It just never ends . . . Microsoft "Smart Tags"

Gang,

See this Wall Street Journal article:

	http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html

If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Steve
6/8/2001 9:48:00 PM
grc.news.feedback 4181 articles. 0 followers. Follow

270 Replies
1382 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 16

New Windows XP Feature
Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
By Walter S. Mossberg 

MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25, 
is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home 
versions of Windows. But Microsoft has another agenda for Windows XP: 
The program is also designed to be a platform from which the company 
can seamlessly offer users an array of new subscription services via 
the Internet.

One key test of Windows XP will be whether its features do more to 
benefit consumers or Microsoft's business plan. Another will be 
whether the operating system favors Microsoft services over those of 
other companies. The company has said its software won't discriminate 
against others selling Web-based services.

But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already 
encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that 
shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which 
hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web 
browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site 
into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any 
other sites Microsoft favors.

In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit 
anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way 
that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site -- 
whether or not that site offers better information.

THE FEATURE, called Internet Explorer Smart Tags, wasn't in the 
widely distributed second public beta of Windows XP issued in March. 
And it isn't easy to find, even in later "builds" that have had much 
more limited distribution.

In response to my questions, Microsoft officials stressed that the 
feature may still undergo modifications to make it more palatable. 
But they defended it as a useful tool.

"Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and 
helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the 
information they want in the way they want it," says Chris Jones, 
vice president for Windows XP development.

Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with 
Windows XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines 
instantly appear under certain types of words. In the version I 
tested, these browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names 
of companies, sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms 
could be highlighted in future versions.

If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and 
if you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to 
sites offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a 
Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered 
with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never 
placed on their site.

In the beta version I tested, most of these links weren't functional 
yet, but Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to 
Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft. 
One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search 
engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services.

ONE MICROSOFT OFFICIAL says the feature will spare users from "under-
linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's up 
to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn 
into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's 
part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post 
article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them 
at the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text. 
Microsoft decided otherwise.

Microsoft says the Internet Explorer Smart Tags feature, which is 
similar to a Smart Tag feature in the new Office XP, will be turned 
off by default in the final release, and that users will have to 
consciously choose to enable it by activating a setting buried in the 
browser's menus. In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free 
bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could 
use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites.

But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and 
offering sites a way to block it?

Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be 
able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will 
launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to 
their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than 
Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively 
re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on 
Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats' 
sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on 
the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering 
their links on everything.

There have been some excellent third-party programs, like GuruNet 
(now Atomica), that let users click on words within Web pages to get 
more information. But these don't place new links on pages, and they 
aren't built into the browser that more than 80% of Web visitors use.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and 
dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser 
is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own 
advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by 
using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing 
field and threatening editorial integrity.

>----------------------------------------------------------------

	Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Steve
6/8/2001 9:50:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote in message ...
>Gang,
>
>See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
>If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
>--
>_________________________________________________________________
>Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >

Steve,
            Can't find hubris mentioned here!

http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/xp/smarttags.asp


Charlie.


Wymsey Village Web
http://www.wymsey.co.uk
0
CharlieBoy
6/8/2001 9:57:00 PM
Nooo!!!!

I guess it's time we all submit to Microsoft.  They are too big and
obviously *know* what every user wants.


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194...
> Gang,
>
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Robert
6/8/2001 10:05:00 PM
Linux and the BSD's looking more appealing day by day.....

George.


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae8682fbb70df9896b5@207.71.92.194...
>
> New Windows XP Feature
> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
> By Walter S. Mossberg
>
> MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25,
> is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home
> versions of Windows. But Microsoft has another agenda for Windows XP:
> The program is also designed to be a platform from which the company
> can seamlessly offer users an array of new subscription services via
> the Internet.
>
> One key test of Windows XP will be whether its features do more to
> benefit consumers or Microsoft's business plan. Another will be
> whether the operating system favors Microsoft services over those of
> other companies. The company has said its software won't discriminate
> against others selling Web-based services.
>
> But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already
> encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that
> shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which
> hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web
> browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site
> into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any
> other sites Microsoft favors.
>
> In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit
> anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way
> that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site --
> whether or not that site offers better information.
>
> THE FEATURE, called Internet Explorer Smart Tags, wasn't in the
> widely distributed second public beta of Windows XP issued in March.
> And it isn't easy to find, even in later "builds" that have had much
> more limited distribution.
>
> In response to my questions, Microsoft officials stressed that the
> feature may still undergo modifications to make it more palatable.
> But they defended it as a useful tool.
>
> "Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and
> helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the
> information they want in the way they want it," says Chris Jones,
> vice president for Windows XP development.
>
> Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with
> Windows XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines
> instantly appear under certain types of words. In the version I
> tested, these browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names
> of companies, sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms
> could be highlighted in future versions.
>
> If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and
> if you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to
> sites offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a
> Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered
> with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never
> placed on their site.
>
> In the beta version I tested, most of these links weren't functional
> yet, but Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to
> Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft.
> One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search
> engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services.
>
> ONE MICROSOFT OFFICIAL says the feature will spare users from "under-
> linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's up
> to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn
> into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's
> part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post
> article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them
> at the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text.
> Microsoft decided otherwise.
>
> Microsoft says the Internet Explorer Smart Tags feature, which is
> similar to a Smart Tag feature in the new Office XP, will be turned
> off by default in the final release, and that users will have to
> consciously choose to enable it by activating a setting buried in the
> browser's menus. In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free
> bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could
> use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites.
>
> But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and
> offering sites a way to block it?
>
> Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be
> able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will
> launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to
> their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than
> Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively
> re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on
> Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats'
> sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on
> the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering
> their links on everything.
>
> There have been some excellent third-party programs, like GuruNet
> (now Atomica), that let users click on words within Web pages to get
> more information. But these don't place new links on pages, and they
> aren't built into the browser that more than 80% of Web visitors use.
>
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and
> dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser
> is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own
> advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by
> using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing
> field and threatening editorial integrity.
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
George
6/8/2001 10:06:00 PM
In article news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194, Steve Gibson 
<support@grc.com> kicked in with:

> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html

Makes me want to puke!

-- 
Fungus (aka Urgje / BomBom the Magnificent)
posting through XNews
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
PGP Key ID:0xDDD4F1E2
[urgje at dds dot nl]
0
Fungus
6/8/2001 10:06:00 PM
In article news:MPG.158ae8682fbb70df9896b5@207.71.92.194, Steve Gibson 
<support@grc.com> kicked in with:

<snip>

> 
>      Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??
> 

No didn't mention it, but think it I most certainly did!

-- 
Fungus (aka Urgje / BomBom the Magnificent)
posting through XNews
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
PGP Key ID:0xDDD4F1E2
[urgje at dds dot nl]
0
Fungus
6/8/2001 10:11:00 PM
In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Steve Gibson 
saying:
> New Windows XP Feature
> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
> By Walter S. Mossberg 
> 


I read that yesterday at work

those little smart tags I had found *quite* annoying already and this 
was the icing on the cake
-- 
remove===>stain<===to reply
0
Todd
6/8/2001 10:12:00 PM
Salaam!

Steve Gibson wrote:

> See this Wall Street Journal article:
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...

   "ONE MICROSOFT OFFICIAL says the feature will spare users from
"under-linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's
up to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn
into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's
part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post
article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them at
the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text.
Microsoft decided otherwise."

   That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something against
which web page designers will rebel.  I can see for sure that I will NOT
allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet Explorer,
and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any* Microsoft
browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
security of my visitors and readers.

   But the Washington Post is not likely to stand still for the
commercializing and defacing of their web pages by Microsoftware.  I
think it's pretty stupid to alienate media powers like that -- does
Microsoft know something we don't?  Are the mechanisms in place to
coerce the installation of XP across and industrially-significant sector
of networked machines?  Are Microsoft so bold because it's a coup?

> Steve Gibson, at work on: < a million loose ends >

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/8/2001 10:13:00 PM
If anyone want to follow up with another article posted in USAToday
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-06-08-microsoft-smart-tags.htm

Seems like M$ need to change their slogan to: Where do WE want to take
YOU today?  Sorry, I don't like the idea of going along for the ride.
And it's supoose to be YOUR computer?  Better stop here..

Geek.. Linux here I come!

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
wrote:

>Gang,
>
>See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
>	http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
>If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
>-- 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
handyman
6/8/2001 10:50:00 PM
In message <MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194>, Steve Gibson 
<support@grc.com> writes
>Gang,
>
>See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
>       http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
That is the pits.  They've really shot themselves in the foot with that 
crazy idea, though they won't recognise this at first.

-- 
Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "It's MY computer"
*               It's our turn to help pchelp                  *
*                  <http://pchelpers.org>                     *
*    <http://www.cozmikshirts.co.uk/rooms/pchelpers.shtml>    *
0
Jim
6/8/2001 10:56:00 PM
Oh, but Microsoft is delivering with the option off by default and even
offering metatags that can be incorporated into web pages to kill this
"feature". <s>  As for mechanisms in place to coerce the installation of
XP... who need mechanisms?  Actually, all MS need do is wait.  I saw a
post (lockergnome, I think) that stated cutoff dates, after which MS is
not supporting older operating systems (Win98 support cuts off Dec
2002).

New computer systems will, no doubt, roll out with OEM versions of XP OS
and XP Office products and the consumer isn't going to have any real
choice.  Technically, we can't take our OEM versions of Win 98 and
install them on a new machine, even if it's wiped off the original
machine.  And even if we did, what good is it if the upgrades and
patches for the original version are no longer available.  OK, some of
us may have saved the incremental upgrades off to CDs or Zip disks, but
*us packrats* are not in the majority of Win users.  How long before IE
releases won't be compatible with older versions of Windows?  You will
be assimilated??
--  NNG

***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"abujamal" <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net...
: Salaam!
:
: Steve Gibson wrote:
:
: > See this Wall Street Journal article:
: > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
: > If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
:
[...]
:    But the Washington Post is not likely to stand still for the
: commercializing and defacing of their web pages by Microsoftware.  I
: think it's pretty stupid to alienate media powers like that -- does
: Microsoft know something we don't?  Are the mechanisms in place to
: coerce the installation of XP across and industrially-significant
sector
: of networked machines?  Are Microsoft so bold because it's a coup?






: > Steve Gibson, at work on: < a million loose ends >
:
: was-salaam,
: abujamal
: --
: PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
:            and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
: PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
: news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
NoNameGiven
6/8/2001 10:59:00 PM
You're right geek, that penguin's kind of cute too :)
Here's some more articles and a sample of Smart Tags (will) appear in
IE6:

Smart tagging in Office XP - what Melissa did next?  (Posted: 06/04/2001
at 16:12 GMT)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/18160.html

Smart Tags due in Win-XP browser  (Posted: 08/06/2001 at 07:55 GMT)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19557.html

Smart Tags Feature in Internet Explorer 6 (for a sample of how Smart
Tags look)
http://www.activewin.com/articles/2001/xpie6.shtml

--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
news:3b2155fc.143053742@news.grc.com...
: If anyone want to follow up with another article posted in USAToday
:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-06-08-microsoft-smart-tags.
htm
:
: Seems like M$ need to change their slogan to: Where do WE want to take
: YOU today?  Sorry, I don't like the idea of going along for the ride.
: And it's supoose to be YOUR computer?  Better stop here..
:
: Geek.. Linux here I come!
:
: On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
: wrote:
:
: >Gang,
: >
: >See this Wall Street Journal article:
: >
: > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
: >
: >If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
: >
: >--
: >_________________________________________________________________
: >Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
:
0
NoNameGiven
6/8/2001 11:12:00 PM
> [snip snip]
> In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit 
> anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission
> [snip snip]

Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and simple
copyright violation to me...

-- 
Olivier Boursin, Bruxelles ================================
Config: PIII 800 MHz, 64 MbRAM, Win98 SE, Mandrake 8.0 
        Opera 5.11/904, Forte Agent 1.8, Pegasus Mail 3.12c
===========================================================
0
Olivier
6/9/2001 12:17:00 AM
x-no-archive:yes

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700, Steve Gibson offered the following: 

> Gang,
> 
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
> 
> 	http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
> 
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...

And now this:

Microsoft 'Smart Tags' Could Violate Law - Attorney 

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html


-- 
Trevor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     --- this space for rent ---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
Trevor
6/9/2001 12:49:00 AM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> Gang,
> 
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
> 
>         http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
> 
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >

Is this why I should be trying on Sun's Star Office?
-- 
Best regards
Han Broekman
(Please answer to the newsgroup only, I will not answer email)
0
Han
6/9/2001 12:56:00 AM
In message <MPG.158b206c85fac4f39896e7@news.grc.com>, Trevor Moyer 
<spamboxfull@thistime.org> writes
>x-no-archive:yes
[]
>
>Microsoft 'Smart Tags' Could Violate Law - Attorney
>
>http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
>
Hmm... How can we write webpages that will NOT allow this behaviour.

(I have no knowledge of this subject - all new to me)

-- 
Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "It's MY computer"
*               It's our turn to help pchelp                  *
*                  <http://pchelpers.org>                     *
*    <http://www.cozmikshirts.co.uk/rooms/pchelpers.shtml>    *
0
Jim
6/9/2001 1:10:00 AM
Thanks Trevor,

I think this guy is contradicting himself...


>"We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content they want to look
>  at,"
 Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of this
like we're going
  to expose (users) to a lot of bad content 
>... I think we're going to expose people to a lot
>  of good content." 

Geek..

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:49:01 -0600, Trevor Moyer
<spamboxfull@thistime.org> wrote:
0
handyman
6/9/2001 1:15:00 AM
"Jim Crowther" <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
news:dASEel6HeXI7EAXf@grc.com.ngs...
> In message <MPG.158b206c85fac4f39896e7@news.grc.com>, Trevor Moyer
> <spamboxfull@thistime.org> writes
> >x-no-archive:yes
> []
> >
> >Microsoft 'Smart Tags' Could Violate Law - Attorney
> >
> >http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
> >
> Hmm... How can we write webpages that will NOT allow this behaviour.

Of course, we will all expect Microsoft to blithely claim that by NOT
putting the proper meta-tags on your page you have explicitly given them
permission. IOW: You have to opt out. *gag*

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/9/2001 1:28:00 AM
abujamal <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote:

>   That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something against
>which web page designers will rebel.

You're damned right it is.


>I can see for sure that I will NOT
>allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet Explorer,

Excellent idea.

I expect to have that degree of control over my own site n due time, and
I'll be happy to provide XP users with not only the appropriate meta-tag
to disable such behavior, but a highly opinionated editorial on the
subject of Microsoft's inecusable intrusion into my editorial domain.


>and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any* Microsoft
>browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
>security of my visitors and readers.

Better to provide the users of such indecent software with a
reality-check on the matter, I think.


>   But the Washington Post is not likely to stand still for the
>commercializing and defacing of their web pages by Microsoftware.  I
>think it's pretty stupid to alienate media powers like that -- does
>Microsoft know something we don't?  

I think not.  Stupidity of a unique sort seems to be the hallmark of the
Gatesians.


>Are the mechanisms in place to
>coerce the installation of XP across and industrially-significant sector
>of networked machines?  Are Microsoft so bold because it's a coup?

They're simply outrageously self-interested and drunk with power, in my
opinion.

Witness the fact that the crashing antitrust judgment against MS has so
far had zero real-world effect.  It's scary as hell.

pchelp
0
pchelp
6/9/2001 3:09:00 AM
pchelp@nwi.net (pchelp) wrote:
>
>Witness the fact that the crashing antitrust judgment against
>MS has so far had zero real-world effect.  It's scary as hell.
>

Yes, isn't it?  Resistance is futile.

Billy.
0
B
6/9/2001 3:32:00 AM
"Jim Crowther" <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
news:uguIWSy1gVI7EAy+@grc.com.ngs...
> That is the pits.  They've really shot themselves in the foot with that
> crazy idea, though they won't recognise this at first.

You mean, they've shot themselves in the OTHER foot.  The last time they
delivered a fatal blow to their feet was when they announced the
no-hardware-upgrades-allowed, no-MP3s-allowed,
phone-home-HID-authentication-required WinXP.  IE6, and even raw sockets,
pales in comparison.

What year is it?  1984?  Looks like it.
0
Mike
6/9/2001 3:56:00 AM
Ain't that how most hackers feel --
a chance to expose someone to
their concept of improved content --

I mean is there much of a difference here --
they are both messing with someone else's site,
right?


"Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
news:3b21781a.151789434@news.grc.com...
> Thanks Trevor,
>
> I think this guy is contradicting himself...
>
>
> >"We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content they
want to look
> >  at,"
>  Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of this
> like we're going
>   to expose (users) to a lot of bad content
> >... I think we're going to expose people to a lot
> >  of good content."
>
> Geek..
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:49:01 -0600, Trevor Moyer
> <spamboxfull@thistime.org> wrote:
>
>
0
Rob
6/9/2001 4:08:00 AM
Since I'm a beta site, I have a copy of XP w/the smart tags.  They
are ugly, intrusive, and activated only for MS sites at the moment.
 If they were *really* infomation tags, always linking a company
name with that company's site and/or stock info at no charge to
the company, for example, I'd really have no objection.  If they
were unobtrusive while doing that, I'd be ecstatic.

As it is, I figure it's an MS control move.

'//alt
Walter Hawn

"Dave Batson" <dbatson1@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Nah! its more like;
>
>What can we charge you for today?
>
>Dave.
>
>"Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
>news:3b2155fc.143053742@news.grc.com...
>> If anyone want to follow up with another article posted in USAToday
>>
>http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-06-08-microsoft-smart-tags.htm
>>
>> Seems like M$ need to change their slogan to: Where do WE want
to take
>> YOU today?  Sorry, I don't like the idea of going along for
the ride.
>> And it's supoose to be YOUR computer?  Better stop here..
>>
>> Geek.. Linux here I come!
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Gang,
>> >
>> >See this Wall Street Journal article:
>> >
>> > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>> >
>> >If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next
note ...
>> >
>> >--
>> >_________________________________________________________________
>> >Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends
>
>>
>
>
0
whawn
6/9/2001 4:46:00 AM
"Smart tags Initially be off by default..."  (lightly paraphrased)

That is, until the first time 'Windows Update' is used, when suddenly -
Smart Tass^H^Hgs' will _mysteriously_ become enabled. :-|

Paul
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194...
> Gang,
>
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Paul
6/9/2001 7:14:00 AM
Hi Steve,

MAN!  I am a Windows supporter.  I think MS has forced light years of
progress in the software industry. (Before you slam me, I am talking about
Standards[Even a bad standard is better than no standard]).  We would not be
where we are if they had not done what they had done.

BUT,,,,,,

GEEEEEEZZZZZ!  Are they are out of control or what?!??!!!!

I am continuously on ZDNet arguing with the "penguin boys" over the
Windows/LINUX "so called" war.  I think I am going to cool my heels for a
while!  LINUX does not have the market share to "really" compete with
Windows, but it is the only product that could have a chance.  I am
beginning to think MS is losing their minds!  This may be the thing that
gives LINUX the leverage to take significant market share away from MS.

I do not know, though.  I think MS is going to have to screw up even more
"majorly" before LINUX or UNIX will be accepted in the mainstream as a
replacement for Windows.

[1 more step towards sittin' on the fence]

Dave


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194...
> Gang,
>
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Dave
6/9/2001 7:29:00 AM
Nah! its more like;

What can we charge you for today?

Dave.

"Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
news:3b2155fc.143053742@news.grc.com...
> If anyone want to follow up with another article posted in USAToday
>
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-06-08-microsoft-smart-tags.htm
>
> Seems like M$ need to change their slogan to: Where do WE want to take
> YOU today?  Sorry, I don't like the idea of going along for the ride.
> And it's supoose to be YOUR computer?  Better stop here..
>
> Geek.. Linux here I come!
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gang,
> >
> >See this Wall Street Journal article:
> >
> > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
> >
> >If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
> >
> >--
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
>
0
Dave
6/9/2001 7:32:00 AM
> > [snip snip]
> > In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser,
> > to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge
> > or permission
> > [snip snip]
> 
> Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and
> simple copyright violation to me...

Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
whose content enters said system.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Steve
6/9/2001 8:23:00 AM
Paul,

> "Smart tags Initially be off by default..."  (lightly paraphrased)
> 
> That is, until the first time 'Windows Update' is used, when
> suddenly - Smart Tass^H^Hgs' will _mysteriously_ become enabled. :-|

Exactly!  I "upgraded to W2K SP2 ... a "service pack" right?  And now 
I suddenly have Outlook Express (I'm a Eudora user who DELIBERATELY 
didn't install OE) and some "Address Book".

I figure that the Microsoft Address Book is good, though, since it'll 
be Virus bait!  :)

Sheesh.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Steve
6/9/2001 8:26:00 AM
Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.158b7cf79271e8af9896b8@207.71.92.194...
>=20
> > > [snip snip]
> > > In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser,
> > > to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge
> > > or permission
> > > [snip snip]
> >=20
> > Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and
> > simple copyright violation to me...
>=20
> Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
> is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> whose content enters said system.

Waitaminit-- implicitly extended to 3rd party. ?
I don't buy that, and the courts should not.
It's like saying that if I read your book, it gives to my
reading software the editor's privileges to it, unless I misunderstand.

-d.max
>=20
> --=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
d
6/9/2001 8:37:00 AM
> I figure that the Microsoft Address Book is good, though, since it'll
> be Virus bait!  :)

I don't know if it's because it's almost 5 am or not, but that was really
funny.

BTW Steve, the ddos story was a _great_ read.  I can't wait to see the
movie. <g>

Paul


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158b7dae3cf6aa49896b9@207.71.92.194...
> Paul,
>
> > "Smart tags Initially be off by default..."  (lightly paraphrased)
> >
> > That is, until the first time 'Windows Update' is used, when
> > suddenly - Smart Tass^H^Hgs' will _mysteriously_ become enabled. :-|
>
> Exactly!  I "upgraded to W2K SP2 ... a "service pack" right?  And now
> I suddenly have Outlook Express (I'm a Eudora user who DELIBERATELY
> didn't install OE) and some "Address Book".
>
> I figure that the Microsoft Address Book is good, though, since it'll
> be Virus bait!  :)
>
> Sheesh.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Paul
6/9/2001 8:43:00 AM
rants inline, this really pisses me off
--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
news:3b21781a.151789434@news.grc.com...
: Thanks Trevor,
:
: I think this guy is contradicting himself...
It's hard to believe this guy could believe himself

: >"We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content
they want to look
: >  at,"

No, they are empowering *themselves* to decide what the user will look
at.  Web-site owners are empowered to present their pages as written
ONLY if they *opt-out*.

:  Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of this
: like we're going
:   to expose (users) to a lot of bad content
: >... I think we're going to expose people to a lot
: >  of good content."

He failed to mention who died and left MS in charge of determining what
is "good" vs. "bad" content.  And who else will use the Smart Tags to
foist thier views of "good" and "bad" content on users and web site
owners?  Maybe he meant to say "exploit" instead of "expose".
[...]
0
NoNameGiven
6/9/2001 8:48:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158b7cf79271e8af9896b8@207.71.92.194...
>
> > > [snip snip]
> And this wavier is implicitly extended to the digital
> works of any third-party whose content enters said system.

So because I accepted their BULAH (whatever..) are they saying that I have
granted them permission to deface others property?  Didn't realise I had
that much influence.  <g>

Paul
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Paul
6/9/2001 8:50:00 AM
NoNameGiven <pugnacious_1@hotmail.INVALID> wrote in message =
news:9fsns8$2j42$1@news.grc.com...
> rants inline, this really pisses me off
> --  NNG

MS has really gone all-out to do so. Sure has me irate.
>=20
> "Geek" <handyman@firstaid.org> wrote in message
> news:3b21781a.151789434@news.grc.com...
> : Thanks Trevor,
> :
> : I think this guy is contradicting himself...
> It's hard to believe this guy could believe himself
>=20
> : >"We believe in total empowerment of the user to decide what content
> they want to look  at,"
>=20
> No, they are empowering *themselves* to decide what the user will look
> at.  Web-site owners are empowered to present their pages as written
> ONLY if they *opt-out*.

Heh. Wanna bet the 'occasional'  "Whoops--sorry, an unexpected bug =
didn't
recognize you'd opted out-- we're working on a patch" won't happen?
When's the last time anybody got a courtesy from big corps they weren't =
entitled to,
or had extended as part of a pitch, versus had to go to agencies and =
courts to compel performance?
>=20
> :  Sanford said. "Everybody tends to focus on the negative side of =
this
> : like we're going   to expose (users) to a lot of bad content
> : >... I think we're going to expose people to a lot  of good =
content."
>=20
> He failed to mention who died and left MS in charge of determining =
what
> is "good" vs. "bad" content.  And who else will use the Smart Tags to
> foist thier views of "good" and "bad" content on users and web site
> owners?  Maybe he meant to say "exploit" instead of "expose".

Or "explode," as in temper. I think the coming months are going to see a =
lot
of users who are sick of this patronizingly disingenuous predation, just
grit theit teeth and get on the linny learning curve. Next month'll see =
me drop in
a *nix distro, and start working the knowledge, for s*** sure.
Yeh-- I'll run the borg for a while, as necessary, but days are =
numbered.
MS is testing-- always testing, like any well-organized =
regime-of-conquest.
The idiocy is calculated-- just like when polticos tell lies they know =
can't be hidden.
Find the 'sheep quotient' of the populace, and see if it can be further =
exploited.

> [...]
>=20
0
d
6/9/2001 9:33:00 AM
Hmmm..... And Steve Balmer says MS wants to defend Intellectual
Property rights. Apparently only their own.

--
Live Long and Prosper,
CRH 8^)>

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158b7cf79271e8af9896b8@207.71.92.194...
>
> > > [snip snip]
> > > In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser,
> > > to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge
> > > or permission
> > > [snip snip]
> >
> > Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and
> > simple copyright violation to me...
>
> Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
> is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> whose content enters said system.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
CRH
6/9/2001 10:36:00 AM
In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...

>    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something against
> which web page designers will rebel.  I can see for sure that I will NOT
> allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet Explorer,
> and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any* Microsoft
> browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
> security of my visitors and readers.

You mean you will decide what is best for the 'security' (in quotes 
because your objection as stated has little to do with security - though 
it is a valid concern) of your visitors and readers, and will override 
their own choices by imposing yours upon them?

With that attitude you might consider seeking employment at Microsoft.

Sheesh, lots of babies being thrown out with this bathwater.

How a web page is displayed in *my* browser is up to me. I routinely 
block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActivX and javascript, 
background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block right-
clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much more.

In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts (and 
many Proxomitron users make *much* more adventurous changes - to the 
extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they 
intended).

Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and their 
is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site 
owners/designers have *no* control over what I do with their pages 
within my PC - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use, or 
which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of their 
damn business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that 
information, for our mutual convenience).

If I want to use Proxo or similar to change what I see, or use Google or 
Alexa or Atomica, or even MSIE6, to add information or links to key 
words, why the hell shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxo to kill the 
meta tag that blocks MS's Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do that 
too?

Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags. 
What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their 
control. Hooray for that, I say.

The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair' 
proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the 
'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.

But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a 
crock. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 11:40:00 AM
In article <9fsn76$2ilc$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > > Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and
> > > simple copyright violation to me...
> >=20
> > Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> > that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> > by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
> > is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> > whose content enters said system.
> 
> Waitaminit-- implicitly extended to 3rd party. ?
> I don't buy that, and the courts should not.
> It's like saying that if I read your book, it gives to my
> reading software the editor's privileges to it, unless I misunderstand.

Nah, you just missed the deadpan satire ...

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 12:14:00 PM
In article <dASEel6HeXI7EAXf@grc.com.ngs>, Jim Crowther said...
> In message <MPG.158b206c85fac4f39896e7@news.grc.com>, Trevor Moyer 
> <spamboxfull@thistime.org> writes
> >x-no-archive:yes
> []
> >
> >Microsoft 'Smart Tags' Could Violate Law - Attorney
> >
> >http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
> >
> Hmm... How can we write webpages that will NOT allow this behaviour.

By inserting a simple meta tag, apparently.

Now, why do want to stop me from choosing to have a bunch of pop up 
links triggered by a word or phrase that happens to appear on one of 
your pages?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 12:20:00 PM
Milly wrote:

> 
> You mean you will decide what is best for the 'security' (in quotes
> because your objection as stated has little to do with security - though
> it is a valid concern) of your visitors and readers, and will override
> their own choices by imposing yours upon them?
> 
> With that attitude you might consider seeking employment at Microsoft.
> 
> Sheesh, lots of babies being thrown out with this bathwater.
> 
> How a web page is displayed in *my* browser is up to me. I routinely
> block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActivX and javascript,
> background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block right-
> clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much more.
> 
> In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts (and
> many Proxomitron users make *much* more adventurous changes - to the
> extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they
> intended).
> 
> Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and their
> is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site
> owners/designers have *no* control over what I do with their pages
> within my PC - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use, or
> which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of their
> damn business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that
> information, for our mutual convenience).
> 
> If I want to use Proxo or similar to change what I see, or use Google or
> Alexa or Atomica, or even MSIE6, to add information or links to key
> words, why the hell shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxo to kill the
> meta tag that blocks MS's Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do that
> too?
> 
> Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags.
> What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> control. Hooray for that, I say.
> 
> The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> 
> But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
> crock.
> 
> --
> Milly

Milly,

In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. Which
is not to say I like the thought of them :)

-- 
Peta
0
Peta
6/9/2001 12:35:00 PM
Peta wrote:

> Milly,
> 
> In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
> own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
> the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
> here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. Which
> is not to say I like the thought of them :)

Peta,

From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
by whatever means is just not on. It would be like buying a book and
finding that a vandal had scrawled their own comments on each page.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 12:47:00 PM
In article <9ft57s$31hs$1@news.grc.com>, Peta said...
> Milly,
> 
> In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
> own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
> the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
> here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. 

A minority, I'd imagine.

> Which is not to say I like the thought of them :)

They are an MS invention, so scepticism or even hostility is a sensible 
starting point. Of course the great majority of users will view them as 
MS intends (even if that means, initially at least, not at all because 
the default is 'off'). And in due course that will probably mean a 
disproportionate commercial advantage to MS. Just as today, if users are 
daft or uninformed enough to use the inbuilt MS search functions, they 
gain (and users lose) by running such searches through the GoTo 'pay-
for-placement' bunco game (sorry, 'search' engine). A disproportionate 
commercial advantage (or abuse of power, or monopololistic practice - 
whatever), is the real issue.

But what if Steve [1] developed a set of Smart Tags that linked to his 
site for certain key words or phrases? So GoHip or Radiate or BlackICE 
[;)] all triggered the availability of popup links warning about their 
dangers? Still don't like the thought of them?

[1] Not that he would, though GNF will surely change how web pages are 
displayed within any web browser.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 1:05:00 PM
Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in <MPG.158b7cf79271e8af9896b8@
207.71.92.194>:

>Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
>that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
>by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
>is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
>whose content enters said system.

So how long do you think XP will be out before someone sues Microsoft 
for altering the content of their copyrighted web page?
0
toww2000
6/9/2001 1:06:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:40:00 +0100, Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:

<large snip>

Here, here!
 
By George I think she's got it!

>Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags. 
>What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their 
>control. Hooray for that, I say.
>
>The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair' 
>proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the 
>'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
>
>But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a 
>crock. 
0
Dave
6/9/2001 1:17:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 13:20:47, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c24f886d77327989d43@207.71.92.194>)


>Now, why do want to stop me from choosing to have a bunch of pop up 
>links triggered by a word or phrase that happens to appear on one of 
>your pages?

Possibly my intention in the use of a particular word or phrase might 
not be the same as that of the designer of the links added to my site. 
My web pages refer to a lot of musical terms. Would the mention of a 
work by Sibelius in a concert of mine be enhanced if that name gave a 
reference to the Score Writing software of that name? Since the 
activities to which the page relates mainly take place during the Proms, 
would my readers' understanding be enhanced to pointers to pages about 
end of term parties in American High Schools? Just round the corner from 
the Royal Albert Hall is the Royal Geographical Society which has on its 
wall statues of, among others, the Explorer, David Livingstone. Why 
should a reference to that be helped by pointers to parts of Microsoft's 
Operating System?

Were you to choose the references which are put on my pages I could not 
and would not object, but you are reading what I have chosen to put on 
my web site, adorned with references which neither of us have chosen and 
which will probably bear little if any connection with the content as I 
intended it to be understood (and any such connection would be purely 
coincidental). Of course I want to prevent you being mislead by an 
unknown third party when you read what I want.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 1:19:00 PM
Reply to
 <MPG.158ae8682fbb70df9896b5@207.71.92.194>
 support@grc.com
Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:50:06 -0700

> 
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and 
> dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser 
> is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own 
> advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by 
> using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing 
> field and threatening editorial integrity.
> 

Could the very act of 'modifying' the pages open Microsoft up to a whole 
world of copyright breach lawsuits?

I'm just beginning to understand Australia's new online copyright laws, 
and I think that this type of behaviour could very well breach some of 
our laws. It's illegal to modify and display the work of someone else 
without their express permission, and if they are a member of CALS (I 
think that's the right one), the company/person who modifies and/or 
displays the work must pay royalties. I better get some pages up soon, I 
think Bill has some spare cash he can throw at me.

Cheers,
Gryph

-- 
"My Supersonic Sonar Radar will help me!!"
0
Gryph
6/9/2001 1:20:00 PM
Reply to
 <9frlae$1at7$1@news.grc.com>
 pugnacious_1@hotmail.INVALID
Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:59:52 -0600
*snip*
> 
> New computer systems will, no doubt, roll out with OEM versions of XP OS
> and XP Office products and the consumer isn't going to have any real
> choice.  Technically, we can't take our OEM versions of Win 98 and
> install them on a new machine, even if it's wiped off the original
> machine.  And even if we did, what good is it if the upgrades and
> patches for the original version are no longer available.  OK, some of
> us may have saved the incremental upgrades off to CDs or Zip disks, but
> *us packrats* are not in the majority of Win users.  How long before IE
> releases won't be compatible with older versions of Windows?  You will
> be assimilated??
> --  NNG
> 

....or become real handy with a command-line and X-Windows etc (read 
*nix). Or better yet, you may find that Macintosh may in the near future, 
port Mac OS-X to PC. OS-X is basically a GUI over UNIX, so it will be 
*very* easy to port. One Mac dealer's opinion is that the only reason 
they haven't so far is that they want people using the imacs and G4's 
etc, not using their OS on an IBM based platform. That's understandable, 
considering OS-X is cheaper than ME and 98, and is a very nice OS.

*If* they do port it, I'll be one of the first to grab it and play.

Cheers,
Gryph
-- 
"My Supersonic Sonar Radar will help me!!"
0
Gryph
6/9/2001 1:28:00 PM
In article <3B221ACC.A44B6201@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> Peta wrote:
> 
> > In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
> > own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
> > the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
> > here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. Which
> > is not to say I like the thought of them :)
> 
> Peta,
> 
> From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
> and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
> see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
> by whatever means is just not on. 

Nothing is added, except a squiggly underline.

Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and right-click, I 
get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search on 
that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline and  
hovering, instead of select and right-click.

> It would be like buying a book and
> finding that a vandal had scrawled their own comments on each page.

Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be like buying a book 
and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in the knowledge 
that everyone else is free to scrawl their own comments, or none at all, 
on their own copies - all without touching the pristine copies still on 
the shelves for everyone else to browse.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 1:28:00 PM
In article <Xns90BB4E6C5D7C3toww2000yahoocom@127.0.0.1>, The One Who Was 
said...
> Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in <MPG.158b7cf79271e8af9896b8@
> 207.71.92.194>:
> 
> >Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> >that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> >by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
> >is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> >whose content enters said system.
> 
> So how long do you think XP will be out before someone sues Microsoft 
> for altering the content of their copyrighted web page?

Seconds, probably. But add the word 'successfully' to your question, and 
I imagine the answer is never.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 1:29:00 PM
In article <ykxFfZCYJiI7EAh+@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 13:20:47, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158c24f886d77327989d43@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> >Now, why do want to stop me from choosing to have a bunch of pop up 
> >links triggered by a word or phrase that happens to appear on one of 
> >your pages?
> 
> Possibly my intention in the use of a particular word or phrase might 
> not be the same as that of the designer of the links added to my site. 

Very possibly indeed 

> [..sniped good examples..]
> 
> Were you to choose the references which are put on my pages I could not 
> and would not object, but you are reading what I have chosen to put on 
> my web site, adorned with references which neither of us have chosen and 
> which will probably bear little if any connection with the content as I 
> intended it to be understood (and any such connection would be purely 
> coincidental). 

You wouldn't object if choose the references myself, but would if I 
employ a third party to do it for me? I might have even less knowledge 
about your interests than that third party. Or that third party might be 
an online dictionary or thesaurus. Or a database of simple synonyms 
for all words of three or more syllables. Or even a world-class, Smart 
Tag enabled, musical database. It seems an odd distinction.

> Of course I want to prevent you being mislead by an 
> unknown third party when you read what I want.

A laudable desire. Does it justify blocking my choice of *all* such 
third parties, or my right to see what is available?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 1:48:00 PM
Milly wrote:

Comments inline:

> > From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
> > and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
> > see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
> > by whatever means is just not on.
> 
> Nothing is added, except a squiggly underline.

But I only want squiggly lines if I put them there myself ;=)
 
> Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and right-click, I
> get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search on
> that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline and
> hovering, instead of select and right-click.

See above, I don't want any squiggly lines put there by a third party.
Will the Great Satan of Redmond's new feature just add them to any word
it likes? 
 
Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 1:49:00 PM
Pete wrote:
 
> From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
> and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
> see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
> by whatever means is just not on. It would be like buying a book and
> finding that a vandal had scrawled their own comments on each page.

Pete,

Something like Proxomitron certainly can 'add' to pages in the sense
that more or less any code can be replaced with anything you choose to
use, and simple use of a Hosts file can prevent much of what some
designers intend. I can't see that Smart-Tags, being an option and
existing only on the user's machine, are so very different.

-- 
Peta
0
Peta
6/9/2001 1:52:00 PM
Milly wrote:
 
> They are an MS invention, so scepticism or even hostility is a sensible
> starting point. Of course the great majority of users will view them as
> MS intends (even if that means, initially at least, not at all because
> the default is 'off'). And in due course that will probably mean a
> disproportionate commercial advantage to MS. Just as today, if users are
> daft or uninformed enough to use the inbuilt MS search functions, they
> gain (and users lose) by running such searches through the GoTo 'pay-
> for-placement' bunco game (sorry, 'search' engine). A disproportionate
> commercial advantage (or abuse of power, or monopololistic practice -
> whatever), is the real issue.
> 
> But what if Steve [1] developed a set of Smart Tags that linked to his
> site for certain key words or phrases? So GoHip or Radiate or BlackICE
> [;)] all triggered the availability of popup links warning about their
> dangers? Still don't like the thought of them?
> 
> [1] Not that he would, though GNF will surely change how web pages are
> displayed within any web browser.
> 

I have got as far as understanding that users will be able to download
specific sets of SmartTags, and of course if Steve chose to make one
available I might like it! But your other point is all too valid - most
will stay with the default and get led by the nose.

-- 
Peta
0
Peta
6/9/2001 1:59:00 PM
In article <3B222963.22E61CA3@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> Milly wrote:
> > Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and right-click, I
> > get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search on
> > that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline and
> > hovering, instead of select and right-click.
> 
> See above, I don't want any squiggly lines put there by a third party.
> Will the Great Satan of Redmond's new feature just add them to any word
> it likes? 

Then using HTML was a poor choice for publication. If you don't want me 
to be able to add a squiggly underline to the version of your page that 
lives in my computer, you'd better switch to digitally signed PDF. Or at 
least require me to specifically agree not to amend my local display of 
your HTML in any way, as an entry requirement to your site.

Do you use an ad-blocker, Pete? 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 2:01:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in <MPG.158c39777e5d2263989d48@207.71.92.194>:

>> Of course I want to prevent you being mislead by an 
>> unknown third party when you read what I want.
>
>A laudable desire. Does it justify blocking my choice of *all* such 
>third parties, or my right to see what is available?

This is interesting.  It seems to boil down to.. does a web page author 
have a right to have his work seen as s/he intends?  I don't know the 
answer, but I have a gut feeling that there may be some valid arguments 
which could be made for this.  

Of course this gets into areas too deep for me.. like the whole issue of 
the psychology of perception.. and of browsers which seem never to be 
entirely compliant with the standards.

Just rambling.  Ignore me.  :-)

Bob
0
rft
6/9/2001 2:13:00 PM
Milly wrote:

> > See above, I don't want any squiggly lines put there by a third party.
> > Will the Great Satan of Redmond's new feature just add them to any word
> > it likes?
> 
> Then using HTML was a poor choice for publication. If you don't want me
> to be able to add a squiggly underline to the version of your page that
> lives in my computer, you'd better switch to digitally signed PDF. Or at
> least require me to specifically agree not to amend my local display of
> your HTML in any way, as an entry requirement to your site.

Did you see my previous post about me not giving a toss about how people
amend my pages in their machine as long as they can see the text and the
navigation still works. My squiggly line comments were an (obviously
poor) attempt at humour. What I do object to is someone else thinking
that _they_ know best what the content is about. It's hard enough to get
the client that is paying the bill to agree on exactly what content is
going to be in a site. These Dumb Tags make assumptions with no
guarantee of accuracy

> Do you use an ad-blocker, Pete?

Yes. And if you're going to comment about me altering the appearance of
pages I'll give you the reasons before you ask for them.:

1) All the usuall privacy arguments.

2) I live in the Aussie outback and I am linked to the outside world
with a 28.8 modem via 1,000 miles of microwave towers and manky copper
pair. Anything that reduces incoming bandwidth is essential.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 2:14:00 PM
Peta wrote:

> Something like Proxomitron certainly can 'add' to pages in the sense
> that more or less any code can be replaced with anything you choose to
> use, and simple use of a Hosts file can prevent much of what some
> designers intend. I can't see that Smart-Tags, being an option and
> existing only on the user's machine, are so very different.

Peta,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming these Smart Tags work in
they way mentioned in the original article:

<quote>
Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with Windows
XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines instantly appear
under certain types of words. In the version I tested, these
browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names of companies,
sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms could be highlighted
in future versions.

If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and if
you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to sites
offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a
Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered
with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never placed
on their site.
</quote>

I've been building sites since 1994 and have worked for a few small
clients such as Union Bank Of Switzerland, British Aerospace, Kuwait
Petroleum, to name but a few. They and all the others had one thing in
common; not one of them asked for links to be randomly added by a third
party. They paid the bills and they decided what went in their sites.
Who is to say that these Smart Tag links won't point to a competitor's
site?

Paranoid Pete
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 2:36:00 PM
"Paul Tucker" <ptucker@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9fsnhk$2j1c$1@news.grc.com...

> BTW Steve, the ddos story was a _great_ read.  I can't wait to see the
> movie. <g>
>
> Paul

The DDOS movie is at  http://216.92.230.127/MIKE/index.html  you'll need to
enable java to see it. <g>

Mike
0
Mike
6/9/2001 2:36:00 PM
In article <3B222F3C.73E50D27@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> Milly wrote:

> > Do you use an ad-blocker, Pete?
> 
> Yes. And if you're going to comment about me altering the appearance of
> pages I'll give you the reasons before you ask for them.:
> 
> 1) All the usuall privacy arguments.
> 
> 2) I live in the Aussie outback and I am linked to the outside world
> with a 28.8 modem via 1,000 miles of microwave towers and manky copper
> pair. Anything that reduces incoming bandwidth is essential.

And if that means amending what the web designer intended, so be it. 

I'm with you, Pete. It's your computer.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 2:37:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message =
news:MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194...
> In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
>=20
> >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something =
against
<snip>
> Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart =
Tags.=20
> What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their=20
> control. Hooray for that, I say.

Fine, presuming you realize that vast majority of users do not exercise =
such
control. If MS 'decides' where text-words clck to, they steer the course =
of browsing,
yr own control-abilities notwithstanding.
>=20
> The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair' =

> proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the=20
> 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
>=20
> But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a  =
crock.=20

So wrong. Watch two hypothetical examples (end-capped text =3D =
Smart-Tagged potential target)

" MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
(here, MS links to puff piece of all the MS wonder-ware, and PredatoR =
links to happy
horse-laugh consideration of predators, and how free markets are not =
tooth-and-claw jungles)

"MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
(nothing applied)

Tell me first one has not had editorial/authorial intent blatantly =
Shanghaied !
MS is *that* stoopid ?-- nope. Better to be less obvious, of course. Be =
'helpful'
to the sites-- provide 'value added' content links, of course.=20
Quite unbiased, no doubt. Right.
If you think that this is NOT erosion of editorial integrity, your =
otherwise scientific mind
is using yourself as a sample, in the invalid argument form of=20
"disproving the whole, by disproving the part."=20
This is not a good model, Milly. Sure, *you* can control whether
you link to the spin, but majority won't/can't-- when linked content is =
'offered' by one organization,
bye-bye to integrity of editorial/authorial intent.=20
Good for you-- *you* won't be hoodwinked.
You're not the target-- 2.5-3 X 10^(7) aol users, for example.
Hmmm. Yummy. Let the editors talk, just give the users someplace nice to =
go,=20
even if they're not on a shopping site at the time, or give links to =
defuse critique--
the possibilities are rife, and *will* be taken.

Nope-- non-MS intent is on the rocks, if smart tags get over.

-d.max
>=20
> --=20
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 3:14:00 PM
If this is true and they do implement this, that would be re-written
content, whatever is created by web designwers is intended EXACTLY the way
they want it, this is not to be interfered with for ones general purposes, I
will alsoBLOCK all tags from the Explorer that  will carry this due to
involuntary misleading content flow issues.

sir

"Gryph" <exgrcnews@hypersurf.iwarp.whoputhtisbogusbitinhere.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.158cbfa88a68c94b989a89@news.grc.com...
> Reply to
>  <MPG.158ae8682fbb70df9896b5@207.71.92.194>
>  support@grc.com
> Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:50:06 -0700
>
> >
> > Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and
> > dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser
> > is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own
> > advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by
> > using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing
> > field and threatening editorial integrity.
> >
>
> Could the very act of 'modifying' the pages open Microsoft up to a whole
> world of copyright breach lawsuits?
>
> I'm just beginning to understand Australia's new online copyright laws,
> and I think that this type of behaviour could very well breach some of
> our laws. It's illegal to modify and display the work of someone else
> without their express permission, and if they are a member of CALS (I
> think that's the right one), the company/person who modifies and/or
> displays the work must pay royalties. I better get some pages up soon, I
> think Bill has some spare cash he can throw at me.
>
> Cheers,
> Gryph
>
> --
> "My Supersonic Sonar Radar will help me!!"
0
sirhardi
6/9/2001 3:18:00 PM
In article <3B223456.D633C575@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> Peta wrote:
> 
> > Something like Proxomitron certainly can 'add' to pages in the sense
> > that more or less any code can be replaced with anything you choose to
> > use, and simple use of a Hosts file can prevent much of what some
> > designers intend. I can't see that Smart-Tags, being an option and
> > existing only on the user's machine, are so very different.
> 
> Peta,
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming these Smart Tags work in
> they way mentioned in the original article:
> [...]

It seems that way.

> I've been building sites since 1994 and have worked for a few small
> clients such as Union Bank Of Switzerland, British Aerospace, Kuwait
> Petroleum, to name but a few. They and all the others had one thing in
> common; not one of them asked for links to be randomly added by a third
> party. They paid the bills and they decided what went in their sites.

Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between browser users 
and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers), not browser 
users and site owners.

> Who is to say that these Smart Tag links won't point to a competitor's
> site?

No one at all.

What would you like to see done about the issue?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 3:21:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message =
news:MPG.158c3c72ea765cde989d49@207.71.92.194...
> In article <3B222963.22E61CA3@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > Milly wrote:
> > > Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and =
right-click, I
> > > get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search =
on
> > > that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline =
and
> > > hovering, instead of select and right-click.
> >=20
> > See above, I don't want any squiggly lines put there by a third =
party.
> > Will the Great Satan of Redmond's new feature just add them to any =
word
> > it likes?=20
>=20
> Then using HTML was a poor choice for publication. If you don't want =
me=20
> to be able to add a squiggly underline to the version of your page =
that=20
> lives in my computer, you'd better switch to digitally signed PDF. Or =
at=20
> least require me to specifically agree not to amend my local display =
of=20
> your HTML in any way, as an entry requirement to your site.

I see you're persevering with using yrself/;other advanced user, in the
invalid argument form of using the part to disprove the whole.
I've a larger critique up-page, I'd like you to look into.
This note is WRT the fact that you're now extending another part to =
justify
the whole-- signed PDF integrity is _not_ what majority of =
'content-enhanced'
surfing consists of, and constraining authors/editors to such is saying =
"Sure, you
can keep yr intent-- just forget about mucho readers"

-d.max

>=20
> Do you use an ad-blocker, Pete?=20
>=20
> --=20
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 3:23:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
>Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between browser
users 
>and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers), not
browser 
>users and site owners.

Milly,

Your statement doesn't make sense to me.  (Maybe it's because I
have to use the web interface because of the flooding.)

Are smart tags only related to dot.net?  I don't understand how
MS gets into the picture.  I thought it is a function of the browser.
 Is there any comparison to hyperlinks?

Robert
0
Robert
6/9/2001 3:28:00 PM
In article <9ftegp$b9e$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> 
> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message =
> news:MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194...
> > In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
> >=20
> > >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something =
> against
> <snip>
> > Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart =
> Tags.=20
> > What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their=20
> > control. Hooray for that, I say.
> 
> Fine, presuming you realize that vast majority of users do not exercise =
> such
> control. If MS 'decides' where text-words clck to, they steer the course =
> of browsing,
> yr own control-abilities notwithstanding.
> >=20
> > The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair' =
> 
> > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the=20
> > 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> >=20
> > But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a  =
> crock.=20
> 
> So wrong. Watch two hypothetical examples (end-capped text =3D =
> Smart-Tagged potential target)
> 
> " MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
> (here, MS links to puff piece of all the MS wonder-ware, and PredatoR =
> links to happy
> horse-laugh consideration of predators, and how free markets are not =
> tooth-and-claw jungles)
> 
> "MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
> (nothing applied)
> 
> Tell me first one has not had editorial/authorial intent blatantly =
> Shanghaied !
> MS is *that* stoopid ?-- nope. Better to be less obvious, of course. Be =
> 'helpful'
> to the sites-- provide 'value added' content links, of course.=20
> Quite unbiased, no doubt. Right.
> If you think that this is NOT erosion of editorial integrity, your =
> otherwise scientific mind
> is using yourself as a sample, in the invalid argument form of=20
> "disproving the whole, by disproving the part."=20
> This is not a good model, Milly. Sure, *you* can control whether
> you link to the spin, but majority won't/can't-- when linked content is =
> 'offered' by one organization,
> bye-bye to integrity of editorial/authorial intent.=20
> Good for you-- *you* won't be hoodwinked.
> You're not the target-- 2.5-3 X 10^(7) aol users, for example.
> Hmmm. Yummy. Let the editors talk, just give the users someplace nice to =
> go,=20
> even if they're not on a shopping site at the time, or give links to =
> defuse critique--
> the possibilities are rife, and *will* be taken.
> 
> Nope-- non-MS intent is on the rocks, if smart tags get over.
> 
> -d.max
> >=20
> > --=20
> > Milly
> 
> 

I'm sorry d.max, but reading, let alone interspersed responding, to your 
'Mime' posts is just too much hassle. We've discussed it before, so I 
won't labour the point - it's your choice, I fully respect. 

I left it intact above, so you can see what I see.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 3:28:00 PM
In Uuencode, as per yr request.

Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194...
> In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
>
> >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something
against
<snip>
> Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart
Tags.
> What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> control. Hooray for that, I say.

Fine, presuming you realize that vast majority of users do not exercise
such
control. If MS 'decides' where text-words clck to, they steer the course
of browsing,
yr own control-abilities notwithstanding.
>
> The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
>
> But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
crock.

So wrong. Watch two hypothetical examples (end-capped text =
Smart-Tagged potential target)

" MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
(here, MS links to puff piece of all the MS wonder-ware, and PredatoR
links to happy
horse-laugh consideration of predators, and how free markets are not
tooth-and-claw jungles)

"MicrosofT CorP is a corporate PredatoR"
(nothing applied)

Tell me first one has not had editorial/authorial intent blatantly
Shanghaied !
MS is *that* stoopid ?-- nope. Better to be less obvious, of course. Be
'helpful'
to the sites-- provide 'value added' content links, of course.
Quite unbiased, no doubt. Right.
If you think that this is NOT erosion of editorial integrity, your
otherwise scientific mind
is using yourself as a sample, in the invalid argument form of
"disproving the whole, by disproving the part."
This is not a good model, Milly. Sure, *you* can control whether
you link to the spin, but majority won't/can't-- when linked content is
'offered' by one organization,
bye-bye to integrity of editorial/authorial intent.
Good for you-- *you* won't be hoodwinked.
You're not the target-- 2.5-3 X 10^(7) aol users, for example.
Hmmm. Yummy. Let the editors talk, just give the users someplace nice to
go,
even if they're not on a shopping site at the time, or give links to
defuse critique--
the possibilities are rife, and *will* be taken.

Nope-- non-MS intent is on the rocks, if smart tags get over.

-d.max
>
> --
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 3:35:00 PM
Also in Uuencode, as per yr request

Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c3c72ea765cde989d49@207.71.92.194...
> In article <3B222963.22E61CA3@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > Milly wrote:
> > > Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and
right-click, I
> > > get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search
on
> > > that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline
and
> > > hovering, instead of select and right-click.
> >
> > See above, I don't want any squiggly lines put there by a third
party.
> > Will the Great Satan of Redmond's new feature just add them to any
word
> > it likes?
>
> Then using HTML was a poor choice for publication. If you don't want
me
> to be able to add a squiggly underline to the version of your page
that
> lives in my computer, you'd better switch to digitally signed PDF. Or
at
> least require me to specifically agree not to amend my local display
of
> your HTML in any way, as an entry requirement to your site.

I see you're persevering with using yrself/;other advanced user, in the
invalid argument form of using the part to disprove the whole.
I've a larger critique up-page, I'd like you to look into.
This note is WRT the fact that you're now extending another part to
justify
the whole-- signed PDF integrity is _not_ what majority of
'content-enhanced'
surfing consists of, and constraining authors/editors to such is saying
"Sure, you
can keep yr intent-- just forget about mucho readers"

-d.max

>
> Do you use an ad-blocker, Pete?
>
> --
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 3:36:00 PM
It needs to be "turned on" in the options but still, I would not want any of
my WebPages that I created to be cluttered with links that I didn't choose
to put on my page....just because the browser decided those "key-words" may
interest the visitor to my site....AND DRAG THEM AWAY TO ANOTHER SITE!!!!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194...
Gang,

See this Wall Street Journal article:

http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html

If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...

--
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
webboss
6/9/2001 3:37:00 PM
In article <9ftfa1$c45$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff said...
> 
> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
> >Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between browser
> >users and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers), not
> >browser users and site owners.
> 
> Milly,
> 
> Your statement doesn't make sense to me.  (Maybe it's because I
> have to use the web interface because of the flooding.)

You keep your browser higher up the hard disk than the newsreader?

> Are smart tags only related to dot.net?  

No, though no doubt MS intends to blur the distinction as much as 
possible. But it intends to blur the distinction between .Net and 
breathing as much as possible too.

> I don't understand how MS gets into the picture.  I thought it 
> is a function of the browser. 

Right. Hence my comment that they are an arrangement between browser 
users (i.e. MSIE6 users) and MS.

> Is there any comparison to hyperlinks?

Sure, a hyperlink is like a server-side Smart Tag. The web designer 
decides what it looks like (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden' behind 
words or pictures), and where users will go if they click it. Every user 
gets the same (unless they take steps to amend it using Hosts or Proxo, 
for example).

Whereas an actual Smart Tag is like a browser-side hyperlink. The web 
designer knows nothing about it, and the actual web page on the 
server remains unchanged. But the Smart Tag designer decides what it 
looks like to users (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden' behind a words 
or, conceivably, pictures), and where users will go if they click it. 
Every user gets different links according to where they got their Smart 
Tags (though the vast majority will come from MS as part of the default 
browser install - with the obvious abuse of power implications).

I'm not sure if that was what you were getting at?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 3:50:00 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Salaam!

The One Who Was wrote:

> Steve Gibson wrote:
>> ... you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
>> by any Microsoft system of software application. ...

   Obvious (although I missed it) sarcasm -- the reader is not the
one who has copyrights.

> So how long do you think XP will be out before
> someone sues Microsoft for altering the content
> of their copyrighted web page?

   Shipping with default "off" means that the end-user (or an
intruder) turns it "on" so Microsoft is NOT the one doing the
alteration and is not responsible for the copyright violation.

was-salaam,
abujamal
- -- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: Unpublished key by intent of signer

iQEVAwUBOyJGJtbWRcYTlnfrAQM+kggAz+Tq0sNPJU7IEJECOlTS+a2vPwVerlIj
8GFeBeed2N3hxCWd196bkAYMqGG0lCJCOYyI4y2qLn5oT5KPexJydQz9jdYlL6gP
t8s96ogvRGqR9tZLTv+QHvJ6/xkHIilIxo/HxuETM8Q4Drp5Q1tYnJo+/tyD5H6E
riqa3+IYqQcIqKww2SYiNrNJ8/5TkeB8hxOcg0Pdize7l9CD5vOZY23VjvqMvXQU
GLDDZW/ZV3BMn92Cb80IvyOQIN76q+2zAmN6HEPaaLMVDQ/H4llX5ZQKvqS7bgTf
s6QJZ/QmmxK7LsB82+j4Pb4fbLUcFfb1fG5/YCHx+cNg9SUjJspTxQ==
=W8Hn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 3:52:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 14:48:16, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c39777e5d2263989d48@207.71.92.194>)


>You wouldn't object if choose the references myself, but would if I 
>employ a third party to do it for me? I might have even less knowledge 
>about your interests than that third party. Or that third party might 
>be an online dictionary or thesaurus. Or a database of simple synonyms 
>for all words of three or more syllables. Or even a world-class, Smart 
>Tag enabled, musical database. It seems an odd distinction.

When I wrote that I hadn't realised that you had a choice in the 
references that would be selected. Clearly there is no difference in 
principle between you choosing to look up a word of mine in an 
inappropriate paper dictionary and a set of inappropriate tags. When you 
choose the wrong tool to assist you in interpreting my words you have to 
accept the consequences. Would it not, though, be more appropriate if 
the author of the text made the choice of appropriate references rather 
than the reader - especially if the reader may have no guidance within 
the potentially irrelevant and misleading sources.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 4:07:00 PM
Pete wrote:
 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming these Smart Tags work in
> they way mentioned in the original article:
> 
> <quote>
> Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with Windows
> XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines instantly appear
> under certain types of words. In the version I tested, these
> browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names of companies,
> sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms could be highlighted
> in future versions.
> 
> If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and if
> you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to sites
> offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a
> Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered
> with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never placed
> on their site.
> </quote>
> 
> I've been building sites since 1994 and have worked for a few small
> clients such as Union Bank Of Switzerland, British Aerospace, Kuwait
> Petroleum, to name but a few. They and all the others had one thing in
> common; not one of them asked for links to be randomly added by a third
> party. They paid the bills and they decided what went in their sites.
> Who is to say that these Smart Tag links won't point to a competitor's
> site?

Pete,

Your quote is right of course. I should need to have WinXP to be sure of
how they work so I stand to be corrected but my understanding is, as the
article says, that SmartTags are entirely browser generated, ie they
would presumably work just the same if you were offline and loaded a
page from the cache. I don't think there's any suggestion that some
connection not planned by the designer is being made to generate them?
It sounds a bit like those squiggly lines in MSWord docs that you can
right click on to get alternative spellings. My point is simply that if
I'm understanding them properly, then they are no more a violation of
copyright than anything else we currently use to manipulate web pages.

I sympathise with your reaction to them; if I were a web designer, or
even a "small" client like UBS <g>, I would probably view them with
equal dislike, but that is a different issue.

-- 
Peta
0
Peta
6/9/2001 4:10:00 PM
since you've already opened one of the two first posts, that means
please ignore one, and see the other two, in uuencode.
0
d
6/9/2001 4:12:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
>In article <9ftfa1$c45$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff said...
>> 
>> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
>> >Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between
browser
>> >users and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers),
not
>> >browser users and site owners.
>> 
>> Milly,
>> 
>> Your statement doesn't make sense to me.  (Maybe it's because
I
>> have to use the web interface because of the flooding.)
>
>You keep your browser higher up the hard disk than the newsreader?
>
>> Are smart tags only related to dot.net?  
>
>No, though no doubt MS intends to blur the distinction as much
as 
>possible. But it intends to blur the distinction between .Net
and 
>breathing as much as possible too.
>
>> I don't understand how MS gets into the picture.  I thought
it 
>> is a function of the browser. 
>
>Right. Hence my comment that they are an arrangement between browser

>users (i.e. MSIE6 users) and MS.
>
>> Is there any comparison to hyperlinks?
>
>Sure, a hyperlink is like a server-side Smart Tag. The web designer

>decides what it looks like (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden'
behind 
>words or pictures), and where users will go if they click it.
Every user 
>gets the same (unless they take steps to amend it using Hosts
or Proxo, 
>for example).
>
>Whereas an actual Smart Tag is like a browser-side hyperlink.
The web 
>designer knows nothing about it, and the actual web page on the

>server remains unchanged. But the Smart Tag designer decides what
it 
>looks like to users (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden' behind
a words 
>or, conceivably, pictures), and where users will go if they click
it. 
>Every user gets different links according to where they got their
Smart 
>Tags (though the vast majority will come from MS as part of the
default 
>browser install - with the obvious abuse of power implications).
>
>I'm not sure if that was what you were getting at?

Milly,

Houston is under water.  RoadRunner is under water here.  I have
to use the web interface.

I still can't figure out where the smart tags reside; on the user's
computer?  How do they get there?  Does the user have a choice
whether to allow them to be placed on their computer?  Are we talking
about another "smart cookie"?

Robert
0
Robert
6/9/2001 4:16:00 PM
In article <9ftfml$cmu$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> In Uuencode, as per yr request.

Thanks. BTW, is there any advantage to you in posting otherwise? (I 
genuinely don't know).

> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194...

> > Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart
> > Tags. What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within 
> > their control. Hooray for that, I say.
> 
> Fine, presuming you realize that vast majority of users do not exercise
> such control. If MS 'decides' where text-words clck to, they steer the 
> course of browsing, yr own control-abilities notwithstanding.

Sure, I said so, in terms.

> > The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> >
> > But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
> > crock.
> 
> So wrong. Watch two hypothetical examples [..snipped examples..]
> 
> Nope-- non-MS intent is on the rocks, if smart tags get over.

'non-MS content', do you mean? Perhaps it is - if so, it'll be because 
of MS not Smart Tags.

Anyway, of course Smart Tags will get over. Netscape and Opera will 
provide their own, as will countless third-party 'plugin' developers (no 
doubt good, indifferent and very bad indeed). The full implications of 
XML will make Smart Tags look like the first baby steps.

But the issue is how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the 
'eyeballs' of users. Not some *already* nonexistent web site 'editorial 
integrity'. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 4:18:00 PM
In article <9ftfpp$cou$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> Also in Uuencode, as per yr request

Thanks.

> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158c3c72ea765cde989d49@207.71.92.194...
> > In article <3B222963.22E61CA3@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > > Milly wrote:

> I see you're persevering with using yrself/;other advanced user, in the
> invalid argument form of using the part to disprove the whole.
> I've a larger critique up-page, I'd like you to look into.
> This note is WRT the fact that you're now extending another part to
> justify
> the whole-- signed PDF integrity is _not_ what majority of
> 'content-enhanced'
> surfing consists of, and constraining authors/editors to such is saying
> "Sure, you
> can keep yr intent-- just forget about mucho readers"

Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really don't see 
it.

What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags? 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 4:18:00 PM
In message <MPG.158c50de41731a14989d4d@207.71.92.194>, Milly 
<no_sp@m.gov> writes
[snip QP marked text]
>I'm sorry d.max, but reading, let alone interspersed responding, to 
>your 'Mime' posts is just too much hassle. We've discussed it before, 
>so I won't labour the point - it's your choice, I fully respect.
>
>I left it intact above, so you can see what I see.

They appear here just fine, Milly... :)

-- 
Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "It's MY computer"
*               It's our turn to help pchelp                  *
*                  <http://pchelpers.org>                     *
*    <http://www.cozmikshirts.co.uk/rooms/pchelpers.shtml>    *
0
Jim
6/9/2001 4:27:00 PM
In article <9fti41$fnj$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff said...
> Milly,
> 
> Houston is under water.  RoadRunner is under water here.  I have
> to use the web interface.

Lucky it's back up, I suppose - though you have my sympathy.

> I still can't figure out where the smart tags reside; on the user's
> computer?  How do they get there?  

Installed with IE6 (reportedly), and with Office XP too (they may need 
IE6 for them to work within IE - though they'll work within the Office 
apps, regardless). Third parties will have them available as plugins 
too. The big search engines, for sure, and people like Alexa (you know, 
the 'what's related'-type things). Other browser suppliers, even for 
competing browsers. Big corporations for their own staff too.

> Does the user have a choice
> whether to allow them to be placed on their computer?  

Probably. IE installs give a wide choice of components these days. But 
reportedly the default setting is 'off' anyway.

> Are we talking
> about another "smart cookie"?

Not necessarily, though that is certainly possible. The potential for 
such abuse will be making the usual suspects (incl. MS) drool.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 4:31:00 PM
>
> But the issue is how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> 'eyeballs' of users. Not some *already* nonexistent web site
'editorial
> integrity'.
> Milly

Righto--snip out my examples, that showed how already existent intent
could be subverted.
That's you way of winning arguments-- by ignoring them?

What the hell is the problem, Milly ?
0
d
6/9/2001 4:40:00 PM
Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
> In message <MPG.158c50de41731a14989d4d@207.71.92.194>, Milly
> <no_sp@m.gov> writes
> [snip QP marked text]
> >I'm sorry d.max, but reading, let alone interspersed responding, to
> >your 'Mime' posts is just too much hassle. We've discussed it before,
> >so I won't labour the point - it's your choice, I fully respect.
> >
> >I left it intact above, so you can see what I see.
>
> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
> --
> Jim (Cruncher) Crowther

It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave her a
heads up,
so that she could then snip out my arguments and ignore them, while
repeating her claims.
What a pleasure. Not !
-d.max
0
d
6/9/2001 4:43:00 PM

Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <9ftfpp$cou$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > Also in Uuencode, as per yr request
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.158c3c72ea765cde989d49@207.71.92.194...
> > > In article <3B222963.22E61CA3@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > > > Milly wrote:
> 
> > I see you're persevering with using yrself/;other advanced user, in the
> > invalid argument form of using the part to disprove the whole.
> > I've a larger critique up-page, I'd like you to look into.
> > This note is WRT the fact that you're now extending another part to
> > justify
> > the whole-- signed PDF integrity is _not_ what majority of
> > 'content-enhanced'
> > surfing consists of, and constraining authors/editors to such is saying
> > "Sure, you
> > can keep yr intent-- just forget about mucho readers"
> 
> Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really don't see
> it.
> 
> What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
> 
> --
> Milly

I hope it goes the way of Netscape's "What's related" and smart browsing.
IMNSHO Anyone that knows anything would toss smart-tags into the bit
bucket with the rest of the garbage!

       Best (just my thoughts) regards,
                         -maxm
0
maxm
6/9/2001 4:51:00 PM
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c5636eb74bef3989d4e@207.71.92.194...
> In article <9ftfa1$c45$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff said...
> >
> > Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
> > >Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between browser
> > >users and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers), not
> > >browser users and site owners.
> >
> > Milly,
> >
> > Your statement doesn't make sense to me.  (Maybe it's because I
> > have to use the web interface because of the flooding.)
>
> You keep your browser higher up the hard disk than the newsreader?
>
> > Are smart tags only related to dot.net?
>
> No, though no doubt MS intends to blur the distinction as much as
> possible. But it intends to blur the distinction between .Net and
> breathing as much as possible too.
>
> > I don't understand how MS gets into the picture.  I thought it
> > is a function of the browser.
>
> Right. Hence my comment that they are an arrangement between browser
> users (i.e. MSIE6 users) and MS.
>
> > Is there any comparison to hyperlinks?
>
> Sure, a hyperlink is like a server-side Smart Tag. The web designer
> decides what it looks like (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden' behind
> words or pictures), and where users will go if they click it. Every user
> gets the same (unless they take steps to amend it using Hosts or Proxo,
> for example).
>
> Whereas an actual Smart Tag is like a browser-side hyperlink. The web
> designer knows nothing about it, and the actual web page on the
> server remains unchanged. But the Smart Tag designer decides what it
> looks like to users (e.g. the URL in full, or 'hidden' behind a words
> or, conceivably, pictures), and where users will go if they click it.
> Every user gets different links according to where they got their Smart
> Tags (though the vast majority will come from MS as part of the default
> browser install - with the obvious abuse of power implications).
>
> I'm not sure if that was what you were getting at?

Milly,
Though I agree with some of your views. MS implementation seems entirely
self serving. If "smart tags" are stored in a "dictionary" and MS is
controlling the bulk of the entries to that "dictionary" then they have the
power to skew the "smart tag" info as they see fit. In my mind, Only if
"smart tags" "dictionarys" are controlled and understood by the individual
PC user are your arguements valid.

Dave AA
0
DAA
6/9/2001 4:58:00 PM
In message <9fti41$fnj$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff 
<rwycoff@houston.rr.com> writes
>
>Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
[]

>
>Milly,
>
>Houston is under water.  RoadRunner is under water here.  I have
>to use the web interface.

Bummer, hope your specific area isn't flooded at least.

