Well..except that they weren't ads. They invoked other programs - and you could develop your own SmartTags if you wanted to. In fact, that was the whole point - that developers would write their own smart tags
He *is* giving away most of his fortune to charity. You might have a problem with how he makes his money- but no one can question the way in which he spends his personal fortune. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have contributed billions and billions to causes around the world. And some of those things are far greater causes than the ability to 'share' software
I find it surprising that most/.ers, while criticizing the MPAA and the RIAA for placing restrictions on the way their content is used, balk when website content is manipulated on the browser end.
Microsoft's Smarttags could have had great benefits and brought about semantic-web like features if only people weren't paranoid. After all, the website owner had full control over how and where smart tags were displayed on his page.
Now, 3 years later, Google does a stripped down version of the same to make themselves more money (MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not), and we all scream asking for the equivalent of DRM on web pages.
We who don't want to pay for the music and movies, who don't want to pay for software, who believe in the 'creative commons', throw a collective fit when a user agent wants to do something cool with the HTML already downloaded to the computer already.
It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!
Guess what - Microsoft's SmartTags were far less evil. The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags. Here. Google offers no such control. So let's say you are on MapQuest.com - the Google toobar would still give you a link to their own Google maps.
Sorry folks - just another example of cognitive dissonance
Oh really? You obviously dont know your history. Linux of today might be secure - but the *nixes of yesterday (and several of today) are far from secure. Remember the great Internet worm in the late 1980s? Or the millions of Sendmail vulnerabilities?
Actually, no. You could have 'Bill Gates' and 'devil' anywhere on the page and it would come up as a result. Let's say a page has 'Bill Gates says Linux sucks'.
This page will turn up for 'Bill Gates sucks'
I'm very impressed with the way Gates answered the questions - especially the one where he says "Linux is just a competitor. That's all".
Jeff says :...In current interfaces, tasks are needlessly compartmentalized. Say you are putting together a presentation and want to place it on your website. You need PhotoShop to edit any images you use, Excel to do a financial spreadsheet, PowerPoint to compile the presentation, Dreamweaver to create the appropriate web pages, Mozilla to check it, and an FTP client to upload it when you are done. A substantial portion of your time is flat-out wasted when you are moving content from one application to another: You are fiddling with the tool and not being productive. To make matters worse, there is the time loss and frustration from errors caused by the significant mental overhead required to switch applications, each of which has its own idiosyncrasies -- A keyboard shortcut may make text bold in PowerPoint but create a bookmark in the Mozilla; You may be able to spellcheck in Dreamweaver, but not in Photoshop. A user should not have to worry or think about what application they are in, and any habits they form using the system should not be betrayed.
If you use a web-based email account, how many times have you wanted to spellcheck your email only to be forced to either use an awkward web-interface, or transfer the text to a different application, spellcheck it there, and transfer it back? Why can't you just use a full-functioned spellcheck command right there? The same spell check (and same code) that you use everywhere else. If you want to edit an image on your website, why should you have to download it with one program, edit it with another, and upload it again? Why can't you just edit the image in the browser? There is no good reason but for the inherent limitations of the concept of applications. A user should be able to issue a command (like spellcheck or change contrast) anywhere, at anytime, and have it always do the same thing. This is truly humane. It cannot be achieved with our current application-centric computing model. Thus, in THE there is exactly one workspace in which you keep and view your content and instead of standalone applications we have command sets....
This is exactly the kind of thing that OLE and ActiveX has been doing for years! You can drag drop an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document and have Excel editing capabilities inside Word. Of course, since Microsoft has pushed this, no one really acknowledges this as something cool.
If the artist feels that they should be paid, who are we to say no and download music without their permission? After all, they created it - they have the moral right to decide how people get it. If you don't like this, don't listen to their music.
With Bittorrent, Kazaa, eDonkey,etc,etc, how many Slashdotters have gone out and bought CDs?
