Ok. I can respect your point of view now. Maybe I've been putting my argument badly, maybe I'm too tired, maybe I'm just too quick on the flame.
I was upset that my argument was being rebuffed without being considered. Now I find you had considered it and I feel silly, or feel like I was quite successfully baited. Whichever, your points make sense.
My main argument was that I was disappointed to see the technology being removed from the browser. I was never really happy with MS even shipping disabled filters with the browser - just not sure how to express my feelings without having the slur come across the technology as well.
An Office / Windows split may be good for MS. Jackson's split certainly wasn't (the dev tools and COM libs going to Office was just daft). It's a murky problem and I don't envy the next judges job. I hope he does it well.
Ok. I agree with your last sentence "The only thing that happens when the user turns on smart tags is that the user asks the third party to treat your copyrighted material".
Now, is it legal for you to present a textbook to a friend and ask them to annotate it before you read it. I think this is a similar case? The fact that it is possibly for commercial gain may change it a little though.
Is it sufficient for the user to request the annotation, or is that not enough?
IANAL. I honestly don't know. I thought I had it figured out but you've given me some doubts.
My understanding from reading through the SDK is that the text from the web page/document is passed to each of the SmartTagger things. Nothing is actually "returned" from the Recognize tag, it is expected to call back to the "Site" for each tag it recognises. The Site (Word/Explorer/Excel) then collates the list of callbacks into a simple 2 level menu (one for each tagger) and hence there is no need for a "default" tagger.
There is definitely no interface to detect what site you are browsing because the content passed to you isn't necessarily web content - it is sometimes Word documents and sometimes Excel docs.
I've written to this type of interface before in context menus - calling a whole stack of things to get a list of what to put on that menu.
As for non-MS compilers: you may be right. To be honest I've never tried and was wonder what your feelings would be. I honestly don't know how hard it is to program COM objects on a Mac, or what the COM support is even like. Thanks for the reply.
As for your "inflammatory question" - yes, I have. Yes - it was for an MS system (I actually prefer programming Windows to Unix). I know damn well they have plenty of ways to "lock you in" - when programming for Windows if you try to go outside the MS recommended way then you suddenly find yourself writing about ten times as much code as before to get a similar effect.
I know it's "textbook loadable module" stuff, but I don't think it is implemented anything like the NDIS stack. It's far more like the COM Object stuff with xxx and xxxSite for callbacks.
Take a look (quickly) at the SDK and send me an email on what you think. I'd value your comments as it does sound like you have more programming experience than I do (only really since 88).
Yet another good point - some moderator give +1
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 2
Damn good point. Now why can't professors see this sort of thing?
Of course, it raises the question on whether companys should benefit from University's research. Also, once the research is done once and GPL'd, it doesn't take much effort to research the results and write your own code from it. You may want to use a chinese wall situation but it should still assist.
Of course, this means University research is highly favoring the Free Software movement, but I've not really formed an opinion on that yet. Someone else want to form one for me?
Professors usually have a tenure and are paid to do research work as well as lecturing. It's a step up the food chain from a Post Grad (who is usually earning a PhD and paying for the privilege).
What is interesting about.NET is that the runtime is actually being ported to FreeBSD by Caldera. I wonder how long it takes to get an MSIL implementation running on Linux? Given that it is going to be an ECMA standard (unlike Java), it shouldn't be too long until someone implements the full runtime and class library, not to mention creates a gcc back end.
Now the "application services" side of.NET: You have a good point that I didn't consider. I'll remember to factor that in to my future arguments.
I hate.NET. It means so many different things, some good (MSIL/runtime/C#) some bad (subscription services). I wish they hadn't lumped it all under the same handle.
So Microsoft is attacking the GPL because they can't "embrace and extend" GPL'd programs? I think this is a short sighted view of the whole thing and a conclusion that really doesn't surprise a lot of people or analysts.
I would have expected more from a professor.
Microsoft has many reasons for attacking the GPL but by far the biggest reason is to attack Linux. I don't think they are too upset about not being able to embrace and extend Linux - they could do that anyway by simply putting a Linux ABI on NT (which is entirely possible and less work than most people think). What really concerns them is the increase in server sales of Linux. The best way to stop people using and developing for Linux is to attack the GPL. It's simple really - make people afraid of the license and Linux suffers.
It's naive to think the MS attacks on Linux are somehow special. Look at their site and you'll see plenty of vitriol against Sun/Solaris, Oracle and other systems - just they attack a different way because different systems have different perceived weaknesses. Linux is nothing special in this regard. Microsoft has just started to take notice. Competition is good, but don't complain if the heat gets turned up.
I did like one bit where he brazenly states that adding instructions to a CPU won't speed it up. I think people will find the 386 faster than the 286, MMX faster than non-MMX and Altivec faster than non-Altivec. The comments are silly - of course new instructions can speed up a CPU. They just have to be useful and well implemented.
