Linux-Advocacy Digest #327, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 08:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Chris Street)
Re: Is Linux for me? (/p@-)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street)
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Antitrust DVD ("Piers Bray")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Tim Adams)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: Is Linux for me? ("~¿~")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:16:40 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:28:37 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Street wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:16:38 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
>>>
>>>>unidentified poster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>More ideally, we should've listened more carefully
>>>>>to Patton, and just taken the USSR when we had the
>>>>>chance.
>>>>>
>>>Dumb idea.
>>>
>>>NEVER attack a country in which it's army can perform strategic withdrawal
>>>for 10,000 miles across a 3,000 mile-wide front.
>>>
>>>In such conditions, Even stupid snipers will take out 5 enemy soldiers
>>>before being killed themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not only that..but...although the typical Russian is QUITE peaceful
>>>(less prone to support military aggression than American citizens),
>>>they are FIERCELY loyal to the cause when the country gets invaded.
>>>
>>>In WW2, the Red Army wasn't fighting for Stalin....they were fighting
>>>for MAMA AND GRANDMA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Correct. They were fighting for the Rodina - the motherland. They
>> didn't give a toss about Stalin.
>>
>> 1. Never fight on two fronts.
>> 2. Never fight a land war in Asia
>> 3. Never fight in severe winter.
>>
>> Hitler screwed up on all three counts.
>>
>
>
>
>Didn't Bismark say that Germany cannot effectively fight on two battle
>fronts, hence, the defeat in the first world war?
>
>Matthew Gardiner
Not sure - but I think everyone agreed that fighting on more fronts
that is needed is a stupid move.
>
>
>
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: /p@- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: 17 Jun 2001 03:35:09 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>Netscape sucks, but Linux/Mozilla rules.
>
you guys keep living in a dream world.
IE is the best browser. numbers talk for itself. I used all
of the browser, and IE is the best of them all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:18:27 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:22:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LShaping wrote:
>>
>> Must have an IBM PC-XT, from over ten years ago. Modern personal
>> computers have only one power switch and typically do not have a
>> rocker switch on the back next to the power inlet. Not in the United
>> States.
>>>
>
>ATX-computers in germany have *all* this switch.
>
>Peter
ATX computers in all of *europe* have this switch - it's a safety
requirement. I would be incredibly surprised if there wasn't a similar
requirment in the US.
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:27:39 GMT
In article <lm0X6.17353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <h9QW6.16840$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <VPsW6.15192$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Well, considering that it doesn't insert a new link into your page,
> then
> > > I
> > > >
> > > > A hyperlink is added to the page. In fact, loads could be. Ones
> which
> > > > were not intended by the original author.
> > >
> > > No, a hyperlink is *NOT* added to the page. Certain words are given
> Smart
> > > Tags, which act entirely differently than hyperlinks.
> >
> > "entirely different"?
> >
> > Nonsense. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense.
> >
> > A hyperlink takes the user to another web page. Smart tags take the user
> > to another web page.
>
> No, the Smart Tag does not take you to another web page. The Smart Tag
> creates a popup, the popup provides hyperlinks which can take you to another
> page. The Smart Tag is what the user sees in the web page, not the popup
> window containing the links.
What pedantic drivel.
The Smart tags have the effect of being able to take you to another page
-- just like hyperlinks.
Heck, by your silly, bizarre reasoning, hyperlinks don't take you to
another page, either because you have to click on them first.
>
> > They do exactly the same thing, although the actual clicking motion
> > varies slightly.
>
> No, they don't do exactly the same thing. The Smart Tag never takes you to
> another page, ever.
Looks like EdLOSE didn't go away for long before someone just as stupid
popped up.
Hyperlinks - underlined text that, by clicking appropriately, takes you
to another web page.
Smart Tags - ditto
And you still haven't answered the basic question. No matter what you
call it, what gives Microsoft the right to add content to my web page?
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:27:59 GMT
In article <3b2c2078$0$88186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:21:11 GMT, Jerome Chan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >What is the use of SmartTags?