If you feel most of the music is crap and it isn't worth listening to, then don't download that one particular single.
If you against the artist's wishes, then it's stealing. Don't be so sure that the artists want to free up their music and only the RIAA's members are standing in their way. If that is the case, explain Metallica (and numerous others) filing suits.
Benefiting from somebody's creation without their approval is theft. Pure and simple
Hmm..wonder how Slashdot would react if Microsoft sues all those pirated XP uploaders. I remember the comments when MS went after people in the UK. Of course, since Apple does it, it has to be fair - though those people(the folks who spread pirated WinXP) committed the very same crime.
Nice
I've written a blog post on this - but specifically for the Indian perspective at http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/sriram/archive/200 5/01/03/41183.aspx
Very well -here's why. This article neatly sidesteps the results of the Forrester survey which showed that MS patches faster than people like Redhat.
And the whole paper is highly unprofessional. I mean - at point of time, they complain that they can't get enough information because the CERT search engine isn't good enough.
What should have been a rant on a fringe newsgroup is being given overdue importance
Re:Meanwhile, C++ goes nowhere
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 1
This isnt exactly true. On the Microsoft front, there are a ton of features being added to the compiler in VS 2005 - including checking for buffer overruns,etc. Also included are new operators to help you work with the.NET framework
Slashdot Mirror
Well..except that they weren't ads. They invoked other programs - and you could develop your own SmartTags if you wanted to. In fact, that was the whole point - that developers would write their own smart tags
With Smart Tags, website owners could control the way the tags were being generated. No such control in Google
Hmm..+5 informative?
He *is* giving away most of his fortune to charity. You might have a problem with how he makes his money- but no one can question the way in which he spends his personal fortune. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have contributed billions and billions to causes around the world. And some of those things are far greater causes than the ability to 'share' software
I find it surprising that most /.ers, while criticizing the MPAA and the RIAA for placing restrictions on the way their content is used, balk when website content is manipulated on the browser end.
Microsoft's Smarttags could have had great benefits and brought about semantic-web like features if only people weren't paranoid. After all, the website owner had full control over how and where smart tags were displayed on his page.
Now, 3 years later, Google does a stripped down version of the same to make themselves more money (MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not), and we all scream asking for the equivalent of DRM on web pages.
We who don't want to pay for the music and movies, who don't want to pay for software, who believe in the 'creative commons', throw a collective fit when a user agent wants to do something cool with the HTML already downloaded to the computer already.
It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!
Stop cribbing and let someone innovate.
Guess what - Microsoft's SmartTags were far less evil. The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags. Here. Google offers no such control. So let's say you are on MapQuest.com - the Google toobar would still give you a link to their own Google maps. Sorry folks - just another example of cognitive dissonance
The best tech support fees I could ever expect is a Barista trip - but then, I have pretty exclusive clientele :)
Sorry - see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2004/ 10/15/242966.aspx
I posted a space into the original links - just remove them
Apache is more secure than IIS? Who says so? Might have been true in the past - but look at today's stats
0 4/ 10/15/242966.aspx
0 4/ 10/18/244181.aspx
This is a post by a MS employee - but the links are from independent, verifiable sources
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/20
and a follow up at
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/20
Oh really? You obviously dont know your history. Linux of today might be secure - but the *nixes of yesterday (and several of today) are far from secure. Remember the great Internet worm in the late 1980s? Or the millions of Sendmail vulnerabilities?
Actually, no. You could have 'Bill Gates' and 'devil' anywhere on the page and it would come up as a result. Let's say a page has 'Bill Gates says Linux sucks'. This page will turn up for 'Bill Gates sucks' I'm very impressed with the way Gates answered the questions - especially the one where he says "Linux is just a competitor. That's all".
Hmm..going by your logic, if companies replace their servers every 4-5 years, it is going to be a long time before Linux sees any server market share.
Jeff says : ...In current interfaces, tasks are needlessly compartmentalized. Say you are putting together a presentation and want to place it on your website. You need PhotoShop to edit any images you use, Excel to do a financial spreadsheet, PowerPoint to compile the presentation, Dreamweaver to create the appropriate web pages, Mozilla to check it, and an FTP client to upload it when you are done. A substantial portion of your time is flat-out wasted when you are moving content from one application to another: You are fiddling with the tool and not being productive. To make matters worse, there is the time loss and frustration from errors caused by the significant mental overhead required to switch applications, each of which has its own idiosyncrasies -- A keyboard shortcut may make text bold in PowerPoint but create a bookmark in the Mozilla; You may be able to spellcheck in Dreamweaver, but not in Photoshop. A user should not have to worry or think about what application they are in, and any habits they form using the system should not be betrayed.
If you use a web-based email account, how many times have you wanted to spellcheck your email only to be forced to either use an awkward web-interface, or transfer the text to a different application, spellcheck it there, and transfer it back? Why can't you just use a full-functioned spellcheck command right there? The same spell check (and same code) that you use everywhere else. If you want to edit an image on your website, why should you have to download it with one program, edit it with another, and upload it again? Why can't you just edit the image in the browser? There is no good reason but for the inherent limitations of the concept of applications. A user should be able to issue a command (like spellcheck or change contrast) anywhere, at anytime, and have it always do the same thing. This is truly humane. It cannot be achieved with our current application-centric computing model. Thus, in THE there is exactly one workspace in which you keep and view your content and instead of standalone applications we have command sets....
This is exactly the kind of thing that OLE and ActiveX has been doing for years! You can drag drop an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document and have Excel editing capabilities inside Word. Of course, since Microsoft has pushed this, no one really acknowledges this as something cool.
Sorry - but Microsoft never bought Excel. It was a product totally developed in-house
If the artist feels that they should be paid, who are we to say no and download music without their permission? After all, they created it - they have the moral right to decide how people get it. If you don't like this, don't listen to their music. With Bittorrent, Kazaa, eDonkey,etc,etc, how many Slashdotters have gone out and bought CDs? If you feel most of the music is crap and it isn't worth listening to, then don't download that one particular single. If you against the artist's wishes, then it's stealing. Don't be so sure that the artists want to free up their music and only the RIAA's members are standing in their way. If that is the case, explain Metallica (and numerous others) filing suits. Benefiting from somebody's creation without their approval is theft. Pure and simple
Hmm..wonder how Slashdot would react if Microsoft sues all those pirated XP uploaders. I remember the comments when MS went after people in the UK. Of course, since Apple does it, it has to be fair - though those people(the folks who spread pirated WinXP) committed the very same crime. Nice
This was posted to Slashdot a couple of weeks back
Sorry folks- I dont have a choice when it comes to CSS. As for the blogging service, if I switch it now, I would screw all my readers
- Sriram
I've written a blog post on this - but specifically for the Indian perspective at http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/sriram/archive/200 5/01/03/41183.aspx
The IsNot operator is a part of VB 2005. Believe it or not, it was a big thing with a lot of VB developers
This is hardly fair as MSN search is in very early beta while Google and the rest have been around for several years
Very well -here's why. This article neatly sidesteps the results of the Forrester survey which showed that MS patches faster than people like Redhat. And the whole paper is highly unprofessional. I mean - at point of time, they complain that they can't get enough information because the CERT search engine isn't good enough. What should have been a rant on a fringe newsgroup is being given overdue importance
And for Windows XP sp2 users - do...err...nothing. Windows update will take care of it for you
Believe it or not,MHT are based on a standard. Check out http://www.codeproject.com/vb/net/MhtBuilder.asp
This isnt exactly true. On the Microsoft front, there are a ton of features being added to the compiler in VS 2005 - including checking for buffer overruns,etc. Also included are new operators to help you work with the .NET framework