From the SDK: "First, it is quite possible that the same text is recognized by two different smart tag types. For example, "Greal" could be recognized as a CompanyName and ChemicalName types. In this instance, both smart tags will recognize this text and as a result, a user is presented with a cascading menu where action options from these two different smart tags are combined."
I think you are mistaken about this whole default thing?
Smart Tag filters apply to every site, not just your own. They are just given a stream of text to filter using the following method:
It is not ok for companies to republish your copyrighted material. What it is ok (as far as I understand copyright law) is for the user to annotate your copyrighted work for their own purposes. I believe this comes under "fair use"?
Microsoft is NOT the only company that provides tags - there are about 30 of them, including some high profile legal firms. Get that part right, please. The user actually enables the tags and so it can easily be said that the user inserts them.
The user controls whether they want the material annotated or not. They have to specifically enable it.
What really interests me is why this is suddenly such a big deal with IE, but never was with Office. From my understanding, a lot more commercial contracts are emailed around as Word documents - what happens if you get the Pepsi marketing blurb as a Word doc and find it annotated?
You mean like proxy filters that remove the doubleclick ads?
I take it you understand they are even more insidious as they are removing income from the web site owner because doubleclick doesn't get their hits.
What about anonymiser.com which does exactly what you describe?
Actually - it's a very interesting point. I believe in the first case you are possibly running a little on the wrong side but the second case is probably ok because the code is actually installed by the user and not just proxyed.
Nah - count the number of anti-tag posts to pro-tag posts. I'm way in the minority here.
Of course, I'd rather be a called an "MS shrill" than be a Slashdot sheep.;-) So occasionally I like what MS produces. Is that such a crime? At least I'm using by intelligence to figure out what is good and bad, rather than taking the sheep mentality around here "MS bad. Linux good. Baa"
So read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/long
term/microsoft/documents/gatespart5.htm
It's a broken link. Got another copy lying around? I'd be
interested in reading it (as opposed to some others who won't look at the other
side of the argument)...
Been here, done that. At this moment it is waaay too
late. The answer is "stop whining". There will always be vocal people (like you)
that will be ready to give yet-another chance to microsoft.
Hey, I'm ready to give anyone and anything another chance. Linux
deserves chances too despite the fact that plenty of "stable" releases at the
moment have severe VM problems. Doesn't stop me using it because it works
damn well where I do use it.
What IS happening is that microsoft pushing a
techonology that enable them to have even more control than before. What IS
happening is that I scream BEFORE they deploy it, not AFTER.
Remind me again how Smart Tags give Microsoft control when they are an open
interface available for anyone to write to? If you don't want them, don't
enable them. I can see this is just going around in circles anyway.
> Let me help you out:
No thanks. I don't give a fuck about how smart tags
works. I don't care about learning how anything microsoft related works. This is
irrelevant.
Fine. Stick your head in the sand. Be ignorant. All I can
say is that your attitude is closed minded and you are hurting yourself in the
end. No matter which way you look at it, I've more choices and more
freedoms than you do because you refuse to look at all options. If you
refuse to learn about a technology then you have no right to argue for or
against it. Ignorance is never a good platform for conducting an argument.
So, you are admitting that smart tags technology can
be misused.
Of course it can be misused. EVERYTHING can be misused. I never
said it couldn't be misused!!
At that point, the problem is not *if* microsoft
will misuse it, but *when* (Microsoft have misused almost every technology they
could get their hands on, from multiple incompatible versions of microsoft basic
they burned in various ROM of personal computers maker in the early 80's, to
artificial limitation and test in late 80's DOS, to private Windows 3.x API used
for imposing their office application in the early 90's or the de-facto desktop
OS monopoly used to get a de-facto web-browser monopoly).
Yes microsoft should not be allowed to create
technology they could misuse. In fact, microsoft corporation should be splitted
into several different entities, to try to correct the damage already done.
Maybe you have heard about that thing. (Note: it is probably not referenced in
the smart tags SDK).
Oh, witty today aren't we? So you wouldn't mind then if the parts of
Microsoft that got split up used Smart Tags? How about if Netscape
implemented them rather than Microsoft? I only read the SDK because I
actually wanted to know what I was talking about. Obviously you are more
than happy to argue without that knowledge. Your loss.
This is my opinion, and I won't move away from it.
...and there is the difference between you and I. I'm more than happy
to change my opinion if someone proves me wrong. You are not. If
someone came out and said Microsoft would be much better off shipping the Smart
Tags in Office XP with the web linking stuff enabled, I'd be with the crowd
calling them a fool.
I consider that microsoft have destroyed most of the
computer science area (since about the famous "640K ought to be enough for
everyone"), and have transformed what was (and still is) my passion into a
marketing-driven junk. Call this bigotry if you want, I don't care.
(Shrug) Whatever. You can believe that, but it reminds me of
people who waste their lives bitching about how the South lost the war.
The world is the way it is today and nothing will change it. Let's look to
the future and make it better for all of us without the irrational prejudices.