>
> Whatever the original intent was, their effect in this group has been
> to cause a masive belching of hot air and a huge upturn in the number
> of black helicopter sightings by the Maccies. 8)
>
>
>
I see. So Walter Mossberg is a Maccie now?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:18:57 -0500
"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <MCQW6.16845$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:42:14 GMT, "Cyberbear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > > Because you, as the user, can change fonts and colors. For a
third
> > party
> > > > to stick its nose in, and do it before it is displayed in the
browser is
> > > > intrusive.
> > >
> > > I'll bet it's also illegal
> >
> > Then that would make this site illegal.
> >
> > http://rinkworks.com/dialect/
> >
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> Parody falls within Fair Use, as defined by copyright laws and case law.
>
> What Microsoft is doing can not use parody as an excuse.
No, but providing annotations for reference does fall under fair use.
> You really ought to learn a little bit about copyright before making
> such a fool of yourself.
You really ought to consider your arguments.
------------------------------
From: "Piers Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Antitrust DVD
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:31:01 +1000
Great send up of Microsoft. Interesting that this film recieved 1 and a
half weeks cinema screen time in the US and we in Australia got nothing.
Luckily we have access to US DVD's or else I would never have seen it. You
guys will love it and the message it has to put forward about proprietry
software.
Piers.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:23:50 -0500
"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <OvQW6.16844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <m8AW6.15708$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
> > wrote:
> > > >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> In article <uKyW6.15644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch"
> > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > > NONE of your examples changes the content of the page -- or
adds
> > > >> > > > hyperlinks. This is something new.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > They look like hyperlinks. They act like hyperinks. They are...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Actually, they don't look like hyperlinks, nor do they act like
them.
> > > >> > When I hover over a hyperlink, it doesn't give me a button to
press
> > > >> > to bring up a new window with the link in it.
> > > >>
> > > >> So when you hover over one of these things-that-are-not-hyperlinks,
a
> > > >> button appears. When you click it, a new window appears and that
loads
> > > >> the URL associated with the button.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's see. A hyperlink is a widget[1] which when you click it takes
you
> > > >> to a new URL.
> > > >
> > > >Where the hell did you get that definition of a hyperlink? It's not
a
> > > >widget, since widgets are standalone entities. Hyperlinks are simply
> > pieces
> > > >of text that are clickable.
> > > >
> > > >> A thing-that-is-not-a-hyperlink is a widget[2] which when you click
it
> > > >> takes you to a new URL.
> > > >
> > > >But it's not the text you are clicking, which is what a hyperlink is.
> > And
> > >
> > > A hyperlink is *not* clickable text! A hyperlink is a pointer to some
> > other
> > > information, document or whatever, placed where either the author
intended
> > > it to be or where Microsoft intend it to be.
> >
> > No, it is clickable text, otherwise its simply a reference (such as a
> > bibliography). To be a hyperlink it has to provide the mechanism to go
to
> > somewhere else.
>
> Gee. Like Smart tags.
No, not like Smart Tags.
> > > >it doesn't take you to a new URL, it opens a new window which allows
you
> > to
> > > > then go to a new URL. The links in the new window are Hyperlinks.
> > >
> > > So, this hyperlink, hyperlinks you to a window, which provides
hyperlinks
> > > to other sites, specially selected for you by Microsoft.
> >
> > Popups aren't hyperlinks. They're only hyperlinks if they link to a new
> > URL.
>
> Like Smart Tags.
No.
> > > Microsoft have edited the original material, added links which were
not
> > > there.
> >
> > If you look at the source, you don't see any new HTML code in it,
therefore
> > they have added nothing other than an interesting visual element which
> > activates a feature that is nearly identical to Netscapes "What's this".
>
> No, by your own definitions above, Smart Tags are essentially hyperlinks.
No, they're not.
> I can't believe anyone could really try to defend such an absurd
> position (that Smart Tags are not hyperlinks).
Perhaps you don't understand what the Smart Tag is. The Smart Tag is *ONLY*
the underlining of the word and the mechanism to provide a popup. You can
put anything you like in the popup (with the SDK), and it need not be
hyperlinks at all. It could just be a graphic image for instance.