>I still can't figure out where the smart tags reside; on the user's
>computer?  How do they get there?  Does the user have a choice
>whether to allow them to be placed on their computer?  Are we talking
>about another "smart cookie"?

Robert,

Smart Tags are a browser add in. In this case built into the browser by 
MS, but apparently able to also be provided by others once MS releases 
the specs. They will highlight words that meet the (Smart Tag) 
developers criteria, and offer a right click choice of what they presume 
are related links for you to go to. At the moment Smart Tags are 
disabled by default, the user would 1) have to learn that they exist and 
2) turn them on. I suspect that in many cases users will learn about 
them from 3rd party sites that offer to provide "Cool New Features". 
GoHip comes to mind.

They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and then 
only by highlighting specific words.

 From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three separate 
issues here.

1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on your 
computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch of 
other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was Message-ID: 
<MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages display 
here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at all. This 
one adds something rather than subtracts it.

2) Is it OK for a 3rd party (MS or other Smart Tag developers) to decide 
what sites I'm directed to when looking at someone else's page? Someone 
besides myself decides that for me at every page I go to already. It may 
be the designer of the page, the advertisers or another party. I ignore 
most of them already. Admittedly, in this case the control is being 
removed from the designer, but that happens the minute a page goes up on 
the web.

3) Should it require web page designers to add a meta tag to DISABLE 
Smart Tags? I'd prefer that pages require a meta tag that turns ON Smart 
Tags if they want. Probably not going to happen though.

Since it's off by default, the impact may be less obvious than it is 
with the MS default Search Engine that gives you hits based on how much 
that site paid them rather than the true relevance to your query.

The potential for abuse is huge, there's also the possibility that 
someone like AdAware may write a Smart Tag plugin that may be quite 
handy.

Another case where we'll have to try to educate our friends and 
associates.

-- 
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
6/9/2001 5:02:00 PM
In article <jwhBalJZnkI7EACn@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 14:48:16, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158c39777e5d2263989d48@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> When you 
> choose the wrong tool to assist you in interpreting my words you have to 
> accept the consequences. Would it not, though, be more appropriate if 
> the author of the text made the choice of appropriate references rather 
> than the reader - especially if the reader may have no guidance within 
> the potentially irrelevant and misleading sources.

That would depend by what you mean by 'appropriate', I suppose. 
Remembering that the authors already have (always have had, in fact) the 
means for embedding such links and references within their web pages. 
And since the popularity of version 4, or certainly version 5, browsers, 
have the means for doing so in a manner which closely resembles how 
Smart Tags will apparently look to readers.

The start, and core, of our discussion is whether or not web site owners 
should seek to impose *only* their choice upon readers, and restrict 
readers from using their own (including third-party) choices. 

I'm not in favour of such imposition or restriction.

Or, taking the question one step farther back, whether MS should be 
stopped from, or criticised for, making such technology available to 
readers within their browsers.

I'm not in favour of that either.

Though I am concerned about how MS will seek to abuse the technology.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 5:18:00 PM
In article <w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs>, Jim Crowther said...
> In message <MPG.158c50de41731a14989d4d@207.71.92.194>, Milly 
> <no_sp@m.gov> writes
> [snip QP marked text]
> >I'm sorry d.max, but reading, let alone interspersed responding, to 
> >your 'Mime' posts is just too much hassle. We've discussed it before, 
> >so I won't labour the point - it's your choice, I fully respect.
> >
> >I left it intact above, so you can see what I see.
> 
> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)

When you're right, you're right, Jim ... grrr.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 5:18:00 PM
Milly wrote:

<snippage>
 
> What would you like to see done about the issue?

Some adherence to W3C standards. I can't recall ever seeing anything
about Smart Tags there. As long as Netscape and Opera don't intend to
add them to their latest browsers then BWII is game on. btw, IE6 is one
browser that won't find a home on this machine.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 5:20:00 PM
One itsy bitsy comment inline. 

"Kevin A." wrote:
> 
> In message <9fti41$fnj$1@news.grc.com>, Robert Wycoff
> <rwycoff@houston.rr.com> writes
> >
> >Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
> []
> 
> >
> >Milly,
> >
> >Houston is under water.  RoadRunner is under water here.  I have
> >to use the web interface.
> 
> Bummer, hope your specific area isn't flooded at least.
> 
> >I still can't figure out where the smart tags reside; on the user's
> >computer?  How do they get there?  Does the user have a choice
> >whether to allow them to be placed on their computer?  Are we talking
> >about another "smart cookie"?
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Smart Tags are a browser add in. In this case built into the browser by
> MS, but apparently able to also be provided by others once MS releases
> the specs. They will highlight words that meet the (Smart Tag)
> developers criteria, and offer a right click choice of what they presume
> are related links for you to go to. At the moment Smart Tags are
> disabled by default, the user would 1) have to learn that they exist and
> 2) turn them on. I suspect that in many cases users will learn about
> them from 3rd party sites that offer to provide "Cool New Features".
> GoHip comes to mind.
> 
> They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and then
> only by highlighting specific words.
> 
>  From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three separate
> issues here.
> 
> 1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on your
> computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch of
> other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was Message-ID:
> <MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages display
> here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at all. This
> one adds something rather than subtracts it.
> 
> 2) Is it OK for a 3rd party (MS or other Smart Tag developers) to decide
> what sites I'm directed to when looking at someone else's page? Someone
> besides myself decides that for me at every page I go to already. It may
> be the designer of the page, the advertisers or another party. I ignore
> most of them already. Admittedly, in this case the control is being
> removed from the designer, but that happens the minute a page goes up on
> the web.
> 
> 3) Should it require web page designers to add a meta tag to DISABLE
> Smart Tags? I'd prefer that pages require a meta tag that turns ON Smart
> Tags if they want. Probably not going to happen though.
> 
> Since it's off by default, the impact may be less obvious than it is
> with the MS default Search Engine that gives you hits based on how much
> that site paid them rather than the true relevance to your query.

TopClick and goto.com come to mind...

> 
> The potential for abuse is huge, there's also the possibility that
> someone like AdAware may write a Smart Tag plugin that may be quite
> handy.
> 
> Another case where we'll have to try to educate our friends and
> associates.
> 
> --
> Kevin A.
0
maxm
6/9/2001 5:24:00 PM
In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly saying:
> 
> Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really don't see 
> it.
> 
> What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags? 
> 

I think page designers should have to include code if they *want* their 
page to be rendered with smart tags
-- 
remove===>stain<===to reply
0
Todd
6/9/2001 5:24:00 PM
Nor will they find a home on mine..Problem I see thoug is that with
XP, could you use a third party browser?  Could you turn off the smart
tag?  

Geek..

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:31 +1000, Pete <pgp@breathemail.net> wrote:

>Milly wrote:
>
><snippage>
> 
>> What would you like to see done about the issue?
>
>Some adherence to W3C standards. I can't recall ever seeing anything
>about Smart Tags there. As long as Netscape and Opera don't intend to
>add them to their latest browsers then BWII is game on. btw, IE6 is one
>browser that won't find a home on this machine.
>
>Paranoid Pete.
>-- 
>____________________________________________________________________________
>"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
>http://www.ntk.net
0
handyman
6/9/2001 5:27:00 PM
"Kevin A." wrote:

Comments inline, some snippage:
 
> Smart Tags are a browser add in. In this case built into the browser by
> MS, but apparently able to also be provided by others once MS releases
> the specs. They will highlight words that meet the (Smart Tag)
> developers criteria, and offer a right click choice of what they presume
> are related links for you to go to. At the moment Smart Tags are
> disabled by default, the user would 1) have to learn that they exist and
> 2) turn them on. I suspect that in many cases users will learn about
> them from 3rd party sites that offer to provide "Cool New Features".
> GoHip comes to mind.

They may be disabled by default but how long before a Windows Update
"accidentally" turns them on?
 
> They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and then
> only by highlighting specific words.
> 
>  From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three separate
> issues here.
> 
> 1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on your
> computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch of
> other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was Message-ID:
> <MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages display
> here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at all. This
> one adds something rather than subtracts it.

It's fine to modify the appearance of a page but certainly not to change
the content or intent of the author.

> 3) Should it require web page designers to add a meta tag to DISABLE
> Smart Tags? I'd prefer that pages require a meta tag that turns ON Smart
> Tags if they want. Probably not going to happen though.

Agreed 100%.
 
> The potential for abuse is huge, there's also the possibility that
> someone like AdAware may write a Smart Tag plugin that may be quite
> handy.

Let's hope so.

> Another case where we'll have to try to educate our friends and
> associates.

Just another task on the endless list of "friend education" ;=)

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 5:31:00 PM
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:50:06 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote:

>MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25, 
>is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home 

Now now, you're not setting a very good example when you break your own
rules about forum postings ...
0
darius
6/9/2001 5:32:00 PM
In article <9ftjh9$hil$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> >
> > But the issue is how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > 'eyeballs' of users. Not some *already* nonexistent web site
> 'editorial
> > integrity'.
> > Milly
> 
> Righto--snip out my examples, that showed how already existent intent
> could be subverted.

I read and understood them - what's the point of repeating them in my 
reply?

> That's you way of winning arguments-- by ignoring them?
> 
> What the hell is the problem, Milly ?

I don't know what you mean. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 5:34:00 PM
In article <3B225428.8056695A@bellsouth.net>, maxm said...
> > What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
> 
> I hope it goes the way of Netscape's "What's related" and smart browsing.
> IMNSHO Anyone that knows anything would toss smart-tags into the bit
> bucket with the rest of the garbage!

End user acceptance deciding their fate you mean? Fine with me. I can't 
imagine ever using Smart Tags from MS or Netscape/AOL or GoTO or Amazon 
any number of other such firms.

But if Google produce some I might well be interested. Or a decent 
dictionary/thesaurus provider, or translation site, or a truly 
independent price comparison site, or Reuters, or my favourite movie 
reviewers, or ... well, you get the idea.

It would be a shame not to have those choices, in that convenient form, 
because web site owners don't want me to amend what appears on my 
monitor.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 5:34:00 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Salaam!

Steve Gibson wrote:

> I "upgraded to W2K SP2 ... a "service pack" right?  And now
> I suddenly have Outlook Express (I'm a Eudora user who
> DELIBERATELY didn't install OE) and some "Address Book".

   Micro$oft:  operating systems for Stepford Wives.

> Steve Gibson, at work on: < a million loose ends >

was-salaam,
abujamal
- -- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: Unpublished key by intent of signer

iQEVAwUBOyJepNbWRcYTlnfrAQOewwf+KEQO+sK9yWldCQ8EiXwx0i0Wqysv06g1
UPbuSR6xvCNt38P4f3DYMHK/Zpn18dP1ryidBxStDXGmqD+FlaOWwqO+NFbJE5qm
MCh9RzsDhyab+kowVuKLRd+xUJ9XKSq8AA0JiQG/dl1f3I0SQOQMNtC2sA6D/5yD
5TwaCWDSqyf8g6D/m6s2nTtA0M/rUZjkpblnu2+cjhOkX0S+sLhUCzKW+yUCG43W
0kza4+KI1FszK/QpUAOTUy4N85qwzRGGkTr3YFZ8npnUUIywBL5y5h+BEE97fvPy
VzlZQLUEwWpYZfftWl4/b2pxgdqVEht1g6tBb17PPm2NL70WoTpXZg==
=O54D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 5:36:00 PM
Milly wrote:

<snippage>

> Though I am concerned about how MS will seek to abuse the technology.

In any way possible. The words leopards and spots spring to mind.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 5:40:00 PM
In article <3B225ADF.54E9B231@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> Milly wrote:
> 
> <snippage>
>  
> > What would you like to see done about the issue?
> 
> Some adherence to W3C standards. I can't recall ever seeing anything
> about Smart Tags there. 

That's an interesting point. Would it apply to what amounts to a browser 
plugin? No server-side changes are needed to make web pages compatible 
with IE6 - bar the tag to *block* displaying Smart Tags - maybe that is 
enough to bring it within the W3C ambit? I really don't know.

> As long as Netscape and Opera don't intend to
> add them to their latest browsers then BWII is game on. btw, IE6 is one
> browser that won't find a home on this machine.

User choice in action :)

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 5:42:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c6e55ec143187989d54@207.71.92.194...
> In article <9ftjh9$hil$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > >
> > > But the issue is how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an
'unfair'
> > > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > > 'eyeballs' of users. Not some *already* nonexistent web site
> > 'editorial integrity'.
> > > Milly
> >
> > Righto--snip out my examples, that showed how already existent
intent
> > could be subverted.
>
> I read and understood them - what's the point of repeating them in my
reply?

Point is, you did not _reply_ to the arguments, that:
1. Since MS can lead readers to places that editors/authors _never_
intended, editorial
integrity is compromised.
2. The argument that it is _not_ compromised, because sophisticated
users like you and others
can choose _not_ to enable, or because site operators, as long as they
don't change the text,
can choose whether to allow MS to do #1, is _not_ a disproof of the
*whole*-- only of the hypothetical *part*, and is thus not a valid
refutation.
>
> > That's you way of winning arguments-- by ignoring them?
> >
> > What the hell is the problem, Milly ?
>
> I don't know what you mean.

Explained above-- my apologies for strong language.

-d.max
>
> --
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 5:44:00 PM
This item in Scripting News quotes (among other views) Jan T�ngring as
saying

"The way Smart Tags were explained to me, hypertext linking is just one of
the possibilites. The action when activating a Smart Tag is fully
programmable within Windows. Means anything: do a database lookup, order
something, start a program, send a letter. Even rewriting the text of the
document, expanding a name to a full address perhaps, or doing a
spellcheck."

http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2001/06/08#moreSmartTags

Does anyone have a link to official MS info that really explains the scope
of these things?
0
darius
6/9/2001 5:46:00 PM
Todd <scorpio@shadowstain.airforce.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c25d4c5ef1e8d989d26@207.71.92.194...
> In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly
saying:
> >
> > Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really don't
see  it.
> >
> > What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
>
> I think page designers should have to include code if they *want*
their
> page to be rendered with smart tags

That's a main part of the insidiousness-- page designers must opt-out,
rather than in,
and what happens WRT existent pages-- can MS move in on them ?
0
d
6/9/2001 5:47:00 PM
Geek wrote:
> 
> Nor will they find a home on mine..Problem I see thoug is that with
> XP, could you use a third party browser?  Could you turn off the smart
> tag?

Who knows on either count, Geek. From what I read about XP each beta
seems to have another level of contentious features added.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 5:49:00 PM
....inline..
abujamal <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B225EA6.B1C7906F@earthlink.net...
> Salaam!
>
> Steve Gibson wrote:
>
> > I "upgraded to W2K SP2 ... a "service pack" right?  And now
> > I suddenly have Outlook Express (I'm a Eudora user who
> > DELIBERATELY didn't install OE) and some "Address Book".
>
>    Micro$oft:  operating systems for Stepford Wives.

Aaargh. Do you have a copy of that film, abujamal? I remember the
zombied android
gal pushing 'her' shopping-cart in the market-- were there cans of Spam
in the wagon?

-d.max
>
> > Steve Gibson, at work on: < a million loose ends >
> was-salaam,
> abujamal
0
d
6/9/2001 5:52:00 PM
In article <Xns90BB4E6C5D7C3toww2000yahoocom@127.0.0.1>, toww2000@yahoo.com says...

> So how long do you think XP will be out before someone sues Microsoft 
> for altering the content of their copyrighted web page?
> 

No, it will never happen!   Microsoft is not the guilty party!

The default is for the Smart Tags to be off, it is the individual
user who is explicitly choosing to use software provided by M$
As for b0ss it is not illegal to create or retain software of
certain kinds.  If users choose to use software to attack the
rights of others it is the individual user that must be chased.

Is it a good idea to try to sue all visitors to your site?
The visitors will probably then make the choice to stay with
sites they trust - such as Microsoft & friends.

It is clear to me that NO website will be able to opt out of
third party tags - EVEN IF<sic> AVAILABLE at a large $cost
The Smart Tags design requires each and every tag to be opted-out
in the Metatag lines. 
OK!  This IMO adds an overhead of over 600+ metatags per page
seriously slowing every site.  

From the Wall Street Journal-By Walter S. Mossberg
Capitals are my highlighting.

"Microsoft also says that OTHER companies, besides itself, will be
able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will
launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to
their sites. But these tags WILL BE FAR HARDER to obtain than
Microsoft's. And they will MERELY allow more companies to INVASIVELY
re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on
Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats'
sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on
the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering
their links on everything"


Ash
0
Ash
6/9/2001 6:00:00 PM
Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <3B225ADF.54E9B231@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > Milly wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > > What would you like to see done about the issue?
> >
> > Some adherence to W3C standards. I can't recall ever seeing anything
> > about Smart Tags there.
> 
> That's an interesting point. Would it apply to what amounts to a browser
> plugin? No server-side changes are needed to make web pages compatible
> with IE6 - bar the tag to *block* displaying Smart Tags - maybe that is
> enough to bring it within the W3C ambit? I really don't know.

If it's a plug-in then the only standard required is to for it work.
 
> > As long as Netscape and Opera don't intend to
> > add them to their latest browsers then BWII is game on. btw, IE6 is one
> > browser that won't find a home on this machine.
> 
> User choice in action :)

Let's hope so ;=)

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 6:03:00 PM

Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <3B225428.8056695A@bellsouth.net>, maxm said...
> > > What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
> >
> > I hope it goes the way of Netscape's "What's related" and smart browsing.
> > IMNSHO Anyone that knows anything would toss smart-tags into the bit
> > bucket with the rest of the garbage!
> 
> End user acceptance deciding their fate you mean? Fine with me. I can't
> imagine ever using Smart Tags from MS or Netscape/AOL or GoTO or Amazon
> any number of other such firms.
> 
> But if Google produce some I might well be interested. Or a decent
> dictionary/thesaurus provider, or translation site, or a truly
> independent price comparison site, or Reuters, or my favourite movie
> reviewers, or ... well, you get the idea.
> 
> It would be a shame not to have those choices, in that convenient form,
> because web site owners don't want me to amend what appears on my
> monitor.
> 
> --
> Milly

I think I'm starting to see your point. I myself will not use IE for much
of anything. All the others challenging your points have good arguments 
also. It is the uninformed that we are gathered here to give a clue. It
will not help when the clueless hover their cursor over GRC and gets a 
pointer telling them that M$ has all the answers. Where is my M$ 
waterfall (firewall) anyway?

          Best (who cares anyway) regards,
                     I DO!
                        -maxm
0
maxm
6/9/2001 6:05:00 PM
Ash wrote:

<snippage>

> From the Wall Street Journal-By Walter S. Mossberg
> Capitals are my highlighting.
> 
> "Microsoft also says that OTHER companies, besides itself, will be
> able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will
> launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to
> their sites. But these tags WILL BE FAR HARDER to obtain than
> Microsoft's. And they will MERELY allow more companies to INVASIVELY
> re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on
> Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats'
> sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on
> the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering
> their links on everything"

Ash,

I believe they have a phrase for this in the former colonies:

"That's scary sh*t, man"

Not to mention a perfect recipe for total confusion in the browsing
public.

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/9/2001 6:14:00 PM
In message <9ftn9v$mbk$1@news.grc.com>, d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> 
writes
>
>Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
>news:MPG.158c6e55ec143187989d54@207.71.92.194...
<SNIP>

>Point is, you did not _reply_ to the arguments, that:
>1. Since MS can lead readers to places that editors/authors _never_
>intended, editorial
>integrity is compromised.

How is a Smart Tag compromising "editorial Integrity" of a page? The 
page itself isn't modified AFAICT, you just get a list of links that you 
can go to, IF YOU WANT TO. Me, I often make a point of going to sites 
other than just what may be linked on a page. Would a Smart Tag be much 
different than me going to Google and doing a search to find related 
pages not listed by the authors? Other than the fact that I may get many 
MORE choices to pick from with my Google search than what Smart Tags 
would give me.

<SNIP>

That said, assuming I ever even bother to upgrade to a Smart Tag enabled 
browser, I wouldn't turn them on unless someone had implemented a 
version that I would find much more useful than the ones provided by MS.



-- 
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
6/9/2001 6:36:00 PM
Salaam!

"d.max" wrote:

> abujamal wrote ...
>> Micro$oft:  operating systems for Stepford Wives.

> Aaargh. Do you have a copy of that film, abujamal? I remember
> the zombied android gal pushing 'her' shopping-cart in the
> market -- were there cans of Spam in the wagon?

   Don't need a copy of the film -- we have a local high school turning
out the real thing.

> -d.max

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 6:40:00 PM
In article <9ftn9v$mbk$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> 
> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158c6e55ec143187989d54@207.71.92.194...
> > In article <9ftjh9$hil$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > > >
> > > > But the issue is how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an
> 'unfair'
> > > > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > > > 'eyeballs' of users. Not some *already* nonexistent web site
> > > 'editorial integrity'.
> > > > Milly
> > >
> > > Righto--snip out my examples, that showed how already existent
> > > intent could be subverted.
> >
> > I read and understood them - what's the point of repeating them in my
> reply?
> 
> Point is, you did not _reply_ to the arguments,

I thought I had responded to your argument as a whole. Still ...

> that:
> 1. Since MS can lead readers to places that editors/authors _never_
> intended, editorial integrity is compromised.

What's on the original site is unchanged. What I do with it within my PC 
is up to me. 

If someone found a foolproof method of 'locking' web page content so 
that it simply could not be altered locally (just as if it were 
digitally-signed PDF but with bells and whistles), would you be 
applauding it because it preserved the editorial integrity of the site? 
Or cursing it because you could no longer block the adverts, or some of 
the scripting or multimedia? Would your answer be the same if it were an 
MS innovation?

> 2. The argument that it is _not_ compromised, because sophisticated
> users like you and others  can choose _not_ to enable,

Jeez, it's an on or off checkbox (I imagine). Should MS remove the 
ability to turn off the display of graphics, in case users do so against 
the wishes of sites displaying graphics?

> or because site operators, as long as they don't change the text,
> can choose whether to allow MS to do #1, 

Huh? As opposed from site operators choosing whether to allow me to do 
#1?

> is _not_ a disproof of the *whole*-- only of the hypothetical *part*,
>  and is thus not a valid refutation.

Of what? That editorial integrity is compromised by users having the 
means to popup extra links, chosen by third parties, even MS, and 
triggered by key words or phrases? Then, by my arguments taken as a 
whole, I refute your whole argument (if I've characterised it as you 
intended). Or, at least, that is my aim.

> > > That's you way of winning arguments-- by ignoring them?
> > >
> > > What the hell is the problem, Milly ?
> >
> > I don't know what you mean.
> 
> Explained above-- my apologies for strong language.

No need, but thanks.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 6:49:00 PM
In article <9ftnef$mem$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> 
> Todd <scorpio@shadowstain.airforce.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158c25d4c5ef1e8d989d26@207.71.92.194...
> > In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly
> saying:
> > >
> > > Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really don't
> see  it.
> > >
> > > What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
> >
> > I think page designers should have to include code if they *want*
> > their page to be rendered with smart tags
> 
> That's a main part of the insidiousness-- page designers must opt-out,
> rather than in,
> and what happens WRT existent pages-- can MS move in on them ?

Sure, just as Proxomitron, WebWasher etc can. Within your browser and if 
you choose to let them.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 6:50:00 PM
In message <9ftjn9$i08$1@news.grc.com>, d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> 
writes
>
>Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
>news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
[]
>>
>> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
[]
>It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave her a 
>heads up, so that she could then snip out my arguments and ignore them, 
>while repeating her claims.
>What a pleasure. Not !

It was just my usual TP dig... :)

-- 
Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "It's MY computer"
*               It's our turn to help pchelp                  *
*                  <http://pchelpers.org>                     *
*    <http://www.cozmikshirts.co.uk/rooms/pchelpers.shtml>    *
0
Jim
6/9/2001 6:51:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 17:27:15, Geek wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <3b225c1a.50394753@news.grc.com>)


>Nor will they find a home on mine..Problem I see thoug is that with XP, 
>could you use a third party browser?  Could you turn off the smart tag?


My concern is not with my use of smart tags or any software that employs 
them but with the effect they may have on the significance to my readers 
of what the content of my web site appears to say to them. Changing 
colours, type size and font and similar is one thing with which I have 
no problem, indeed, when it is done, e.g. by the partially sighted, I 
welcome it. On the other hand, I had complaints from one reader that the 
colour scheme - black print on a blue background - was impossible to 
read. The web page as designed has yellow print on a blue background, 
but that was over-ridden by the reader's browser settings. Dealing with 
repeated complaints and the user's refusal to accept the consequences of 
his own changes was an unnecessary burden on my resources.

If my readers have interpretations or addenda put onto my web site by 
others, even if chosen by the users, with no input from me about its 
relevance to what I or, presumably the readers who have chosen to read 
what I have provided for them, then I do not want my web site visible. 
If I have the opportunity to turn off the option for the reader to have 
these things thrust at them, then I will do so. If my readers aren't 
prepared to read what I write with my choice of interpretation, I can 
only presume that they didn't want to read my web site in the first 
place.

-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 7:07:00 PM
"Darius Thabit" <darius@sprout.com> wrote in message
news:3b22604a.2854372@news.grc.com...
>
> This item in Scripting News quotes (among other views) Jan T�ngring as
> saying
>
> "The way Smart Tags were explained to me, hypertext linking is just one of
> the possibilites. The action when activating a Smart Tag is fully
> programmable within Windows. Means anything: do a database lookup, order
> something, start a program, send a letter. Even rewriting the text of the
> document, expanding a name to a full address perhaps, or doing a
> spellcheck."
>
> http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2001/06/08#moreSmartTags
>
> Does anyone have a link to official MS info that really explains the scope
> of these things?
>
You can download a MSWord document with an overview of Smart Tags here:
http://www.microsoft.com/Partner/businessdevelopment/salesresources/whitepap
ers/smarttagstechnology.asp

Here is a MS white paper about Adding Smart Tags to Web Pages:
http://www.microsoft.com/OfficeDev/XP_06_2001/odc_stwebpages.htm
0
Ed
6/9/2001 7:09:00 PM
Salaam!

Milly wrote:

>> Since MS can lead readers to places that editors/authors
>> _never_ intended, editorial integrity is compromised.

> What's on the original site is unchanged.  What
> I do with it within my PC is up to me.

   However, a cogent argument could be made that it is not *published*
until it is requested by and delivered to a browser and displayed as
written.  At least in my case, I fully intend that my pages be
*delivered* and *displayed* just as they exist where I have them stored
and made available for publication.

   You are just as surely going to argue that when your browser receives
them they are, in fact, identical to the form in which they are stored,
and that you then have a right to view them as you wish, making whatever
alterations you wish, and therefore Microsoft is merely making available
to you an additional feature enabling you to make alterations in
particular ways.

   You analogize the use of Proxomitron, I believe, which has the
capacity to delete and (I think) to add content at the user's
direction.  eDexter, which I use for tracking ad frustration, merely
directs an *unaltered* portion of the received page, to fetch a tracking
ad, to another location -- my machine -- which then may serve a graphic
of my choice instead.  It does not alter the original page, nor does it
add to it.  In both cases, there is mechanical deletion or replacement
of non-editorial content.

   This "Smart Tag" feature, however, materially adds editorial content
to the copyrighted material, during the publishing process of moving the
page from its storage location to the actual point of publication, the
recipient's screen.

   I think we can take that to court.  Moreover, I think that it *will*
be taken to court, by the advertisers and companies, to establish a bad
precedent on their selection of factual premises.  You will note,
surely, that in prosecutions for the unauthorized practice of law,
prosecutors never attack someone with any measure of competence?  It's
the same thing here, the advertisers will select a factual situation
that will incline the courts to the decision the advertisers desire, and
that will become the decisional law.

   In the event, I think this will prove merely another mechanism by
which the companies sell us a machine and then steal it for their own
use and purposes, largely through the ignorance of the buying public. 
What the computer literate may do is another topic entirely.

> Milly

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 7:21:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 17:18:41, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c5cb8491ac022989d4f@207.71.92.194>)


>Not some *already* nonexistent web site 'editorial integrity'.

Are you suggesting, Milly, that the integrity of the authorship of a 
website is up for grabs? That anyone can place any interpretation on the 
content, at the whim not just of the reader but any authority the reader 
chooses or allows to intrude and the author has no right to object to 
that?

I am not talking about copyright, I am talking about the purpose of the 
web site and the items, particularly the text, it contains which has the 
sole purpose of presenting to anyone who wishes to access it - and that 
is a choice open to anyone - my interests and activities and how they 
may be of interest to others. The integrity of that site and 
particularly its significance is something which I decide and no-one 
else - if a reader chooses to place a different interpretation on it 
than the one I intend it to convey then the reader is wrong. If the 
misunderstanding is because I have expressed it badly, that is my fault 
and I must accept responsibility. If the reader has chosen to take the 
words with a different meaning that is not something over which I have 
control, but it is the reader who is wrong. If the reader has chosen to 
be informed by another person or organisation whose glosses on my words 
have caused the reader to distort my intention then the reader is wrong 
- but the error is, at  least in part, caused by the inappropriate 
advice the  user chose to use.

It is my web site, its intended meaning is mine and no-one else's, 
including the reader. If I choose to prevent or discourage a reader from 
using a potentially misleading device to interpret my words, and the 
user doesn't like that then the reader clearly wasn't interested in 
seeing *my* website in the first place so I have not lost anything. The 
reader, however, might have done by not seeing what I wanted to present.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 7:43:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 19:49:51, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c8025fcb72939989d59@207.71.92.194>)


>If someone found a foolproof method of 'locking' web page content so 
>that it simply could not be altered locally

It is not change to the web site that is the issue but the addition of 
links which can give an impression to the reader that they are a 
legitimate extension of the author's intention which is not necessarily 
-  or even at all - the case.

If anyone can produce a foolproof method of ensuring that these things 
are not misinterpreted by those with less understanding then they might 
possibly be acceptable. In the meantime I do not want them applied to 
what I write.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 7:48:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 18:18:11, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c6ab29329d8fc989d52@207.71.92.194>)


> the means for embedding such links and references within their web 
>pages.

Precisely my point, the author has the choice of embedding links. The 
author is not dependent on the whim of the user or, more probably, the 
user's probably naive selection of adviser in which links are placed in 
his text.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 7:52:00 PM
Comments inline, some (more) snippage too:
--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"Pete" <pgp@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3B225D70.7D14C95A@breathemail.net...
: "Kevin A." wrote:
:
: Comments inline, some snippage:
:
[...snipped for space but to keep gist in...]
: > At the moment Smart Tags are
: > disabled by default, the user would 1) have to learn that they exist
and
: > 2) turn them on. I suspect that in many cases users will learn about
: > them from 3rd party sites that offer to provide "Cool New Features".
: > GoHip comes to mind.
:
: They may be disabled by default but how long before a Windows Update
: "accidentally" turns them on?

Or a third-party turns them on?  Do we know whether or not third-parties
will be able to do this?  Perhaps unrelated, but comet cursor comes to
mind WRT this technique.  Comet took advantage of browser settings
(delivered as a default?) to install and suddenly many folks had a new
"friend" surfing the net with them.  Could Smart Tags be enabled the
same way?  Could Smart Tags contain similiar types of tracking
mechanisms as Comet and cookies?  Exactly what is in those tags and/or
can be added to those tags to make them so *smart*?

: > They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and
then
: > only by highlighting specific words.
: >
: >  From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three separate
: > issues here.
: >
: > 1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on your
: > computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch of
: > other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was Message-ID:
: > <MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages
display
: > here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at all.
This
: > one adds something rather than subtracts it.
:
: It's fine to modify the appearance of a page but certainly not to
change
: the content or intent of the author.

But doesn't it matter *who* is making the choices of appearance?  The
author is entitled to format appearance to their likeing, the user is
equally entitled to view the page according to their prefrences.  How do
the third parties figure into this scheme though?  The authors must opt
out to block the third party, the user blocks the third party until they
opt in or are opt'ed in by some unknown event <see above>.  These third
parties have the *right* to deem the content that is "good" or "bad" for
the user, to deem pages as "underlinked" so they can add their links?
Besides many unanswered questions regarding security/privacy issues,
isn't it rather insulting that "Smart Tags" seem to be built and
marketed on the premise of "Dumb Users" who need to be led around the
net by a ring (of MS products) in their noses?

[... snipped other good points only to save space]
0
NoNameGiven
6/9/2001 8:04:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:

>Sure, just as Proxomitron, WebWasher etc can. Within your browser
>and if you choose to let them.

....which, IMHO, is precisely the point--YOU let them. With SmartTags, a 
third party (neither the site designer nor the user) is controlling the 
content, which is what I find objectionable.

And what links may we expect? First, MS propaganda, e.g. "Microsoft 
Anti-trust Trial" sends you to MS's Freedom-to-Innovate spin site; any 
mention of any of their competitors sends you to a purpose-built FUD 
page, etc, etc. Second, commercialism: $X p.a. buys a link. For 
example, Paris buys a link to the Lockdown2000 site whenever the word 
'Lockdown' is mentioned; Network Ice buys a link to BID for the word 
'Firewall', etc.

And if MS's history is anything to go by, first it's an option, later 
it becomes default behavior, and after a time it becomes unremovable.

Not for me, thanks.

-- 
White Rabbit
0
WhiteRabbit
6/9/2001 8:10:00 PM
In article <3B22773A.2845443A@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
> Milly wrote:
> >> Since MS can lead readers to places that editors/authors
> >> _never_ intended, editorial integrity is compromised.
> 
> > What's on the original site is unchanged.  What
> > I do with it within my PC is up to me.
> 
>    However, a cogent argument could be made that it is not *published*
> until it is requested by and delivered to a browser and displayed as
> written.  At least in my case, I fully intend that my pages be
> *delivered* and *displayed* just as they exist where I have them stored
> and made available for publication.
> 
>    You are just as surely going to argue that when your browser receives
> them they are, in fact, identical to the form in which they are stored,
> and that you then have a right to view them as you wish, making whatever
> alterations you wish, and therefore Microsoft is merely making available
> to you an additional feature enabling you to make alterations in
> particular ways.

Absent any agreement between us to the contrary, yes I am.

>    You analogize the use of Proxomitron, I believe, which has the
> capacity to delete and (I think) to add content at the user's
> direction.  eDexter, which I use for tracking ad frustration, merely
> directs an *unaltered* portion of the received page, to fetch a tracking
> ad, to another location -- my machine -- which then may serve a graphic
> of my choice instead.  It does not alter the original page, nor does it
> add to it.  

Hmm. The site authors' intended you to see their pages including 
graphics in the form of banner ads. You replace those graphics with ones 
of your own choice. Just as Hosts alone would replace them with whatever 
your browser uses to indicate a failed connection.

To argue that you've somehow done so without altering the page is pure 
sophistry.

> In both cases, there is mechanical deletion or replacement
> of non-editorial content.

You might choose to distinguish adverts as non-editorial content, but 
many site owners would differ. And many would prefer that you didn't see 
the editorial content at all, if you weren't prepared to display the 
adverts. 