For the record, it is your attitude (looking at
Microsoft XP-screenshots, getting the latest Microsoft SDK about the latest junk
they produce, evangelizing for the use of a technology without examining the
concerns of the others) that I call bigotry. We are all someone else bigot.
Actually, your definition of a bigot is wrong. The only reason I used
the word bigot ("a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks
that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong" - Cambridge Dictionary)
is the statement refusing to look at a screen shot. Of course since then
there's been plenty more. Someone who refuses to even consider the other
side of an argument is a bigot. I'm more than happy to consider the
arguments against Smart Tags - I just feel they are more founded in prejudice
than in reality, fighting the company and not the technology. Of course,
I'm always happy for someone to change my mind. It's happened more than
once.
Anyone should be allowed to create new technologies - complain about their
leveraging of them when it happens, not because it has the potential of
happening.
Do you apply this logic to Carnivore and Echelon as well? "Sure, go ahead
and monitor all my emails and phone calls. I won't complain unless I find out
that you misused them."
Of course I apply the same logic to Carnivore and Echelon. Carnivore
and Echelon are the implementation of sniffing technology, and are bad.
Sniffing technology in itself isn't bad and is used by network admins and
ordinary developers every day. The equivalent would be for you to argue
that having network cards with the ability to go into promiscuous mode is bad
because Carnivore and Echelon use them. Do you honestly thing libpcap is a
bad thing?
I know how they work. I also know, as does Microsoft, that the majority of
nontechnical users will not be able to tell the difference between an actual
hyperlink and a smart tag.
You obviously don't know how they work. You do realize that to
follow a smart tag, you don't just click on the word? You hover over the
word. An icon appears above the word (alongside the other icons for
resizing pictures, cutting and pasting text etc.). You click on the icon.
A menu appears with the list of topics provided by all smart tag filter DLLs.
You then click on the topic from the popup list. 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). Because you are too stubborn to see the screen shots, you are just
showing off your ignorance. Face it - the user interface for a smart tag
is nothing like a link.
Furthermore, Microsoft also knows that most users rarely install
additional software, and will thus be left with the default MS-created set of
smart tags.
How many IE users do you know with Flash installed? How many installed
the Comet Cursors? What about Shockwave or Real Audio? Maybe even
Quicktime? Users are quite accustomed to downloading plugins and DLLs for
their web browser. What makes you think users are going to be any
different with smart tags?
Maybe the initial set of tags are fairly innocent, but it is not
unreasonable to believe that that could change.
It's not unreasonable to believe that Konquerer won't do this as well.
In fact, you have (again) decided to go for an as yet unrealized implementation
as an excuse for picking on the technology. Going back to Carnivore and
Echelon - do you believe libpcap is a bad thing?
Decide whether you really are bigoted enough to say Microsoft shouldn't be
allowed to create technology because they might misuse it.
As you know perfectly well, nobody is attempting to get smart tags
declared illegal. Several people have simply said that they think it's a bad
idea. Are you such a bigot that you can't tolerate differing opinions?
I never said anything about illegality. I'm just saying you seem to
think Microsoft (and only Microsoft) doesn't have the right to create new
technology. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'll fight for your
right to have your own opinions. I just can't help it if your opinion is
based on prejudice rather than fact.
What you are asking is whether XML at the top of one page will affect the rendering of another page. Of course it is possible, but only in the most obvious of bugs in the renderer. This isn't even executable code we are talking about here, or a scripting language - just tags.
Let me ask another question - how are you sure a anchor tag on one HTML page wouldn't affect the same word on another page? It's possible but a very bizzare bug.
If you want to see the code, download the SDK and look at it.
Umm... I do use Office XP. I'm not suggesting he was wrong in what he said about Office XP. I'm saying he's wrong in the comment he made saying the tags in IE6 are somehoe different to the tags in Office XP. They arent - they behave the same way and do the same thing.
I wasn't even Microsoft bashing.
Read the SDK. Read my other comments. Look at what IE6 actually looks like.
Let me get this straight. Your whole argument is that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to create new technology because they might misuse it in the future? That's the most closed minded thing I've heard in years.
Anyone should be allowed to create new technologies - complain about their leveraging of them when it happens, not because it has the potential of happening.
When you think about it, all your arguments are paranoid fears of what might happen and not what IS happening. You've even deluded yourself into thinking smart tags are even remotely like normal links - sorry this isn't the case.
Let me help you out:
1. Look at some screenshots and get clued up on how smart tags work.
2. Read the SDK and get clued up on the technology behind them.
3. Decide whether you really are bigoted enough to say Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to create technology because they might misuse it.
Dude, calm the fuck down. We're talking about smart tags ferchissakes.
It's nothing to get your panties in a wad about. The guy disagrees with you.
Play nice. People will be more apt to listen to you.
Yeah, Ok. I probably deserved that. Thanks. I just get
tired of the "I don't need to look at facts - it's MS and it must be bad" post
that I was was replying to. It's just bigotry at its worst.
Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by
ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
This is exactly the problem: anyone (and everyone) can add smart tags. I
have a problem with this on two fronts: a) smart tag spam, where some
unscrupulous web page author throws in a smart tag header at the top of the
page,
Smart tag headers at the top of pages only apply to that page. It's
hard to be unscrupulous if you can only modify your own page. If you use
the OBJECT tag then the user has to accept the download of executable content
(assuming you have the tag digitally signed). In that case, the user is
still accepting the tag as something they want and it isn't forced on them.
and b) I don't want anyone changing the content of my page, and I have the
law to back me up on this. The web page I made, hyperlinks and all, is my
creation.
The user has the right to annotate your web pages (automatically through
their chosen tags) if they choose for their own private use. There is no
law you can invoke that prevents them doing this. Copyright can only be
invoked if the user republishes your work - which they aren't doing. If
the law was really on your side, do you think LexisNexus would be providing
tags?
If Microsoft's customers don't want it, don't you think they should
at least listen?
Definitely. I've yet to see anyone who actually understood the
technology complaining about it. What really happened is that Yahoo put
out an article and the whole internet just went mad without any facts behind
them. Did you actually download the SDK and read it? If not then
shame on you!
Interestingly enough, the news reports I got from Yahoo said that the smart tags were in fact disabled by default. This is what confused me so much about the general media's behavior in the area. The fact that the tags had to be enabled by the users seemed to get lost in the general frothing at the mouth.
Personally I'm disappointed in the whole thing. I think it is a waste of what could have been a good thing for users. I know MS has a bad record for forcing things on users, but by leaving the tags disabled by default they seemed to be doing the right thing this time. Oh well - I guess MS won't ever do the right thing by the Slashdot crowd.
The user would still have to click 'Ok' to accept the download of the ActiveX DLL to enable the new tag (unless they had already trusted executable content from that author). This means that an unscrupulous web page author would still need user permission to enable their tags.
The 'special XML' only creates a tag on the current page, not globally.
In other words USER permission is always required to enable a smart tag in exactly the same way USER permission is required to download any DLL. Microsoft isn't extending the anchor tag at all here - they are adding a user controlled annotation to web pages which is something very different to publisher controlled linking (ie anchor and xlink).
Check out the SDK. It has lots of facts you seem to need.
Wrong. Smart tags are available from many different places. They are just an ActiveX DLL that conforms to a certain interface.
Check out www.officesmarttags.com for the list of companys already providing tags. If you want even more information go to msdn.microsoft.com and you'll find out that you can write your own Smart Tag filter in about 10 minutes with VB.
Microsoft no more controlled smart tag content than they controlled where you surf in your browser. Sure they put a lot of default links in your Favorites menu, but it didn't stop you getting to Slashdot did it?
You forget that copyright only applies if the user republishes the work that they annotated with the smart tags of THEIR choice. Because this is not happening you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Do you honestly think LexisNexus would be providing a smart tag filter if there was a legal problem with them? Perhaps you should get a little informed before you go off with bizzare schemes designed to infringe on a user's rights with published material.
It sounds like you don't even need to know the facts to have an opinion. You've shown that you really have no clue what Smart Tags actually are, so before you make more of an idiot of yourself, here's some facts:
(i) Smart tags were disabled by default in IE6.
(ii) Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
(iii) You could select which filters were enabled - if you don't like the ones from Microsoft then just don't even enable them
(iv) Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they see fit. If they choose to parse and annotate them before rendering that is THEIR choice.
(v) Microsoft never was any part of the "transaction" unless the user invited them. Are you suggesting users don't have that right?
The simple fact is that smart tags were a good technology and the Slashdot bigotry just saw the word "Microsoft" there and started frothing at the mouth. Perhaps if you did some research, looked at some screen shots (which you openly admit you don't want to do - perferring to live in ignorance) and got yourself informed you could actually argue the facts and not the strawman in your own mind.
The smart tags in Office XP are IDENTICAL to the smart tags that were going to be in IE6. If you even bothered to do just a little research on msdn.microsoft.com you would have found this out very quickly.
Smart Tags were simply provided by a filter DLL and could do pretty much anything - the default ones in Office XP just link names to your contact list and so on, but you can enable the ones that link 'MSFT' to investor.msn.com for stock quotes and the like.
The Smart Tag technology was a great idea. People want to be able to enrich their web surfing - I for one wouldn't mind having a Slashdot tag enabled that provided an option for me to check out related stories on Slashdot - but the thing is most people didn't even understand what Smart Tags were (as evidenced by your post). It would have been good if MS left these in the browser but with NO filters enabled by default. That way a clued in user could simply enable the ones they wanted and browse the web the way they wanted to.
When it comes down to it, so long as it is the user is in control of what they view there can be no complaint from web publishers. Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they feel, and if that includes user specified smart tags then I think more power to users is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I can respect your point of view now. Maybe I've been putting my argument badly, maybe I'm too tired, maybe I'm just too quick on the flame.
I was upset that my argument was being rebuffed without being considered. Now I find you had considered it and I feel silly, or feel like I was quite successfully baited. Whichever, your points make sense.
