I put it to you that almost ALL nontechnical users will be able to tell the difference between a word you can click on (a link) and a smart tag (the hover/click icon/click menu thing).
I'm not so sure. (And I've seen the screenshots, and read quite a bit of the MSDN Smart Tag docs.)
While I think most people will realize they're taking different actions (clicking versus menu choices), I wonder how many will realize that this added Smart Tag functionality is being inserted by their browser, and not by the web sites they're visiting?
1) User-specified actions. E.g., this word you selected--do you want to look it up at dictionary.com, at google, etc.?.
Perhaps a right-click will bring up a menu of user-defined macros/options or some such thing.
Currently, you'd have to edit the XML file.
(2) Exclusionary tags.
It's on my TO-DO list to add better parsing of multi-word selections. That's not hard. Including regular expression matching is on my list too, but it may mean extending (gasp!) the original schema.
Why change the appearance of a web page at all? Microsoft could remove the purple-squiggled-underline and instead (for example), only highlight a word when the user moused over it.
Or, like I do with gTags, only match words the user explicitly selects. If they went to that model, then all words become potential tags, and it's even possible to use the tags in non-Microsoft applications.
I've written an Open Source program, gTags, that gives Smart Tag capabilities to Linux/X Window applications. It's non-intrusive, that is, it doesn't modify the appearance of web pages or other apps (I couldn't if I wanted to). Instead, gTags spies on the X Window selection buffer (the clipboard) and matches against that.
gTags uses the same XML schema as Microsoft Smart Tags. I've added the ability to create a Default tag which can optionally be used to "match" selected words that don't match any other (specific) tags.
I guess the main difference between gTags and Microsoft Smart Tags is that the user has to actively choose what they want to do.
gTags is alpha software, but seems to work well enough. Suggestions and contributions are welcome. Read more about gTags here.
Confession time. From 1986 to 1994, I was a hardcore DOS/Windows programmer, moving through a progression of languages and tools on that platform: Microsoft Fortran, Turbo Pascal 3/4/5, Turbo Pascal for Windows, Borland C/C++, Visual Basic 2/3/4, Delphi. I knew the Windows API pretty well. I even had two books on Visual Basic programming published.
Many of these were good tools, some bordered on great tools.
It was while I was deeply involved in Visual Basic (VB) that I began to get an uneasy feeling. As new versions of VB were being designed and released, it seemed that I was spending more time learning the nuances of the tool, and less time honing my skills as a programmer. Even worse, MS would come out with a set of tools, then abandon or alter them a few months later. Gods help the early adopter.
In 1994, I started working in a group that was almost exclusively Linux. The learning curve was somewhat steep, no doubt about it. But the unix toolset was so rich, and the tools built upon themselves in such a manner, that instead of a vicious cycle of adopt/upgrade/abandon/relearn, I found that all my unix learning built on itself.
The unix command line, with its concurrent filters and pipes, makes it very easy to build and reuse tools. gcc and gdb, coupled with emacs, made for a very powerful programming environment.
But the essential difference between programming under Linux and programming under Windows is that in the former you are using tools, and in the latter you are using products. When MS wanted to push the adoption of OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) in their OS, they spent a great amount of time adding OLE features to their languages. At the time, users may have been clamouring for better OOP constructs in VB, what they got was whatever was on the MS agenda.
A few links down in the featured article, the author references a link to "CVS for Dummies", a site that received a similar letter from IDG.
Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:
The provisions of the 1995 Trademark Dilution act are, in a nutshell, that
"The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark."
But
"... to be actionable the use must not fall within any of the statutory exemptions. Under the Act, 'fair use' of a mark in comparative advertising, 'non- commercial' use of a mark, and news reporting and commentary are not actionable."
It seems that IDG was either unaware of this or felt that people's ignorance of the law or fear of litigation would allow their tactics to prevail.
Both the "Pines of Rome" and "Steadfast Tin Soldier" sequences were largely computer animated.
The work on Respighi's "Pines of Rome" was particularly interesting: the whales in the sequence were computer generated, but their skins were hand painted by artists and then a computer was used to apply the hand-painted texture to the whale wireframes. Also, the whales eyes were rendered using conventional (non-computer) animation techniques.
The Gershwin "Rhapsopdy in Blue" piece, which takes place in New York City, was animated in the style of famous artist/cartoonist Hershfeld, who is best known for his renderings of stage actors and actresses. (He's also known for hiding the name NINA in numerous places in his drawings.)
