tags" alters the _meaning_ of a piece of work by changing the context of individual words, and making it indistiguishable to the user that the author didn't intend it that way.
or shall i say, that smart tags surreptitiously _wants_ the user to think that you _did_ intend it that way. and your own links get lost in a wash of microsoft's links.
www.pixelectric.com
What happened to the open source browser? Is it dying or is it dead? Sun Microsystems was supposed to release a Java broser almost 5 years ago. What happened?
Galactic Geek
* * * Free programmers? Why not? http://www.Geeks4Free.com * * *
Who made MS the editor-in-chief of the web, anyway? The great thing about this medium is that it's pluralistic, sprawling, and searchable. Alternate perspectives aren't hard to find -- they jump out if you simply bother to look.
Yes, webmasters will evidently be able to disable the Smart Tags. But once again this is MS's strategy of preying on people's laziness in order to push through their agenda, a la bundling IE with Windows (or the plethora of MS crap they're planning on including in XP). I know this is Business As Usual, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.
hack challange write a worm that overwrites the file so that all links go to antiM$ sites or linux sites :>>>>
What another amazing Microsoft innovation...I hate those guys. I personally will now put up meta tags on all of my pages to turn this off. Meta tags are there to turn things on, not to turn them off. They should quit while they are ahead, open source will win in the end. shanekinney.net
HTTP allows you to determine the type and version of browser that is accessing a page. You could always write a little script that detected whether a smart-tag-capable browser was accessing your page, and redirect it to an "error" page, instructing the reader to get a different browser before visiting the page again. (For good measure you could provide a link to Mozilla and an explanation of why smart tags are evil.)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Microsoft has a long history of creating "innovative" solutions to web problems. It's instructive to look at where they've gone:
...
1) Marquee - scrolling letters, to replace : Still supported, but unused.
2) HTML+TIME - multimedia scheduling language, to compete against SMIL: Still supported, but little used.
3) Alternative CSS - Developed an early CSS implementations and built on it: Fairly widely accepted, although customer complaints have made IE6 CSS more consistent with the W3C version.
4) Agents - Animated figures: Bob (Enough said).
5) VML - Vector markup language: Used extensively in Powerpoint for the web, losing ground elsewhere to SVG.
6) Chromeffects - Integrated 2D/3D browsing for the web: cool concept, but died from too heavy a system requirement.
7) Behaviors - Using external scripting to make HTML extension tags live: Used in specialized apps, but browser and platform differences make them useless on the web.
8) Smart Tags - Interesting concept, browser specific, even in beta many managers and webmasters are disabling them
Smart Tags are actually not a bad technology, but keep in mind that their primary purpose is not to make the web better, but to provide yet another bell and whistle to market Office XP. The focus of the W3C right now is on XML related issues, and something like this is so far off their radar that it's likely never to get on. Mozilla is more interested in developing and promoting XUL, Opera, and Konquerer are positioning themselves as close to W3C as possible; between these factors and the large installed base of IE4/IE5.x, smart tags will die of attrition long before their host platform makes any real splash.
Now wipe that evil scowl off your face. And the other one.
Look past the company - it's a good idea.
hold on - i create a web page, but must insert a metatag to disable something i didnt want in the first place? When i do so, will i still receive the same traffic, or am i to be expunged from any search lists? (more specifically, m$ backed ones) --fucking nightmare is right.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
"If you don't want to not install Smart Tags now, press No. Otherwise, press Yes to install Smart Tags."
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Smart tags is actually a really great idea. The visitor to a site will not be "locked" to that site regardless of what evil intents the sites editors wants.
The main problem is not the opt-out for webmasters (although it does suck on a principal basis). The problem is: What content will I be linked to? I guess that a set of links will be provided by MS when installing. And most pepole won't bother to update those links to some better ones. And that is what bothers me. The MS links will be the default stuff, and everything else is optional.
Let's hope is as simple to obtain a new set of Smart Tag list as it is to install a plugin in IE. Load a page, klick OK, and you're done. Here I should also have the option to replace earlier links in my list, or add the new ones to my current list.
I would want the Google smart tag myself. Any keywords founds will result in a websearch on an independent powerful search engine. That way, a keword like "abortion" will give me both kinds of fanatics.
...um...like...a sig...
I think it would be hard to nail MS on the copyright issues, unless smarttags are confusingly similar to normal links, and even then it might not be easy.
Well, if AOL can sue the pants off Aimster for having a domain name (aimster.com) that AOL claim is similar to their Instant Messanger (AIM) trademark, I guess anything is possible...
...um...like...a sig...