My main argument was that I was disappointed to see the technology being removed from the browser. I was never really happy with MS even shipping disabled filters with the browser - just not sure how to express my feelings without having the slur come across the technology as well.
An Office / Windows split may be good for MS. Jackson's split certainly wasn't (the dev tools and COM libs going to Office was just daft). It's a murky problem and I don't envy the next judges job. I hope he does it well.
Ok. I agree with your last sentence "The only thing that happens when the user turns on smart tags is that the user asks the third party to treat your copyrighted material".
Now, is it legal for you to present a textbook to a friend and ask them to annotate it before you read it. I think this is a similar case? The fact that it is possibly for commercial gain may change it a little though.
Is it sufficient for the user to request the annotation, or is that not enough?
IANAL. I honestly don't know. I thought I had it figured out but you've given me some doubts.
My understanding from reading through the SDK is that the text from the web page/document is passed to each of the SmartTagger things. Nothing is actually "returned" from the Recognize tag, it is expected to call back to the "Site" for each tag it recognises. The Site (Word/Explorer/Excel) then collates the list of callbacks into a simple 2 level menu (one for each tagger) and hence there is no need for a "default" tagger.
There is definitely no interface to detect what site you are browsing because the content passed to you isn't necessarily web content - it is sometimes Word documents and sometimes Excel docs.
I've written to this type of interface before in context menus - calling a whole stack of things to get a list of what to put on that menu.
As for non-MS compilers: you may be right. To be honest I've never tried and was wonder what your feelings would be. I honestly don't know how hard it is to program COM objects on a Mac, or what the COM support is even like. Thanks for the reply.
As for your "inflammatory question" - yes, I have. Yes - it was for an MS system (I actually prefer programming Windows to Unix). I know damn well they have plenty of ways to "lock you in" - when programming for Windows if you try to go outside the MS recommended way then you suddenly find yourself writing about ten times as much code as before to get a similar effect.
I know it's "textbook loadable module" stuff, but I don't think it is implemented anything like the NDIS stack. It's far more like the COM Object stuff with xxx and xxxSite for callbacks.
Take a look (quickly) at the SDK and send me an email on what you think. I'd value your comments as it does sound like you have more programming experience than I do (only really since 88).
Damn good point. Now why can't professors see this sort of thing?
Of course, it raises the question on whether companys should benefit from University's research. Also, once the research is done once and GPL'd, it doesn't take much effort to research the results and write your own code from it. You may want to use a chinese wall situation but it should still assist.
Of course, this means University research is highly favoring the Free Software movement, but I've not really formed an opinion on that yet. Someone else want to form one for me?
Professors usually have a tenure and are paid to do research work as well as lecturing. It's a step up the food chain from a Post Grad (who is usually earning a PhD and paying for the privilege).
What is interesting about .NET is that the runtime is actually being ported to FreeBSD by Caldera. I wonder how long it takes to get an MSIL implementation running on Linux? Given that it is going to be an ECMA standard (unlike Java), it shouldn't be too long until someone implements the full runtime and class library, not to mention creates a gcc back end.
.NET: You have a good point that I didn't consider. I'll remember to factor that in to my future arguments.
.NET. It means so many different things, some good (MSIL/runtime/C#) some bad (subscription services). I wish they hadn't lumped it all under the same handle.
Now the "application services" side of
I hate
So Microsoft is attacking the GPL because they can't "embrace and extend" GPL'd programs? I think this is a short sighted view of the whole thing and a conclusion that really doesn't surprise a lot of people or analysts.
I would have expected more from a professor.
Microsoft has many reasons for attacking the GPL but by far the biggest reason is to attack Linux. I don't think they are too upset about not being able to embrace and extend Linux - they could do that anyway by simply putting a Linux ABI on NT (which is entirely possible and less work than most people think). What really concerns them is the increase in server sales of Linux. The best way to stop people using and developing for Linux is to attack the GPL. It's simple really - make people afraid of the license and Linux suffers.
It's naive to think the MS attacks on Linux are somehow special. Look at their site and you'll see plenty of vitriol against Sun/Solaris, Oracle and other systems - just they attack a different way because different systems have different perceived weaknesses. Linux is nothing special in this regard. Microsoft has just started to take notice. Competition is good, but don't complain if the heat gets turned up.
I did like one bit where he brazenly states that adding instructions to a CPU won't speed it up. I think people will find the 386 faster than the 286, MMX faster than non-MMX and Altivec faster than non-Altivec. The comments are silly - of course new instructions can speed up a CPU. They just have to be useful and well implemented.
Umm.. where did you get that info?
From the SDK: "First, it is quite possible that the same text is recognized by two different smart tag types. For example, "Greal" could be recognized as a CompanyName and ChemicalName types. In this instance, both smart tags will recognize this text and as a result, a user is presented with a cascading menu where action options from these two different smart tags are combined."
I think you are mistaken about this whole default thing?