Finally, the Firebird sequence was designed in an Art Deco style.
U.S. law allows for "fair use", meaning that practically any word or phrase can be used within certain contexts. This prevents the hobbling of free speech.
Playboy has had less luck in their case against ex-playmate Terri Welles. The C|Net article states "[T]he judge found in favor of Welles, stating she is entitled to 'fair use' of the trademarks, and that her site was not 'diluting' Playboy's trademarks."
To show the patent (ack!) absurdity of Pez's position, look at this example.
You've written an online history of candy companies, including several mentions of Pez. You add the word Pez to your metatags. This is clearly fair use as you are not attempting to deceive people by implying that you represent the Pez company.
Think about it. Metatags are nothing new. They are nothing more than the internet equivalent of a book's index.
1. It's a matter of trust. I think, as a group, Open Source and Linux users are fundamentally wary of corporations.
Corporations are capricious entities; what's "free" today may be an unsupported, abandoned version tomorrow.
2. If Solaris was free, Linus Torvalds would still not have been able to afford the hardware, so he likely still would have started his project.
3. The statement "Since Linux is free, it's easy to convince management to use Linux." is patently absurd to anyone who has tried to convince a large corporation to use free software. How long have people been complaining that the exact opposite is true? Sounds like a convenient case of selective memory to me.
Chapter 7 of MySQL & mSQL covers PostgreSQL and a number of other available databases. And it mentions PostgreSQL's support for transactions, triggers, and subselects.
And the same chapter is also quite clear that MySQL/mSQL lacks these and other features.
In November 1998, A large east coast U.S. Power Company installed a new generation of Distribution Management System (DMS) at the first of three Regional Operations Centers. The other ROCs are being implemented within the next few weeks.
The DMS provides near real-time data to the Operations Centers, showing the current state of the utility's electrical distribution system. Operators can view constantly-updated schematics of the electrical system on linux-based workstations or on a twenty-four foot wide, eight-foot tall projection wall. The entire system was developed using the Linux operating system. Linux computers acting as Front-End Processors (FEP) collect data on the current states of electrical devices such as transformers and circuit breakers. This data is stored in an in-memory data base that is distributed to all DMS servers and workstations. Each computer has a current snapshot of the state of the distribution system.
Real-time data is averaged and archived onto linux-based database/web servers to allow access to historical data throughout the company.
A suite of X Window-based applications lets the operators monitor and control the power system. Linux was selected as the operating system for the DMS because it had proven itself stable in other applications developed by the development group. Most of these applications require high availability, as they monitor systems 24 hours a day. Linux has proven itself through use in the field, with some computers boasting continuous uptimes of two years.
Linux provided extremely easy remote administration of machines, which was particularly important as the DMS operates on machines spread across a wide geographic area. The ability to run a debugger on an X Window-based application that may be running on a machine a hundred miles away, but display its output on a local machine is a huge benefit to quickly pin-point and resolve problems.
The DMS uses Alpha-based machines for servers, and Intel-based machines for workstations.
"Look, either that's plain and simple gun-banner bullshit or you should have spent a lot more time at school studying comprehension."
Thanks so much for the ad hominem attack. It does so much to bolster your argument.
If the intent of the second ammendment didn't hinge on the idea of a militia, then the authors could certainly have left the phrase out, so that it merely read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Had they done this, we would not be having this discussion.
But they didn't leave the "militia" phrase out, because they wanted to clarify the intent for the right to bear arms.
And again, I never said I wanted to ban guns, I just want them "well-regulated".
Who said anything about "banning" guns. I certainly didn't. Controlling them is another thing.
Because the majority of Americans don't want guns banned, as is demonstrated by the way that so many states are busily removing their anti-gun laws at the moment.
Might you entertain the possibility that a majority can be wrong? And is it possible that lawmakers are influenced by a gun lobby that contributes to their election?
The second ammendment says:
II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I don't think most of the US gun owners are members of "A well-regulated militia". A rational interpretation might be that members of a well-regulated militia have the right and need to keep fire-arms.
This all made much more sense in the agrarian, rural society of the 18th century, when travel took much longer, and it was impractical for the militia to store their weapons at a central location.
Times change. Laws can change. It's time for this one to change.