But, absent any contrary agreement, it's in your power to make that 
distinction. Just as you might choose not to display any graphics or 
multimedia content or scripted navigational or aesthetic content - all 
by flicking a switch within your browser's settings. Good, I say.

>    This "Smart Tag" feature, however, materially adds editorial content
> to the copyrighted material, during the publishing process of moving the
> page from its storage location to the actual point of publication, the
> recipient's screen.

A squiggly underline. Anything more requires the users deliberate 
action, and pops up a separate 'floating' display. Just as right-
clicking on a web page pops up a 'floating' context menu. Different 
context menus, moreover, depending on the content of the web page under 
the mouse click. What's the difference?

Is a squiggly underline too much? Then consider Google (and others, no 
doubt). View a page within their cache, and the search terms you used to 
find it are highlighted in yellow. Use one version of the plugin toolbar 
and you also get a list of 'related sites' (at the top or bottom of the 
page, admittedly, rather than in a floating 'window'). What's the 
difference?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 8:16:00 PM
Salaam!

Ed Enstrom wrote:

> You can download a MSWord document with an overview of Smart
> Tags here:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/Partner/businessdevelopment/salesresources/whitepapers/smarttagstechnology.asp

   "With the introduction of Microsoft� Smart Tag technology, Microsoft
has added an important productivity tool to the business environment."

    Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

> Here is a MS white paper about Adding Smart Tags to Web Pages:
> http://www.microsoft.com/OfficeDev/XP_06_2001/odc_stwebpages.htm

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 8:22:00 PM
Milly,
The example you cite appears to be comparing apples and oranges though.
Steve is a web page author and that would be *his* choice to add such
links.  It would also be *my* choice as a visitor to view those links in
the context of the web page author's intent and biases.  On the other
hand, Smart Tag links are NOT under the control of the web page author,
but instead are deemed appropriate for the page by a ubiquitous
(omnipotent?) third party.  Also, based on my trust for the web page
author (in this case, Steve), I would trust those links to NOT track me.
The "authors" of the third party links are equally deserving of my
trust?  That, to me anyway, is a very BIG difference between Steve's
(web page author) links and unknown third party tags.
--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c2f92e5d23da4989d45@207.71.92.194...
: In article <9ft57s$31hs$1@news.grc.com>, Peta said...
[...]
:
: But what if Steve [1] developed a set of Smart Tags that linked to his
: site for certain key words or phrases? So GoHip or Radiate or BlackICE
: [;)] all triggered the availability of popup links warning about their
: dangers? Still don't like the thought of them?
:
: [1] Not that he would, though GNF will surely change how web pages are
: displayed within any web browser.
:
: --
: Milly
0
NoNameGiven
6/9/2001 8:42:00 PM
In article <0wVEagFJxnI7EAxg@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 17:18:41, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158c5cb8491ac022989d4f@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> 
> >Not some *already* nonexistent web site 'editorial integrity'.
> 
> Are you suggesting, Milly, that the integrity of the authorship of a 
> website is up for grabs? 

Only literally, John. Search engines do it; local 'content' proxies like 
Proxomitron or WebWasher do it; GRC NetFilter will do it.

> That anyone can place any interpretation on the 
> content, at the whim not just of the reader but any authority the reader 
> chooses or allows to intrude and the author has no right to object to 
> that?

Well, that too, though it isn't my point at all. That happens every time 
anyone reads a web page (or anything else).

> I am not talking about copyright, I am talking about the purpose of the 
> web site and the items, particularly the text, it contains which has the 
> sole purpose of presenting to anyone who wishes to access it - and that 
> is a choice open to anyone - my interests and activities and how they 
> may be of interest to others. 

Right. And nothing Smart Tags can do will change that one iota.

> The integrity of that site and 
> particularly its significance is something which I decide and no-one 
> else - if a reader chooses to place a different interpretation on it 
> than the one I intend it to convey then the reader is wrong. If the 
> misunderstanding is because I have expressed it badly, that is my fault 
> and I must accept responsibility. If the reader has chosen to take the 
> words with a different meaning that is not something over which I have 
> control, but it is the reader who is wrong. If the reader has chosen to 
> be informed by another person or organisation whose glosses on my words 
> have caused the reader to distort my intention then the reader is wrong 
> - but the error is, at  least in part, caused by the inappropriate 
> advice the  user chose to use.

I think you imbue Smart Tags with far too much influence. They're a 
fairly dumb (in the sense that a PC spellchecker or thesaurus is dumb) 
attempt to offer readers links to other sites which may or may not be 
related. If a reader is offered 6 links, 2 of which are to Proms sites 
you also listed; 2 to other relevant Proms sites (perhaps that you 
hadn't encountered); and 2 to US school functions - what is the problem? 
Do you have so little regard for your readers' acumen or 
discrimination that you feel you must control their choices of further 
reading too? Is the problem such that you should try to restrict the 
reader's choice to consider those links?

> It is my web site, its intended meaning is mine and no-one else's, 
> including the reader. If I choose to prevent or discourage a reader from 
> using a potentially misleading device to interpret my words, and the 
> user doesn't like that then the reader clearly wasn't interested in 
> seeing *my* website in the first place so I have not lost anything. 

You know very well that one does not necessarily follow the other. You 
may be an excellent author, of great interest to your readers, but not 
have the time or inclination to compile and present and keep up to date 
a list of relevant links. Or the reader's interests might branch off 
into areas where your's don't. Or the reader's vocabulary, or 
understanding of English, may be at a lower level than your own. Or any 
number of other potential uses for the technology. Smart Tags might help 
those readers in ways which conflict with your intentions not one jot.

> The reader, however, might have done by not seeing what I wanted to present.

Right, and the only way that a reader will not see what you wanted to 
present, is if you block them. Why try to do so? 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 8:49:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c803717088386989d5a@207.71.92.194...
> In article <9ftnef$mem$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> >
> > Todd <scorpio@shadowstain.airforce.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.158c25d4c5ef1e8d989d26@207.71.92.194...
> > > In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly
> > saying:
> > > >
> > > > Other than arguing about arguing, what is your point? I really
don't
> > see  it.
> > > >
> > > > What would you like to see happen about Smart Tags?
> > >
> > > I think page designers should have to include code if they *want*
> > > their page to be rendered with smart tags
> >
> > That's a main part of the insidiousness-- page designers must
opt-out,
> > rather than in,
> > and what happens WRT existent pages-- can MS move in on them ?
>
> Sure, just as Proxomitron, WebWasher etc can. Within your browser and
if
> you choose to let them.

Which evades the point that most users will not do so, and if MS can and
will, move in on
pre-existing pages, they can easily suvert the desogner's editorial
intent-- UNLESS,
the page is re-coded to not accept the 'SmartTags', if I understand this
correctly.
>
> --
> Milly
0
d
6/9/2001 8:55:00 PM
In article <9ftvsa$106v$1@news.grc.com>, White Rabbit said...
> Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
> 
> >Sure, just as Proxomitron, WebWasher etc can. Within your browser
> >and if you choose to let them.
> 
> ...which, IMHO, is precisely the point--YOU let them. With SmartTags, a 
> third party (neither the site designer nor the user) is controlling the 
> content, which is what I find objectionable.

No, we control them. We control whether they are on or off, and whose 
Smart Tags we use, if any.
 
> And what links may we expect? First, MS propaganda, e.g. "Microsoft 
> Anti-trust Trial" sends you to MS's Freedom-to-Innovate spin site; any 
> mention of any of their competitors sends you to a purpose-built FUD 
> page, etc, etc. Second, commercialism: $X p.a. buys a link. For 
> example, Paris buys a link to the Lockdown2000 site whenever the word 
> 'Lockdown' is mentioned; Network Ice buys a link to BID for the word 
> 'Firewall', etc.

All good arguments for not using MS's Smart Tags, nor those from firms 
you don't like or trust. That's what I'll be doing too. But they're not 
sound arguments for blocking the technology itself.
 
> And if MS's history is anything to go by, first it's an option, later 
> it becomes default behavior, and after a time it becomes unremovable.
> 
> Not for me, thanks.

Nor for me, if that happens. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 8:59:00 PM
In article <VwMMKGHt5nI7EA18@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 18:18:11, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158c6ab29329d8fc989d52@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> 
> > the means for embedding such links and references within their web 
> >pages.
> 
> Precisely my point, the author has the choice of embedding links. The 
> author is not dependent on the whim of the user or, more probably, the 
> user's probably naive selection of adviser in which links are placed in 
> his text.

Smart Tags don't override the author's own embedded links, and nor do 
they place links in his text. They offer the user, on request, a popup 
floating window of links. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 9:02:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:49:15, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c9c222d60f9e7989d5d@207.71.92.194>)


>Right, and the only way that a reader will not see what you wanted to 
>present, is if you block them. Why try to do so?

I am not intending to block the reader. I am saying that I will provide 
the links I think are relevant to what I am trying to say. If the reader 
wants "all the relevant links" then that is up to the user to find, not 
me. If the user doesn't want to read my site if I place such a 
restriction (assuming that Microsoft allow me to place such a 
restriction on the use of MY site which I have written for users to read 
what I want to say) then they don't have to read it. However, if they 
want to read it with the benefit of other people's views of what I 
should have included as cross-references and pointers then they do not 
do it with my approval and I will do my damnedest to stop them doing so. 
I produce my web site, it may have its faults, it may have the wrong 
links or not  have links other people think it should have. It does not 
have links because someone else who has played no  part in the design of 
the site, plays no part in  the organisation which it represents and has 
no interest in either has decided are relevant to the readers of my 
site.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 9:05:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:59:09, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c9e75a432ef7f989d5e@207.71.92.194>)


>All good arguments for not using MS's Smart Tags, nor those from firms 
>you don't like or trust. That's what I'll be doing too. But they're not 
>sound arguments for blocking the technology itself.

But do I as author get to say whose links and other features are added 
at the whim of the user? No, not according to what you say.

It may be appropriate technology for some sites. Not mine. If I can 
block it, I will.

If not, I may have to consider whether the web is a suitable medium for 
the publicity I use it for at present.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 9:08:00 PM
Salaam!

White Rabbit wrote:

> And if MS's history is anything to go by, first it's an option,
> later it becomes default behavior, and after a time it becomes
> unremovable.

   In a nutshell!

> Not for me, thanks.

   Or me, no thanks.

> White Rabbit

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/9/2001 9:08:00 PM
In article <9fu1ls$12i4$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
> Milly,
> The example you cite appears to be comparing apples and oranges though.

I fear you missed my point. Steve's (fictitious, I have NO doubt) ST's 
would be downloadable as a plugin and would offer such links *wherever* 
you browsed. 

> Steve is a web page author and that would be *his* choice to add such
> links.  

They'd be useful because of his expertise and trustworthiness as a 
security/privacy advocate, not as a web page author. 

> [...]
> 
> "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158c2f92e5d23da4989d45@207.71.92.194...
> : In article <9ft57s$31hs$1@news.grc.com>, Peta said...
> : But what if Steve [1] developed a set of Smart Tags that linked to his
> : site for certain key words or phrases? So GoHip or Radiate or BlackICE
> : [;)] all triggered the availability of popup links warning about their
> : dangers? Still don't like the thought of them?
> :
> : [1] Not that he would, though GNF will surely change how web pages are
> : displayed within any web browser.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 9:13:00 PM
abujamal <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B226D93.387A0402@earthlink.net...
> Salaam!
>
> "d.max" wrote:
>
> > abujamal wrote ...
> >> Micro$oft:  operating systems for Stepford Wives.
>
> > Aaargh. Do you have a copy of that film, abujamal? I remember
> > the zombied android gal pushing 'her' shopping-cart in the
> > market -- were there cans of Spam in the wagon?
>
>    Don't need a copy of the film -- we have a local high school
turning out the real thing.

I hear you on that-- we've got 'em here in nooyawk, beaucoup.

Overheard on subway:
"Theresa-- I heard yoor fren Joey got kilt- dat's so sad"
"Not really-- I wuzn't datin him no more-- only was sad I heard aboud
it"

Read in newsgroup recently:

"It was sad that it happened and that it was reported."

Stepfordizing seems to be an enduring trend.
>
> > -d.max
>
> was-salaam,
> abujamal
0
d
6/9/2001 9:17:00 PM
....comments inline.....
NoNameGiven <pugnacious_1@hotmail.INVALID> wrote in message
news:9ftvdo$vrn$1@news.grc.com...
> Comments inline, some (more) snippage too:
> --  NNG
> ***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
> Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg
> "Pete" <pgp@breathemail.net> wrote in message
> news:3B225D70.7D14C95A@breathemail.net...
> : "Kevin A." wrote:
> : Comments inline, some snippage:

> [...snipped for space but to keep gist in...]
> : > At the moment Smart Tags are disabled by default, the user would
1) have to learn that they exist and 2) turn them on. I suspect that in
many cases users will learn about them from 3rd party sites that offer
to provide "Cool New Features". GoHip comes to mind.
> :
> : They may be disabled by default but how long before a Windows Update
> : "accidentally" turns them on?
>
> Or a third-party turns them on?  Do we know whether or not
third-parties
> will be able to do this?  Perhaps unrelated, but comet cursor comes to
> mind WRT this technique.  Comet took advantage of browser settings
> (delivered as a default?) to install and suddenly many folks had a new
> "friend" surfing the net with them.  Could Smart Tags be enabled the
> same way?  Could Smart Tags contain similiar types of tracking
> mechanisms as Comet and cookies?  Exactly what is in those tags and/or
> can be added to those tags to make them so *smart*?

~Will the majority of users have a clue that the tags may or may not be
directed by
the author of a document, the web host, MS, or some other invader?
>
> : > They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and
> then only by highlighting specific words.

~My example, which Milly has persevered in ignoring, of linking keywords
contra to
authorial intent, goes to much more than DISPLAY-- these are not just
highlights, they
are LINKS, and are far more content-ful than footnotes added to text can
ever be.
Hey-- If I write " They are experts**" and the asterisks refer to a
footnote _inserted_ that says:
"**If such as they are could ever be-LOL" --why then, my copyright has
just been infringed.

Just because the commentary is off-page, on another linked page doesn't
change a damn thing !!
In fact-- it is MUCH worse if not sanctioned by the author, because not
only can it lead off to
a whole different ball game than was intended, but the original page is
now something that must
be clicked back to-- what if the linked page pops up with a whole
attention-grabbing display?
Okay, if the author/publisher wishes *just* this-- otherwise it is TOTAL
infringement !
> : >
> : >  From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three
separate
> : > issues here.
> : >
> : > 1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on
your
> : > computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch
of
> : > other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was
Message-ID:
> : > <MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages
> display here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at
all.
> This one adds something rather than subtracts it.
> :
> : It's fine to modify the appearance of a page but certainly not to
> change the content or intent of the author.
>
> But doesn't it matter *who* is making the choices of appearance?

Of course it does. But if the end-user decides, then as long as they
don't re-distribute,
it is no more infringement than if I buy a newspaper (or find one) and
trim out an article or highlight lines in it. Any others are either
doing the will of the author (or his/her agents)-- or NOT. If the
latter-- they are infringing.

> The author is entitled to format appearance to their liking, the user
is
> equally entitled to view the page according to their prefrences.  How
do
> the third parties figure into this scheme though?  The authors must
opt
> out to block the third party, the user blocks the third party until
they
> opt in or are opt'ed in by some unknown event <see above>.  These
third
> parties have the *right* to deem the content that is "good" or "bad"
for
> the user, to deem pages as "underlinked" so they can add their links?

Not without the express permission of the page's author/publisher.

> Besides many unanswered questions regarding security/privacy issues,
> isn't it rather insulting that "Smart Tags" seem to be built and
> marketed on the premise of "Dumb Users" who need to be led around the
> net by a ring (of MS products) in their noses?

True !
>
> [... snipped other good points only to save space]
0
d
6/9/2001 9:49:00 PM
In article <6N6XlnN2+oI7EAi$@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:49:15, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158c9c222d60f9e7989d5d@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> 
> >Right, and the only way that a reader will not see what you wanted to 
> >present, is if you block them. Why try to do so?
> 
> I am not intending to block the reader. 

Ah, I misunderstood : "If my readers have interpretations or addenda put 
onto my web site by others, even if chosen by the users, with no input 
from me about its relevance to what I or, presumably the readers who 
have chosen to read what I have provided for them, then I do not want my 
web site visible."

> I am saying that I will provide 
> the links I think are relevant to what I am trying to say. If the reader 
> wants "all the relevant links" then that is up to the user to find, not 
> me. If the user doesn't want to read my site if I place such a 
> restriction (assuming that Microsoft allow me to place such a 
> restriction on the use of MY site which I have written for users to read 
> what I want to say) then they don't have to read it. However, if they 
> want to read it with the benefit of other people's views of what I 
> should have included as cross-references and pointers then they do not 
> do it with my approval and I will do my damnedest to stop them doing so. 

Even if doing so also disables Smart Tags which aid comprehension for 
those with a lesser command of English, or a lesser vocabulary, or even 
- easily conceivably - impairment or disabilities in those areas?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 9:53:00 PM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 22:53:09, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158caab138e86ed989d61@207.71.92.194>)


>Ah, I misunderstood : "If my readers have interpretations or addenda 
>put onto my web site by others, even if chosen by the users, with no 
>input from me about its relevance to what I or, presumably the readers 
>who have chosen to read what I have provided for them, then I do not 
>want my web site visible."

That is one way of putting it, but toning down the slightly pejorative 
way in which you have expressed it, yes. My site is not commercial, it 
has no commercial purpose other  than to provide a means of 
communication between the members of the Prommers' Orchestra & Chorus 
and its actual and potential audience (we are not a commercial 
organisation, nobody is paid to perform and, once we have covered 
expenses, all proceeds from our concerts are given to charity).

Using the web site has an advantage in that we can achieve a degree of 
publicity which would not be available otherwise and it is also a 
convenient place to direct the attention of enquirers, either those we 
meet face to face or those who read the press reports on us or otherwise 
hear about us indirectly.

It is a specific group which could given the opportunity, be made a 
figure of fun - an amateur orchestra consisting of promenaders is enough 
to start a lot of people off, given the chance. My readers may well put 
that sort of connotation on the site - usually because of prejudice. I 
don't want them led in that  direction by others. So yes, if there is a 
chance that the site will be misused by others (inadvertently or 
deliberately) to give a contrary effect to that for which it exists, 
yes  it will not be available and we will have to use other, less 
convenient and more expensive means of achieving its essential main 
purpose.

Note that the intention declared by Microsoft was commercial. The real 
import of that could be argued, but in a specific, non-commercial 
context, this modification to the Internet, embarked upon  with no 
consultation and no  consideration to general standards and impact it 
has on others will be disastrous. If we can't protect the integrity of 
our web site and the organisation it represent, we will not be able to 
use a web site as a means of representation.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/9/2001 10:22:00 PM
Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
news:BtVTlsOaAnI7EAWF@grc.com.ngs...
> In message <9ftjn9$i08$1@news.grc.com>,
d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> >news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
> []
> >>
> >> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
> []
> >It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave her a
> >heads up, so that she could then snip out my arguments and ignore
them,
> >while repeating her claims.
> >What a pleasure. Not !
>
> It was just my usual TP dig... :)

I know, I know-- she probably won't take it with too much gravity.
;~)

-d.max>
> --
> Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "
0
d
6/9/2001 10:59:00 PM
In article <9fu9n1$1bt5$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> 
> Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> news:BtVTlsOaAnI7EAWF@grc.com.ngs...
> > In message <9ftjn9$i08$1@news.grc.com>,
> d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> writes
> > >
> > >Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> > >news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
> > []
> > >>
> > >> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
> > []
> > >It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave her a
> > >heads up, so that she could then snip out my arguments and ignore
> them,
> > >while repeating her claims.
> > >What a pleasure. Not !
> >
> > It was just my usual TP dig... :)
> 
> I know, I know-- she probably won't take it with too much gravity.
> ;~)

I'll dwell on it - I wouldn't want to form an express outlook on the 
matter.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 11:27:00 PM
In article <U4VMY8QJGqI7EAFy@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 22:53:09, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158caab138e86ed989d61@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> >Ah, I misunderstood : "If my readers have interpretations or addenda 
> >put onto my web site by others, even if chosen by the users, with no 
> >input from me about its relevance to what I or, presumably the readers 
> >who have chosen to read what I have provided for them, then I do not 
> >want my web site visible."
> 
> That is one way of putting it, but toning down the slightly pejorative 
> way in which you have expressed it, yes. 

No pejoration was intended, John. You appeared to say the opposite in 
another post, and have now done so again. It was, I hope not 
unreasonably, open to misunderstanding.

> It is a specific group which could given the opportunity, be made a 
> figure of fun - an amateur orchestra consisting of promenaders is enough 
> to start a lot of people off, given the chance. My readers may well put 
> that sort of connotation on the site - usually because of prejudice. I 
> don't want them led in that  direction by others. So yes, if there is a 
> chance that the site will be misused by others (inadvertently or 
> deliberately) to give a contrary effect to that for which it exists, 
> yes  it will not be available and we will have to use other, less 
> convenient and more expensive means of achieving its essential main 
> purpose.

I respect and fully support your entitlement to put as much or as little 
on your web sites as you wish, for whatever reasons you wish. But I am 
at a loss to understand how the impending fact of Smart Tags leads you 
such a conclusion. Who on earth do you imagine would be in a position to 
design and distribute Smart Tags which poke fun, inadvertently or  
deliberately, at amateur orchestras in general, let alone promenaders in 
particular?

Withdrawing the site seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite 
your face. A drastic solution to a problem which, for your site in 
particular, barely exists.
 
> Note that the intention declared by Microsoft was commercial. The real 
> import of that could be argued, but in a specific, non-commercial 
> context, this modification to the Internet, embarked upon  with no 
> consultation and no  consideration to general standards and impact it 
> has on others will be disastrous. 

I'm at a loss to imagine that outcome too, or anything approaching it.

> If we can't protect the integrity of 
> our web site and the organisation it represent, we will not be able to 
> use a web site as a means of representation.

Every web site is susceptible to change in the hands of the local 
reader. Always has been. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/9/2001 11:27:00 PM
I like the idea of Smart Tags.  It would give me more functionality when
browsing the web.

Being able to send attachments in e-mail was a powerful enhancement, but it
is subject to abuse.  Is this potential for abuse sufficient reason to
disallow my being able to receive e-mail with attachments?  Not in my book.

Smart Tags can also be a powerful enhancement, and they will also be subject
to abuse.  That is the nature of the Internet.

(The following is based on my understanding of Smart Tag functionality as
described on Microsoft's support site):

Suppose my stockbroker makes available on its web site a browser plug-in
that can recognize stock symbols.  Whenever it recognized a symbol, it would
put the squiggly line under it.  When I put the cursor over it, I would get
a pop-up box asking if I wanted to go to my stockbroker's site to see more
detail on the company.  This would happen even when the web page's author
did not put a link on the stock symbol.  It would probably even happen when
I was reading a newsgroup posting through the web browser.  I would love to
have a convenience like this.

If I ever switch to Windows XP and Office XP, I would probably turn on Smart
Tags functionality, although I would try to disable Microsoft's plug-in.  I
already got rid of the links in IE that wanted to take me to MSN.

To me, the problem is not with maintaining the web page as the author
intended it to be seen (I never see the cutesy animations), but with web
sites downloading and installing Smart Tag plug-ins without the user's full
understanding of what they will do (similar to what RealAudio did).

My 2 cents.

"abujamal" <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B228570.BE48AAF7@earthlink.net...
> Salaam!
>
> Ed Enstrom wrote:
>
> > You can download a MSWord document with an overview of Smart
> > Tags here:
> >
>
http://www.microsoft.com/Partner/businessdevelopment/salesresources/whitepap
ers/smarttagstechnology.asp
>
>    "With the introduction of Microsoft� Smart Tag technology, Microsoft
> has added an important productivity tool to the business environment."
>
>     Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
>
> > Here is a MS white paper about Adding Smart Tags to Web Pages:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/OfficeDev/XP_06_2001/odc_stwebpages.htm
>
> was-salaam,
> abujamal
> --
> PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
>            and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
> PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
> news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
Ed
6/10/2001 12:01:00 AM
I may have missed this somewhere along the line (if so, my apologies), but...

What third parties, beside MS, will be permitted smart tag deployments?  Is this intended to
become a new service industry of sorts?  

If so, as long as the user has choice, and it is simple enough for the less advanced user to
implement (or disable), this might actually be kind of cool.  

Or (and this was my initial impression) are smart tag deployments exlusive to the whim of MS?

If so, my systems won't be seeing them.

Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <VwMMKGHt5nI7EA18@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood
> said...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 18:18:11, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> > (Reference: <MPG.158c6ab29329d8fc989d52@207.71.92.194>)
> >
> >
> > > the means for embedding such links and references within their web
> > >pages.
> >
> > Precisely my point, the author has the choice of embedding links. The
> > author is not dependent on the whim of the user or, more probably, the
> > user's probably naive selection of adviser in which links are placed in
> > his text.
> 
> Smart Tags don't override the author's own embedded links, and nor do
> they place links in his text. They offer the user, on request, a popup
> floating window of links.
> 
> --
> Milly
0
zulu
6/10/2001 12:16:00 AM
In article <MPG.158c9f48a7cbe1df989d5f@207.71.92.194>, no_sp@m.gov 
says...
> In article <VwMMKGHt5nI7EA18@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
> said...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 18:18:11, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> > (Reference: <MPG.158c6ab29329d8fc989d52@207.71.92.194>)
> > 
> > 
> > > the means for embedding such links and references within their web 
> > >pages.
> > 
> > Precisely my point, the author has the choice of embedding links. The 
> > author is not dependent on the whim of the user or, more probably, the 
> > user's probably naive selection of adviser in which links are placed in 
> > his text.
> 
> Smart Tags don't override the author's own embedded links, and nor do 
> they place links in his text. They offer the user, on request, a popup 
> floating window of links. 
> 
> 

I think the analogy with Word's red squiggly-underlined words for 
spell-check exceptions, and green squiggly-underlined words for 
grammar-check exceptions, is very apt.  Heck, it's probably the 
same technology, but with an API so that others besides MS can use it.

Who confuses a green-squiggly-underlined word in a Word document with 
the document's author's editorial opinion about proper grammar or 
usage?  The user either right-clicks if he/she is interested in MS's 
opinion of the grammar, or turns off grammar-check in his/her own copy 
of Word, or simply ignores the squiggle.

With an API and a plug-in, the user could turn off grammar-check, and 
turn on a computer dictionary plug-in instead, and green squiggly-
underlines could mean computer terms that are defined in the 
dictionary, instead of phrases that MS thinks have poor grammar.

Yes, I know this topic is about web sites, not Word documents, but 
squiggly-underlines don't currently *have* a standard meaning on web 
pages.  They have a de facto standard meaning in word processing 
documents, within the MS-centric world so many of us inhabit.  That 
meaning involves accessibility via right-click of a popup menu of 
actions based on some third party's interpretation of the underlined 
item.

Anyway, I'm with Milly.  Huge potential for abuse, but cool 
technology.  And better with an API than monopolized by MS for its own 
use.

Actually, my real concern with it involves MS's notorious tendency to 
include kitchen-sink executable functionality in its web features, so 
that malicious web sites are able to execute arbitrary commands (like 
format c:) through security holes in every new feature that comes out.  
I think the editorial integrity argument is a red herring, for the 
reasons Milly has stated.

Rebeccah
0
Rebeccah
6/10/2001 12:23:00 AM
In article <9fuddu$1hbd$1@news.grc.com>, eenstrom@ucs.net says...

> To me, the problem is not with maintaining the web page as the author
> intended it to be seen (I never see the cutesy animations), but with web
> sites downloading and installing Smart Tag plug-ins without the user's full
> understanding of what they will do (similar to what RealAudio did).

Bingo.  See my response higher up in this thread.

Rebeccah
0
Rebeccah
6/10/2001 12:26:00 AM
Milly - Is there any intent on the part of MS to allow other Smart Tage developers into the
mix?  From the initial article, that doesn't seem to be the case.  And if this is a MS/.Net
privelege only, it has the ring on controlled media, and in a fashion, censorship.

Milly wrote:
> 
> Nothing will change. Smart Tags are an arrangement between browser users
> and MS (or browser users and other Smart Tag developers), not browser
> users and site owners.
0
zulu
6/10/2001 12:27:00 AM
In article <MPG.158cc131fdfcbfae989d62@207.71.92.194>, no_sp@m.gov 
says...
> In article <9fu9n1$1bt5$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > 
> > Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> > news:BtVTlsOaAnI7EAWF@grc.com.ngs...
> > > In message <9ftjn9$i08$1@news.grc.com>,
> > d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> writes
> > > >
> > > >Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> > > >news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
> > > []
> > > >>
> > > >> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
> > > []
> > > >It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave her a
> > > >heads up, so that she could then snip out my arguments and ignore
> > them,
> > > >while repeating her claims.
> > > >What a pleasure. Not !
> > >
> > > It was just my usual TP dig... :)
> > 
> > I know, I know-- she probably won't take it with too much gravity.
> > ;~)
> 
> I'll dwell on it - I wouldn't want to form an express outlook on the 
> matter.
> 
> 

Ouch.  If you want to get anywhere with these jokes, you'll need a 
really good agent.

Rebeccah
0
Rebeccah
6/10/2001 12:29:00 AM
Excellent explanation Kevin.  Many thanks.  In this context, and provided we are armed with the
proper protections, this might actually be very cool.  Let's just hope MS doesn't leave a whole
slew of security holes in it (nah).  :-)

"Kevin A." wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Smart Tags are a browser add in. In this case built into the browser by
> MS, but apparently able to also be provided by others once MS releases
> the specs. They will highlight words that meet the (Smart Tag)
> developers criteria, and offer a right click choice of what they presume
> are related links for you to go to. At the moment Smart Tags are
> disabled by default, the user would 1) have to learn that they exist and
> 2) turn them on. I suspect that in many cases users will learn about
> them from 3rd party sites that offer to provide "Cool New Features".
> GoHip comes to mind.
> 
> They only modify the DISPLAY of the web page on your monitor, and then
> only by highlighting specific words.
> 
>  From reading all the posts, there seem to really be three separate
> issues here.
> 
> 1) Is it OK to modify the display of a page when you view it on your
> computer? I already do that by removing ads, scripts and a bunch of
> other stuff (see very good post by Milly, I think it was Message-ID:
> <MPG.158c1b69c49a8fb1989d40@207.71.92.194>) so very few pages display
> here the way the author intended anyway. Some don't display at all. This
> one adds something rather than subtracts it.
> 
> 2) Is it OK for a 3rd party (MS or other Smart Tag developers) to decide
> what sites I'm directed to when looking at someone else's page? Someone
> besides myself decides that for me at every page I go to already. It may
> be the designer of the page, the advertisers or another party. I ignore
> most of them already. Admittedly, in this case the control is being
> removed from the designer, but that happens the minute a page goes up on
> the web.
> 
> 3) Should it require web page designers to add a meta tag to DISABLE
> Smart Tags? I'd prefer that pages require a meta tag that turns ON Smart
> Tags if they want. Probably not going to happen though.
> 
> Since it's off by default, the impact may be less obvious than it is
> with the MS default Search Engine that gives you hits based on how much
> that site paid them rather than the true relevance to your query.
> 
> The potential for abuse is huge, there's also the possibility that
> someone like AdAware may write a Smart Tag plugin that may be quite
> handy.
> 
> Another case where we'll have to try to educate our friends and
> associates.
> 
> --
> Kevin A.
0
zulu
6/10/2001 12:35:00 AM
Milly wrote in message ...
>
>
>They'd be useful because of his expertise and trustworthiness as a
>security/privacy advocate, not as a web page author.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> "Milly"

It is somewhat of a stretch, but it could be said easily that every web page
author has expertise and trustworthiness until proven to the contrary.
Applying that logic, every web page author would have to be considered an
advocate of the material on the author's page.

It then follows that the author is the only one qualified to provide
additional references and sources to be used in support of the authored
page.   The reader may; however, venture out to wherever for additional
information.  We call that research and perform it without the consent,
approval or knowledge of the author.

That research should not be governed or directed by an opponent of the
page's  material.  Considering the moral and political sensitivity of so
many of our current day topics, these tags may just be the start of verbal
fire storms the likes of which have not been seen to date.

Dean Craft
0
Dean
6/10/2001 12:44:00 AM
Olivier Boursin wrote:
> 
> > [snip snip]
> > In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit
> > anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission
> > [snip snip]
> 
> Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and simple
> copyright violation to me...
> 
> --
> Olivier Boursin, Bruxelles ================================
> Config: PIII 800 MHz, 64 MbRAM, Win98 SE, Mandrake 8.0
>         Opera 5.11/904, Forte Agent 1.8, Pegasus Mail 3.12c
> ===========================================================

I have come to the point where I cannot understand the reluctance
of people here to give up on M$ and switch to their OS of choice,
in my case Linux.  I cannot say that it has been an easy trip
making the conversion, but just as I learned how to do things,
some unrivalled, on my C64, it's coming slowly.  It's rather like
a cold shower or a cold swim but it's worth getting used to.

Bluebeard.
0
Bluebeard
6/10/2001 1:37:00 AM
Hehe, it's called pig-headedness in some parts of the world.

But see when everyone deserts Windows and just I am left, the Hackers will
leave me alone out of sheer admiration (or won't be bothered) and I will be
the only one with no viruses, trojans, backdoors, spyware, and what was the
other thing? Oh yes functionality.

I am now going to download a '64 emulator and play "Solo Flight" and maybe
"Beachhead" and remember the good old days...

Charlie
0
Charlie
6/10/2001 1:53:00 AM
In article <MPG.158c5f59dfd648c098998e@news.grc.com> "Rebeccah H.
Prastein" wrote:
> 
> Ouch.  If you want to get anywhere with these jokes, you'll need a
> really good agent.
> 
LOL!  Nice one, Rebeccah!  Thanks for the laugh.
-- 
Alan
Energy has an objective, independent physical existence and exists 
in the absence of matter, but matter is entirely dependent upon energy 
and cannot exist in the absence of energy.  - A.T. Williams
0
Hermital
6/10/2001 1:58:00 AM
"d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fu5kq$16se$1@news.grc.com...
> ...comments inline.....
[...]
> Of course it does. But if the end-user decides, then as long as they
> don't re-distribute,
> it is no more infringement than if I buy a newspaper (or find one) and
> trim out an article or highlight lines in it. Any others are either
> doing the will of the author (or his/her agents)-- or NOT. If the
> latter-- they are infringing.

The equivalent comparison here, would be placing MS as the newspaper
delivery-boy. There WOULD be a problem if your delivery boy went through his
entire message run and modified all of the papers he was dropping off.

[...]

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 2:37:00 AM
X-No-archive: yes 
 
 On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:16:53 +0100, Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:

<snip>

This is a repost to get on the right thread; sorry.

Why not just code your web site to download only an error message if
it detects IE6 or whatever it is that can use smart tags?

Put up a custom error message and tell them what browsers you will
allow your site to be seen with.