Smart Tag filters apply to every site, not just your own. They are just given a stream of text to filter using the following method:
STDMETHODIMP CSTRecognizer::Recognize (BSTR Text, IF_TYPE DataType, INT LocaleID, ISmartTagRecognizerSite * RecognizerSite)
There is actually no way to restrict your tag to a certain set of sites or documents (that I can see).
The cross compile is only required if you want to use VC++. If you use Metrowerks or something else then you will be fine. Does VC++ actually do OSX?
It is not ok for companies to republish your copyrighted material. What it is ok (as far as I understand copyright law) is for the user to annotate your copyrighted work for their own purposes. I believe this comes under "fair use"?
Microsoft is NOT the only company that provides tags - there are about 30 of them, including some high profile legal firms. Get that part right, please. The user actually enables the tags and so it can easily be said that the user inserts them.
The user controls whether they want the material annotated or not. They have to specifically enable it.
What really interests me is why this is suddenly such a big deal with IE, but never was with Office. From my understanding, a lot more commercial contracts are emailed around as Word documents - what happens if you get the Pepsi marketing blurb as a Word doc and find it annotated?
You mean like proxy filters that remove the doubleclick ads?
I take it you understand they are even more insidious as they are removing income from the web site owner because doubleclick doesn't get their hits.
What about anonymiser.com which does exactly what you describe?
Actually - it's a very interesting point. I believe in the first case you are possibly running a little on the wrong side but the second case is probably ok because the code is actually installed by the user and not just proxyed.
IANAL. What do you think?
Nah - count the number of anti-tag posts to pro-tag posts. I'm way in the minority here.
;-) So occasionally I like what MS produces. Is that such a crime? At least I'm using by intelligence to figure out what is good and bad, rather than taking the sheep mentality around here "MS bad. Linux good. Baa"
Of course, I'd rather be a called an "MS shrill" than be a Slashdot sheep.
Fair comment, and I should have recognized it as such the first time.
Would it be better if I phrased my inital comment as "People should be able to enrich their web surfing if they want to?"
So read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/long
term/microsoft/documents/gatespart5.htm
It's a broken link. Got another copy lying around? I'd be interested in reading it (as opposed to some others who won't look at the other side of the argument)...
Been here, done that. At this moment it is waaay too late. The answer is "stop whining". There will always be vocal people (like you) that will be ready to give yet-another chance to microsoft.
Hey, I'm ready to give anyone and anything another chance. Linux deserves chances too despite the fact that plenty of "stable" releases at the moment have severe VM problems. Doesn't stop me using it because it works damn well where I do use it.
What IS happening is that microsoft pushing a techonology that enable them to have even more control than before. What IS happening is that I scream BEFORE they deploy it, not AFTER.
Remind me again how Smart Tags give Microsoft control when they are an open interface available for anyone to write to? If you don't want them, don't enable them. I can see this is just going around in circles anyway.
> Let me help you out:
No thanks. I don't give a fuck about how smart tags works. I don't care about learning how anything microsoft related works. This is irrelevant.
Fine. Stick your head in the sand. Be ignorant. All I can say is that your attitude is closed minded and you are hurting yourself in the end. No matter which way you look at it, I've more choices and more freedoms than you do because you refuse to look at all options. If you refuse to learn about a technology then you have no right to argue for or against it. Ignorance is never a good platform for conducting an argument.
So, you are admitting that smart tags technology can be misused.
Of course it can be misused. EVERYTHING can be misused. I never said it couldn't be misused!!
At that point, the problem is not *if* microsoft will misuse it, but *when* (Microsoft have misused almost every technology they could get their hands on, from multiple incompatible versions of microsoft basic they burned in various ROM of personal computers maker in the early 80's, to artificial limitation and test in late 80's DOS, to private Windows 3.x API used for imposing their office application in the early 90's or the de-facto desktop OS monopoly used to get a de-facto web-browser monopoly).
Yes microsoft should not be allowed to create technology they could misuse. In fact, microsoft corporation should be splitted into several different entities, to try to correct the damage already done. Maybe you have heard about that thing. (Note: it is probably not referenced in the smart tags SDK).
Oh, witty today aren't we? So you wouldn't mind then if the parts of Microsoft that got split up used Smart Tags? How about if Netscape implemented them rather than Microsoft? I only read the SDK because I actually wanted to know what I was talking about. Obviously you are more than happy to argue without that knowledge. Your loss.
This is my opinion, and I won't move away from it.
...and there is the difference between you and I. I'm more than happy to change my opinion if someone proves me wrong. You are not. If someone came out and said Microsoft would be much better off shipping the Smart Tags in Office XP with the web linking stuff enabled, I'd be with the crowd calling them a fool.
I consider that microsoft have destroyed most of the computer science area (since about the famous "640K ought to be enough for everyone"), and have transformed what was (and still is) my passion into a marketing-driven junk. Call this bigotry if you want, I don't care.
(Shrug) Whatever. You can believe that, but it reminds me of people who waste their lives bitching about how the South lost the war. The world is the way it is today and nothing will change it. Let's look to the future and make it better for all of us without the irrational prejudices.
