In yesterday's WSJ article, they state that the latest XP beta cuts the number of clicks required to make Kodak's software the default down to one.
However, we all know that the average user won't do that one click or even notice when they are given the opportunity to do it. So, the MS version will be used by the majority of digital camera users until it becomes the "standard".
The WSJ article even states that on rotating a picture, the MS version tells you it must ruin the picture to rotate it. The Kodak engineers just laughed at this error message. The sad thing is that most users will never know that there is something better.
I enjoyed the movie a great deal, but I could have done without the constant narrations explaining detail that we could have figured out on our own. I'm sure some dumbass movie executive forced these changes late in the movie's production. How would 2001 have been if the monolith could speak and it explained blow by blow that movie classic's ending?
Dudes,
The funky alien-like creatures at the end are not aliens. They are the "evolved" mechas. Sure, this is really open to interpretation, but just because they look like the "classic" aliens we've seen in recent movies (including Spielberg's own Close Encounters of the Third Kind) does not mean that they are aliens. Watch it again for the first time.
ii) If you've signed up for MSDN, and signed up online for the downloads then you've already given Microsoft all the information you need to create a passport account anyhow - where's the issue here? ...
Microsoft does bad things at times,...
How hard would it have been to write a quick SQL Server (assuming they're using it) DTS job to convert your current MSDN ID to a Passport ID? I can tell you that it would have taken less time than it did to write the e-mail they sent out announcing the change. Probably even less time than it took me to write this stupid/. post reply thing.
Count to 10 before posting and use that Preview button. It's great!
However, when it does come to Microsoft's monopolistic practices (or customs, whatever), the only thing we have to declare is that Linux's father can beat up Microsoft's father!!! (or linux will kick their sorry ass!)
To disable Smart Tags in IE:
Look for the checkbox hidden in the advanced tab under the JavaScript->Version 1.1.32->Security section is an item labeled, "PC LOAD LTR"
Checked = "enable" Smart Tags
Un-Checked = "disable" Smart Tags Unless MS forces Smart Tags on that page.
If everyone started using GNU/Linux it would just become the name of the OS and less people would realize (or even care to figure out) why the "GNU" is there.
Keep the argument going.
Keep the meaning fresh in our minds.
I don't get articles like this. Have news stories always been Quote one persons exxageration/lie, then get unrelated quotes that are positive to the other point of view?
Seriously, the writer knows these statements of Bill's are misleading and/or false, but he makes no attempt to clear up the facts. OR, does Mike Ricciuti (the writer) really not understand the facts?
Don't get me wrong, the quotes in GPL's favor are also just as misleading. However, they're not directly related and not directly refuting each other.
The GPL quotes are also at the end and added to make the story seem real, but it is just a Microsoft pushed story.
In no way did any of the Gates' soundbytes actually describe actual elements of the GPL. He only made comments meant to scare PHBs. Like:
...and we are just making sure people understand the GPL. There's nothing to understand. It IS share and share-alike. That's it.
'Do you understand the GPL?' (then) they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them. Probably not negatively stunned, tho are they?
it (GPL) makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work. You can use it and build things on it all you want. However, if you use the source code as part of your sorce code and then re-release, you must release the source code to your app.
The ruling, as I understand it, pertains to technology that is not available to the public. What happens when technology like this or much, much better IS available to the public? Can (or should) cops be able to equal the technology that the criminal (or law abiding citizens) are using to spy on the police? Is it not the same with gun technology, also?
It doesn't matter though, I've almost finished my force field technology. It's pretty cool, in addition to blocking the normal things force fields block (bullets, bombs, lasers, photon torpedos, etc.) it even blocks light and sound!
For point (i): Not true at all. In DeCSS, you put the link on your page. With
Smart Tags, the reader puts the link (remember they chose to turn in on) on the
page as they read it.
Sorry, wrong. Again, "DeCSS case I put the link on the page, "Smart Tags", SOMEBODY ELSE puts the link on MY page. User's are included in the somebody else category. (However, turning the feature on or off doesn't really constitute authoring the link, now does it? Especially since most users will have no idea what it is they are turning on or off.)
WTF? How does the fact that the filters are XML mean that the user's
drive is open to 3rd parties? They aren't even cookies
1. The user can control what words are smart tagged by editing an XML file on their PC. None of the posts has said where these files are located, yet.
2. Third parties can add their own filters. Thus, they're either editing the existing XML file or adding their own files. Yes, they are NOT cookies. That's my point, cookies have undergone a great deal of scrutiny. Third parties being able to alter "Smart Tag" filters on your PC, have not.
It's in beta. What did you expect?
Beta, to me, means software that may not work well. Not software that works just fine ("fine" as defined by MS), but only directs to Microsoft Sites.