A Smart Tag need not link to anything, and its still a Smart Tag. A
hyperlink isn't a hyperlink if it doesn't link to anything, now is it?
> > > That is violation of copyright.
> >
> > No it's not. You've given permission to reproduce the material by
making
> > ita available to be downloaded.
>
> Not true. You're giving permission for it to be downloaded and read.
Really? I see no explicit permission for only doing this. If that were the
case, it would be illegal to render the page, since permission was not
granted for that.
> That specifically does NOT entitle a third party to modify it in any way.
How do you explain a web browser that doesn't support frames, for instance?
It modifies the page in very big structural ways.
> Read up on copyright law some time.
Brush up on your logic skills.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:25:06 -0500
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <OvQW6.16844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, it is clickable text, otherwise its simply a reference (such as a
> > bibliography). To be a hyperlink it has to provide the mechanism to go
to
> > somewhere else.
>
> So you're telling us that SmartTags do not "provide the mechanism to go
> to somewhere else"?
They might, but they don't have to. A Smart Tag is simply the mechanism to
highlight the words and provide a popup. The popup may include hyperlinks,
or it might be a graphic image, or simply some text. What the Smart Tag
contains is irrelevant to it being a Smart Tag.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
From: Tim Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:39:18 GMT
in article 9ghc5n$4p0$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/17/01 1:32 AM:
>
> "Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> in article 9ggirh$4ji$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien at
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/16/01 6:13 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:42:39 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>> ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using a plugin opens the PDF inside the browser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which still doesn't make the PDF file a web page.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it makes it a lot like it.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to see a site that uses pdf instead of html.
>>>
>>> www.guides.co.il
>>
>> And the first line of source code on that page is:
>>
>> "<html><!-- #BeginTemplate "/Templates/all.dwt" -->"
>>
>> So, since when did PDF files start out with the <html> bit?
>
> The guides in it are mostly PDF, which is what I said.
>
>
>
Which means that they are set up as downloadable file OR files to be viewed
onluine with the proper plugin installed BUT doesn't make them web pages.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:43:26 GMT
In article <eB0X6.17400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <OvQW6.16844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > No, it is clickable text, otherwise its simply a reference (such as a
> > > bibliography). To be a hyperlink it has to provide the mechanism to go
> to
> > > somewhere else.
> >
> > So you're telling us that SmartTags do not "provide the mechanism to go
> > to somewhere else"?
>
> They might, but they don't have to. A Smart Tag is simply the mechanism to
> highlight the words and provide a popup. The popup may include hyperlinks,
> or it might be a graphic image, or simply some text. What the Smart Tag
> contains is irrelevant to it being a Smart Tag.
>
But it's very, very relevant to the core issue here.
Even if Smart Tags can contain text or graphics, you have an even
greater abuse of MS monopoly power. It's just one more way to add
content to a web site they don't own.
Call them anything you want. They're adding content to the web page no
matter what you call them.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:42:27 +1200
Joel Barnett wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ... a worthless diatribe that I have snipped.
>
> The Windows user's biggest mistake wasn't using Windows, Charlie, it was
> asking you for help.
>
> jbarntt
>
>
>
Could someone send the lovebug to him, he's running X-Newsreader:
Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700, probably unpatched. However,
unlike him, I prefer using Mozilla, at least I don't have to worry.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:43:37 +1200
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>Simple:
>>
>>1) Never run any untrusted EXE or ActiveX control.
>>
>>2) Don't use Microsoft's EMail client - use one that doesn't support VB
>>scripts.
>>
>>
>>>I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
>>>come up with something.
>>>
>>I just came up with two simple rules, Charlie. They work very well for
>>me.
>>
>>
>
> 3) If you run windows then always run a firewall.