I can imagine if this post was displayed with "Smart Tags". You could be sure all the links would point to MS pages. However, what if MS was required to have the Authors insert a meta tag to ENABLE them, as well as the user having to ENABLE them? Also, what if the user had the option of selecting which search engine was utilized to find links to be displayed as "Smart Tags"? Then it might look more realistic and actually be beneficial.
Free Beer!
This sounds to me like a browser feature, meaning it can be turned off, and that it is only part of one browser. If I wanted to write a browser that changed every link into a link to some guy's "Manimal" fan site, I could legally do so, provided that the users were given this caveat in advance. It may not be a good idea, but it certainly isn't worth taking up arms over.
There is such a thing as a bad idea that isn't illegal.
And what is the worst that smart tags could do? Link to something the author disagrees with? So you either end up with links that support the author's leanings, or ones that provide an opposing viewpoint. Neither of which destroy speech on the internet.
--
Do not taunt happy fun ball
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
Sorry if this is redundant. I found this URI with a Google search:
h at snew/whatsnewpublicpreview.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/essentials/w
It suggests using this meta tag:
<meta http-equiv="MSThemeCompatible" Content="Yes">
to ENABLE Smart Tags on IE 6 beta. So maybe the actual meta tag to disable it would be either no meta tag or:
<meta http-equiv="MSThemeCompatible" Content="no">
I don't have IE 6 beta to test it, though.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
So how about putting a hyperlink to Mozilla?
Reality is what we taste, smell, see, hear and touch yet we cannot comprehend it...only approximate it.
There's a solution that I've suggested before: exclude MSIE from browsing the web site.
This isn't rocket science. In fact, it's extremely simple. The main page links to a Perl CGI which interprets a single ENV variable - the browser that's making the web page request. If the browswer identifies itself as IE you redirect the user to an alternate page which reads something along the lines of:
"Hi! It appears you're using IE, which sucks so bad it isn't capable of accessing this web site. However, you can download Opera *here* and that is more than capable of doing the job. Have a nice day!"
I've done this and it works pretty well. Opera is a fast download and install, people have heard about it and are generally willing to try it out. And they discover that they can, indeed, access the web site with Opera whereas they can't with IE. Wow! Opera *must* be better than IE!
But seriously, it's easy to exclude IE users from using the site, which prevents the use of 'smart tags' altogether. By offering a linked alternative like Opera you can tempt the user into downloading a different browser to access the site while at the same time protecting your content from 'alteration'. Stick it to MS twice!
Works for me anyway. And it's certainly more effective than whining, which has *never* changed MS's behavior in the past and has zero chance of doing so in the future. Even the U.S. government seems incapable of affecting MS.
For the MS zealots: this isn't illegal. If you have a problem with it, too goddamned bad. My site, I can do with it as I please. You don't like it, don't go there.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You can find Mozilla at http://www.mozilla.org.
Enjoy!
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Ok, how, exactly, would I disable this crap?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Yeah, checked MS high-and-low, google search of:
/., that there even is an option to opt-out. I am beginning to think that maybe there really isn't a way to opt-out?
metatag "smart tag" disable
turns up no results, http://www.smart-tag.com/ is the site to promote Virginia's transponder on toll roads, and the site of the writer of the smart tag article on MS contains no relevant material.
I have not run across any information, other than the posting on
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
But does this really create copyright issues? If lynx presents a website as plain HTML, stripping off all most of the formatting, does this too count as derivative work? If a browser presents visited links different from not visited without any explicit request from the author, does this count as derivative work? What if the browser underlines links (which i never explicitely asked for)? And how about a browser (horror!) displaying popup menues associated with a link that i, the author, have no control over? I think it would be hard to nail MS on the copyright issues, unless smarttags are confusingly similar to normal links, and even then it might not be easy.
So out of the millions of web pages out there, how many do you suppose are going to be updated to include the disabling metatags? Seems like it could become the norm on most pages, just through sheer inertia.
Here's a link that describes the basic tech behind smart tags and gives some implentation examples:
R L= /library/techart/ODC_stXML.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?U
It debunks some of the spin that's being spun. (I'm still opposed to the idea of Smart Tags, but this article at least helps sort out the alarmist spin from the actual implentation.)
If Microsoft has a strategy to alter the content of web pages, they will probably use it regardless of users opting out. While Microsoft is not an the Evil Empire, they're not a charity organization either, and they are not known for always respecting the law, let alone general morals. Probably we'll just have another <meta> tag that is in the header of every security-aware, anti-Microsoft web site and that causes the Internet explorer to behave all strangely with those pages (links generating mysterious 404s, security sites being unreachable, continuous reporting back to Microsoft, all sorts of evil behaviour.
This post is Microsoft Smart Post-enhanced.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
No, they'll just make "Save the whales" a link to www.killbabyseals.com. Same difference.
Ah, so you admit that Microsoft is changing the content of my web pages (by adding content that I probably would not approve of, and making it difficult if not impossible for the average user to disable). This renders your attempted analogy to user style sheets (which only change the appearance of web pages, and which must be explicitly enabled by the user) somewhat disingenuous.
For now.
For now.
For now. In the Microsoft view, these are "bugs", which will doubtless be "fixed" in the release version. And as others have already noted, any "gain" to the user from customizing this "feature" can already be achieved more easily via the existing bookmark mechanism. Unless, of course, you meant customization via "add-ins" installed automatically by third-party sites, and the inevitable can of worms that would open...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
but I do know that I dont want to give up my right to control how I view and comment on other peoples web pages for some short term fix to the Microsoft monopoly problem. Microsoft will find other ways of solidifying their position anyway, but these kinds of restrictions will stay around. In fact, most likely, Microsoft will find ways of using them against open source ("you must view this with IE because your open source browser doesnt show the squiggly lines for Microsoft FrontPage authored sites, hence violating our copyright by taking away our rightful control over our content").
Let's be consistent here: these kinds of rulings are bad when they apply to advertising filters, they are bad when they apply to your and my ability to build applications that let us comment on other people's web sites, and they are bad when they apply to Microsoft's web browser.
That is not to say that I approve of Microsoft's actions. But the problem with this feature in IE is not the feature itself, it's Microsoft's monopoly position and their control over the feature.
Since Apache runs the majority of web servers in the world can't we just suggest a new Apache config parameter... Insert_global_IE_metatag_disabler=yes to be set by default so every page served switches the IE metatag feature off unless the page explicitly requests it left on? That should level the playing field a bit......
What about porn... will it give you links to other porn, and info about more porn. I'd give M$ props on that. Other than this though, there couldn't be any good use for smart tags.
lol
blah blah blah, I'm right, and all evidence proving I'm wrong is insufficient and false.
Ok, so we write yet another outlook VB virus, with a payload to replace the xml file with anti-microsoft links.
Then it wouldn't be a "virus", it would be a "SmartPatch"! Maybe ActiveSmartPatch?
Microsoft? Unfair Business practice?
It just can't be!
I think it will be rather amusing when the link is taken entirely out of context which will happen VERY often. Just think of all those funny European brand names that could be takn out of context. We get whole TV programs in the UK devoted to such faux pas!!
I'd rather not be subjected to it on the whole.... Let the author decide..
If I want to be biased, and place an argument based on shortsighted facts, my web page should remain as intended. I dont want some other git correcting my narrowminded views.
This may not be "correct" but its my view, and no MS crony is gonna change it....
What would happen if I looked at one of my web pages with IE 6.0 to determine what words were being smart linked and then added links of my own to those words that would make any resulting clicks go to a site that had absolutely nothing to do with the word? Anyone who clicked on the word Coca-Cola would be sent to a page about rhubarb farming. Better yet, we could rewrite all these words to link to Microsoft's site and see how well their server stood up. Which would take precedence in the browser - the Smart Link or the web page's link? Would people be able to tell if there were two links there? Would it be possible to disguise a regular link as a smart link by copying that little purple line under it?
I say if they're going to shove this down our throats then we should screw it up for them.
Now I have to WAIST a ton of time inserting meta tags within our HUGE web site. I'll probably have to hire some temps with the money our compnay currently does not have. There should be a meta tag to TURN ON smart tags. Having them on by default hurts me. **** you microsoft. arrhhhhh!
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The main problem with Smart Tags is its commercial aspect, not the technology behind it. Keep in mind that the XLink specification which extends XML allows precisely this kind of thing; it even goes further by allowing one to annotate read only web pages by embedding your own content via an xlink. One can imagine this being done for personal use (i.e. sticky notes on the web) as well as commenting on other people's web site by linking to it from one's own. Once the legal issues are all sorted out, I imagine this will be a positive thing. See also The Annotea Project.
...at building features that NO BODY wants.
from the ZDNet article: "What's it all about? Microsoft is considering adding a feature to Windows XP (link to Microsoft XP order info page), due out Oct. 25, that would take users to links predetermined by Microsoft (link to favorable article about Microsoft). " Perhaps the link editor came in late?
If someone in the Open Source community came out with this, we'd all be ooohing and aaaahing and getting webishly orgasmic over the greatness of it all. "It will completely change the web and strike a blow for Free Speech", says Any No'nemus. Etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Don't get so whacked out on anti-microsoft juice that you can't see some value in it. Rule of thumb: if you repackage the book to be pretty/ugly, is it still a good/bad book?