For the record, it is your attitude (looking at Microsoft XP-screenshots, getting the latest Microsoft SDK about the latest junk they produce, evangelizing for the use of a technology without examining the concerns of the others) that I call bigotry. We are all someone else bigot.
Actually, your definition of a bigot is wrong. The only reason I used the word bigot ("a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong" - Cambridge Dictionary) is the statement refusing to look at a screen shot. Of course since then there's been plenty more. Someone who refuses to even consider the other side of an argument is a bigot. I'm more than happy to consider the arguments against Smart Tags - I just feel they are more founded in prejudice than in reality, fighting the company and not the technology. Of course, I'm always happy for someone to change my mind. It's happened more than once.
Anyone should be allowed to create new technologies - complain about their leveraging of them when it happens, not because it has the potential of happening.
Do you apply this logic to Carnivore and Echelon as well? "Sure, go ahead and monitor all my emails and phone calls. I won't complain unless I find out that you misused them."
Of course I apply the same logic to Carnivore and Echelon. Carnivore and Echelon are the implementation of sniffing technology, and are bad. Sniffing technology in itself isn't bad and is used by network admins and ordinary developers every day. The equivalent would be for you to argue that having network cards with the ability to go into promiscuous mode is bad because Carnivore and Echelon use them. Do you honestly thing libpcap is a bad thing?
I know how they work. I also know, as does Microsoft, that the majority of nontechnical users will not be able to tell the difference between an actual hyperlink and a smart tag.
You obviously don't know how they work. You do realize that to follow a smart tag, you don't just click on the word? You hover over the word. An icon appears above the word (alongside the other icons for resizing pictures, cutting and pasting text etc.). You click on the icon. A menu appears with the list of topics provided by all smart tag filter DLLs. You then click on the topic from the popup list. 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). Because you are too stubborn to see the screen shots, you are just showing off your ignorance. Face it - the user interface for a smart tag is nothing like a link.
Furthermore, Microsoft also knows that most users rarely install additional software, and will thus be left with the default MS-created set of smart tags.
How many IE users do you know with Flash installed? How many installed the Comet Cursors? What about Shockwave or Real Audio? Maybe even Quicktime? Users are quite accustomed to downloading plugins and DLLs for their web browser. What makes you think users are going to be any different with smart tags?
Maybe the initial set of tags are fairly innocent, but it is not unreasonable to believe that that could change.
It's not unreasonable to believe that Konquerer won't do this as well. In fact, you have (again) decided to go for an as yet unrealized implementation as an excuse for picking on the technology. Going back to Carnivore and Echelon - do you believe libpcap is a bad thing?
Decide whether you really are bigoted enough to say Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to create technology because they might misuse it.
As you know perfectly well, nobody is attempting to get smart tags declared illegal. Several people have simply said that they think it's a bad idea. Are you such a bigot that you can't tolerate differing opinions?
I never said anything about illegality. I'm just saying you seem to think Microsoft (and only Microsoft) doesn't have the right to create new technology. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'll fight for your right to have your own opinions. I just can't help it if your opinion is based on prejudice rather than fact.
What you are asking is whether XML at the top of one page will affect the rendering of another page. Of course it is possible, but only in the most obvious of bugs in the renderer. This isn't even executable code we are talking about here, or a scripting language - just tags.
Let me ask another question - how are you sure a anchor tag on one HTML page wouldn't affect the same word on another page? It's possible but a very bizzare bug.
If you want to see the code, download the SDK and look at it.
I am a person. I would use smart tags if I got to control what filters were enabled and what wasn't.
You're implying I'm not a person?
As for the rest of it, it's a strawman. The "people" I was talking about were the ones with a clue, not the ones you suggest I was talking about.
If anything, you are making the "if you said this other thing then you'd be wrong" argument.
Umm... I do use Office XP. I'm not suggesting he was wrong in what he said about Office XP. I'm saying he's wrong in the comment he made saying the tags in IE6 are somehoe different to the tags in Office XP. They arent - they behave the same way and do the same thing.
I wasn't even Microsoft bashing.
Read the SDK. Read my other comments. Look at what IE6 actually looks like.
Let me get this straight. Your whole argument is that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to create new technology because they might misuse it in the future? That's the most closed minded thing I've heard in years.
Anyone should be allowed to create new technologies - complain about their leveraging of them when it happens, not because it has the potential of happening.
When you think about it, all your arguments are paranoid fears of what might happen and not what IS happening. You've even deluded yourself into thinking smart tags are even remotely like normal links - sorry this isn't the case.
Let me help you out:
1. Look at some screenshots and get clued up on how smart tags work.
2. Read the SDK and get clued up on the technology behind them.
3. Decide whether you really are bigoted enough to say Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to create technology because they might misuse it.
Dude, calm the fuck down. We're talking about smart tags ferchissakes. It's nothing to get your panties in a wad about. The guy disagrees with you. Play nice. People will be more apt to listen to you.