Point 1: The founding fathers of the US screwed up. They made the right decision about guns for their pre-industrial 18th century society, but couldn't predict the affect on a country of 250 million when 19 million new guns are dumped on it each year.
Children are suffering for their understandable short-sightedness. We must face the possibility that our founding fathers were not infallible, and that gun control is necessary.
I find it interesting that the National Rifle Association has all but canceled their conference in Colorado.
NRA President Charlton Heston stated, "Our spirits must endure this terrible suffering together, and so must the freedoms that bring us together". Perhaps Mr. Heston and his organization should go to Littleton and have a conversation with some of these children, and ask them about their views about the right to bear arms.
Point 2: Internet use and violent computer games did not cause this, but we must face the question: do ultra-violent media exacerbate existing problems with some children (and adults)?
Which leads to this:
Point 3: Where were these kid's parents while they were amassing a small arsenal of weapons, and constructing dozens of explosive devices?
This is from the yahoo article:
Neighbors of Harris said the family, which lived in a cul-de-sac in a well-to-do section of Littleton, kept to themselves, especially Eric.
"The day before this happened I could hear glass breaking and saws going like bzzzzzz," 10-year-old neighbor Tony Fattore told Reuters, making the sound of a saw.
"I didn't think anything of it cause he was always in his garage doing something. But then we heard about the explosives so maybe he was in there building them," Fattore said.
Where were the parents? Did they see any warning signs?
Too many "well-to-do" parents seem bent on giving their children "stuff", when what the kids really need is guidance, role models, support, and direction.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
The Festival Speech Synthesis System is available. It has British and American English (and I believe Spanish also) male voices. I think it may have female voices available, but I'm not sure.
It works well under Linux. It works best (obviously) with faster processors, but a Pentium 90 or higher should be sufficient for most uses.
A simple shell or perl script could be devised to speak sentences as they were typed.
...actually Doc Technical has a dictionary chip surgically implanted.
More succinctly, what we have here is perhaps best described as meta-anthropomorphism, where networking concepts are metaphorically described in terms of animals, who themselves are given anthropomorphic characteristics.
Thanks for attempting to clarify Doc Technical's use of the english language, unless your actual intent was to make him look stupid.
In that latter case, Doc Technical can but say, bite me.
Doc Technical
"Practice random acts of intelligence & senseless acts of self-control."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure. (And I've seen the screenshots, and read quite a bit of the MSDN Smart Tag docs.)
While I think most people will realize they're taking different actions (clicking versus menu choices), I wonder how many will realize that this added Smart Tag functionality is being inserted by their browser, and not by the web sites they're visiting?
Too late.
I already did:
http://gtags.sourceforge.net
(Though I don't claim I invented it....)
Currently, you'd have to edit the XML file.
(2) Exclusionary tags.
It's on my TO-DO list to add better parsing of multi-word selections. That's not hard. Including regular expression matching is on my list too, but it may mean extending (gasp!) the original schema.
Or, like I do with gTags, only match words the user explicitly selects. If they went to that model, then all words become potential tags, and it's even possible to use the tags in non-Microsoft applications.
gTags uses the same XML schema as Microsoft Smart Tags. I've added the ability to create a Default tag which can optionally be used to "match" selected words that don't match any other (specific) tags.
I guess the main difference between gTags and Microsoft Smart Tags is that the user has to actively choose what they want to do.
gTags is alpha software, but seems to work well enough. Suggestions and contributions are welcome. Read more about gTags here.
Many of these were good tools, some bordered on great tools.
It was while I was deeply involved in Visual Basic (VB) that I began to get an uneasy feeling. As new versions of VB were being designed and released, it seemed that I was spending more time learning the nuances of the tool, and less time honing my skills as a programmer. Even worse, MS would come out with a set of tools, then abandon or alter them a few months later. Gods help the early adopter.
In 1994, I started working in a group that was almost exclusively Linux. The learning curve was somewhat steep, no doubt about it. But the unix toolset was so rich, and the tools built upon themselves in such a manner, that instead of a vicious cycle of adopt/upgrade/abandon/relearn, I found that all my unix learning built on itself.
The unix command line, with its concurrent filters and pipes, makes it very easy to build and reuse tools. gcc and gdb, coupled with emacs, made for a very powerful programming environment.
But the essential difference between programming under Linux and programming under Windows is that in the former you are using tools, and in the latter you are using products . When MS wanted to push the adoption of OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) in their OS, they spent a great amount of time adding OLE features to their languages. At the time, users may have been clamouring for better OOP constructs in VB, what they got was whatever was on the MS agenda.