>
> 4) Always use an up-to-date virus package on any EXE's you get sent even if
> they come from a trusted source ( a virus on their system could have sent
> the file). They may be generally useless for new virii but still better
> than nothing and with luck the heuristic scanning will detect it anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
WHy would someone send you an exe? any files sent, that are exe or vbs,
I instantly delete.
matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:49:25 +1200
drsquare wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:46:15 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>
>>>Better than this, perhaps you might as well tell us all what we
>>>can do to make Windows safer. Show me what I should have said
>>>to this USER.
>>>
>>Simple:
>>
>>1) Never run any untrusted EXE or ActiveX control.
>>
>
> Most users don't know what EXE or ActiveX means.
Most people suffer from a bad case of "optimism bias".
>
>>2) Don't use Microsoft's EMail client - use one that doesn't support VB
>>scripts.
>>
>
> Most users won't know what VB is, let alone that you can have
> different email clients.
I talked to one user, and asked what Mail Client he used (he couldn't
get something to work properly), he didn't know what on earth I was
talking about. Then he suddenly said, oh, I use the on included with
Windows. I enlightened him to the mystical world of virus, ActiveX and
other bad things on the net. He was quite happy I told him, because he
had a lot of important work, and didn't want it to lose it. He is
another happy Mozilla user, happy in the fact that he is not one of the
suckers unwilling to question the quality of Microsoft software.
>
>>>I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
>>>come up with something.
>>>
>>I just came up with two simple rules, Charlie. They work very well for
>>me.
>>
>
> But not for the majority of users.
>
OE is set to "Internet Zone" for the default settings, however, this
will probably shock some people, Microsoft changed the default setting
to "Restricted Zone" to stop "rogue" scripts etc etc. in Outlook 2002,
something that should have been done from day one.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:55:00 GMT
In article <2A0X6.17396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <OvQW6.16844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > A hyperlink is *not* clickable text! A hyperlink is a pointer to some
> > > other
> > > > information, document or whatever, placed where either the author
> intended
> > > > it to be or where Microsoft intend it to be.
> > >
> > > No, it is clickable text, otherwise its simply a reference (such as a
> > > bibliography). To be a hyperlink it has to provide the mechanism to go
> to
> > > somewhere else.
> >
> > Gee. Like Smart tags.
>
> No, not like Smart Tags.
A Smart tag doesn't provide a mechanism to go somewhere else? Really?
Then Microsoft, Mossberg, and all the MS Shills here are lying? You
really can't use Smart Tags to go to a different site?
What a relief.
>
> > > > >it doesn't take you to a new URL, it opens a new window which allows
> you
> > > to
> > > > > then go to a new URL. The links in the new window are Hyperlinks.
> > > >
> > > > So, this hyperlink, hyperlinks you to a window, which provides
> hyperlinks
> > > > to other sites, specially selected for you by Microsoft.
> > >
> > > Popups aren't hyperlinks. They're only hyperlinks if they link to a new
> > > URL.
> >
> > Like Smart Tags.
>
> No.
Clever. Do you think that your delusions will become real if you say
them enough times?
>
> > > > Microsoft have edited the original material, added links which were
> not
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > If you look at the source, you don't see any new HTML code in it,
> therefore
> > > they have added nothing other than an interesting visual element which
> > > activates a feature that is nearly identical to Netscapes "What's this".
> >
> > No, by your own definitions above, Smart Tags are essentially hyperlinks.
>
> No, they're not.
Of course they are - if you have brainpower greater than your average
retarded 3 year old.
Smart tags can be used to go to another site. Period.
>
> > I can't believe anyone could really try to defend such an absurd
> > position (that Smart Tags are not hyperlinks).
>
> Perhaps you don't understand what the Smart Tag is. The Smart Tag is *ONLY*
> the underlining of the word and the mechanism to provide a popup. You can
> put anything you like in the popup (with the SDK), and it need not be
> hyperlinks at all. It could just be a graphic image for instance.
The popup is part of the smart tag.
Even if it's not, it's absurd to pretend that the Smart Tag doesn't have
the functional result of acting like a hyperlink.
>
> A Smart Tag need not link to anything, and its still a Smart Tag. A
> hyperlink isn't a hyperlink if it doesn't link to anything, now is it?