Yeah, Ok. I probably deserved that. Thanks. I just get tired of the "I don't need to look at facts - it's MS and it must be bad" post that I was was replying to. It's just bigotry at its worst.
Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
This is exactly the problem: anyone (and everyone) can add smart tags. I have a problem with this on two fronts: a) smart tag spam, where some unscrupulous web page author throws in a smart tag header at the top of the page,
Smart tag headers at the top of pages only apply to that page. It's hard to be unscrupulous if you can only modify your own page. If you use the OBJECT tag then the user has to accept the download of executable content (assuming you have the tag digitally signed). In that case, the user is still accepting the tag as something they want and it isn't forced on them.
and b) I don't want anyone changing the content of my page, and I have the law to back me up on this. The web page I made, hyperlinks and all, is my creation.
The user has the right to annotate your web pages (automatically through their chosen tags) if they choose for their own private use. There is no law you can invoke that prevents them doing this. Copyright can only be invoked if the user republishes your work - which they aren't doing. If the law was really on your side, do you think LexisNexus would be providing tags?
If Microsoft's customers don't want it, don't you think they should at least listen?
Definitely. I've yet to see anyone who actually understood the technology complaining about it. What really happened is that Yahoo put out an article and the whole internet just went mad without any facts behind them. Did you actually download the SDK and read it? If not then shame on you!
Interestingly enough, the news reports I got from Yahoo said that the smart tags were in fact disabled by default. This is what confused me so much about the general media's behavior in the area. The fact that the tags had to be enabled by the users seemed to get lost in the general frothing at the mouth.
Personally I'm disappointed in the whole thing. I think it is a waste of what could have been a good thing for users. I know MS has a bad record for forcing things on users, but by leaving the tags disabled by default they seemed to be doing the right thing this time. Oh well - I guess MS won't ever do the right thing by the Slashdot crowd.
The user would still have to click 'Ok' to accept the download of the ActiveX DLL to enable the new tag (unless they had already trusted executable content from that author). This means that an unscrupulous web page author would still need user permission to enable their tags.
The 'special XML' only creates a tag on the current page, not globally.
In other words USER permission is always required to enable a smart tag in exactly the same way USER permission is required to download any DLL. Microsoft isn't extending the anchor tag at all here - they are adding a user controlled annotation to web pages which is something very different to publisher controlled linking (ie anchor and xlink).
Check out the SDK. It has lots of facts you seem to need.
Wrong. Smart tags are available from many different places. They are just an ActiveX DLL that conforms to a certain interface.
Check out www.officesmarttags.com for the list of companys already providing tags. If you want even more information go to msdn.microsoft.com and you'll find out that you can write your own Smart Tag filter in about 10 minutes with VB.
Microsoft no more controlled smart tag content than they controlled where you surf in your browser. Sure they put a lot of default links in your Favorites menu, but it didn't stop you getting to Slashdot did it?
You forget that copyright only applies if the user republishes the work that they annotated with the smart tags of THEIR choice. Because this is not happening you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Do you honestly think LexisNexus would be providing a smart tag filter if there was a legal problem with them? Perhaps you should get a little informed before you go off with bizzare schemes designed to infringe on a user's rights with published material.
It sounds like you don't even need to know the facts to have an opinion. You've shown that you really have no clue what Smart Tags actually are, so before you make more of an idiot of yourself, here's some facts:
(i) Smart tags were disabled by default in IE6.
(ii) Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
(iii) You could select which filters were enabled - if you don't like the ones from Microsoft then just don't even enable them
(iv) Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they see fit. If they choose to parse and annotate them before rendering that is THEIR choice.
(v) Microsoft never was any part of the "transaction" unless the user invited them. Are you suggesting users don't have that right?
The simple fact is that smart tags were a good technology and the Slashdot bigotry just saw the word "Microsoft" there and started frothing at the mouth. Perhaps if you did some research, looked at some screen shots (which you openly admit you don't want to do - perferring to live in ignorance) and got yourself informed you could actually argue the facts and not the strawman in your own mind.
The smart tags in Office XP are IDENTICAL to the smart tags that were going to be in IE6. If you even bothered to do just a little research on msdn.microsoft.com you would have found this out very quickly.
Smart Tags were simply provided by a filter DLL and could do pretty much anything - the default ones in Office XP just link names to your contact list and so on, but you can enable the ones that link 'MSFT' to investor.msn.com for stock quotes and the like.
The Smart Tag technology was a great idea. People want to be able to enrich their web surfing - I for one wouldn't mind having a Slashdot tag enabled that provided an option for me to check out related stories on Slashdot - but the thing is most people didn't even understand what Smart Tags were (as evidenced by your post). It would have been good if MS left these in the browser but with NO filters enabled by default. That way a clued in user could simply enable the ones they wanted and browse the web the way they wanted to.
When it comes down to it, so long as it is the user is in control of what they view there can be no complaint from web publishers. Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they feel, and if that includes user specified smart tags then I think more power to users is a good thing.