Who do you want building your tools?
Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:
It seems that IDG was either unaware of this or felt that people's ignorance of the law or fear of litigation would allow their tactics to prevail.Both the "Pines of Rome" and "Steadfast Tin Soldier" sequences were largely computer animated.
The work on Respighi's "Pines of Rome" was particularly interesting: the whales in the sequence were computer generated, but their skins were hand painted by artists and then a computer was used to apply the hand-painted texture to the whale wireframes. Also, the whales eyes were rendered using conventional (non-computer) animation techniques.
The Gershwin "Rhapsopdy in Blue" piece, which takes place in New York City, was animated in the style of famous artist/cartoonist Hershfeld, who is best known for his renderings of stage actors and actresses. (He's also known for hiding the name NINA in numerous places in his drawings.)
Finally, the Firebird sequence was designed in an Art Deco style.
Take a look at the actual Gartner reports mentioned in the IDG article:
http://www.gartner. com/webletter/microsoft/article3/article3.html
http://www.gartner. com/webletter/microsoft/article5/article5.html
http://www.gartner. com/webletter/microsoft/article6/article6.html
Each of them ends with the following disclaimer (in fine print):
Microsoft Web Letter is published by Microsoft. Additional editorial material supplied by Gartner Group, Inc. © 1999. Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of
GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services. Entire contents © 1999 by
Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The information contained herein has
been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. GartnerGroup disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. GartnerGroup
shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The reader assumes sole responsibility for the
selection of these materials to achieve its intended results. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.
Consider the source.
U.S. law allows for "fair use", meaning that practically any word or phrase can be used within certain contexts. This prevents the hobbling of free speech.
Playboy has had less luck in their case against ex-playmate Terri Welles. The C|Net article states "[T]he judge found in favor of Welles, stating she is entitled to 'fair use' of the trademarks, and that her site was not 'diluting' Playboy's trademarks."
To show the patent (ack!) absurdity of Pez's position, look at this example.
You've written an online history of candy companies, including several mentions of Pez. You add the word Pez to your metatags. This is clearly fair use as you are not attempting to deceive people by implying that you represent the Pez company.
Think about it. Metatags are nothing new. They are nothing more than the internet equivalent of a book's index.
A couple of points:
1. It's a matter of trust. I think, as a group, Open Source and Linux users are fundamentally wary of corporations.
Corporations are capricious entities; what's "free" today may be an unsupported, abandoned version tomorrow.
2. If Solaris was free, Linus Torvalds would still not have been able to afford the hardware, so he likely still would have started his project.
3. The statement "Since Linux is free, it's easy to convince management to use Linux." is patently absurd to anyone who has tried to convince a large corporation to use free software. How long have people been complaining that the exact opposite is true? Sounds like a convenient case of selective memory to me.
Chapter 7 of MySQL & mSQL covers PostgreSQL and a number of other available databases. And it mentions PostgreSQL's support for transactions, triggers, and subselects.
And the same chapter is also quite clear that MySQL/mSQL lacks these and other features.
- Doc Technical
Let's see:
1. Linux is a high quality operating system created by a group of talented people.
2. Linux is available for free.
3. Because of 1 and 2, most people consider Linux a Good Thing.
4. Red Hat sells a "value-added" product that includes Linux.
5. Red Hat is successful.
6. Red Hat issues an IPO, offering shares to some of the people involved in 1 (above). Some of those people accept the offer.
7. The aptly-named suck.com considers this a Bad Thing.
From this I deduce that you can only remain Good so long as you are NOT an economic success.
Let's all work hard to ensure that suck.com remains a Good site. I'd hate for them to suffer the ignominious fate of Linux.
The DMS provides near real-time data to the Operations Centers, showing the current state of the utility's electrical distribution system. Operators can view constantly-updated schematics of the electrical system on linux-based workstations or on a twenty-four foot wide, eight-foot tall projection wall. The entire system was developed using the Linux operating system. Linux computers acting as Front-End Processors (FEP) collect data on the current states of electrical devices such as transformers and circuit breakers. This data is stored in an in-memory data base that is distributed to all DMS servers and workstations. Each computer has a current snapshot of the state of the distribution system.
Real-time data is averaged and archived onto linux-based database/web servers to allow access to historical data throughout the company.
A suite of X Window-based applications lets the operators monitor and control the power system. Linux was selected as the operating system for the DMS because it had proven itself stable in other applications developed by the development group. Most of these applications require high availability, as they monitor systems 24 hours a day. Linux has proven itself through use in the field, with some computers boasting continuous uptimes of two years.
Linux provided extremely easy remote administration of machines, which was particularly important as the DMS operates on machines spread across a wide geographic area. The ability to run a debugger on an X Window-based application that may be running on a machine a hundred miles away, but display its output on a local machine is a huge benefit to quickly pin-point and resolve problems.
The DMS uses Alpha-based machines for servers, and Intel-based machines for workstations.
Thanks so much for the ad hominem attack. It does so much to bolster your argument.
If the intent of the second ammendment didn't hinge on the idea of a militia, then the authors could certainly have left the phrase out, so that it merely read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Had they done this, we would not be having this discussion.
But they didn't leave the "militia" phrase out, because they wanted to clarify the intent for the right to bear arms.
And again, I never said I wanted to ban guns, I just want them "well-regulated".
Because the majority of Americans don't want guns banned, as is demonstrated by the way that so many states are busily removing their anti-gun laws at the moment.
Might you entertain the possibility that a majority can be wrong? And is it possible that lawmakers are influenced by a gun lobby that contributes to their election?
The second ammendment says:
I don't think most of the US gun owners are members of "A well-regulated militia". A rational interpretation might be that members of a well-regulated militia have the right and need to keep fire-arms.This all made much more sense in the agrarian, rural society of the 18th century, when travel took much longer, and it was impractical for the militia to store their weapons at a central location.
Times change. Laws can change. It's time for this one to change.
The founding fathers of the US screwed up. They made the right decision about guns for their pre-industrial 18th century society, but couldn't predict the affect on a country of 250 million when 19 million new guns are dumped on it each year.
Children are suffering for their understandable short-sightedness. We must face the possibility that our founding fathers were not infallible, and that gun control is necessary.
I find it interesting that the National Rifle Association has all but canceled their conference in Colorado.
NRA President Charlton Heston stated, "Our spirits must endure this terrible suffering together, and so must the freedoms that bring us together". Perhaps Mr. Heston and his organization should go to Littleton and have a conversation with some of these children, and ask them about their views about the right to bear arms.
Point 2:
Internet use and violent computer games did not cause this, but we must face the question: do ultra-violent media exacerbate existing problems with some children (and adults)?
Which leads to this:
Point 3:
Where were these kid's parents while they were amassing a small arsenal of weapons, and constructing dozens of explosive devices?
This is from the yahoo article:
Neighbors of Harris said the family, which lived in a cul-de-sac in a well-to-do section of Littleton, kept to themselves, especially Eric.
"The day before this happened I could hear glass breaking and saws going like bzzzzzz," 10-year-old neighbor Tony Fattore told Reuters, making the sound of a saw.
"I didn't think anything of it cause he was always in his garage doing something. But then we heard about the explosives so maybe he was in there building them," Fattore said.
Where were the parents? Did they see any warning signs?
Too many "well-to-do" parents seem bent on giving their children "stuff", when what the kids really need is guidance, role models, support, and direction.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
Doc Technical
It works well under Linux. It works best (obviously) with faster processors, but a Pentium 90 or higher should be sufficient for most uses.
A simple shell or perl script could be devised to speak sentences as they were typed.
Doc Technical
Choose a language because it efficiently maps onto the problem set. C has proven that it maps well onto a wide range of problem sets.
Soustrup designed C++ because the language he was using didn't map well. That's a good reason to switch languages.
You should never pick a language because it is "new" or even because it is "interesting", but because it does a good job with the problem at hand.
I really like having the "Score: n" next to each
message, but it would be real helpful if that
text was in, say, red, if the score was > 1.
That way, interesting replies, even indexed ones
would be very easy to scan for when scrolling
down through a page.
Doc Technical
More succinctly, what we have here is perhaps best described as meta-anthropomorphism, where networking concepts are metaphorically described in terms of animals, who themselves are given anthropomorphic characteristics.
Thanks for attempting to clarify Doc Technical's use of the english language, unless your actual intent was to make him look stupid.
In that latter case, Doc Technical can but say, bite me.
Doc Technical
"Practice random acts of intelligence & senseless acts of self-control."