You could place this in your META NAME="keywords" CONTENT= "This site
cannot be viewed with any software that uses Smart Tags because yadda
yadda yadda" where yadda yadda yadda is your reason for not letting
Smart Tags on your site.  

Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/10/2001 2:47:00 AM
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/

You'all get your SmartTags SDK here.
You will need IE 5+ and Office XP

I used
Smart Tags + sdk (English) at microsoft.com > google advanced search >


<zulu@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:3B22BC42.6BF0ECD9@ma.ultranet.com...
> I may have missed this somewhere along the line (if so, my apologies),
but...
>
> What third parties, beside MS, will be permitted smart tag deployments?
0
Kind
6/10/2001 2:51:00 AM
Rebeccah H. Prastein <rprastein@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c5f59dfd648c098998e@news.grc.com...
> In article <MPG.158cc131fdfcbfae989d62@207.71.92.194>, no_sp@m.gov
> says...> In article <9fu9n1$1bt5$1@news.grc.com>, d.max said...
> > > Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> > > news:BtVTlsOaAnI7EAWF@grc.com.ngs...
> > > > In message <9ftjn9$i08$1@news.grc.com>,
> > > d.max <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> writes
> > > > >Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> > > > >news:w9DfBBCD6kI7EAhN@grc.com.ngs...
> > > > []
> > > > >> They appear here just fine, Milly... :)>
> > > > []
> > > > >It's okay, Jim. I reposted in Uuencode, as she requested, gave
her a
> > > > >heads up, so that she could then snip out my arguments and
ignore
> > > them, while repeating her claims.
> > > > >What a pleasure. Not !
> > > >
> > > > It was just my usual TP dig... :)
> > >
> > > I know, I know-- she probably won't take it with too much gravity.
> > > ;~)
> >
> > I'll dwell on it - I wouldn't want to form an express outlook on the
matter.
>
> Ouch.  If you want to get anywhere with these jokes, you'll need a
really good agent.
> Rebeccah

In a spirit of benevolence, I will wait my turn.
ZA customer service may have first try at promotion.

:~)

-evil d.max
:::...who thinks *you're* cool, however...:::
0
d
6/10/2001 3:50:00 AM
X-No-archive: yes 
 

>http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/
>
>You'all get your SmartTags SDK here.

Ahh..... XML; now we have something to work with.

Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/10/2001 3:51:00 AM
Sam Schinke <arishae.NO@SPAM.icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fum7p$1rpc$1@news.grc.com...
> "d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fu5kq$16se$1@news.grc.com...
> > ...comments inline.....
> [...]
> > Of course it does. But if the end-user decides, then as long as they
> > don't re-distribute,
> > it is no more infringement than if I buy a newspaper (or find one)
and
> > trim out an article or highlight lines in it. Any others are either
> > doing the will of the author (or his/her agents)-- or NOT. If the
> > latter-- they are infringing.
>
> The equivalent comparison here, would be placing MS as the newspaper
> delivery-boy. There WOULD be a problem if your delivery boy went
through his
> entire message run and modified all of the papers he was dropping off.

BINGO !!

Sure, the web page publisher can hire people to write code for all of
the page link
highlights that MS considers "Smart"-- but hey-- this is mucho bucks of
expense,
and guess who's got the most money?
Especially since MS doesn't have to write the code on a per-page
basis......
>
> [...]
>
> Regards,
> Sam
0
d
6/10/2001 3:56:00 AM
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c39777e5d2263989d48@207.71.92.194...
> In article <ykxFfZCYJiI7EAh+@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood
> said...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 13:20:47, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> > (Reference: <MPG.158c24f886d77327989d43@207.71.92.194>)
> >
> > >Now, why do want to stop me from choosing to have a bunch of pop up
> > >links triggered by a word or phrase that happens to appear on one of
> > >your pages?
> >
> > Possibly my intention in the use of a particular word or phrase might
> > not be the same as that of the designer of the links added to my site.
>
> Very possibly indeed
>
> > [..sniped good examples..]
> >
> > Were you to choose the references which are put on my pages I could not
> > and would not object, but you are reading what I have chosen to put on
> > my web site, adorned with references which neither of us have chosen and
> > which will probably bear little if any connection with the content as I
> > intended it to be understood (and any such connection would be purely
> > coincidental).
>
> You wouldn't object if choose the references myself, but would if I
> employ a third party to do it for me? I might have even less knowledge
> about your interests than that third party. Or that third party might be
> an online dictionary or thesaurus. Or a database of simple synonyms
> for all words of three or more syllables. Or even a world-class, Smart
> Tag enabled, musical database. It seems an odd distinction.
>
> > Of course I want to prevent you being mislead by an
> > unknown third party when you read what I want.
>
> A laudable desire. Does it justify blocking my choice of *all* such
> third parties, or my right to see what is available?

I'd say there is a distinction that needs to be made.

If you were using a device of some sort that performed this service, for the
PURPOSE of performing that service, then I'd say you should feel free to
make use of whatever services you should come across.

Where I encounter a problem is if you were to be using a device for ANOTHER
purpose (in this case, a browser, whose purpose is one thing: fetching and
displaying html pages) and it performed this peripheral, additional,
service.

If you are using MS's brower and smart-tags with the specific purpose of
getting MS's (and their "sponsor's") views on various keywords in your
chosen reading-text, then all the power to you. But if you are using MS's
browser (and peripheral smart-tags) for the purpose of just reading pages, I
don't think there is any justification for MS injecting their own views.
This is where "informed" users and the masses will diverge. Informed users
will only enable or use the tools that they have a specific use for. The
masses will use whatever is simplest.

Of course, it is starting to look like it will be customizable, so I say all
in all, it could be a good thing. For John, music-lovers the world over
could put together a database of terms and pages to link to them. For the
rest of us at GRC, we could put together a different database of terms and
pages to link to them. MS could have their database of terms and links as
well. (though this model could lead to some fairly serious privacy concerns,
no?)

A neat trick would be being able to instruct the browser (or plugin) what
database to use, don't you think? So a music site could have a meta-tag
saying something like "this page is about music, so link music terms, and
not terms that happen to be in another database". I believe there are tags
similar in conception already in existence (directives to search engines,
perhaps?)

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 4:57:00 AM
Salaam!

Kind Sir wrote:

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/
> You'all get your SmartTags SDK here.
> You will need IE 5+ and Office XP

   Well, ...

   "Microsoft Office XP Smart Tag SDK 1.1  
Smart Tags is a new feature introduced with Microsoft�
Office XP that intelligently links content in Office-based
documents with related content hosted on servers, on
Web sites, and in files. Smart Tags are similar to
hyperlinks, but they extend the hyperlink by providing for
automatic Smart Tag recognition. The Smart Tag
infrastructure also provides for a wider range of user
actions by allowing the registration of COM-based action
handlers.

The Microsoft Office XP Smart Tag SDK 1.1 contains a
full set of documentation and code samples to help you
create great Smart Tag actions and recognizers.
Specifically, the SDK includes a full API Reference
for ISmartTagAction and ISmartTagRecognizer
interfaces, a discussion about building Smart Tags without
writing code, project ideas, and a deployment
walkthrough. 

The SDK also includes three code samples with
step-by-step walkthroughs. The code samples describe
how to build a simple Smart Tag DLL in Microsoft Visual
Basic� and Microsoft Visual C++ and how to create a
data-driven recognizer and action pair. 

Note: To take full advantage of this SDK, you must
have Microsoft Office XP and Microsoft Internet
Explorer version 5 or higher. <?xml:namespace prefix = o
ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

> I used Smart Tags + sdk at microsoft.com google advanced search

   I used Netscape 4.76 and NetZip Download Demon 3.5.0.11 to download
stsdk.exe, 497K.  Worthless to me, of course, since I'll never let
Microsoft IE v5.+ or Office XP in my machine, but I do enjoy getting
into a Microsoft site and getting out again without having my default
settings changed, any cookies set, or my system savaged by their
trojans.  It's so much more dangerous than visiting warez sitez and
downloading pirate stuff.

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/10/2001 5:09:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158b7dae3cf6aa49896b9@207.71.92.194...
[...]
> I figure that the Microsoft Address Book is good, though, since it'll
> be Virus bait!  :)

Fill'm'up with MS addresses. *g*

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 5:17:00 AM
Salaam!

Kind Sir wrote:

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/
> You'all get your SmartTags SDK here.
> You will need IE 5+ and Office XP

   Second followup from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/xp/smarttags.asp :

   "Smart tags are similar to hyperlinks because they can link content
in Office-based documents or Web pages with related content hosted on
servers, on Web sites, and in files. Smart tags can also be extended to
automate custom applications. Simple smart tag solutions can be created
using a text editor such as Notepad and distributed as XML files. More
advanced smart tag solutions rely on the Smart Tags 1.0 type library in
Office XP, with these solutions being distributed as dynamic-link
libraries (DLLs). For general information on smart tag development,
download the Microsoft Office XP Smart Tag SDK [link: >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?URL=/code/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/001/562/msdncompositedoc.xml
]. For additional information about how to develop smart tag DLLs [link:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/odc_smarttags.htm
], see the article Developing Smart Tag DLLs [link: >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/odc_deployst.htm
]. For additional information on deploying smart tag DLLs, see the
article Deploying Smart Tag DLLs by Using the Visual Studio Installer."

   And for the adventurous or morbidly curious ...

   "Developing Smart Tags DLLs Files -- Learn how to create, test, and
deploy smart tag dynamic-link libraries in Microsoft Office XP by using
Microsoft Visual Basic and the Microsoft Smart Tags 1.0 type library" at 
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/ODC_SmartTags.htm

   "Deploying Smart Tag DLLs by Using the Visual Studio Installer --
Read how to deploy smart tag dynamic-link library (DLL) files to
Microsoft Office XP users by using the Microsoft Visual Studio
Installer" at
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/ODC_Deployst.htm

   "Microsoft Office XP Smart Tag SDK -- The smart tag SDK includes the
complete smart tags interfaces documentation as well as three code
samples with step-by-step walkthroughs. The code samples cover building
a simple smart tag DLL in Microsoft Visual Basic� and Microsoft Visual
C++, as well as creating a data-driven recognizer and action pair" at
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?URL=/code/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/001/562/msdncompositedoc.xml

   "Smart Tag Samples -- This example provides a smart tag that enables
you to convert text representing metric measurement units such as meters
and liters into text representing English measurement units such as feet
and gallons" at
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/code/default.asp?URL=/code/sample.asp?url=/MSDN-FILES/026/002/285/msdncompositedoc.xml

   ... because, after all, "Smart tags can also be extended to automate
custom applications" ... and we'd like to automate just about anything
at all, right?

   More active code and anti-security "features" from Redmond ...

was-salaam,
abujamal
-- 
PCHelpers:  Putting the "Personal" into "Personal Computers"
           and closing the door on the tyranny of ignorance.
PCHelpers International:  http://www.pchelpers.org/
news://news.pchelponline.org  mailto:pchelpers@pchelpers.org
0
abujamal
6/10/2001 5:24:00 AM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:09:05 -0400, "Ed Enstrom" <eenstrom@ucs.net> wrote:

>Here is a MS white paper about Adding Smart Tags to Web Pages:
>http://www.microsoft.com/OfficeDev/XP_06_2001/odc_stwebpages.htm

Thanks Ed.
0
darius
6/10/2001 5:49:00 AM
"Mike" <mike@set-your-sites.com> wrote in news:9ftc4m$8gh$1@news.grc.com:

> http://216.92.230.127/MIKE/index.html

lol, so when is Steve going  to add that to his DDOS pages?


Chill

------------
Remove the JUNK to reply
0
chillucsJUNK
6/10/2001 6:02:00 AM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 00:27:34, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158cc140f3075285989d63@207.71.92.194>)


>Every web site is susceptible to change in the hands of the local 
>reader. Always has been.

Please cite an example where the change has been the addition of 
content, possibly changes to the original (a different matter from 
omission of elements such as advertisements) which, once selected, is 
controlled by a third party. I assume that the user who selects the 
third party has not examined all the potential changes and takes them on 
trust from the third party.

The changes you have described include omitting elements and replacing 
them with things you, the reader - not MS, have chosen. They include 
changes of font, size and style and  colours. These may have an impact 
on the way in which the page is understood, I agree. However, a reader 
does each of these things specifically, with precise knowledge of the 
exact changes  that will be made to each and every web page that is 
viewed. The reader does not know what will appear on a web page when 
that choice is handed over to a third party whose contribution need have 
no relevance or connection with the author and, therefore, may misdirect 
the reader in directions which the author did not intend.

Denying my organisation the use of a web page will cause an extra 
burden, that is true. It is a burden we bore before we had a web page 
and we can bear again. It will be less of a problem than the 
possibilities that may arise from the imposition on our presentation of 
the interpretation of others. I do not intend to handle that additional 
problem. It will not be worth the effort.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:05:00 AM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 20:16:02,  wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <3B22BC42.6BF0ECD9@ma.ultranet.com>)


>If so, as long as the user has choice, and it is simple enough for the 
>less advanced user to implement (or disable), this might actually be 
>kind of cool.

You mean that the backward user might find it chilly?

That is the interpretation the third party has put on the words you 
used. You have no choice in that, I understand what you say and I think 
you are being offensive to the users. In this case the third party is 
the Oxford Dictionary and I have  chosen the meaning I think 
appropriate, but suppose that wavy purple line had pointed to those 
specific choices of meaning and not given me the choice of the whole 
range I get if I look in the dictionary.

-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:15:00 AM
In article <9fug06$1jvb$1@news.grc.com>, Dean Craft said...
> It then follows that the author is the only one qualified to provide
> additional references and sources to be used in support of the authored
> page.   The reader may; however, venture out to wherever for additional
> information.  We call that research and perform it without the consent,
> approval or knowledge of the author.

Indeed, and using whatever tools we wish.

> That research should not be governed or directed by an opponent of the
> page's  material.  

Oh, I don't know. If I was considering which firewall/security app to 
use, I might like to browse with the benefit PCHelp Smart Tags - it 
would enliven a visit to the Lockdown site. Searching the MS 
Knowledgebase with sage comments from Abujamal Smart Tags just a click 
away might be a giggle too.

More seriously, my research should be 'governed or directed' by 
whomsoever I choose (if anyone). If I want browse shopping sites with 
Smart Tags telling me the prices offered by all their competitors, why 
shouldn't I?

> Considering the moral and political sensitivity of so
> many of our current day topics, these tags may just be the start of verbal
> fire storms the likes of which have not been seen to date.

How so? If a 'hate group' bothers to make hateful Smart Tags, who is 
going to use them but other 'hate group' members? 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 8:18:00 AM
In article <MPG.158c5f59dfd648c098998e@news.grc.com>, Rebeccah H. 
Prastein said...
> > > > It was just my usual TP dig... :)
> > > 
> > > I know, I know-- she probably won't take it with too much gravity.
> > > ;~)
> > 
> > I'll dwell on it - I wouldn't want to form an express outlook on the 
> > matter.
> 
> Ouch.  If you want to get anywhere with these jokes, you'll need a 
> really good agent.

I spoke to one, but he wanted me to distribute them as I used to do, 
within a 'Joke of the Day'-style application, using a freeware Linux 
distribution.

But I explained that I'm pretty firmly in the Windows camp these days, 
in fact almost entirely ex-GNUs.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 8:19:00 AM
In article <3B22BC42.6BF0ECD9@ma.ultranet.com>, zulu@[127.0.0.1] said...
> I may have missed this somewhere along the line (if so, my apologies), 
> but...
> What third parties, beside MS, will be permitted smart tag deployments?

Anyone.

> Is this intended to become a new service industry of sorts?  

Yes.

> If so, as long as the user has choice, and it is simple enough for the 
> less advanced user to implement (or disable), this might actually be 
> kind of cool.  

Yep.

> Or (and this was my initial impression) are smart tag deployments 
> exlusive to the whim of MS?

Nope.

> If so, my systems won't be seeing them.

It's really hard to imagine many people choosing to keep using MS's, but 
I expect there'll be some good ones available from other sources. 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 8:19:00 AM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 17:23:47, Rebeccah H. Prastein wrote in 
grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158c5ded7b9068398998c@news.grc.com>)


>Who confuses a green-squiggly-underlined word in a Word document with 
>the document's author's editorial opinion about proper grammar or usage?

Very few, I should imagine. I for one, only pass my own work through a 
grammar or spell checker. Why should I subject the work of others to 
such a check unless I were using it as a basis for a work of my own - 
and in that case, if I quote I quote exactly what the author said, even 
if I disagree with the spelling or grammar. However, this is totally 
irrelevant, these tags are applied to the work of  other people without 
reference to the author and the reader, having chosen the source, has no 
control over what the source provides.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:20:00 AM
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:57:56, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9fuufa$25o8$1@news.grc.com>)


>For John, music-lovers the world over could put together a database of 
>terms and pages to link to them.

And that is precisely what I don't want. Who is going to determine the 
significance of the terms I use if not me? A reader may look  something 
up in a dictionary but if the reader needs a word explained and refers 
to another source, the reader is dependent on  that other source - if it 
is a dictionary the reader has chosen, fine, if it is an anonymous web 
source I am worried.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:35:00 AM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:RUBNTlEaFzI7EA3i@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:57:56, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9fuufa$25o8$1@news.grc.com>)
>
>
> >For John, music-lovers the world over could put together a database of
> >terms and pages to link to them.
>
> And that is precisely what I don't want. Who is going to determine the
> significance of the terms I use if not me? A reader may look  something
> up in a dictionary but if the reader needs a word explained and refers
> to another source, the reader is dependent on  that other source - if it
> is a dictionary the reader has chosen, fine, if it is an anonymous web
> source I am worried.

I'm sure, if someone made a sufficiently open architechture of this type,
you could define a file for it (similar to how a .css file works currently)
that would use only YOUR definitions for pop-ups, should you choose to
define such a file. Infact, that seems like a fairly interesting project.
I'll go grab those ddk's and see if I can put a proof of concept together
(don't hold your breath, though).

You (could, hypothetically) get to put together a list of "jargon" and links
SPECIFICALLY as it applies to your page. You could then choose to make this
list/file available to others to integrate into their databases, or you
could elect to keep it private. Your choice.

This certainly seems like a "cool" technology to me. Particularly if it
allows (probably through a 3rd party plugin) all web-site owners to define
these types of pop-ups for their own pages, as well as sharing their pop-up
choices with others.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 9:18:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <arishae.NO@SPAM.icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fvdno$2kok$1@news.grc.com...
>
> "John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:RUBNTlEaFzI7EA3i@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:57:56, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> > (Reference: <9fuufa$25o8$1@news.grc.com>)
[...]

Also, I should add, that if this were put together properly, it would make
it exceptionally easy for web-page owners to customize the pop-ups rendered
based on some genre(or page)-specific criteria.

As an example, the web-site owners could add some _very_ particular
sub-categories to this hypothetical database (even down to the specific
page) and then with the correct meta-tags, indicate what sub-categories they
wanted the plug-in to render. If someone else noticed this sub-category, and
found it useful, then they could potentially have items from it render on
their pages as well.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 9:22:00 AM
In article <RUBNTlEaFzI7EA3i@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 21:57:56, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9fuufa$25o8$1@news.grc.com>)
> 
> >For John, music-lovers the world over could put together a database of 
> >terms and pages to link to them.
> 
> And that is precisely what I don't want. Who is going to determine the 
> significance of the terms I use if not me? 

Any number of your sensible, perspicacious readers who are used to 
making such assessments, and even comparisons, themselves?

> A reader may look  something 
> up in a dictionary but if the reader needs a word explained and refers 
> to another source, the reader is dependent on  that other source - if it 
> is a dictionary the reader has chosen, fine, if it is an anonymous web 
> source I am worried.

And if it's via OED Smart Tags provided, at great expense to the reader, 
by the Oxford University Press?
 
-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 9:25:00 AM
In article <RECNnVCXpyI7EAm1@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood 
said...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 00:27:34, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158cc140f3075285989d63@207.71.92.194>)
> 
> >Every web site is susceptible to change in the hands of the local 
> >reader. Always has been.
> 
> Please cite an example where the change has been the addition of 
> content, possibly changes to the original (a different matter from 
> omission of elements such as advertisements) which, once selected, is 
> controlled by a third party. 

I have a number of Proxo filters which fit those criteria, though Smart 
Tags don't really fit any - and certainly not the second.

> I assume that the user who selects the 
> third party has not examined all the potential changes and takes them on 
> trust from the third party.

No changes are made, but why assume that anyway? And why should you wish 
to make decisions for your readers based on your (individually 
impossible) guesses about how rigorously they've researched their 
sources of further reading?

> The changes you have described include omitting elements and replacing 
> them with things you, the reader - not MS, have chosen. They include 
> changes of font, size and style and  colours. These may have an impact 
> on the way in which the page is understood, I agree. However, a reader 
> does each of these things specifically, with precise knowledge of the 
> exact changes  that will be made to each and every web page that is 
> viewed. 

Not necessarily. Using Proxo to limit the scope of scripting, for 
example, has effects not always reasonably knowable - in respect of 
individual pages - in advance. The same applies by simply turning off 
such settings within browsers. Readers forcing their own choice of 
colours, again perhaps only using the standard browser setting options, 
might accidently completely obscure some text.

> The reader does not know what will appear on a web page when 
> that choice is handed over to a third party whose contribution need have 
> no relevance or connection with the author and, therefore, may misdirect 
> the reader in directions which the author did not intend.

If you're content to trust, or at least allow, the reader to render 
such changes, why shouldn't that be extended to the readers' choice 
of tools to assist in doing so? In any event, Smart Tags don't make 
anything appear on a web page, bar the squiggles. The links hover over 
the page, just as a right-click context menu does.
 
> Denying my organisation the use of a web page will cause an extra 
> burden, that is true. It is a burden we bore before we had a web page 
> and we can bear again. It will be less of a problem than the 
> possibilities that may arise from the imposition on our presentation of 
> the interpretation of others. 

Leaving aside our differing views on whether they impose anything, what 
possibilities might arise? And, in a feasible example, how? 

> I do not intend to handle that additional problem. It will not be worth
> the effort.

How would the problem even come to your attention?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 9:25:00 AM
Comments inline...
--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ca1c726869d82989d60@207.71.92.194...
: In article <9fu1ls$12i4$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
: > Milly,
: > The example you cite appears to be comparing apples and oranges
though.
:
: I fear you missed my point. Steve's (fictitious, I have NO doubt) ST's
: would be downloadable as a plugin and would offer such links
*wherever*
: you browsed.

You're right, I misread and was thinking hyperlinks instead.  However,
Steve's hypothetical STs would NOT be the defaults.  So where does that
leave the average user?  Trusting big business values to determine what
is good vs. bad, i.e., trust by default?

The article quoted Sanford (MS) as saying "Everybody tends to focus on
the negative side of this like we're going to expose (users) to a lot of
bad content. I think we're going to expose people to a lot of good
content."  What is "good vs. bad" content and who's making those
judgements?  If I browse to a black hat hacker site would that be "bad
content" and would that tag me as a bad person just because I wanted to
see what they were up to?  If I browse to a site that offers warez and
cracks, am I going to be offered a link to turn myself in for pirated
software when all I did was look around?  Perhaps "extreme" questions,
but I don't see answers yet about STs WRT security, privacy and tracking
issues.


: > Steve is a web page author and that would be *his* choice to add
such
: > links.
:
: They'd be useful because of his expertise and trustworthiness as a
: security/privacy advocate, not as a web page author.

Yes, based upon (my) trust in Steve WRT security/privacy issues, I would
trust his STs and trust that his links would be good (in my opinion, my
judgement).  But again, Steves Tags would not be the defaults and my
trust in him as a security/privacy advocate and web page author would
not automatically extend to all Smart Tags.  I see your point that the
technology of Smart Tags as a tool could be useful.  However as with
many tools, there's also possiblilities for exploit and with MS (as big
business) holding the default deck of cards, I'm not very optomistic.
As I said earlier, I would trust Steve's STs to NOT track me.  Can the
same be said for STs in general?  Can the option for STs be turned on by
third parties similar to the way Comet Cursor installed itself on
peoples systems.  A cute cursor was only part of that code's bag of
tricks, possibility STs can have a few tricks of their own too?  Those
are big questions with lots of implications and thus far no real
answers.  If the phrase "Smart Tags" only generates links to Microsoft's
site to tell us how wonderful they are... well, you get the picture.
[...]
0
NoNameGiven
6/10/2001 9:40:00 AM
In article <9fvf8f$2lvn$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
> "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> : In article <9fu1ls$12i4$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...

> : I fear you missed my point. Steve's (fictitious, I have NO doubt) ST's
> : would be downloadable as a plugin and would offer such links
> : *wherever* you browsed.
> 
> You're right, I misread and was thinking hyperlinks instead.  However,
> Steve's hypothetical STs would NOT be the defaults.  So where does that
> leave the average user?  Trusting big business values to determine what
> is good vs. bad, i.e., trust by default?
> 
> The article quoted Sanford (MS) as saying "Everybody tends to focus on
> the negative side of this like we're going to expose (users) to a lot of
> bad content. I think we're going to expose people to a lot of good
> content."  What is "good vs. bad" content and who's making those
> judgements?  If I browse to a black hat hacker site would that be "bad
> content" and would that tag me as a bad person just because I wanted to
> see what they were up to?  If I browse to a site that offers warez and
> cracks, am I going to be offered a link to turn myself in for pirated
> software when all I did was look around?  Perhaps "extreme" questions,
> but I don't see answers yet about STs WRT security, privacy and tracking
> issues.

All very good points.

> : > Steve is a web page author and that would be *his* choice to add
> : > such links.
> :
> : They'd be useful because of his expertise and trustworthiness as a
> : security/privacy advocate, not as a web page author.
> 
> Yes, based upon (my) trust in Steve WRT security/privacy issues, I would
> trust his STs and trust that his links would be good (in my opinion, my
> judgement).  But again, Steves Tags would not be the defaults and my
> trust in him as a security/privacy advocate and web page author would
> not automatically extend to all Smart Tags.  I see your point that the
> technology of Smart Tags as a tool could be useful.  However as with
> many tools, there's also possiblilities for exploit and with MS (as big
> business) holding the default deck of cards, I'm not very optomistic.
> As I said earlier, I would trust Steve's STs to NOT track me.  Can the
> same be said for STs in general?  

And more of 'em.

> Can the option for STs be turned on by
> third parties similar to the way Comet Cursor installed itself on
> peoples systems.  

Not by design, at least. But sure, we'll have to look out for that 
security loophole, amongst others.

> A cute cursor was only part of that code's bag of
> tricks, possibility STs can have a few tricks of their own too?  Those
> are big questions with lots of implications and thus far no real
> answers.  If the phrase "Smart Tags" only generates links to Microsoft's
> site to tell us how wonderful they are... well, you get the picture.

I do indeed, and agree entirely.

So what do you want to do about Smart Tags? Ban them? Make it difficult 
for users to employ them, even if they wish to do so? Encourage site 
owners to lock out users who use them?

Or do what we always do? Use the cool technology in the way, and to the 
extent, we wish. Whilst warning and educating about the potential 
dangers and abuses, and hold the feet of the abusers to the fire?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/10/2001 10:11:00 AM
inline comments
--  NNG
***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg

"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158d5821a7508cb4989d6c@207.71.92.194...
: In article <9fvf8f$2lvn$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
: > "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
: > : In article <9fu1ls$12i4$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
:
[..snipped for space]
: So what do you want to do about Smart Tags? Ban them? Make it
difficult
: for users to employ them, even if they wish to do so? Encourage site
: owners to lock out users who use them?

I honesty don't know yet Millie because, at this point, I think we all
have many more questions and unknowns about STs than we have solid
knowledge.  Have you seen Abu's two recent posts with links to more info
and a rather large .pdf file?  It's late here, so I wont tackle the
links without some sleep first, but at a glance the ones about
developing and deploying Smart Tag DLLs look pretty scary to me.

: Or do what we always do? Use the cool technology in the way, and to
the
: extent, we wish. Whilst warning and educating about the potential
: dangers and abuses, and hold the feet of the abusers to the fire?

Again, need more knowledge.  One thing that comes immediately to mind
though is a definite market for tools that perform
"analyze-before-execute" functions against STs, much like utilites that
allow viewing of cookie data or analyze scripts.  If some criteria can
be established WRT good vs bad STs, then an associated filtering
function would also be possible.  Another thing I'm curious about...
will STs cause a noticible and measurable difference in page loading
times?

:
: --
: Milly
0
NoNameGiven
6/10/2001 11:17:00 AM
Hiya John,

Some food for thought...

Suppose a user could enlist smart tag services from third parties, website designers, or even
develop their own?  Maybe they could activate a subset of multiple smart tag databases (assuming
smart tag deployment will be in the form of a downloadable, or locally developed database).  If
that's where this is heading, it seems fair enough (IMO), depending on how benigh the
implementation is (that's the big Q).

Seeing that there is an SDK for smart tags, it seems everyone has the opportunity for smart tag
development.  Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems we may have content-related bookmarking,
analytical, cross-referencing internetworking tools and customization on the horizon.

Then again, depending on the usefulness of the SDK, this could be just another MS ploy to rule
the world. (We'll tell you where we want you to go today).

John Underwood wrote:
> 
> That is the interpretation the third party has put on the words you
> used. You have no choice in that, I understand what you say and I think
> you are being offensive to the users. In this case the third party is
> the Oxford Dictionary and I have  chosen the meaning I think
> appropriate, but suppose that wavy purple line had pointed to those
> specific choices of meaning and not given me the choice of the whole
> range I get if I look in the dictionary.
0
zulu
6/10/2001 1:19:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 10:25:23, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158d4d5a7b8b4807989d6a@207.71.92.194>)


>I have a number of Proxo filters which fit those criteria, though Smart 
>Tags don't really fit any - and certainly not the second.

I gather from that comment that you will write all the  content that 
will be displayed on your system as a result of the smart tags. If that 
is the case I withdraw my comment (with reservations). If you do not 
write the material which appears from your smart tags and I don't then 
why is that not a third party.

If you choose to misinterpret my words by your own unaided effort I 
would not be happy, but there is nothing I can do about it. I object if 
you use a third party to influence you in so doing and it is a third 
party which provides the information since it doesn't originate from me 
(the first party) or you (the second party). Smart Tags provide 
information originating from a third party over which I, the first 
party, have no control and that I will not accept. If it means you won't 
read my site then you didn't want to read my  site. If I can't prevent 
the tags then I withdraw the site and use another means of providing my 
information.

I am not saying there is no need for super tags, I just don't want them 
interfering with the communication of my ideas to my readers.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 2:43:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 10:25:23, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <MPG.158d4d5a7b8b4807989d6a@207.71.92.194>)


>No changes are made, but why assume that anyway? And why should you 
>wish to make decisions for your readers based on your (individually 
>impossible) guesses about how rigorously they've researched their 
>sources of further reading?

I withdraw from this  argument. It is going nowhere. I don't quite 
understand why the evangelical fervour for a Microsoft product which has 
not been discussed with anyone anywhere in the Internet community and is 
going to place a requirement on all web site producers whether they wish 
their sites to be viewed in the circumstances imposed without their 
consent.

I will not face the risk of my web site being misinterpreted because a 
naive user has selected a biassed or inappropriate source of information 
which is then presented in conjunction with my words and may make them 
appear to mean something else.

It is  my web site.  Why should you demand that I justify how I want it 
to be read? If someone else places circumstances in the way of my 
intentions then I cannot have a web site. Why shouldn't I withdraw it if 
I decide that it is no longer able to represent my views reliably in all 
the circumstances in which I believe it should?

It is my web site, it is not the property of those who choose to read it 
who, I assume, are trying to read my words and understand what I meant 
by them. I am hoping I will have the  option of preventing this 
potential distortion. No-one who wants to read  my site will be deprived 
of anything if I am able to stop the use of supertags. They will be if I 
cannot stop them.

That will be made as a business decision - charity organisations have to 
make very serious business decisions, the resources are not available 
for anything else.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 2:51:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 02:18:27, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9fvdno$2kok$1@news.grc.com>)


>
>This certainly seems like a "cool" technology to me. Particularly if it 
>allows (probably through a 3rd party plugin) all web-site owners to 
>define these types of pop-ups for their own pages, as well as sharing 
>their pop-up choices with others.

I thought we could do that already using ordinary links. I can see some 
advantages about the smart-tag concept but am dubious that even on my 
own site a word or a phrase will always map to the same reference. For 
example, I may refer to Sibelius and that could have a pointer to a 
history of the composer. Elsewhere it may refer to the program which we 
sometimes use to print the music we play, in which case I might include 
a link to the sibelius.com site. What would a smart tag system do?

-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 3:00:00 PM
Hello John,

Your position seems to be: "You will read my web site just as I wrote it or
you will not read it at all".

My position is: "It's my computer.  I will read web sites in any way I
choose, using whatever third-party tools I choose.  It's my choice, not the
web-page author's."

Guess who wins.

Don't take your web site down over this Smart Tags issue.  I don't believe
web users are as dumb as many posters here make them out to be.

Ed

"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:NPA6F5Efe4I7EAl4@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 10:25:23, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158d4d5a7b8b4807989d6a@207.71.92.194>)
>
>
> >I have a number of Proxo filters which fit those criteria, though Smart
> >Tags don't really fit any - and certainly not the second.
>
> I gather from that comment that you will write all the  content that
> will be displayed on your system as a result of the smart tags. If that
> is the case I withdraw my comment (with reservations). If you do not
> write the material which appears from your smart tags and I don't then
> why is that not a third party.
>
> If you choose to misinterpret my words by your own unaided effort I
> would not be happy, but there is nothing I can do about it. I object if
> you use a third party to influence you in so doing and it is a third
> party which provides the information since it doesn't originate from me
> (the first party) or you (the second party). Smart Tags provide
> information originating from a third party over which I, the first
> party, have no control and that I will not accept. If it means you won't
> read my site then you didn't want to read my  site. If I can't prevent
> the tags then I withdraw the site and use another means of providing my
> information.
>
> I am not saying there is no need for super tags, I just don't want them
> interfering with the communication of my ideas to my readers.
> --
> John Underwood
> Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
> After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
> Do not send anything to the From: address
0
Ed
6/10/2001 3:16:00 PM
Hiya,

These Smart Tags are absolutely shocking. I'm a web producer in
London, UK, and do a lot of work with Information Architecture
and User experience (silly buzzwords I know, but fairly fundamental
to the process of building sites).

Anyway, from some of the research that I have done, as well as
 other sources, it is absolutely incredible just how naive some
users on the net actually are! For instance, there are a lot of
users like us, who always look at god knows how many sites on the
net, and use it to do pretty much anything we want. However, I
have come across users whose complete Internet experience is just
rummaging around the portal they first log on to, which surprise,
surprise is usually Microsoft's MSN. They don't even know how to
log into Hotmail without following the link that's on MSN's front
page - and you can forget it if they actually type an address in
the address bar!

When it comes to these Smart Tags, these people wouldn't have a
clue how to turn them on or off, so if Microsoft decide to have
Smart Tags switched on by default, then you can gurantee there
would be a lot of people keeping that feature on.