OK. So a Smart Tag is only _usually_ used as a hyperlink. It can also be
used by Microsoft to deface the web page in other ways.
Better?
>
> > > > That is violation of copyright.
> > >
> > > No it's not. You've given permission to reproduce the material by
> making
> > > ita available to be downloaded.
> >
> > Not true. You're giving permission for it to be downloaded and read.
>
> Really? I see no explicit permission for only doing this. If that were the
> case, it would be illegal to render the page, since permission was not
> granted for that.
Ummm, moron?
Why would you put a web page in a public place if you did not intend for
it to be downloaded and read?
No one ever claimed that permission was explicit. But it's clearly
implied.
Now, if you were to create a web page and the first line said "no one
has any permission to read past this line", then you could argue that
you hadn't given permission to read the page (downloading would still be
OK because they'd have to download it to read your denial of permission
line). But creating and posting a web page like that would be pretty
stupid, wouldn't it (unless you're a MS shill looking for bizarre
examples to prop up your incredibly weak arguments).
>
> > That specifically does NOT entitle a third party to modify it in any way.
>
> How do you explain a web browser that doesn't support frames, for instance?
> It modifies the page in very big structural ways.
By leaving things out. Every web page developer worth his salt knows
that not all web browsers will support his features.
VASTLY different than adding content.
At the risk of further confusing your 2 brain cells, look at an example:
copy machines.
A copy machine is intended to copy documents and their are fair use
restrictions on that copying. By releasing a document, you are accepting
that it can be used by people within the Fair Use doctrine. If you
object to that use, there are steps you can take (such as non-disclosure
agreements) to restrict the reader's rights.
Now, some copy machines, either due to design or neglect, make a poor
copy of the document. If the user puts the document on wrong, some lines
of the document will not be copied. That does not affect Fair Use or any
other copyright issues.
OTOH, if you created a copy machine that _added_ text to the document,
that WOULD be a violation of copyright law. That's essentially what
Smart Tags are doing -- adding content.
I'm just so curious why it's so difficult for you to understand that
leaving something out is different than intentionally adding something.
>
> > Read up on copyright law some time.
>
> Brush up on your logic skills.
Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? If so, you failed miserably.
Given your history of posts here, though, I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt and believe it's just your lack of logic and English language
skills that causes the problem. You probably really meant to say "I'll
have a Ham and Cheese on Rye" and that's how it came out.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:56:40 GMT
In article <sv0X6.17381$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <MCQW6.16845$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:42:14 GMT, "Cyberbear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dan,
> > > > > Because you, as the user, can change fonts and colors. For a
> third
> > > party
> > > > > to stick its nose in, and do it before it is displayed in the
> browser is
> > > > > intrusive.
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet it's also illegal
> > >
> > > Then that would make this site illegal.
> > >
> > > http://rinkworks.com/dialect/
> > >
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > Parody falls within Fair Use, as defined by copyright laws and case law.
> >
> > What Microsoft is doing can not use parody as an excuse.
>
> No, but providing annotations for reference does fall under fair use.
In some circumstances.
Making wholesale changes to a document does not.
>
> > You really ought to learn a little bit about copyright before making
> > such a fool of yourself.
>
> You really ought to consider your arguments.
I have. Unlike you, I understand the issue and I'm not a Microsoft shill
who defends everything they do.
I'm just curious, if they were to start requiring users to sacrifice
cats in order to use MS Office 2003, what would your defense be? After
all, it's clear that you'd be defending them. I'm just trying to figure
out how you'd do it?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:57:56 GMT
> > I'm seriously considering moving my computer over to linux. I thought
> > maybe redhat, since a fair number of people seem to use that and there
> > would be plenty of support. I see good reasons why I should and
> > shouldn't go to linux.
> > I should because:
> > I really don't like Windows. I'm tired of upgrading and upgrading and
Then quit upgrading.
> > watching my computers get less and less stable.
See above.
> > Maybe I shouldn't. though?
Using the old bean now, I see.
If you have to ask, then NO.
In light of the fact that you ask in cola makes should tell you something.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