On a side note, have you ever hit the "what's related" button on IE?
Admittedly, no, I haven't. I have clicked the "Show Related Links" menu item under tools and the "Related" toolbar button. Those functions are "Powered by Alexa". (Whoever they are.)
FYI: "What's Related" is the name used in Netscape's browser for this functionality that MS copied.
Very good rebuttal, it almost appears as though some thought was put into them. (Please read my signature.)
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways. Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY page.
"Smart Tags", somebody else put the link on MY page. (i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea. Real Fact: The code is written, works, and exists in Office XP already.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not. Real Fact: Probably
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject. Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard drive available to third parties!
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content. Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
Sure, it's a great idea, but...
A) Microsoft controls the "defaults" where "Smart Tags" take you. 100% of those defaults will be Microsoft sites.
B) Users will not EVER edit that XML formatted file to add their own. They won't even use a GUI to add them.
C) The META tag will break in SP1 or 2. How many times do YOU want to update your page to keep these from showing on it.
D) Junkbuster: user's were crying out for this feature. "Smart Tags": Microsoft is telling users they want this.
(Watch what you say sarcastically about Microsoft or you may find your words in their next PR piece. Ex. "'Smart Tags' Rule! Now it's so easy to get to Microsoft websites, I almost don't have to think about it!!!"
Microsoft could be accused of creating "derivative works,"
If you placed some GPL code on a web page and left "Smart Tags" on. Would IE be forced to use the GPL license because it took, incorporated, altered, and re-released your GPL code?
Available Platforms: Opera supports a ton, Mozilla supports a few more. Opera 5 for Mac hasn't been released, yet.
Winner: Mozilla wins, Opera a close second. IE is worthless on anything but MS platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
In yesterday's WSJ article, they state that the latest XP beta cuts the number of clicks required to make Kodak's software the default down to one.
However, we all know that the average user won't do that one click or even notice when they are given the opportunity to do it. So, the MS version will be used by the majority of digital camera users until it becomes the "standard".
The WSJ article even states that on rotating a picture, the MS version tells you it must ruin the picture to rotate it. The Kodak engineers just laughed at this error message. The sad thing is that most users will never know that there is something better.
WSJ Article (Requires registration of sorts.)
I enjoyed the movie a great deal, but I could have done without the constant narrations explaining detail that we could have figured out on our own. I'm sure some dumbass movie executive forced these changes late in the movie's production. How would 2001 have been if the monolith could speak and it explained blow by blow that movie classic's ending?
Dudes,
The funky alien-like creatures at the end are not aliens. They are the "evolved" mechas. Sure, this is really open to interpretation, but just because they look like the "classic" aliens we've seen in recent movies (including Spielberg's own Close Encounters of the Third Kind) does not mean that they are aliens. Watch it again for the first time.
fucking clever? Who is Clever?
He/She is right, tho. I was just going for karma.
AND, it worked!!!!
Straight to DVD, that's a bummer. I would have loved to see it in the theaters!
I bet that the only thing Microsoft removes is the Easy GUI way of turning Smart Tags on.
I don't think they'll even attempt to comment out/remove the Smart Tags code. It might not even be that easy.
The first person to find the Registry entry that turns Smart Tags back on wins a free beer (or root beer).
ii) If you've signed up for MSDN, and signed up online for the downloads then you've already given Microsoft all the information you need to create a passport account anyhow - where's the issue here?
...
/. post reply thing.
Microsoft does bad things at times,...
How hard would it have been to write a quick SQL Server (assuming they're using it) DTS job to convert your current MSDN ID to a Passport ID? I can tell you that it would have taken less time than it did to write the e-mail they sent out announcing the change. Probably even less time than it took me to write this stupid
Forget about micropayments, that's a waste of time. Let's work on Microbills. Mine seem a little too Macro lately.
A little advice for ya:
Count to 10 before posting and use that Preview button. It's great!
However, when it does come to Microsoft's monopolistic practices (or customs, whatever), the only thing we have to declare is that Linux's father can beat up Microsoft's father!!! (or linux will kick their sorry ass!)
This gets MAILED RIGHT TO YOUR DOOR.
That's not the only thing that gets mailed right to your door! If you know what I mean. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
The error on HP printers of old when they were out of paper. This is a reference to the movie Office Space.
To disable Smart Tags in IE:
Look for the checkbox hidden in the advanced tab under the JavaScript->Version 1.1.32->Security section is an item labeled, "PC LOAD LTR"
Checked = "enable" Smart Tags
Un-Checked = "disable" Smart Tags Unless MS forces Smart Tags on that page.
I don't think we should solve the name issue.
If everyone started using GNU/Linux it would just become the name of the OS and less people would realize (or even care to figure out) why the "GNU" is there.
Keep the argument going.
Keep the meaning fresh in our minds.
I don't get articles like this. Have news stories always been Quote one persons exxageration/lie, then get unrelated quotes that are positive to the other point of view?
Seriously, the writer knows these statements of Bill's are misleading and/or false, but he makes no attempt to clear up the facts. OR, does Mike Ricciuti (the writer) really not understand the facts?
Don't get me wrong, the quotes in GPL's favor are also just as misleading. However, they're not directly related and not directly refuting each other.
The GPL quotes are also at the end and added to make the story seem real, but it is just a Microsoft pushed story.
In no way did any of the Gates' soundbytes actually describe actual elements of the GPL. He only made comments meant to scare PHBs. Like:
...and we are just making sure people understand the GPL.
There's nothing to understand. It IS share and share-alike. That's it.
'Do you understand the GPL?' (then) they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them.
Probably not negatively stunned, tho are they?
it (GPL) makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work.
You can use it and build things on it all you want. However, if you use the source code as part of your sorce code and then re-release, you must release the source code to your app.
Giving up is not a compromise.
It's not better.
It is quitting.
Now go ayway or I will taunt you a secohnt time!
Repeated six extra times would give you the extra 24 secohnts and the movie would only be better!
Gartner said that they asked end users what OS they had installed on their new servers
Even you are claiming that the survey is talking about preloaded OSes. Who installed the OS if they "had" an OS installed?
The ruling, as I understand it, pertains to technology that is not available to the public. What happens when technology like this or much, much better IS available to the public? Can (or should) cops be able to equal the technology that the criminal (or law abiding citizens) are using to spy on the police? Is it not the same with gun technology, also?
It doesn't matter though, I've almost finished my force field technology. It's pretty cool, in addition to blocking the normal things force fields block (bullets, bombs, lasers, photon torpedos, etc.) it even blocks light and sound!
For point (i): Not true at all. In DeCSS, you put the link on your page. With Smart Tags, the reader puts the link (remember they chose to turn in on) on the page as they read it.
Sorry, wrong. Again, "DeCSS case I put the link on the page, "Smart Tags", SOMEBODY ELSE puts the link on MY page. User's are included in the somebody else category. (However, turning the feature on or off doesn't really constitute authoring the link, now does it? Especially since most users will have no idea what it is they are turning on or off.)
WTF? How does the fact that the filters are XML mean that the user's drive is open to 3rd parties? They aren't even cookies
1. The user can control what words are smart tagged by editing an XML file on their PC. None of the posts has said where these files are located, yet.
2. Third parties can add their own filters. Thus, they're either editing the existing XML file or adding their own files. Yes, they are NOT cookies. That's my point, cookies have undergone a great deal of scrutiny. Third parties being able to alter "Smart Tag" filters on your PC, have not.
It's in beta. What did you expect?
Beta, to me, means software that may not work well. Not software that works just fine ("fine" as defined by MS), but only directs to Microsoft Sites.
On a side note, have you ever hit the "what's related" button on IE?
Admittedly, no, I haven't. I have clicked the "Show Related Links" menu item under tools and the "Related" toolbar button. Those functions are "Powered by Alexa". (Whoever they are.)
FYI: "What's Related" is the name used in Netscape's browser for this functionality that MS copied.
Very good rebuttal, it almost appears as though some thought was put into them. (Please read my signature.)
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY page.
"Smart Tags", somebody else put the link on MY page.
(i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea.
Real Fact: The code is written, works, and exists in Office XP already.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not.
Real Fact: Probably
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard drive available to third parties!
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content.
Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
Sure, it's a great idea, but...
A) Microsoft controls the "defaults" where "Smart Tags" take you. 100% of those defaults will be Microsoft sites.
B) Users will not EVER edit that XML formatted file to add their own. They won't even use a GUI to add them.
C) The META tag will break in SP1 or 2. How many times do YOU want to update your page to keep these from showing on it.
D) Junkbuster: user's were crying out for this feature. "Smart Tags": Microsoft is telling users they want this.
(Watch what you say sarcastically about Microsoft or you may find your words in their next PR piece. Ex. "'Smart Tags' Rule! Now it's so easy to get to Microsoft websites, I almost don't have to think about it!!!"
Microsoft could be accused of creating "derivative works,"
If you placed some GPL code on a web page and left "Smart Tags" on. Would IE be forced to use the GPL license because it took, incorporated, altered, and re-released your GPL code?
Available Platforms: Opera supports a ton, Mozilla supports a few more. Opera 5 for Mac hasn't been released, yet.
Winner: Mozilla wins, Opera a close second. IE is worthless on anything but MS platforms.