As a web developer, you can also gurantee that I'll add yet another
meta tag to my web sites (I have to put about 10 on every page
as it is, not including the search keyword and 'useful' ones),
as it will completely destroy the user experience I would have
mapped out for them. There are times, such as when you are in a
purchase flow in the middle of buying stuff, that you disable your
own sites navigation, let alone have any external links. (Try that
with Amazon, you'll notice that once you've commited to buying
something it is difficult to navigate back to the shop browsing
bit).

Also, I'm a bit worried into the copyright issues here - if you
get Smart Tags that link the BBC News site to the WSJ, then you
have a conflict of interest, and a distinct copyright infringement,
which users can argue they didn't have a clue about the Smart Tags
feature (see case above), and if/when BBC News sue the WSJ (or
vice versa), then the user won't get blamed for it, nor will either
of these companies, but Microsoft would.

Potentially this could be a stinging backfire on Microsoft if they
implement it, and since it's already proved unpopular, I'd highly
recommend they pull the plug on this idea.
0
Jules
6/10/2001 3:31:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 11:16:34, Ed Enstrom wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g032l$8g6$1@news.grc.com>)


>Guess who wins.

If you want to read my web site in a different way than I intended it to 
be read then there is no point in you reading it. Its purpose is 
communication - the communication of the activities of the Prommers' 
Orchestra & Chorus. That is its sole purpose. What other purpose did you 
have in mind for it?

Change it, add comments of which I have no knowledge and with which I 
disagree and you have changed the effect the web site has on you. You 
can do anything you like to it, but if you change it you defeat its 
object. You lose, those who continue to read it as it was intended to be 
read still gain.

There is a point where the consequences of the potential disinformation 
have a negative effect on the organisation as a whole which will 
outweigh the benefits of having a web site. If that risk exists, the web 
site will go.

We gained some useful publicity from a BBC TV documentary. There were 
also things in that documentary over which we had no control which have 
had a  negative effect. In future, if a television crew wish to make a 
documentary they will have to make some very firm commitments before we 
will face that risk again. It is their documentary, they can present it 
any way they like, but unless they agree to our terms, they will not 
feature us.

It is your computer, if you wish to view our web site using your 
computer you may  do so in any way you like. But, if you do not agree to 
certain conditions on our part you will not view our web site at all. 
The tragedy may be that no-one else may be able to either unless we are 
allowed to place those restrictions.

-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 3:36:00 PM
> I don't believe web users are as dumb as many posters here make
them out to be.

Ed, you'd be very surprised on this - I have research saying the
contrary. This research comes from EIU, Gartner, Forrester and
such like, and it would absolutely make you jump out of youre skin
how naive some users are. The posters here would all have to be
extremely literate computer users to even know about GRC, and,
no offence, it is foolish to think that all net users are as competent
as us. I used to fall into this trap as well, before I saw the
true (ugly) reality.
0
Jules
6/10/2001 3:48:00 PM
In message <9g04ss$ak7$1@news.grc.com>, Jules <jules@vallis.nospam.net> 
writes
 >>Ed wrote:
>> I don't believe web users are as dumb as many posters here make them 
>>out to be.
>
>Ed, you'd be very surprised on this - I have research saying the
>contrary. This research comes from EIU, Gartner, Forrester and
>such like, and it would absolutely make you jump out of youre skin
>how naive some users are. The posters here would all have to be
>extremely literate computer users to even know about GRC, and,
>no offence, it is foolish to think that all net users are as competent
>as us. I used to fall into this trap as well, before I saw the
>true (ugly) reality.

I don't suppose you have any links to those studies? They could be 
interesting (and depressing) reading.
-- 
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
6/10/2001 4:12:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 15:48:45, Jules wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g04ss$ak7$1@news.grc.com>)


>
>> I don't believe web users are as dumb as many posters here make
>them out to be.
>
>Ed, you'd be very surprised on this - I have research saying the
>contrary. This research comes from EIU, Gartner, Forrester and
>such like, and it would absolutely make you jump out of youre skin
>how naive some users are. The posters here would all have to be
>extremely literate computer users to even know about GRC, and,
>no offence, it is foolish to think that all net users are as competent
>as us. I used to fall into this trap as well, before I saw the
>true (ugly) reality.

Could you let us have a reference to this research if it is available?

I can only assume that people who make comments like this assume that 
the 474 web users deliberately and consciously chose to allow zombie 
bots into their machines so that they could be used for the DDoS attack 
on GRC. Given the choice between, say, a BBC Radio 3 guide to Classical 
Music Terms and the  BBC Radio 1 guide to Music, which would they choose 
- the one with the bigger audience I suspect. That would then be the 
basis on which they would interpret and judge my site. That is their 
choice, it is not mine.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 5:49:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 15:31:46, Jules wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g03t2$9bo$1@news.grc.com>)


>Potentially this could be a stinging backfire on Microsoft if they 
>implement it, and since it's already proved unpopular, I'd highly 
>recommend they pull the plug on this idea.

One of the  great advantages of the web has been one aspect of the 
implementation in UK of open government. Every Act of Parliament not 
just the recent ones, but going back quite a number of years, is 
available on the HMSO web site. [1]

Alongside the text of the acts are the explanatory notes which are 
published to accompany them and also some guidance. Given the importance 
of correct interpretation and the problems that can arise if people are 
poorly advised about the significance of the words, would the Government 
be so willing to make this information so readily available if they had 
no control over what interpretation and annotation is presented to the 
reader?

If there is any merit in the concept of the super-tag (and I am a long 
way from being persuaded that there is) a lot of work is going to have 
to be done by web site owners throughout the entire world to take 
account of the different world into which their offerings are being 
thrust. Metatags must be available to prevent supertags being applied 
and sufficient warning and time must be allowed so that they can be 
introduced.

Of course such an approach would have been adopted had Microsoft 
presented this concept to the IETF and properly drawn up standards had 
been devised. That is not the Microsoft way. The result will mean a 
large number of very useful sites will have to be pulled pending 
alteration - assuming that the precautions can be taken and are 
sufficiently reliable.

Potentially, this is the most backward step in the information age I 
could imagine. The idea may be a good one. It needs a lot of work before 
it can be considered as a serious proposition.


[1] Her Majesty's Stationery Office - http://www.hmso.gov.uk
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 6:00:00 PM
"NoNameGiven" <pugnacious_1@hotmail.INVALID> wrote in message
news:9fvku5$2r5d$1@news.grc.com...
> inline comments
> --  NNG
> ***  I Hate SPAM (from the can or via e-mail)  ***
> Resistance is futi.... ohhhh cookies!!  --MS of Borg
>
> "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.158d5821a7508cb4989d6c@207.71.92.194...
> : In article <9fvf8f$2lvn$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
> : > "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> : > : In article <9fu1ls$12i4$1@news.grc.com>, NoNameGiven said...
> :
> [..snipped for space]
> : So what do you want to do about Smart Tags? Ban them? Make it
> difficult
> : for users to employ them, even if they wish to do so? Encourage site
> : owners to lock out users who use them?
>
> I honesty don't know yet Millie because, at this point, I think we all
> have many more questions and unknowns about STs than we have solid
> knowledge.  Have you seen Abu's two recent posts with links to more info
> and a rather large .pdf file?  It's late here, so I wont tackle the
> links without some sleep first, but at a glance the ones about
> developing and deploying Smart Tag DLLs look pretty scary to me.

These (developing dll's) look like things that would largely be used as part
of a program one is distributing (text editor, development environment,
etc), or perhaps in a "custom" corporate environment. I see no way that they
could be used "maliciously" (though I guess you could make a BHO to use
them, but that would need to be installed).

> : Or do what we always do? Use the cool technology in the way, and to
> the
> : extent, we wish. Whilst warning and educating about the potential
> : dangers and abuses, and hold the feet of the abusers to the fire?
>
> Again, need more knowledge.  One thing that comes immediately to mind
> though is a definite market for tools that perform
> "analyze-before-execute" functions against STs, much like utilites that
> allow viewing of cookie data or analyze scripts.  If some criteria can
> be established WRT good vs bad STs, then an associated filtering
> function would also be possible.  Another thing I'm curious about...
> will STs cause a noticible and measurable difference in page loading
> times?

I would _imagine_ that processing would be similar to how MS Word (97 and
on?) does it's spell-checker: Load and display the text, then perform a
second pass on all displayed text, looking for errors. So your pages would
load as fast as ever (or maybe some slight delays to account for any XML
download/parsing required), and then the underlines would appear,
top-to-bottom.

It is also looking VERY much like individual web-site authors will be able
to embed their own smart-tags in their pages. I am unsure if they can embed
their own while still disabling MS's "default" smart-tags, however. Time
will tell. Only their readers with office XP and some other requirements
will benefit, however.

This URL details how to add smart-tags to a web-page (originally posted by
abujamal, may wrap):

http://www.microsoft.com/officedev/xp_06_2001/odc_stwebpages.htm

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 6:42:00 PM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:xsJFdPO5P5I7EAQK@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 11:16:34, Ed Enstrom wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9g032l$8g6$1@news.grc.com>)
>
>
> >Guess who wins.
>
> If you want to read my web site in a different way than I intended it to
> be read then there is no point in you reading it. Its purpose is
> communication - the communication of the activities of the Prommers'
> Orchestra & Chorus. That is its sole purpose. What other purpose did you
> have in mind for it?

Perhaps the person who is reading really knows very little about the
subject, and would appreciate some basic music terminology "comments" (you
may have them already, I have no way of knowing.. havn't looked at your
pages). This capability seems to be within the scope of smart tags.

Perhaps the reader is performing some intensive research. Smart Tags seem to
be an excellent way to cross-reference items, once a sufficient level of
expertise is gained. I am sure 3rd party tools could be created to aid in
this "client side" cross-referencing.

Perhaps the reader is simply curious, and wants more (related) reading
material when they are done with your page. If they read through it, then
investigate other links (either yours, or smart-tagged), there is no
modification to the value of your page.

Of course, I still think web-page owners should be empowered to disable MS's
(or anyone's) "default" Smart Tags should they feel that they would be
damaging, as I can forsee that there WILL be circumstances where this is the
case.

> Change it, add comments of which I have no knowledge and with which I
> disagree and you have changed the effect the web site has on you. You
> can do anything you like to it, but if you change it you defeat its
> object. You lose, those who continue to read it as it was intended to be
> read still gain.

I see no loss if I read through your article and then follow up on "related"
links that come up. I DO see a loss, however, if I keep loosing track of
your article to read these related links.

> There is a point where the consequences of the potential disinformation
> have a negative effect on the organisation as a whole which will
> outweigh the benefits of having a web site. If that risk exists, the web
> site will go.

Indeed. Disinformation would be a "wrong thing". It looks STRONGLY like
website authors will be able to self-specify smart-tags, however (even down
to specifying none at all).

> We gained some useful publicity from a BBC TV documentary. There were
> also things in that documentary over which we had no control which have
> had a  negative effect. In future, if a television crew wish to make a
> documentary they will have to make some very firm commitments before we
> will face that risk again. It is their documentary, they can present it
> any way they like, but unless they agree to our terms, they will not
> feature us.

A fair restriction.

> It is your computer, if you wish to view our web site using your
> computer you may  do so in any way you like. But, if you do not agree to
> certain conditions on our part you will not view our web site at all.
> The tragedy may be that no-one else may be able to either unless we are
> allowed to place those restrictions.

It looks like you will be able to do so. Perhaps not with the granularity
you would like, however (allow your own tags, if any, dictionaries and
services for the impaired, dissalow MS's default listing and any other
"random" smart tags)

I personally think it is somewhat futile, however, to try to force your
users to not use a tool that merely parses a document, and upon seeing
certain "key terms" provides related links. If used conciously, this merely
ends up as a time-saving tool (I could picture one of these written to send
off a google query on words over 'N' length as well as anacronyms and
"keywords" from the relevant meta-tag, and provide the first 3-5 matches.
Scary? Yes. Useful? Probably). IMO, so long as the user is CONCIOUS of the
tools they have in operation (and the ramifications thereof), any drawbacks
of "bias" are outweighed by the sheer volume of information that would be
easily accessible by the user.

If the user was committed enough to their tool they could always cut and
paste into a notepad file and try to perform the parsing there.

I suppose a "happy medium" would be for the browser to display the page,
sans smart-tags as a default. With smart tags "enabled", initial rendering
would not be changed, BUT a "show smart tags" button would be displayed on
the toolbar, allowing the user to parse the page (this one time) and display
smart-tags. (of course, this is assuming that MS's default tags have been
removed.. *grin*)

It seems to be MS's continual goal, though, to reduce it's user's
conciousness of what their tools are doing. This is bad. Very bad. *g*

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 7:03:00 PM
abujamal <muslims@earthlink.net> wrote in <3B224628.54302931
@earthlink.net>:

>   Shipping with default "off" means that the end-user (or an
>intruder) turns it "on" so Microsoft is NOT the one doing the
>alteration and is not responsible for the copyright violation.

Since when did facts get in the way of filing a law suit? <vbg>

All-in-all I think the furor over this is premature. This is a feature 
of a beta version and it's not uncommon for beta features to be dropped 
before production release.

I think Microsoft would be nuts to release this feature, but not for 
privacy/security or copyright reasons. It's a virtually certainty that 
this feature will make a link that'll make Microsoft looks like fools or 
worse. Something like putting a link on a Holocaust survior website to a 
Neo-Nazi site.
0
toww2000
6/10/2001 7:20:00 PM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:h$Hx5oFAm4I7EAjN@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 10:25:23, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <MPG.158d4d5a7b8b4807989d6a@207.71.92.194>)
>
>
> >No changes are made, but why assume that anyway? And why should you
> >wish to make decisions for your readers based on your (individually
> >impossible) guesses about how rigorously they've researched their
> >sources of further reading?
>
> I withdraw from this  argument. It is going nowhere. I don't quite
> understand why the evangelical fervour for a Microsoft product which has
> not been discussed with anyone anywhere in the Internet community and is
> going to place a requirement on all web site producers whether they wish
> their sites to be viewed in the circumstances imposed without their
> consent.
[...]

I think you are missing that Milly is NOT for MS in any way in this argument
(or whatever you want to call it). Either that, or you are being blinded by
MS's involvement in the topic. Milly has stated, time and again, that they
are for the technology and capability, and NOT for MS's eventual abuses of
it.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 7:21:00 PM
<zulu@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:3B2373DF.4B0F50B0@ma.ultranet.com...
> Hiya John,
>
> Some food for thought...
>
> Suppose a user could enlist smart tag services from third parties, website
designers, or even
> develop their own?  Maybe they could activate a subset of multiple smart
tag databases (assuming
> smart tag deployment will be in the form of a downloadable, or locally
developed database).  If
> that's where this is heading, it seems fair enough (IMO), depending on how
benigh the
> implementation is (that's the big Q).

Zulu,

It looks somewhat like web-page authors will be able to define their own
smart-tags, for their own pages (though I don't know enough to comment on
how this will impact MS's "default" tags). Infact, I see NO "automatic"
smart-tagging of HTML documents at all (so far). The section of the office
developer website dealing with smart-tags only demonstrates how to add smart
tags to one's own html documents (though the SDK does seem to imply some
sort of text "pattern" matching ability).

Here is a snippet from a demo file, that would display a list of links
stemming from this instance of the word developer if I had sufficient
software installed (I don't).

<odc:msdngenwebsites>developer</odc:msdngenwebsites>

The tag "odc:msdngenwebsites" is defined in a separate (though local, in a
specific directory) XML document. I am HOPING that this rendering will be
possible with a remote XML document, of course, so a web-page author won't
need to "install" local "code" (even if human-readable).

> Seeing that there is an SDK for smart tags, it seems everyone has the
opportunity for smart tag
> development.  Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems we may have
content-related bookmarking,
> analytical, cross-referencing internetworking tools and customization on
the horizon.

It looks like anything imaginable with this technology is possible. Provided
you have office XP. What, you expected something different? *g*

> Then again, depending on the usefulness of the SDK, this could be just
another MS ploy to rule
> the world. (We'll tell you where we want you to go today).

*chuckle* It does actually look quite open. XML is a great technology. Now
if only staroffice would come out with the capability to do the same
processing, I'd be quite happy.

[...]

As a note to those curious about rendering speed: The page with the XML and
smart tag references loaded extremely slowly, almost to the point of a
freeze at the places where the XML tags were located. Of course, this could
likely be because I don't have Office XP etc. installed, and caused IE to
have a good hard think.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 7:35:00 PM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:X$n85QGAu4I7EAk$@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 02:18:27, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9fvdno$2kok$1@news.grc.com>)
>
>
> >
> >This certainly seems like a "cool" technology to me. Particularly if it
> >allows (probably through a 3rd party plugin) all web-site owners to
> >define these types of pop-ups for their own pages, as well as sharing
> >their pop-up choices with others.
>
> I thought we could do that already using ordinary links. I can see some
> advantages about the smart-tag concept but am dubious that even on my
> own site a word or a phrase will always map to the same reference. For
> example, I may refer to Sibelius and that could have a pointer to a
> history of the composer. Elsewhere it may refer to the program which we
> sometimes use to print the music we play, in which case I might include
> a link to the sibelius.com site. What would a smart tag system do?

There is a slight difference to how these links would work, when compared to
simple href links. Smart-tags will display MULTIPLE possible destinations
from a single "anchor" point. Of course, simple html links are much simpler,
and are probably prefferable in many cases. Another nicety of smart tag
technology is that it _appears_ to be able to automate the tagging, so every
instance of a specified word would be tagged automatically, without
requiring the html coding (and resultant transmission over-head), in
exchange for XML transmission over-head and some local processor use.

Your concern about re-use of words is noted. It appears to be quiet simple
to have separate name-spaces (or aliases/names, whatever) for terms, and to
"tag" them differently. One name-space would be "Sibelius-composer" and the
other would be "Sibelius-music-printer". All you would need to do is
indicate which html document is using what name-space. I am sure there would
also be a method for overcoming collisions (perhaps specific tagging),
should you use both terms on the same page.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 7:41:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 12:03:05, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g0g01$n25$1@news.grc.com>)


>Perhaps the person who is reading really knows very little about the 
>subject, and would appreciate some basic music terminology "comments" 
>(you may have them already, I have no way of knowing.. havn't looked at 
>your pages). This capability seems to be within the scope of smart tags.

I have only spoken about my own site. This relates to an orchestra and a 
chorus. It is primarily intended to recruit new members and, with a far 
lower priority, attract an audience. If anyone needs help in 
understanding basic musical terms then the site is probably not of great 
importance to them (or for that matter, them to us). There aren't many 
technical musical terms -  other than in the titles of the works we 
perform. The site refers to the BBC Web Site on the Proms and a series 
of pages which describe the Festival from the point of view of the 
Promenaders.

If anyone thinks my attitude to the readers is high-handed think of 
this: How many people am I likely to need in a group where a good 
performance standard of an instrument or voice is required with 
particular emphasis on sight-reading ability if those people need help 
to find out what "Andante" means? As far as the audience is concerned, 
the web is too big to use seriously for that purpose, though the site is 
useful to direct people to once we have found them elsewhere. Our 
audience hear about our concerts usually by attending other concerts. We 
do find some directly in some cases, by posters on shop doors and 
announcements in papers. Those seem quite  effective without smart tags.

The recommendations that people have made about what my site needs have 
demonstrated how sensible it would be to allow even the well educated 
and those well intentioned towards us to decide how to view the site. 
Leaving it to those who would choose, say, "The Radio One Guide to 
Music" over "The Radio Three Guide to Music" because it has a bigger 
audience would at best be confusing, at worst utterly destructive (and 
those would be well written and presented fairly within their own 
fields).
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:10:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 12:41:04, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g0i78$pni$1@news.grc.com>)


>Your concern about re-use of words is noted. It appears to be quiet 
>simple to have separate name-spaces (or aliases/names, whatever) for 
>terms, and to "tag" them differently. One name-space would be 
>"Sibelius-composer" and the other would be "Sibelius-music-printer". 
>All you would need to do is indicate which html document is using what 
>name-space. I am sure there would also be a method for overcoming 
>collisions (perhaps specific tagging), should you use both terms on the 
>same page.

Assuming, then, that this is something over which I have total control, 
it looks like being a colossal amount of work ensuring that the right 
version of the tag appears for each word as it appears. Would it not be 
simpler to put in a more conventional link - something I could put in 
with my html generator using a find and replace technique with special 
consideration for the exceptions? If I were happy to leave this to 
another, unknown person to be selected by the reader, I can see the 
advantages. I am not.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 8:15:00 PM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:LIuLkaMnQ9I7EA0C@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 12:03:05, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9g0g01$n25$1@news.grc.com>)
>
>
> >Perhaps the person who is reading really knows very little about the
> >subject, and would appreciate some basic music terminology "comments"
> >(you may have them already, I have no way of knowing.. havn't looked at
> >your pages). This capability seems to be within the scope of smart tags.
>
> I have only spoken about my own site. This relates to an orchestra and a
> chorus. It is primarily intended to recruit new members and, with a far
> lower priority, attract an audience. If anyone needs help in
> understanding basic musical terms then the site is probably not of great
> importance to them (or for that matter, them to us). There aren't many
> technical musical terms -  other than in the titles of the works we
> perform. The site refers to the BBC Web Site on the Proms and a series
> of pages which describe the Festival from the point of view of the
> Promenaders.

If you have little interest in the "uninformed" reader, either way, why
would you care what they got out of your page? Why the protests about any
additional information being available, if you don't care about the
"uninformed", and know your target audience will know better anyhow?

> If anyone thinks my attitude to the readers is high-handed think of
> this: How many people am I likely to need in a group where a good
> performance standard of an instrument or voice is required with
> particular emphasis on sight-reading ability if those people need help
> to find out what "Andante" means? As far as the audience is concerned,
> the web is too big to use seriously for that purpose, though the site is
> useful to direct people to once we have found them elsewhere. Our
> audience hear about our concerts usually by attending other concerts. We
> do find some directly in some cases, by posters on shop doors and
> announcements in papers. Those seem quite  effective without smart tags.

Of course. But the purpose of posters is vastly different than that of
web-pages. I can't imagine an individual searching for an archival store of
posters with the intent of getting "rich" information (except, of course, in
the case of "hard core" research).

> The recommendations that people have made about what my site needs have
> demonstrated how sensible it would be to allow even the well educated
> and those well intentioned towards us to decide how to view the site.
> Leaving it to those who would choose, say, "The Radio One Guide to
> Music" over "The Radio Three Guide to Music" because it has a bigger
> audience would at best be confusing, at worst utterly destructive (and
> those would be well written and presented fairly within their own
> fields).

Fair enough. I believe, when it comes down to it, I agree with you that MS
should require an opt-in meta tag, as opposed to an opt-out meta tag, should
they inplement something this pervasive.

You will also be able to provide your own smart-links (though it looks like
alot of effort).

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 10:08:00 PM
"John Underwood" <news@the-underwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:YocPMCNtV9I7EAVo@the-underwoods.org.uk...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 12:41:04, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
> (Reference: <9g0i78$pni$1@news.grc.com>)
>
>
> >Your concern about re-use of words is noted. It appears to be quiet
> >simple to have separate name-spaces (or aliases/names, whatever) for
> >terms, and to "tag" them differently. One name-space would be
> >"Sibelius-composer" and the other would be "Sibelius-music-printer".
> >All you would need to do is indicate which html document is using what
> >name-space. I am sure there would also be a method for overcoming
> >collisions (perhaps specific tagging), should you use both terms on the
> >same page.
>
> Assuming, then, that this is something over which I have total control,
> it looks like being a colossal amount of work ensuring that the right
> version of the tag appears for each word as it appears. Would it not be
> simpler to put in a more conventional link - something I could put in
> with my html generator using a find and replace technique with special
> consideration for the exceptions? If I were happy to leave this to
> another, unknown person to be selected by the reader, I can see the
> advantages. I am not.

I think the general idea is that once the work is done once (crafting your
XML files) then it becomes exceedingly easy to relink these files into
multiple pages. The work of spotting "exceptions" becomes relatively small.
Infact, the actual in-body tags are quite similar to <A> </A> tags.

The benefits of reusability really only become apparent at larger scales,
I'd imagine, or when the reusable item is already available (pre-generated).
As such, you probably have no need of this technology (as you have said,
several times :P). This seems to be inline with the major paradigm of MS's
dotNET.

One thing that MIGHT be of use to you (should you go with these tags), and
others with relevantly similar circumstances (low-traffic, low page-count
sites) would be a tool that would generate these tags for you. This would
make it much easier than hand-scripting complicated XML and all that. I
believe this sort of thing will appear before too long.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/10/2001 10:33:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 15:08:46, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g0qs6$148c$1@news.grc.com>)


>Fair enough. I believe, when it comes down to it, I agree with you that 
>MS should require an opt-in meta tag, as opposed to an opt-out meta 
>tag, should they inplement something this pervasive.

That would save a lot of heartache. Existing web sites could  continue 
to function without change. Requiring the world to consider re-editing 
their web pages because some might see them differently is tyrannic.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 10:39:00 PM
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 at 15:08:46, Sam Schinke wrote in grc.news.feedback
(Reference: <9g0qs6$148c$1@news.grc.com>)


>If you have little interest in the "uninformed" reader, either way, why 
>would you care what they got out of your page? Why the protests about 
>any additional information being available, if you don't care about the 
>"uninformed", and know your target audience will know better anyhow?

It is not my target audience that worries me. We are vulnerable to 
certain areas of misinformation. This innovation could play into the 
hands of those who wish to misuse it to abuse us.
-- 
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
0
John
6/10/2001 10:42:00 PM
Mike,

LoL

thanks for the 'newsreel' <g>

Paul
"Mike" <mike@set-your-sites.com> wrote in message
news:9ftc4m$8gh$1@news.grc.com...
>
> "Paul Tucker" <ptucker@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:9fsnhk$2j1c$1@news.grc.com...
>
> > BTW Steve, the ddos story was a _great_ read.  I can't wait to see the
> > movie. <g>
> >
> > Paul
>
> The DDOS movie is at  http://216.92.230.127/MIKE/index.html  you'll need
to
> enable java to see it. <g>
>
> Mike
0
Paul
6/11/2001 5:49:00 AM
"Rebeccah H. Prastein" wrote:

>Huge potential for abuse, but cool technology.

Rebeccah,

I'm sure WickeD said the same thing when he first got hold of his "toyz"
and let them loose on grc.com. Just because something _can_ be done
doesn't mean it _should_ be done. 

Paranoid Pete.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
"They stole our revolution. Now we're stealing it back."
http://www.ntk.net
0
Pete
6/11/2001 11:41:00 AM
To be honest, I think the "concept" is kind of interesting/appealing.
But, having said that, I fear Redmond's implementation of that will fall
far short of anything that might have been cool, neat or worth having
<sigh>

MikeD

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae8682fbb70df9896b5@207.71.92.194...
>
> New Windows XP Feature
> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
> By Walter S. Mossberg
>
> MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25,
> is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home
> versions of Windows. But Microsoft has another agenda for Windows XP:
> The program is also designed to be a platform from which the company
> can seamlessly offer users an array of new subscription services via
> the Internet.
>
> One key test of Windows XP will be whether its features do more to
> benefit consumers or Microsoft's business plan. Another will be
> whether the operating system favors Microsoft services over those of
> other companies. The company has said its software won't discriminate
> against others selling Web-based services.
>
> But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already
> encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that
> shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which
> hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web
> browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site
> into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any
> other sites Microsoft favors.
>
> In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit
> anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way
> that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site --
> whether or not that site offers better information.
>
> THE FEATURE, called Internet Explorer Smart Tags, wasn't in the
> widely distributed second public beta of Windows XP issued in March.
> And it isn't easy to find, even in later "builds" that have had much
> more limited distribution.
>
> In response to my questions, Microsoft officials stressed that the
> feature may still undergo modifications to make it more palatable.
> But they defended it as a useful tool.
>
> "Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and
> helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the
> information they want in the way they want it," says Chris Jones,
> vice president for Windows XP development.
>
> Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with
> Windows XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines
> instantly appear under certain types of words. In the version I
> tested, these browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names
> of companies, sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms
> could be highlighted in future versions.
>
> If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and
> if you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to
> sites offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a
> Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered
> with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never
> placed on their site.
>
> In the beta version I tested, most of these links weren't functional
> yet, but Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to
> Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft.
> One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search
> engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services.
>
> ONE MICROSOFT OFFICIAL says the feature will spare users from "under-
> linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's up
> to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn
> into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's
> part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post
> article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them
> at the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text.
> Microsoft decided otherwise.
>
> Microsoft says the Internet Explorer Smart Tags feature, which is
> similar to a Smart Tag feature in the new Office XP, will be turned
> off by default in the final release, and that users will have to
> consciously choose to enable it by activating a setting buried in the
> browser's menus. In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free
> bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could
> use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites.
>
> But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and
> offering sites a way to block it?
>
> Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be
> able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will
> launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to
> their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than
> Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively
> re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on
> Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats'
> sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on
> the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering
> their links on everything.
>
> There have been some excellent third-party programs, like GuruNet
> (now Atomica), that let users click on words within Web pages to get
> more information. But these don't place new links on pages, and they
> aren't built into the browser that more than 80% of Web visitors use.
>
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and
> dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser
> is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own
> advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by
> using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing
> field and threatening editorial integrity.
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
miked
6/11/2001 3:08:00 PM
It is my understanding that Smart Tags have the ability to re-direct
to Microsoft first, before performing their smart tag function.
 If that is true, now or in the future (through some update), then
Smart Tags are a mistake.
0
ken
6/11/2001 3:13:00 PM
X-No-archive: yes 
 
 On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:13:44 +0000 (UTC), "ken kashmarek"
<kashmarek@aol.com> wrote:

>
>It is my understanding that Smart Tags have the ability to re-direct
>to Microsoft first, before performing their smart tag function.
> If that is true, now or in the future (through some update), then
>Smart Tags are a mistake.

Lots more info on this topic here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/



Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/11/2001 5:36:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> > > [snip snip]
> > > In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser,
> > > to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge
> > > or permission
> > > [snip snip]
> >
> > Don't know much about laws, but this sounds like plain and
> > simple copyright violation to me...
> 
> Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> by any Microsoft system of software application. And this wavier
> is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> whose content enters said system.
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >


Huh what? Excuse me? How in SH*T can I as a user (not that XP will get
anywhere near my system) waive YOUR copyright on YOUR pages?? Thats what
that sounds like. That would mean that MS/OE could turn around and send
ANYTHING I view in the browser back 'home' and the real owner of said
content has aparenly no claim to copyright. Hmmmm something smells
rotten, and it aint billy-boy's feet.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 5:51:00 PM
In article <3B250508.504354DC@centurytel.net>, mc said...
> Steve Gibson wrote:
> > Oh, not to worry.  It's in the new XP-family license agreements
> > that you waive all copyrights to anything entering or displayed
> > by any Microsoft system of software application. And this waver
> > is implicitly extended to the digital works of any third-party
> > whose content enters said system.
> > 
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
> 
> 
> Huh what? Excuse me? How in SH*T can I as a user (not that XP will get
> anywhere near my system) waive YOUR copyright on YOUR pages?? Thats what
> that sounds like. That would mean that MS/OE could turn around and send
> ANYTHING I view in the browser back 'home' and the real owner of said
> content has aparenly no claim to copyright. Hmmmm something smells
> rotten, and it aint billy-boy's feet.

Keep reading the thread, mc. Deadpan satire :)

(Irony, too, when you remember what they tried to do with the Passport 
EULA).

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/11/2001 6:01:00 PM
Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right to deny access
to my site by any ip, browser, or other software I wish. If I dont want
to give M$ the chance to present a modifyied [defaced] version of my
website to a user then I dont have to allow an MS browser access to my
site. And I da** well dont want M$ presenting a defaced version of my
site to someone.

If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc) thats
a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.

I fully agree with the poster originally quoted below, I guess that
would be abujamal.

Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
> 
> >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something against
> > which web page designers will rebel.  I can see for sure that I will NOT
> > allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet Explorer,
> > and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any* Microsoft
> > browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
> > security of my visitors and readers.
> 
> You mean you will decide what is best for the 'security' (in quotes
> because your objection as stated has little to do with security - though
> it is a valid concern) of your visitors and readers, and will override
> their own choices by imposing yours upon them?
> 
> With that attitude you might consider seeking employment at Microsoft.
> 
> Sheesh, lots of babies being thrown out with this bathwater.
> 
> How a web page is displayed in *my* browser is up to me. I routinely
> block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActivX and javascript,
> background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block right-
> clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much more.
> 
> In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts (and
> many Proxomitron users make *much* more adventurous changes - to the
> extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they
> intended).
> 
> Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and their
> is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site
> owners/designers have *no* control over what I do with their pages
> within my PC - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use, or
> which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of their
> damn business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that
> information, for our mutual convenience).
> 
> If I want to use Proxo or similar to change what I see, or use Google or
> Alexa or Atomica, or even MSIE6, to add information or links to key
> words, why the hell shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxo to kill the
> meta tag that blocks MS's Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do that
> too?
> 
> Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags.
> What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> control. Hooray for that, I say.
> 
> The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> 
> But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
> crock.
> 
> --
> Milly


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 6:07:00 PM
Pete wrote:
> 
> Peta wrote:
> 
> > Milly,
> >
> > In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
> > own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
> > the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
> > here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. Which
> > is not to say I like the thought of them :)
> 
> Peta,
> 
> From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
> and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
> see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
> by whatever means is just not on. It would be like buying a book and
> finding that a vandal had scrawled their own comments on each page.
> 
> Paranoid Pete.


Exactly! Various filters such as prox and webwasher REMOVE things from a
page which the USER decides they dont want. "Smart Tags" are exactly the
opposite, they are adding unintended links to the site content which the
designer did not intend, and may actually object to. Imagine having ms
insert a link on Competitor-A's pages where they compare their product
with the inferior product of Competiror-B, that happens to point to
Competitor-B's pages. I dont think Competitor-A would appreciate it.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 6:11:00 PM
Dave McCrory wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:40:00 +0100, Milly <no_sp@m.gov> wrote:
> 
> <large snip>
> 
> Here, here!
> 
> By George I think she's got it!
> 
> >Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags.
> >What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> >control. Hooray for that, I say.
> >
> >The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> >proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> >'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> >
> >But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
> >crock.

The ORIGINAL page doesnt change, but the page that is presented to the
user DOES change and does NOT represent that the designer intended. Thus
the effect is EXACTLY the same as if the original page had been altered.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 6:13:00 PM
Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <3B221ACC.A44B6201@breathemail.net>, Pete said...
> > Peta wrote:
> >
> > > In far less articulate fashion, much of your thinking went through my
> > > own mind. Having realised that these Smart-Tags make no alterations to
> > > the code of a page, my first thought was to wonder just how many people
> > > here view the majority of web pages as intended by the designer. Which
> > > is not to say I like the thought of them :)
> >
> > Peta,
> >
> > From my PoV as a designer I couldn't give a toss what different browsers
> > and configurations take away from a page as long as the user can still
> > see all the info and still navigate as intended. However, anything added
> > by whatever means is just not on.
> 
> Nothing is added, except a squiggly underline.
> 
> Today, if I select a word on one of your web pages and right-click, I
> get a popup menu that links to Google or Dictionary.com (to search on
> that word). Smart Tags are the same, but with a squiggly underline and
> hovering, instead of select and right-click.
> 
> > It would be like buying a book and
> > finding that a vandal had scrawled their own comments on each page.
> 
> Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be like buying a book
> and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in the knowledge
> that everyone else is free to scrawl their own comments, or none at all,
> on their own copies - all without touching the pristine copies still on
> the shelves for everyone else to browse.
> 
> --
> Milly

Not at all, its MS that determines those comments, not you the user.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 6:15:00 PM
Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <ykxFfZCYJiI7EAh+@the-underwoods.org.uk>, John Underwood
> said...
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 at 13:20:47, Milly wrote in grc.news.feedback
> > (Reference: <MPG.158c24f886d77327989d43@207.71.92.194>)
> >
> > >Now, why do want to stop me from choosing to have a bunch of pop up
> > >links triggered by a word or phrase that happens to appear on one of
> > >your pages?
> >
> > Possibly my intention in the use of a particular word or phrase might
> > not be the same as that of the designer of the links added to my site.
> 
> Very possibly indeed
> 
> > [..sniped good examples..]
> >
> > Were you to choose the references which are put on my pages I could not
> > and would not object, but you are reading what I have chosen to put on
> > my web site, adorned with references which neither of us have chosen and
> > which will probably bear little if any connection with the content as I
> > intended it to be understood (and any such connection would be purely
> > coincidental).
> 
> You wouldn't object if choose the references myself, but would if I
> employ a third party to do it for me? I might have even less knowledge

Youre requesting that MS put those tags in there? Presumeably telling
them what type of links you want. Hmmmm Thats not how I read that it
works.

> about your interests than that third party. Or that third party might be
> an online dictionary or thesaurus. Or a database of simple synonyms
> for all words of three or more syllables. Or even a world-class, Smart
> Tag enabled, musical database. It seems an odd distinction.
> 
> > Of course I want to prevent you being mislead by an
> > unknown third party when you read what I want.
> 
> A laudable desire. Does it justify blocking my choice of *all* such
> third parties, or my right to see what is available?
> 
> --
> Milly


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/11/2001 6:16:00 PM
In article <3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net>, mc said...
> Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right to deny access
> to my site by any ip, browser, or other software I wish. 

Agreed. Though unless you make it a specific condition of entry, as a 
web surfer I'm under no obligation to tell you my IP, browser or other 
software. 

> If I dont want
> to give M$ the chance to present a modifyied [defaced] version of my
> website to a user then I dont have to allow an MS browser access to my
> site. 

Agreed again.

> And I da** well dont want M$ presenting a defaced version of my
> site to someone.

Entirely up to you (though I don't believe Smart Tags do any such 
thing).

> If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc) thats
> a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.

As are Smart Tags. 

> I fully agree with the poster originally quoted below, I guess that
> would be abujamal.

Yep, though since he didn't reply I don't know whether he still has the 
same views.

> Milly wrote:
> > 
> > In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
> > 
> > >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something against
> > > which web page designers will rebel.  I can see for sure that I will NOT
> > > allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet Explorer,
> > > and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any* Microsoft
> > > browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
> > > security of my visitors and readers.
> > 
> > You mean you will decide what is best for the 'security' (in quotes
> > because your objection as stated has little to do with security - though
> > it is a valid concern) of your visitors and readers, and will override
> > their own choices by imposing yours upon them?
> > 
> > With that attitude you might consider seeking employment at Microsoft.
> > 
> > Sheesh, lots of babies being thrown out with this bathwater.
> > 
> > How a web page is displayed in *my* browser is up to me. I routinely
> > block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActivX and javascript,
> > background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block right-
> > clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much more.
> > 
> > In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts (and
> > many Proxomitron users make *much* more adventurous changes - to the
> > extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they
> > intended).
> > 
> > Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and their
> > is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site
> > owners/designers have *no* control over what I do with their pages
> > within my PC - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use, or
> > which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of their
> > damn business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that
> > information, for our mutual convenience).
> > 
> > If I want to use Proxo or similar to change what I see, or use Google or
> > Alexa or Atomica, or even MSIE6, to add information or links to key
> > words, why the hell shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxo to kill the
> > meta tag that blocks MS's Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do that
> > too?
> > 
> > Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart Tags.
> > What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> > control. Hooray for that, I say.
> > 
> > The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair'
> > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> > 
> > But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not a
> > crock.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/11/2001 6:17:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> was seen standing on a soap box, 
declaiming in
news:MPG.158f1b8cdf991439989d80@207.71.92.194: 

> n article <3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net>, mc said...
>> Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right 
to deny
>> access to my site by any ip, browser, or other software 
I wish. 
> 
> Agreed. Though unless you make it a specific condition of 
entry,
> as a web surfer I'm under no obligation to tell you my 
IP,
> browser or other software. 
> 
you always tell the websites you visit both your IP and 
Browser (including version)

<snipped for brevity>


-- 
Keith T Williams PGP Key ID:0xD2D14F71
The world will always be governed by self-interest; we 
should not try and stop this--we should try and make the 
self-interest of cads a little more coincident with that of 
decent people. 

- Samual Butler
0
Keith
6/11/2001 7:02:00 PM
In article <Xns90BD99F42BB5Bkeithwglobalservenet@207.71.92.194>, Keith 
T. Williams said...
> > Agreed. Though unless you make it a specific condition of 
> > entry, as a web surfer I'm under no obligation to tell you my 
> > IP, browser or other software. 
> > 
> you always tell the websites you visit both your IP and 
> Browser (including version)

Well, *I* do, as it happens. 

But changing the browser ID to anything or nothing is trivially easy 
(many Proxo users show 'SpaceBison/0.01 [fu] (Win67; X; ShonenKnife)', 
though Win9X/IE users, at least, can be change it even without a local 
proxy by a reg tweak), and surfing behind an anonymising proxy would 
hide *my* IP.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/11/2001 7:28:00 PM
In article <3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net>, mc@backWATERwoods.org says...

> If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc) thats
> a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.
> 

Yes! This is where M$ is being evil.

As I said in a previous post, the USER is turning ON Smart Tags not M$. 
It is the USER modifying your site NOT M$,  or indeed any advertiser
licencing the technology. 

My figure of 600 optout tags (if available) to be placed in META TAGS
one at a time did not come from midair - that figure is approx the
number of unique advertising/tracking domains in my main HOST file.


Ash
0
Ash
6/11/2001 8:15:00 PM
Milly <no_sp@m.gov> was seen standing on a soap box, 
declaiming in
news:MPG.158f2c3f7874ed2b989d82@207.71.92.194: 

> In article <Xns90BD99F42BB5Bkeithwglobalservenet@
207.71.92.194>,
> Keith T. Williams said...
>> > Agreed. Though unless you make it a specific condition 
of 
>> > entry, as a web surfer I'm under no obligation to tell 
you my 
>> > IP, browser or other software. 
>> > 
>> you always tell the websites you visit both your IP and 
>> Browser (including version)
> 
> Well, *I* do, as it happens. 
> 
> But changing the browser ID to anything or nothing is 
trivially
> easy (many Proxo users show 'SpaceBison/0.01 [fu] (Win67; 
X;
> ShonenKnife)', though Win9X/IE users, at least, can be 
change it
> even without a local proxy by a reg tweak), and surfing 
behind an
> anonymising proxy would hide *my* IP.
> 

Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?

-- 
Keith T Williams PGP Key ID:0xD2D14F71
The world will always be governed by self-interest; we 
should not try and stop this--we should try and make the 
self-interest of cads a little more coincident with that of 
decent people. 

- Samual Butler
0
Keith
6/11/2001 9:00:00 PM
Idcide turns off the referrer IP also.
Basically if you don't want a site to know your browser, or where you came
from it is trivial to implement.  If you don't want a site to know your real
IP you work behind a proxy  or spoof your IP with windows XP.
CK
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.158f2c3f7874ed2b989d82@207.71.92.194...
> In article <Xns90BD99F42BB5Bkeithwglobalservenet@207.71.92.194>, Keith
> T. Williams said...
> > > Agreed. Though unless you make it a specific condition of
> > > entry, as a web surfer I'm under no obligation to tell you my
> > > IP, browser or other software.
> > >
> > you always tell the websites you visit both your IP and
> > Browser (including version)
>
> Well, *I* do, as it happens.
>
> But changing the browser ID to anything or nothing is trivially easy
> (many Proxo users show 'SpaceBison/0.01 [fu] (Win67; X; ShonenKnife)',
> though Win9X/IE users, at least, can be change it even without a local
> proxy by a reg tweak), and surfing behind an anonymising proxy would
> hide *my* IP.
>
> --
> Milly
0
CK
6/11/2001 10:08:00 PM
"mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3B250AA7.18087EE0@centurytel.net...
> Milly wrote:
> >
[...]

> Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be like buying a book
> > and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in the knowledge
> > that everyone else is free to scrawl their own comments, or none at all,
> > on their own copies - all without touching the pristine copies still on
> > the shelves for everyone else to browse.
[...]
> Not at all, its MS that determines those comments, not you the user.

The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to craft their own
smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to creating a utility that will
allow users to make their own "dynamic" smart tags, as well.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/12/2001 2:09:00 AM
In article <Xns90BDADD22C517keithwglobalservenet@207.71.92.194>, Keith 
T. Williams said...
> > But changing the browser ID to anything or nothing is 
> trivially
> > easy (many Proxo users show 'SpaceBison/0.01 [fu] (Win67; 
> X;
> > ShonenKnife)', though Win9X/IE users, at least, can be 
> change it
> > even without a local proxy by a reg tweak), and surfing 
> behind an
> > anonymising proxy would hide *my* IP.
> > 
> 
> Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?

What is HTML interrogation?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/12/2001 11:18:00 AM
In article <9g3tbd$41r$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke said...
> "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> > Milly wrote:
> 
> > Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be like buying a book
> > > and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in the knowledge
> > > that everyone else is free to scrawl their own comments, or none at all,
> > > on their own copies - all without touching the pristine copies still on
> > > the shelves for everyone else to browse.
> >
> > Not at all, its MS that determines those comments, not you the user.
> 
> The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to craft their own
> smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to creating a utility that will
> allow users to make their own "dynamic" smart tags, as well.

Indeed. Perhaps by 'intelligently' parsing the users existing Favorites, 
or even their hard disks.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/12/2001 11:24:00 AM
In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly saying:
> > Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?
> 
> What is HTML interrogation?
> 

<What is your name?>
</What is your name?>

<Who do you work for?>
</Who do you work for?>

<Who sent you here?>
</Who sent you here?>
-- 
remove===>stain<===to reply
0
Todd
6/12/2001 11:35:00 AM
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.15900c62e6218924989d8a@207.71.92.194...
> In article <9g3tbd$41r$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke said...
[...]
> > The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to craft their own
> > smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to creating a utility that
will
> > allow users to make their own "dynamic" smart tags, as well.
>
> Indeed. Perhaps by 'intelligently' parsing the users existing Favorites,
> or even their hard disks.

*grin* You make it sound so devilish!

I imagine this type of thing (if I designed it :P) would function in a
manner very similar to favourites (in parallel, or using the same favourites
fileS), except one could optionally associate certain "terms" with a URL
(and the URL's author could provide meta-tags with some advised terms
*grin*). Those terms would then be highlighted in viewed documents.

Of course, that alone could get VERY clunky, particularly when viewing (lets
say) a police site when you only have a huge pile of computer security
terms.

If I were to design something like this, I would DEFINATELY provide the user
with a method of selecting the "context" of the smart-tagging they want done
(I suppose this would require some organization of "favourites", or more
meta-tags from page authors, either on the page viewed, or the page being
tagged to), to prevent any such sillyness. (EG: "all", "none", "biology",
"security", "biology" AND "security" etc....)

Regards,
Sam
Parenthetical density, as usual, is inversely proportional to time left
until my bed-time *g*
0
Sam
6/12/2001 11:38:00 AM
"Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.15900aec71eba621989d89@207.71.92.194...
> In article <Xns90BDADD22C517keithwglobalservenet@207.71.92.194>, Keith
> T. Williams said...
> > Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?
> What is HTML interrogation?

Presumably JavaScript code that can be crafted to display (and perhaps
return) various data, such as resolution, color depth etc. Proxomitron, last
time I looked, easily had the ability to block this.

There are also JavaScripts that can set and/or view cookies. Proxo can deal
with these as well.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/12/2001 11:40:00 AM
In article <MPG.158fc89f859cb253989d35@207.71.92.194>, Todd said...
> In tonight's episode, our supersecret microphone captures Milly saying:
> > > Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?
> > 
> > What is HTML interrogation?
> > 
> 
> <What is your name?>
> </What is your name?>
> 
> <Who do you work for?>
> </Who do you work for?>
> 
> <Who sent you here?>
> </Who sent you here?>

 :)

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/12/2001 11:58:00 AM
In article <9g4upk$187q$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke said...
> 
> "Milly" <no_sp@m.gov> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15900aec71eba621989d89@207.71.92.194...
> > In article <Xns90BDADD22C517keithwglobalservenet@207.71.92.194>, Keith
> > T. Williams said...
> > > Does Proxo hide it from HTML interrogation?
> > What is HTML interrogation?
> 
> Presumably JavaScript code that can be crafted to display (and perhaps
> return) various data, such as resolution, color depth etc. 

Ah, thanks.

> Proxomitron, last time I looked, easily had the ability to block this.

Yep, the 'Kill Nosey JavaScripts' filter - 

*(.(referrer|plugins|cookie|colorDepth|pixelDepth|external)|history.leng
th)*

> There are also JavaScripts that can set and/or view cookies. Proxo can deal
> with these as well.

Yep, 'Disable JavaScript (and meta) cookies' -

..cookie(*[(;)=])\1|http-equiv="Set-Cookie"

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/12/2001 12:03:00 PM
Milly wrote:
> 
> In article <9g3tbd$41r$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke said...
> > "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> > > Milly wrote:
> >
> > > Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be like buying a book
> > > > and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in the knowledge
> > > > that everyone else is free to scrawl their own comments, or none at all,
> > > > on their own copies - all without touching the pristine copies still on
> > > > the shelves for everyone else to browse.
> > >
> > > Not at all, its MS that determines those comments, not you the user.
> >
> > The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to craft their own
> > smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to creating a utility that will
> > allow users to make their own "dynamic" smart tags, as well.
> 
> Indeed. Perhaps by 'intelligently' parsing the users existing Favorites,
> or even their hard disks.

GAH! So now youre suggesting that MS start scanning my HD??? **running
away screaming**

> 
> --
> Milly


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/12/2001 12:43:00 PM
In article <3B260E8F.736F4E80@centurytel.net>, mc said...
> Milly wrote:
> > In article <9g3tbd$41r$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke said...
> > > "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> > > > Milly wrote:
> > > The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to craft their own
> > > smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to creating a utility that will
> > > allow users to make their own "dynamic" smart tags, as well.
> > 
> > Indeed. Perhaps by 'intelligently' parsing the users existing Favorites,
> > or even their hard disks.
> 
> GAH! So now youre suggesting that MS start scanning my HD??? **running
> away screaming**

LOL :)  No, of course not MS - who'd be that daft!

Oh, hang on ... in fact I often let them do it. Not the whole thing, but 
certainly some of my most private and sensitive documents. When I use 
Outlook or Word, MS scans the documents and presents me with a popup 
list of alternative words or phrases. Not just by matching word 'hits' 
either - it's doing it's utmost to understand the meaning and context of 
those documents too, with it's output depending on what it 'thinks' 
might be useful to me based on that analysis.

If it started slipping in subversive results ('Netscape' as an 
alternative for 'fading browser', in the spellcheck/thesaurus, or 'The 
passive voice is generally considered more than sufficient' for a 
sentence actively criticising Microsoft, in the grammar checker), then 
I'd dump it pronto. 

It's nice that the choice is in my hands, though. Rather than the 
technology being stifled at birth because of fears about potential 
abuses.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/12/2001 2:36:00 PM
well ... technically ... you *do* have to allow them access to your
site.  Otherwise you won't be able to tell if it is a MS browser so that
you can refuse to send them the pages ... which you *can* do <wink>

MikeD

"mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net...
> Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right to deny access
> to my site by any ip, browser, or other software I wish. If I dont
want
> to give M$ the chance to present a modifyied [defaced] version of my
> website to a user then I dont have to allow an MS browser access to my
> site. And I da** well dont want M$ presenting a defaced version of my
> site to someone.
>
> If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc)
thats
> a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.
>
> I fully agree with the poster originally quoted below, I guess that
> would be abujamal.
>
> Milly wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B214E08.90A3C4DE@earthlink.net>, abujamal said...
> >
> > >    That's really over-reaching, and it's definitely something
against
> > > which web page designers will rebel.  I can see for sure that I
will NOT
> > > allow my web server to send pages to that version of Internet
Explorer,
> > > and I am seriously thinking of not allowing anything to *any*
Microsoft
> > > browser or web application, simply as a matter of concern for the
> > > security of my visitors and readers.
> >
> > You mean you will decide what is best for the 'security' (in quotes
> > because your objection as stated has little to do with security -
though
> > it is a valid concern) of your visitors and readers, and will
override
> > their own choices by imposing yours upon them?
> >
> > With that attitude you might consider seeking employment at
Microsoft.
> >
> > Sheesh, lots of babies being thrown out with this bathwater.
> >
> > How a web page is displayed in *my* browser is up to me. I routinely
> > block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActivX and javascript,
> > background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block
right-
> > clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much
more.
> >
> > In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts
(and
> > many Proxomitron users make *much* more adventurous changes - to the
> > extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they
> > intended).
> >
> > Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and
their
> > is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site
> > owners/designers have *no* control over what I do with their pages
> > within my PC - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use,
or
> > which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of
their
> > damn business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that
> > information, for our mutual convenience).
> >
> > If I want to use Proxo or similar to change what I see, or use
Google or
> > Alexa or Atomica, or even MSIE6, to add information or links to key
> > words, why the hell shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxo to kill
the
> > meta tag that blocks MS's Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do
that
> > too?
> >
> > Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners) by Smart
Tags.
> > What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their
> > control. Hooray for that, I say.
> >
> > The beef is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an
'unfair'
> > proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and thus the
> > 'eyeballs' of users. And it's a valid and important beef.
> >
> > But this stuff about 'editorial integrity' is a red herring, if not
a
> > crock.
> >
> > --
> > Milly
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
>  _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
> | '  \/ _|
> |_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/
>
> --+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
> --+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--
>
> <<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
miked
6/12/2001 7:09:00 PM
Hahahaha, picky picky, but to pick back, I would only need to allow them
access to the webserver, but not to the site (actual pages). <grin>

MC

miked wrote:
> 
> well ... technically ... you *do* have to allow them access to your
> site.  Otherwise you won't be able to tell if it is a MS browser so that
> you can refuse to send them the pages ... which you *can* do <wink>
> 
> MikeD
> 
> "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> news:3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net...
> > Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right to deny access
> > to my site by any ip, browser, or other software I wish. If I dont
> want
> > to give M$ the chance to present a modifyied [defaced] version of my
> > website to a user then I dont have to allow an MS browser access to my
> > site. And I da** well dont want M$ presenting a defaced version of my
> > site to someone.
> >
> > If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc)
> thats
> > a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.
> >
> > I fully agree with the poster originally quoted below, I guess that
> > would be abujamal.
> >

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/12/2001 8:08:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <arishae.NO@SPAM.icqmail.com> was seen 
standing on a
soap box, declaiming in news:9g3tbd$41r$1@news.grc.com: 

> 
> "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> news:3B250AA7.18087EE0@centurytel.net...
>> Milly wrote:
>> >
> [...]
> 
>> Noo, to the extent that the analogy fits, it would be 
like
>> buying a book 
>> > and scrawling your own comments on  each page, safe in 
the
>> > knowledge that everyone else is free to scrawl their 
own
>> > comments, or none at all, on their own copies - all 
without
>> > touching the pristine copies still on the shelves for 
everyone
>> > else to browse. 
> [...]
>> Not at all, its MS that determines those comments, not 
you the
>> user. 
> 
> The web-site author/owner seems to have the ability to 
craft
> their own smart-tags as well. It is not a far stretch to 
creating
> a utility that will allow users to make their own 
"dynamic" smart
> tags, as well. 
> 
> Regards,
> Sam
> 
> 

From what I have read, Office XP already offers that 
ability within Word Documents and Excel worksheets (and 
probably in the other elements of the package as well), so 
it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see 
that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web doc 
and implement their own Smart Tags on your machine. 

-- 
Keith T Williams PGP Key ID:0xD2D14F71
The world will always be governed by self-interest; we 
should not try and stop this--we should try and make the 
self-interest of cads a little more coincident with that of 
decent people. 

- Samual Butler
0
Keith
6/12/2001 8:09:00 PM
X-No-archive: yes 
 
 On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Keith T. Williams"
<keithw@globalserve.net> wrote:

<snip>

>it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see 
>that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web doc 
>and implement their own Smart Tags on your machine. 

Wouldn't they need to hack the site server to accomplish that?

Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/12/2001 8:18:00 PM
El Gato Grande wrote:
> 
> X-No-archive: yes
> 
>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Keith T. Williams"
> <keithw@globalserve.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see
> >that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web doc
> >and implement their own Smart Tags on your machine.
> 
> Wouldn't they need to hack the site server to accomplish that?

Not if its their site youre viewing, or (heaven forbid) an html email.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/12/2001 8:32:00 PM
X-No-archive: yes 
 
 On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:32:18 -0400, mc <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote:

>El Gato Grande wrote:
>> 
>> X-No-archive: yes
>> 
>>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Keith T. Williams"
>> <keithw@globalserve.net> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> >it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see
>> >that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web doc
>> >and implement their own Smart Tags on your machine.
>> 
>> Wouldn't they need to hack the site server to accomplish that?
>
>Not if its their site youre viewing, or (heaven forbid) an html email.

Oh, I get it. 

You just reverse the situation.  You imbed a SmartTag enabled version
of an Excel spreadsheet, Word doc etc within the web site content
itself so that it gets loaded to the viewers machine.  



Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/12/2001 9:01:00 PM
El Gato Grande <elgatograndeblue@watertechemail.com> was 
seen
standing on a soap box, declaiming in
news:1nvcit46t3crb9bh09mcrdq6qi55d626k3@4ax.com: 

> X-No-archive: yes 
>  
>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:32:18 -0400, mc 
<mc@backWATERwoods.org>
>  wrote: 
> 
>>El Gato Grande wrote:
>>> 
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>> 
>>>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Keith T. 
Williams"
>>> <keithw@globalserve.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>> >it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to 
see
>>> >that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web 
doc and
>>> >implement their own Smart Tags on your machine. 
>>> 
>>> Wouldn't they need to hack the site server to 
accomplish that?
>>
>>Not if its their site youre viewing, or (heaven forbid) 
an html
>>email. 
> 
> Oh, I get it. 
> 
> You just reverse the situation.  You imbed a SmartTag 
enabled
> version of an Excel spreadsheet, Word doc etc within the 
web site
> content itself so that it gets loaded to the viewers 
machine.  
> 
that's it.


-- 
Keith T Williams PGP Key ID:0xD2D14F71
The world will always be governed by self-interest; we 
should not try and stop this--we should try and make the 
self-interest of cads a little more coincident with that of 
decent people. 

- Samual Butler
0
Keith
6/12/2001 10:03:00 PM
X-No-archive: yes 
 
 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> >it wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to 
>see
>>>> >that someone could embed a simple spreadsheet in a web 
>doc and
>>>> >implement their own Smart Tags on your machine. 
>>>> 
>>>> Wouldn't they need to hack the site server to 
>accomplish that?
>>>
>>>Not if its their site youre viewing, or (heaven forbid) 
>an html
>>>email. 
>> 
>> Oh, I get it. 
>> 
>> You just reverse the situation.  You imbed a SmartTag 
>enabled
>> version of an Excel spreadsheet, Word doc etc within the 
>web site
>> content itself so that it gets loaded to the viewers 
>machine.  
>> 
>that's it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnnews/2001/may/officexp/officexp.asp

"...This means that your users do not need to have Office XP on their
desktop in order to view Web pages that have Office Web Components.
But, when a user does have Office XP installed, the components will
come alive with full interactivity. ".....

Remove the blue water to reply.

          "I don't think they make any software that 
           will protect you from ignorant managment." 
                              -Robert Wycoff- 
0
El
6/12/2001 11:09:00 PM
"El Gato Grande" <elgatograndeblue@watertechemail.com> wrote in message
news:1nvcit46t3crb9bh09mcrdq6qi55d626k3@4ax.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
>  On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:32:18 -0400, mc <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote:
[...]
> >Not if its their site youre viewing, or (heaven forbid) an html email.
>
> Oh, I get it.
>
> You just reverse the situation.  You imbed a SmartTag enabled version
> of an Excel spreadsheet, Word doc etc within the web site content
> itself so that it gets loaded to the viewers machine.

From the reading I have done the smart tags can be placed (and displayed) in
HTML (via some XML work), by design.

Of course, the exploit you describe, where a web-page author is able to have
their smart-tags imported into other office applications seems plausible.

Regards,
Sam
0
Sam
6/13/2001 6:54:00 AM
Hmmm ... well you would have to execute some code on the server in order
to establish the browser type and so decide what to do at that point ...
but to the extent that you want to call that site blocking, OK. <g>

The real problem is that the "reply" from the browser that says the
browser type can be ... adjusted ... is not always accurate.  I know
that Opera says it is IE ... and Mozilla says either IE or Netscape, I
forget which, for example.

MikeD

"mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3B2676AB.B5F8BBDC@centurytel.net...
> Hahahaha, picky picky, but to pick back, I would only need to allow
them
> access to the webserver, but not to the site (actual pages). <grin>
>
> MC
>
> miked wrote:
> >
> > well ... technically ... you *do* have to allow them access to your
> > site.  Otherwise you won't be able to tell if it is a MS browser so
that
> > you can refuse to send them the pages ... which you *can* do <wink>
> >
> > MikeD
> >
> > "mc" <mc@backWATERwoods.org> wrote in message
> > news:3B2508CB.89F15E25@centurytel.net...
> > > Excuse me? As a web designer I da** well have the right to deny
access
> > > to my site by any ip, browser, or other software I wish. If I dont
> > want
> > > to give M$ the chance to present a modifyied [defaced] version of
my
> > > website to a user then I dont have to allow an MS browser access
to my
> > > site. And I da** well dont want M$ presenting a defaced version of
my
> > > site to someone.
> > >
> > > If the USER has filters that modify my site (prox, webwasher, etc)
> > thats
> > > a different story, thats the user's choice, not M$'s choice.
> > >
> > > I fully agree with the poster originally quoted below, I guess
that
> > > would be abujamal.
> > >
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
>  _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
> | '  \/ _|
> |_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/
>
> --+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
> --+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--
>
> <<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
miked
6/15/2001 3:38:00 PM
In article <9fur4q$20ta$1@news.grc.com>, "d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sam Schinke <arishae.NO@SPAM.icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fum7p$1rpc$1@news.grc.com...
>> "d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9fu5kq$16se$1@news.grc.com...
>> > ...comments inline.....
>> The equivalent comparison here, would be placing MS as the newspaper
>> delivery-boy. There WOULD be a problem if your delivery boy went
> through his
>> entire message run and modified all of the papers he was dropping off.
> 
> BINGO !!
> 
> Sure, the web page publisher can hire people to write code for all of
> the page link
> highlights that MS considers "Smart"-- but hey-- this is mucho bucks of
> expense,
> and guess who's got the most money?
> Especially since MS doesn't have to write the code on a per-page
> basis......

So what happens if a newspaper's site get's 'smart tagged' and as a result
the content becomes liable - if it's a smart tag put in by Microsoft then do
we really think that Microsoft would foot the bill when the company gets
sued...?

I totally agree that the user choosing how to view a web site is one thing,
but having *added* content which has a direct impact on the focus of the
content of the page (i.e. not an advert) is a completely different matter, I also
don't buy the 'it's turned off by default' - it won't be for long.

This, I feel, is part of Microsoft's agender to resculpture the internet to a
proprietry vision. Do we really think that 'smart tags' are unbiased - how many
works relating to linux will take you to MS anti-linux pages and how many will
take you to pro-linux pages? This is tantamount to censorship.

What's more, this seems another case of Microsoft's embrace, bugger up, make
money from, and extend policy: if you actually view the page source that is being
used by IE to display the page then surely you must see some kind of <a> link
(for the smart tag). Sure, if you request to view the page source then it'll probably
filter them out, but it's added them in the first place.

This also seems a wonderful opportunity for virus writers: considering that
'smart tags' will be available to html email writers fills the mind with really wonderful
notions about how this technology can be used - could you use a javascript onLoad
function to activate a smarttag to download and install sub7 etc? Most likely.

Possibly the most interesting thing is how Microsoft will try and make this 'feature'
essential, thus killing off the competition: clearly that's why they've invented it -
it's a feature other browsers don't have thus if it is viewed as an essential feature
then you can push other browsers off the market. Merging this into the dot.net
future would seem an obvious way forward, but even so, it really doesn't appeal
to me as a 'killer' feature...

I'm just glad that as a linux user I don't have to put up with this stuff. But as a web
designer it is truely scarey. However, the small amount of knowledge required to
prevent them being used on my sites will come in handy. Here's another: suppose
someone goes to a child pornography site and the smart tag puts in links to other
child porn sites. Could it not be argued that that's Microsoft endorsing child
pornography?

It's very interesting that Steve Gibson talks of the problems of Windows XP finally
getting a standards compliant networking stack. He makes no complaint of *nix's
having had for years a fully compliant stack. For me, whether the stack is compliant
or not is not the issue: it's the flaws in Window's XP that makes it dangerous, and
increasingly we are seeing that those flaws are coming about as a direct result of
new 'features'.

It's all very well us sitting and writing deriding these new features and telling each
other we'll have to educate our friends, but this situation should not have arisen in
the first place: the fact that Microsoft is increasingly appearing to be above the law
and the Governments of the world terrified to take action 'in the face of our
economy' is shocking - the attitude of apathy and the companies run the world. The
place for individuality and non 'one-size-fits-all' has long since dissappeared.

Matthew
0
Matthew
6/17/2001 9:31:00 PM
In article <3B2261BA.3002053F@breathemail.net>, Pete <pgp@breathemail.net> wrote:
> Geek wrote:
>> 
>> Nor will they find a home on mine..Problem I see thoug is that with
>> XP, could you use a third party browser?  Could you turn off the smart
>> tag?
> 
> Who knows on either count, Geek. From what I read about XP each beta
> seems to have another level of contentious features added.

Why take the risk (along with several thousand other risks)? Switch to a *nix.

Matthew
0
Matthew
6/17/2001 9:34:00 PM
Milly wrote...
>In article <3B22BC42.6BF0ECD9@ma.ultranet.com>, zulu@[127.0.0.1] said...
>> I may have missed this somewhere along the line (if so, my apologies),
>> but...
>> What third parties, beside MS, will be permitted smart tag deployments?
>
>Anyone.
>
>> Is this intended to become a new service industry of sorts?
>
>Yes.
>
Snip<

Does that mean that if I'm a small producer of soft drinks and have a
website about it, every time the word "soft-drink" occurs in my pages, some
"new service industry" will create a link to Coca-Cola, just because they
(Coca-Cola) had this weeks highest bid??

Hans W.
0
Hans
6/17/2001 11:12:00 PM
In article <9gjdk5$2k5h$1@news.grc.com>, Hans W. said...
> Milly wrote...
> >In article <3B22BC42.6BF0ECD9@ma.ultranet.com>, zulu@[127.0.0.1] said...
> >> I may have missed this somewhere along the line (if so, my apologies),
> >> but...
> >> What third parties, beside MS, will be permitted smart tag deployments?
> >
> >Anyone.
> >
> >> Is this intended to become a new service industry of sorts?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> Snip<
> 
> Does that mean that if I'm a small producer of soft drinks and have a
> website about it, every time the word "soft-drink" occurs in my pages, some
> "new service industry" will create a link to Coca-Cola, just because they
> (Coca-Cola) had this weeks highest bid??

Well, it might. 

And if I want to download and use Smart Tags that do so from, say, GoTo 
(perhaps the likeliest candidate for making such things), why shouldn't 
I be free to do so? (Gob-smackingly poor judgement aside).

If they market them deceptively, or add spyware, or use their muscle to 
push them unfairly, or detrimentally target specific firms against the 
relevant trade laws, then I'll join you in exposing and/or complaining 
about them.

But not about the principle of making a tool available which we can use, 
if we wish, to augment our own browsing (without touching or 
redistributing the original sites).

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
6/18/2001 2:08:00 PM
Here's some news about a Microsoft response to the protest over Smart Tags:

"Microsoft has just told me that they are changing the SmartTags feature to
respond to our criticism. Below is the note I just received"

The rest of the article (judge for yourself, I don't blindly believe them)
is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/3023


 -- sidney
0
sidney
6/18/2001 3:50:00 PM
In message <9gl7tt$1bc2$1@news.grc.com>, sidney <sidney@sidney.com> 
writes
>Here's some news about a Microsoft response to the protest over Smart Tags:
>
>"Microsoft has just told me that they are changing the SmartTags feature to
>respond to our criticism. Below is the note I just received"
>
>The rest of the article (judge for yourself, I don't blindly believe them)
>is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/3023
>

Hmm..  that doesn't sound so bad.  Why am I not surprised the 'uproar' 
took them by surprise and 'shocked' them.

-- 
Jim (Cruncher) Crowther                      "It's MY computer"
*               It's our turn to help pchelp                  *
*                  <http://pchelpers.org>                     *
*    <http://www.cozmikshirts.co.uk/rooms/pchelpers.shtml>    *
0
Jim
6/18/2001 4:04:00 PM
"sidney" <sidney@sidney.com> wrote in message
news:9gl7tt$1bc2$1@news.grc.com...
> Here's some news about a Microsoft response to the protest over Smart
Tags:
>
> "Microsoft has just told me that they are changing the SmartTags feature
to
> respond to our criticism. Below is the note I just received"
>
> The rest of the article (judge for yourself, I don't blindly believe
them)
> is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/3023

Whatever happened to the old "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes"
approach before something is designed in?  Maybe they just didn't use the
right flagpole.
--
� 
-- 
Robert
grc.com forum FAQ - http://grc.com/discussions.htm
grc.com forum quick reference - http://grc.com/nntpquickref.htm
grc.com forum disclaimer - http://grc.com/forumdisclaimer.htm
grc.com privacy statement - http://grc.com/privacy.htm
0
Robert
6/18/2001 4:22:00 PM
Robert Wycoff wrote:
> 
> "sidney" <sidney@sidney.com> wrote in message
> news:9gl7tt$1bc2$1@news.grc.com...
> > Here's some news about a Microsoft response to the protest over Smart
> Tags:
> >
> > "Microsoft has just told me that they are changing the SmartTags feature
> to
> > respond to our criticism. Below is the note I just received"
> >
> > The rest of the article (judge for yourself, I don't blindly believe
> them)
> > is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/3023
> 
> Whatever happened to the old "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes"
> approach before something is designed in?  Maybe they just didn't use the
> right flagpole.

They used the one in the MS lobby. =)

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/18/2001 6:04:00 PM
Jim Crowther wrote:
> 
> In message <9gl7tt$1bc2$1@news.grc.com>, sidney <sidney@sidney.com>
> writes
> >Here's some news about a Microsoft response to the protest over Smart Tags:
> >
> >"Microsoft has just told me that they are changing the SmartTags feature to
> >respond to our criticism. Below is the note I just received"
> >
> >The rest of the article (judge for yourself, I don't blindly believe them)
> >is at:
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/3023
> >
> 
> Hmm..  that doesn't sound so bad.  Why am I not surprised the 'uproar'
> took them by surprise and 'shocked' them.

Well it ~does~ sound better, for what little thats worth (not much) imo.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
 _ __  __                        Remember the Legend - Dale Earnhardt
| '  \/ _|
|_|_|_\__|                                      http://pchelpers.org/

--+ The only constant in the universe is change +--
--+       Always stop and smell the roses       +--

<<==-- Drain the WATER from my email to reply --==>>
0
mc
6/18/2001 6:07:00 PM
...inline.. (sorry I missed this earlier on-- excellent points you
made...)

Matthew Sackman <matthew@sackman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9gj3si$29l0$1@news.grc.com...
> In article <9fur4q$20ta$1@news.grc.com>,
"d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sam Schinke <arishae.NO@SPAM.icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9fum7p$1rpc$1@news.grc.com...
> >> "d.max" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9fu5kq$16se$1@news.grc.com...
> >> > ...comments inline.....
> >> The equivalent comparison here, would be placing MS as the
newspaper
> >> delivery-boy. There WOULD be a problem if your delivery boy
went
> > through his entire message run and modified all of the papers he
was dropping off.
> >
> > BINGO !!
> >
> > Sure, the web page publisher can hire people to write code for
all of
> > the page link highlights that MS considers "Smart"-- but hey--
this is mucho bucks of
> > expense, and guess who's got the most money?
> > Especially since MS doesn't have to write the code on a per-page
basis......
>
> So what happens if a newspaper's site get's 'smart tagged' and as
a result
> the content becomes liable - if it's a smart tag put in by
Microsoft then do
> we really think that Microsoft would foot the bill when the
company gets
> sued...?

I would think that MS would simply raise the defense that the
newspaper
was solely responsible, since by their use of the MS 'default' tags,
implicit approval had been given. After all, it's not like the paper
*had*
to enable tagging, right?
I see the likelihood of a _lot_ of weaseling, if it gets to such a
suit.
We know full well who owns more lawyers than can be found in
Congress.

>
> I totally agree that the user choosing how to view a web site is
one thing,
> but having *added* content which has a direct impact on the focus
of the
> content of the page (i.e. not an advert) is a completely different
matter, I also
> don't buy the 'it's turned off by default' - it won't be for long.

Yes-- the notion that users, even to any significant fraction, are
likely to 'craft'
their page use, and thus no problem, is avoidant-- it is of the sort
that argues
against regulating gun sales because "guns don't shoot
people--people do that"
>
> This, I feel, is part of Microsoft's agender to resculpture the
internet to a
> proprietry vision. Do we really think that 'smart tags' are
unbiased - how many
> works relating to linux will take you to MS anti-linux pages and
how many will
> take you to pro-linux pages? This is tantamount to censorship.

Not truly such, since the MS-preferred linkages are not obligatory;
rather, it is
subvertive of publishers' intemtions-- unless such happen to
coincide with MS's
'helpful' linkages, web publishers bear the burden of coding their
own, or opting
out of such functionality.

>
> What's more, this seems another case of Microsoft's embrace,
bugger up, make
> money from, and extend policy: if you actually view the page
source that is being
> used by IE to display the page then surely you must see some kind
of <a> link
> (for the smart tag). Sure, if you request to view the page source
then it'll probably
> filter them out, but it's added them in the first place.

Uncertain of this, WRT to 'filter out' when viewed-- not likely,
IMO. Perhaps more to
the worry is that those that do not review/act, are taken for the MS
ride.
>
> This also seems a wonderful opportunity for virus writers:
considering that
> 'smart tags' will be available to html email writers fills the
mind with really wonderful
> notions about how this technology can be used - could you use a
javascript onLoad
> function to activate a smarttag to download and install sub7 etc?
Most likely.

If possible, many would find it appealing.

> Possibly the most interesting thing is how Microsoft will try and
make this 'feature'
> essential, thus killing off the competition: clearly that's why
they've invented it -
> it's a feature other browsers don't have thus if it is viewed as
an essential feature
> then you can push other browsers off the market. Merging this into
the dot.net
> future would seem an obvious way forward, but even so, it really
doesn't appeal
> to me as a 'killer' feature...

The fact that it was announced as a 'fait accompli' is most
telling-- "Here's the future,
hope you just love it-- if not, well, too damn bad."

>
> I'm just glad that as a linux user I don't have to put up with
this stuff. But as a web
> designer it is truely scarey. However, the small amount of
knowledge required to
> prevent them being used on my sites will come in handy. Here's
another: suppose
> someone goes to a child pornography site and the smart tag puts in
links to other
> child porn sites. Could it not be argued that that's Microsoft
endorsing child
> pornography?

I'll bet that's one they'll manage to avoid.

>
> It's very interesting that Steve Gibson talks of the problems of
Windows XP finally
> getting a standards compliant networking stack. He makes no
complaint of *nix's
> having had for years a fully compliant stack. For me, whether the
stack is compliant
> or not is not the issue: it's the flaws in Window's XP that makes
it dangerous, and
> increasingly we are seeing that those flaws are coming about as a
direct result of
> new 'features'.

Well, WRT raw sockets, it appears more that old features are being
shipped in places
 they should not be, while the tags decidedly are new features, that
would be of great
merit, had MS troubled to 'go open' with the course of development.
Typical arrogance, alas.

>
> It's all very well us sitting and writing deriding these new
features and telling each
> other we'll have to educate our friends, but this situation should
not have arisen in
> the first place: the fact that Microsoft is increasingly appearing
to be above the law
> and the Governments of the world terrified to take action 'in the
face of our
> economy' is shocking - the attitude of apathy and the companies
run the world. The
> place for individuality and non 'one-size-fits-all' has long since
dissappeared.

Full agreement-- hey, MS net worth is already greater than that of a
number of
small *nations*-- thus, perhaps much of the hands-off regard is akin
to that extended
to small nations such as the Vatican-- it is known that MS has its
own agenda, but if
such is not immediately threatening, don't mess with it.
Besides, one would not wish the local board of tourism's page to be
'accidentally'
denied the appropriate smart tags. <eg>

>
> Matthew

-d.max
0
d
6/22/2001 6:58:00 AM
No access, please copy

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.158ae7fae68b82c99896b4@207.71.92.194...
> Gang,
>
> See this Wall Street Journal article:
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>
> If you can't get it yourself, I'll copy the text in my next note ...
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
0
Happy
5/14/2003 12:11:00 PM
Happy-Camper <Happy-Camper@Blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> No access, please copy

/paste


New Windows XP Feature
Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
By Walter S. Mossberg

MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25,
is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home
versions of Windows. But Microsoft has another agenda for Windows XP:
The program is also designed to be a platform from which the company
can seamlessly offer users an array of new subscription services via
the Internet.

One key test of Windows XP will be whether its features do more to
benefit consumers or Microsoft's business plan. Another will be
whether the operating system favors Microsoft services over those of
other companies. The company has said its software won't discriminate
against others selling Web-based services.

But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already
encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that
shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which
hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web
browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site
into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any
other sites Microsoft favors.

In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit
anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way
that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site --
whether or not that site offers better information.

THE FEATURE, called Internet Explorer Smart Tags, wasn't in the
widely distributed second public beta of Windows XP issued in March.
And it isn't easy to find, even in later "builds" that have had much
more limited distribution.

In response to my questions, Microsoft officials stressed that the
feature may still undergo modifications to make it more palatable.
But they defended it as a useful tool.

"Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and
helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the
information they want in the way they want it," says Chris Jones,
vice president for Windows XP development.

Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with
Windows XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines
instantly appear under certain types of words. In the version I
tested, these browser-generated underlines appear beneath the names
of companies, sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms
could be highlighted in future versions.

If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and
if you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to
sites offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a
Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered
with eight Microsoft-generated links that the Post editors never
placed on their site.

In the beta version I tested, most of these links weren't functional
yet, but Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to
Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft.
One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search
engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services.

ONE MICROSOFT OFFICIAL says the feature will spare users from "under-
linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's up
to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn
into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's
part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post
article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them
at the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text.
Microsoft decided otherwise.

Microsoft says the Internet Explorer Smart Tags feature, which is
similar to a Smart Tag feature in the new Office XP, will be turned
off by default in the final release, and that users will have to
consciously choose to enable it by activating a setting buried in the
browser's menus. In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free
bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could
use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites.

But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and
offering sites a way to block it?

Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be
able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will
launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to
their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than
Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively
re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on
Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats'
sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on
the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering
their links on everything.

There have been some excellent third-party programs, like GuruNet
(now Atomica), that let users click on words within Web pages to get
more information. But these don't place new links on pages, and they
aren't built into the browser that more than 80% of Web visitors use.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and
dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser
is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own
advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by
using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing
field and threatening editorial integrity.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??

--
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >

/end paste


--
Robert
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Eric Howe's Privacy and Security Site -
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm
0
Robert
5/14/2003 1:20:00 PM
Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Happy-Camper
mention:

> No access, please copy

You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?

From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news,grc.news.feedback
Subject: It just never ends . . . Microsoft "Smart Tags"
Followup-To: grc.news.feedback
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:48:17 -0700

-- 
Don

"Machines take me by surprise with great frequency." -- Alan Turing 
0
Don
5/14/2003 1:37:00 PM
I am amazed at all the misinformed people that write about things they know
nothing about, and people that believe them repeat bull from some one else
in the same boat, if you don't use it you sure don't know what you are
talking about. that goes for all these experts here. Thus article is 2 1/2
years old and smart tags must be turned on to use which no one does.

"Robert Wycoff" <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:b9tfr4$8ml$1@news.grc.com...
> Happy-Camper <Happy-Camper@Blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > No access, please copy
>
> /paste
>
>
> New Windows XP Feature
> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
> By Walter S. Mossberg
>
> MICROSOFT'S WINDOWS XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25,
> Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??
0
Henry
5/14/2003 5:24:00 PM
"Henry" <ba189@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:b9tu3r$oej$1@news.grc.com>:

> I am amazed at all the misinformed people that write about things
> they know nothing about, and people that believe them repeat bull
> from some one else in the same boat, if you don't use it you sure
> don't know what you are talking about. that goes for all these
> experts here.

The article was written with all the info that was available at the
time, by someone who had used a beta version and had questioned
Microsoft about it.

> Thus article is 2 1/2 years old and smart tags must
> be turned on to use which no one does.

Yes.  The article mentioned that smart tags would be off by default.

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
5/14/2003 6:58:00 PM
"Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
news:uon6wu08hsy1.v12@12078.net...
> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Happy-Camper
> mention:
>
> > No access, please copy
>
> You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?

Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the iLoo?

And of course Bill Gates will get the blame if there's no paper...

And Norton Systemworks will include a can of Drano and a plunger...

And some free seat covers so you don't catch Sub-Seven off the seat...

And I dread to think what they'll call the "Recycle Bin", oops accidentally
hit "Restore" by mistake...

Heaven knows what Kevin will have to add to BOClean to make that work (wood
pulp maybe?)...

And if you think your kids spend a long time in the bathroom now, wait until
they have ICQ in there too...

Sorry, iLoo has encountered a problem and will have to close. Do you want to
send the results to Microsoft?
Yes / Hell yes / Yes, By Air Mail / No, I'll Just Live With It

Sorry Steve, bit O/T but I reckon this iLoo idea is about on a par with
smart tags... and I don't think they were actually MS's idea anyway were
they? Hmm. Can't recall, maybe it was NT who mentioned some other org that
had this idea...

Charlie
0
Charlie
5/14/2003 11:57:00 PM
Charlie Tame dipped a quill in the inkwell and wrote...
> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> news:uon6wu08hsy1.v12@12078.net...
> > Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Happy-Camper
> > mention:
> >
> > > No access, please copy
> >
> > You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?
> 
> Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the iLoo?
> 
<snipped a bunch of funny sh....STUFF!>
> 
> Sorry Steve, bit O/T but I reckon this iLoo idea is about on a par with
> smart tags... and I don't think they were actually MS's idea anyway were
> they? Hmm. Can't recall, maybe it was NT who mentioned some other org that
> had this idea...

Heh! Yep, I know there was another similar "tags" deal awhile back that 
never took off. It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)

-- 
Don
0
Don
5/15/2003 12:20:00 AM
In grc.news.feedback, Don Voorhees said...
> Charlie Tame dipped a quill in the inkwell and wrote...
>> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
>> news:uon6wu08hsy1.v12@12078.net...
>>> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Happy-Camper
>>> mention:
>>>
>>> > No access, please copy
>>>
>>> You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?
>> 
>> Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the iLoo?
>> 
> <snipped a bunch of funny sh....STUFF!>
>> 
>> Sorry Steve, bit O/T but I reckon this iLoo idea is about on a par with
>> smart tags... and I don't think they were actually MS's idea anyway were
>> they? Hmm. Can't recall, maybe it was NT who mentioned some other org that
>> had this idea...
> 
> Heh! Yep, I know there was another similar "tags" deal awhile back that 
> never took off. It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)

The W3C ...

http://annotest.w3.org/
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/

Annotea aims to do to the 'sovereignty' of web sites what people wrongly
attribute to Smart Tags, which are a model of end-user empowerment by
comparison. 

But this *is* off-topic for this group (after two years!), so follow-ups
set to grc.techtalk, if that's okay with everyone.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 1:05:00 AM
Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback,grc.techtalk, I heard Milly 
mention:

> In grc.news.feedback, Don Voorhees said...
>> Charlie Tame dipped a quill in the inkwell and wrote...
>>> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uon6wu08hsy1.v12@12078.net...
>>>>
>>>> You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?
>>> 
>>> Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the iLoo?
>>> 
>> <snipped a bunch of funny sh....STUFF!>
 
>>> Sorry Steve, bit O/T but I reckon this iLoo idea is about on a par with
>>> smart tags... and I don't think they were actually MS's idea anyway were
>>> they? Hmm. Can't recall, maybe it was NT who mentioned some other org that
>>> had this idea...
>> 
>> Heh! Yep, I know there was another similar "tags" deal awhile back that 
>> never took off. It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)
> 
> The W3C ...
> 
> http://annotest.w3.org/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/
> 
> Annotea aims to do to the 'sovereignty' of web sites what people wrongly
> attribute to Smart Tags, which are a model of end-user empowerment by
> comparison. 
> 
> But this *is* off-topic for this group (after two years!), so follow-ups
> set to grc.techtalk, if that's okay with everyone.

Thanks, Milly... That's it! I can sleep soundly tonight... :-)
-- 
Don

"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect." 
--Steven Wright
0
Don
5/15/2003 1:18:00 AM
"Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
news:b9umh0$1l9j$1@news.grc.com...

>  It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)
>
> -- 
> Don

Did you just make that up or find it written on the wall of an intelligent
toilet somewhere?

MS scrapped the idea for XP in July 2001 according to one article I just
found. Did the other people begin with the letter A... maybe an acronym or
something?

Charlie
0
Charlie
5/15/2003 1:22:00 AM
Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Charlie Tame
mention:

> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> news:b9umh0$1l9j$1@news.grc.com...

>>  It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)
>>
>> -- 
>> Don

> Did you just make that up or find it written on the wall of an intelligent
> toilet somewhere?

> MS scrapped the idea for XP in July 2001 according to one article I just
> found. Did the other people begin with the letter A... maybe an acronym or
> something?

> Charlie

As Milly found it... "Annotea". Good guess on the "A", Charlie! :-)

Also as Milly suggested, f/u's to TechTalk...
-- 
Don
0
Don
5/15/2003 1:34:00 AM
In news:b9tfr4$8ml$1@news.grc.com,
 Robert Wycoff <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> sent:

> Happy-Camper <Happy-Camper@Blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> No access, please copy
>
> /paste
>
>
> New Windows XP Feature
> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
> By Walter S. Mossberg

[QED]

> Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??

[]

Yes, and there could also be heard a faint echo of the phrase, "Imperial
Overreach" ...

[]

>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
>
> /end paste
>
>
> --
> Robert
0
Robert
5/15/2003 4:08:00 AM
In news:b9v3u5$23cu$1@news.grc.com,
 Robert Taylor <RobertTaylor@SpamCop.net> sent:

> In news:b9tfr4$8ml$1@news.grc.com,
>  Robert Wycoff <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> sent:
>
>> Happy-Camper <Happy-Camper@Blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> No access, please copy
>>
>> /paste
>>
>>
>> New Windows XP Feature
>> Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
>> By Walter S. Mossberg
>
> [QED]
>

>> Did someone mention "Out of control Hubris" ??
>
> []
>
> Yes, and there could also be heard a faint echo of the phrase,
> "Imperial Overreach" ...
>
> []
>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Steve Gibson,               at work on: < a million loose ends >
>>
>> /end paste
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert

Oops, forgot the  " ;~) ".

    � R
0
Robert
5/15/2003 4:19:00 AM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:11wi7xofqv0c3$.dlg@imilly.com...
> In grc.news.feedback, Don Voorhees said...
> > Charlie Tame dipped a quill in the inkwell and wrote...
> >> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> >> news:uon6wu08hsy1.v12@12078.net...
> >>> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Happy-Camper
> >>> mention:

> >>> > No access, please copy

> >>> You do realize Steve's post, and the article, are about 2 years old?

> >> Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the
iLoo?

> > <snipped a bunch of funny sh....STUFF!>

> >> Sorry Steve, bit O/T but I reckon this iLoo idea is about on a par with
> >> smart tags... and I don't think they were actually MS's idea anyway
were
> >> they? Hmm. Can't recall, maybe it was NT who mentioned some other org
that
> >> had this idea...

> > Heh! Yep, I know there was another similar "tags" deal awhile back that
> > never took off. It'll probably come back to me about 3 AM... :-)

> The W3C ...

> http://annotest.w3.org/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/

> Annotea aims to do to the 'sovereignty' of web sites what people wrongly
> attribute to Smart Tags, which are a model of end-user empowerment by
> comparison.

> But this *is* off-topic for this group (after two years!), so follow-ups
> set to grc.techtalk, if that's okay with everyone.

    <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" />

Hehe - I wonder what that would look like for iLoo <g>....

Thanks for the infos, Milly (& All).

Regards,
Axn...
;-)
--
"W2K Networking with BIND-PE and ICS"
http://members.shaw.ca/BIND-PE_and_ICS/
0
Axn
5/15/2003 4:53:00 AM
In grc.techtalk, Axn... said...
>>>> [...] 
>> Annotea aims to do to the 'sovereignty' of web sites what people wrongly
>> attribute to Smart Tags, which are a model of end-user empowerment by
>> comparison.
> 
>> But this *is* off-topic for this group (after two years!), so follow-ups
>> set to grc.techtalk, if that's okay with everyone.
> 
>     <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" />

Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
overriding their individual, local choices. 

Proxomitron users prefer to control their own experiences, or maybe
believe "It's MY computer!". So ...

	Name = "Remove all smart-tag killers"
	Active = TRUE
	Limit = 256
	Match = "<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing"*>"

Or, if you don't want to use an extra program, just ...

	[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\MSNSmartTags]
	"ParsePreventedPages"=dword:00000001

> Hehe - I wonder what that would look like for iLoo <g>....
> 
> Thanks for the infos, Milly (& All).

You're welcome. And thanks Sam ...

http://mypage.direct.ca/s/schinke/SmartTags/

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 10:57:00 AM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com...

> >     <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" />
>
> Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
> overriding their individual, local choices.

huh?

That block the MS "insertion of links" Milly...
which is just a sneaky way to navigate *away* from a website
someone is viewing and to websites that are both sponsored
(websites sign-up) or a "paid_insertion".

I regularly get offers to join some promotion (for a fee)
that lets the MS Smart tags activate keywords that will
link to one of my websites...yes...you can buy keywords
and steal clients from competitors....

Now...how is it that if a Webmaster decides not_to have
a 3rd party tear his sites viewers *away* from his site/
material that it is overiding or contempt for individuals???

hmm....

In my view...maybe 0.01% (or less) of sites *actively respect* clients.
Not by words...but by access regardless of client medium.

</grrr>  heh

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com
0
NT
5/15/2003 11:36:00 AM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com...

> Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
> overriding their individual, local choices.
>
> Proxomitron users prefer to control their own experiences, or maybe
> believe "It's MY computer!". So ...
>
> Name = "Remove all smart-tag killers"
> Active = TRUE
> Limit = 256
> Match = "<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing"*>"
>
> Or, if you don't want to use an extra program, just ...
>
> [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\MSNSmartTags]
> "ParsePreventedPages"=dword:00000001

Which now begs the question...is above contempt for Webmasters?
<For those that believe..."it's MY website!"...LOL>

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com
0
NT
5/15/2003 11:59:00 AM
In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...
> "Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com...
> 
>> Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
>> overriding their individual, local choices.
>>
>> Proxomitron users prefer to control their own experiences, or maybe
>> believe "It's MY computer!". So ...
>>
>> Name = "Remove all smart-tag killers"
>> Active = TRUE
>> Limit = 256
>> Match = "<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing"*>"
>>
>> Or, if you don't want to use an extra program, just ...
>>
>> [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\MSNSmartTags]
>> "ParsePreventedPages"=dword:00000001
> 
> Which now begs the question...is above contempt for Webmasters?
> <For those that believe..."it's MY website!"...LOL>

Nope. The anti-ST-killers seek to regain control of the display of the
website in just one place ... the user's own PC, where control rightly
belongs.

The ST-killers seek to impose control of the display of the website in
everyone else's PC ... by specifically overriding the users' choice.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 12:45:00 PM
In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...
> "Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com...
> 
>>>     <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" />
>>
>> Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
>> overriding their individual, local choices.
> 
> huh?
> 
> That block the MS "insertion of links" Milly...

No, it blocks the user-chosen, user-activated overlay of a context menu
containing user-chosen links and/or information. 

> which is just a sneaky way to navigate *away* from a website
> someone is viewing and to websites that are both sponsored
> (websites sign-up) or a "paid_insertion".

If that's what the user wants. Or it's a way to empower users with easy
access to additional/relevant/valuable information.

> I regularly get offers to join some promotion (for a fee)
> that lets the MS Smart tags activate keywords that will
> link to one of my websites...yes...you can buy keywords
> and steal clients from competitors....

So the slimeballs are into it. As they are with cookies, and graphics
and links and scripting and every other aspect of surfing. That makes
the slimeballs bad, not the technology.

> Now...how is it that if a Webmaster decides not_to have
> a 3rd party tear his sites viewers *away* from his site/
> material that it is overiding or contempt for individuals???

Because those viewers are not 'his', any more than they are the 3rd
party's. It's exactly that self-serving, falsely proprietorial attitude
to visitors which is contemptuous of those visitors' right to make their
own choices. It's not the third party's choice. It's not the webmaster's
choice. It's the visitor's choice. 

> hmm....
> 
> In my view...maybe 0.01% (or less) of sites *actively respect* clients.
> Not by words...but by access regardless of client medium.
> 
> </grrr>  heh

So why reduce that number?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 12:47:00 PM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:mc6d9my1z77g.dlg@imilly.com...
> In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...

> No, it blocks the user-chosen, user-activated overlay of a context menu
> containing user-chosen links and/or information.

Umm...I don't exactly recall ever seeing the smart tags in website
material or as a client option being a feature requested by clients.
In other words...this is a service driven feature...by the industry.

> > which is just a sneaky way to navigate *away* from a website
> > someone is viewing and to websites that are both sponsored
> > (websites sign-up) or a "paid_insertion".
>
> If that's what the user wants. Or it's a way to empower users with easy
> access to additional/relevant/valuable information.

Heh...maybe the client wants the website tobe concientious...
This is all conjecture, I've done both and watched where/how
the browsers skipped off to...not exactly even a fraction of a
fraction of a percentage...of those who had the choice/ability.

> > I regularly get offers to join some promotion (for a fee)
> > that lets the MS Smart tags activate keywords that will
> > link to one of my websites...yes...you can buy keywords
> > and steal clients from competitors....
>
> So the slimeballs are into it. As they are with cookies, and graphics
> and links and scripting and every other aspect of surfing. That makes
> the slimeballs bad, not the technology.

The technology is availabe completely at the users discretion
without advertising or any other intermediaries via oopss...
they went to payware!... I wonder if my old Atomica still woiks.

> > Now...how is it that if a Webmaster decides not_to have
> > a 3rd party tear his sites viewers *away* from his site/
> > material that it is overiding or contempt for individuals???
>
> Because those viewers are not 'his', any more than they are the 3rd
> party's. It's exactly that self-serving, falsely proprietorial attitude
> to visitors which is contemptuous of those visitors' right to make their
> own choices. It's not the third party's choice. It's not the webmaster's
> choice. It's the visitor's choice.

Umm...the content is his/hers...
this alters/interfers with the contents focus.

It's not the visitors choice what the Webmaster writes,
choosing to view or not view is of course the viewers choice.

Speaking of which...webmasters often seem to do what is
"convenient" for them and not their audience... <ring bell>

> > hmm....
> >
> > In my view...maybe 0.01% (or less) of sites *actively respect* clients.
> > Not by words...but by access regardless of client medium.
> >
> > </grrr>  heh
>
> So why reduce that number?

Heh...number of what Milly, there are no numbers cited to look at.

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com
0
NT
5/15/2003 1:09:00 PM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:1q8ovwq7ytny$.dlg@imilly.com...
> In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...
> > "Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com...

> > Which now begs the question...is above contempt for Webmasters?
> > <For those that believe..."it's MY website!"...LOL>
>
> Nope. The anti-ST-killers seek to regain control of the display of the
> website in just one place ... the user's own PC, where control rightly
> belongs.

Well...in respect of the user configured selection re: proximitron...
that is part of what proximitron can do, more of a super-user than
a regular visitor/surfer.

> The ST-killers seek to impose control of the display of the website in
> everyone else's PC ... by specifically overriding the users' choice.

Umm...not really Milly, there's a myriad of ways to control color, graphics,
fonts, frames etc. (as you well know) that are infinitely more problematic
to user/viewers....but here again you seem to be implying some agenda
on the part of the Webmasters...yet you are also a Webmaster....hmmm..

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com
0
NT
5/15/2003 1:17:00 PM
In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...
> "Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:1q8ovwq7ytny$.dlg@imilly.com...
>> In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...
>>> "Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:l59b74ouq6ph.dlg@imilly.com... 
>>> Which now begs the question...is above contempt for Webmasters?
>>> <For those that believe..."it's MY website!"...LOL>
>>
>> Nope. The anti-ST-killers seek to regain control of the display of the
>> website in just one place ... the user's own PC, where control rightly
>> belongs.
> 
> Well...in respect of the user configured selection re: proximitron...
> that is part of what proximitron can do, more of a super-user than
> a regular visitor/surfer.

It's the same thing. A tool in the user's hands, to change only what
that user's PC displays.

>> The ST-killers seek to impose control of the display of the website in
>> everyone else's PC ... by specifically overriding the users' choice.
> 
> Umm...not really Milly, there's a myriad of ways to control color, graphics,
> fonts, frames etc. (as you well know) that are infinitely more problematic
> to user/viewers....but here again you seem to be implying some agenda
> on the part of the Webmasters...yet you are also a Webmaster....hmmm..

If you wish to install a Smart Tag which makes available to you a
context menu keying on the words "Milly's Winclean", and that menu
includes a link to the Evidence Eliminator site, it's fine with me (and
none of my business). You aren't changing my site. You aren't changing
anyone else's view of my site. Just your own, and you (and only you) are
entitled to do that.

I happen to think EE is made and marketed by scum, and is a rip-off. But
I have no claims on you or your browser or your preferences. If you wish
to have EE links handy, even overlaid on your local copy of my web page,
it's no one's business but your own. 

To the extent that WinClean competes with EE, I'll do so without trying
to override or restrict your choices, or making your browser into cannon
fodder for that fight. My desire to fight (hypothetical,in this case)
underhand practices by EE shouldn't extend to overriding yours as a
visitor to my site. Moreover, my dislike for one or more actual or
potential Smart Tags shouldn't cause me to override your choice of any
and all Smart Tags, some of which I might find perfectly respectable and
unobjectionable. Not if I have respect for your right to choose what you
do I your own browser.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 2:04:00 PM
In grc.techtalk, Milly said...
>  Not if I have respect for your right to choose what you
> do I your own browser.

 ... in your own browser.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
5/15/2003 2:10:00 PM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message news:e0wrw8wvzx8y.dlg@imilly.com...
> In grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said...

> > Well...in respect of the user configured selection re: proximitron...
> > that is part of what proximitron can do, more of a super-user than
> > a regular visitor/surfer.
>
> It's the same thing. A tool in the user's hands, to change only what
> that user's PC displays.

How does a palm-pilot elect those PC dislay options?

> If you wish to install a Smart Tag which makes available to you a
> context menu keying on the words "Milly's Winclean", and that menu
> includes a link to the Evidence Eliminator site, it's fine with me (and
> none of my business). You aren't changing my site. You aren't changing
> anyone else's view of my site. Just your own, and you (and only you) are
> entitled to do that.

Both user/viewer and the site will be releasing traffic info to a 3rd/4th party...

> I happen to think EE is made and marketed by scum, and is a rip-off. But
> I have no claims on you or your browser or your preferences. If you wish
> to have EE links handy, even overlaid on your local copy of my web page,
> it's no one's business but your own.

Heh...I still have an olde sticky note critter.  *g*

> To the extent that WinClean competes with EE, I'll do so without trying
> to override or restrict your choices, or making your browser into cannon
> fodder for that fight. My desire to fight (hypothetical,in this case)
> underhand practices by EE shouldn't extend to overriding yours as a
> visitor to my site. Moreover, my dislike for one or more actual or
> potential Smart Tags shouldn't cause me to override your choice of any
> and all Smart Tags, some of which I might find perfectly respectable and
> unobjectionable. Not if I have respect for your right to choose what you
> do I your own browser.

This paragraph is somewhat cryptic to me...I'll mull/translate it in a bit.
Ok...I asked my AI...she said...
"Should one take candy from strangers?"

The strangers being links onsite that are not from respective domain.

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com
0
NT
5/15/2003 2:33:00 PM
"Milly" <@.....> wrote in message...
> In grc.techtalk, Axn... said...
> >>>> [...]
> >> Annotea aims to do to the 'sovereignty' of web sites what people
wrongly
> >> attribute to Smart Tags, which are a model of end-user empowerment by
> >> comparison.
> >> But this *is* off-topic for this group (after two years!), so
follow-ups
> >> set to grc.techtalk, if that's okay with everyone.

> >     <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" />

> Yep, handy if you want to treat your visitors with contempt by
> overriding their individual, local choices.
> Proxomitron users prefer to control their own experiences, or maybe
> believe "It's MY computer!". So ...
> Name = "Remove all smart-tag killers"
> Active = TRUE
> Limit = 256
> Match = "<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing"*>"
> Or, if you don't want to use an extra program, just ...
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\MSNSmartTags]
> "ParsePreventedPages"=dword:00000001

> > Hehe - I wonder what that would look like for iLoo <g>....
> > Thanks for the infos, Milly (& All).

> You're welcome. And thanks Sam ...
> http://mypage.direct.ca/s/schinke/SmartTags/

Thanks Milly. I still think you're the *greatest*... ;-)
At least web authors have a True/False choice. I'd
hate to see that choice taken away. And thx Sam...

LOL! Could you imagine all the sites with purple
backgrounds?! Hehe - and a new Google Toolbar
icon? (Search *purple* sites). <g>

And of course, if SmartTag enabled folks come to
your site and don't see any squigglies, they still have
an option to "move along", if it really bugs 'em. (And
if they're using BIND-PE, they can do that very quickly!)

Regards,
Axn...
;-)
--
"W2K Networking with BIND-PE and ICS"
http://members.shaw.ca/BIND-PE_and_ICS/
0
Axn
5/15/2003 5:56:00 PM
"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in a message:

>
> Hehe, you realise we are going to get this all over again about the iLoo?
>

Thankfully they've announced it was just a hoax....  I can only imagine
everyone here is now waiting patiently for Microsoft to announce that
Windows was "just a hoax" too.  Yup.... just a big decade-long joke, so
Steve can say he was right aaaaallllll along.  :~)


> And of course Bill Gates will get the blame if there's no paper...

I think that's the least of the worries...  Internet access in the bathroom?

 ahem...

....and in other news, porta-potty masturbation is up 1000000000% this year,
while users complain the paper on this printer just doesn't wipe as well as
the stuff at home.

-S

<going back into hibernation now>
0
Stefan
5/15/2003 9:56:00 PM
> LOL! Could you imagine all the sites with purple
> backgrounds?! Hehe - and a new Google Toolbar
> icon? (Search *purple* sites). <g>

Hm ... I don't use the google toolbar at all due to the
privacy issues (ok, ok, I know, they clearly tell you
what they're collecting, but that's my personal choice)
instead I prefer the buttons ... that is:

http://www.google.com/options/buttons.html

quick, easy, non intrusive ... and are really handy,
what's more, another button which may be nice to
have is the "tinyurl" one, that is

-- 

* ObiWan

DNS "fail-safe" for Windows 2000 and 9X clients.
http://ntcanuck.com

408 XP/2000 tweaks and tips
http://ntcanuck.com/tq/Tip_Quarry.htm


http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar
0
ObiWan
5/16/2003 7:35:00 AM
"ObiWan" <anzenNO-SPAM@gmx.net> wrot...
> > LOL! Could you imagine all the sites with purple
> > backgrounds?! Hehe - and a new Google Toolbar
> > icon? (Search *purple* sites). <g>

> Hm ... I don't use the google toolbar at all due to the
> privacy issues (ok, ok, I know, they clearly tell you
> what they're collecting, but that's my personal choice)
> instead I prefer the buttons ... that is:

Hmm... good point. I guess SmartTags could pick up
and distribute a lot of infos too?

> http://www.google.com/options/buttons.html

More buttons! Cool! (hehe - don't know if I can sqeeze
many more in...<g>)

> quick, easy, non intrusive ... and are really handy,
> what's more, another button which may be nice to
> have is the "tinyurl" one, that is

Aye. Especially for those long URLs, like
"members.shaw.somewhereovertherainbowupthereincanader.ca",
with 60 character page names tacked onto them that break the
validators... <lol - I have one of those!>

;-)

--
"W2K Networking with BIND-PE and ICS"
http://members.shaw.ca/BIND-PE_and_ICS/
0
Axn
5/16/2003 8:25:00 PM
Reply: