Linux-Advocacy Digest #343, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: More microsoft innovation (Woofbert)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Woofbert)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Peter da Silva)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... ("Chad Myers")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Peter Hayes)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (ppeoe@m)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:31:30 GMT
In article <lm0X6.17353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> > 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.
The distinction between "SmartTags link you to another page" and
"SmartTags pop up windows which link you to another page" is there and
understood ... however, the end result is that SmartTags add hyperlinks
to a web page.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:33:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neither the underline nor the popup nor the links in the popup were part
> of my original page. IF MS takes my page and modifies it to add content
> then republish it with links to their sites or any other sites, I will
> take all legal measures open to me.
> As a number of Microsoft officials read and post to this group under
> pseudonyms this should be sufficient notice.
Sice SmartTags can also add text, pictures, and presumably embedded
objects such as QuickTime and Shockwave movies, this amounts to a
technology with serious implications ... a web page author is no longer
in control of his own web page.
I will do what I can to make SmartTags useless on the web pages I
publish. Microsoft, we'll see you in court.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 16 Jun 2001 00:15:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh... I'm not sure I follow. The way it is now, I buy a new PC with
> the latest Windows on it, and spend hours moving stuff over. In an
> ideal world, I buy a new PC with the latest Windows on it, and push a
> button to automatically transfer all my stuff.
The logic is:
If it's easier to transfer, you buy that new PC more often.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:29:40 GMT
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <UlzW6.39650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <3b2a2e20$0$94312$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad
> >> Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > No, I'm talking about pictures of 12 year old girls (according to the
> >> > article I read) being distributed to persons in America. The FBI has
> >> > active investigations going on to kiddie porn rings with the material
> >> > originating in Holland.
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't aware this wasn't common knowledge. I've heard reports of
> >> > this in the major media on several occasions. I've seen Dateline
> >> > specials on it. This is nothing new.
> >> >
> >> > -c
> >> >
> >> Several occasions? I know a kiddie porn ring got busted in Zandvoort,
> >> about 2 years ago IIRC. But aside from that I haven't seen anything
> >> about kiddie porn on the scale you are implying. Frankly if the FBI is
> >> investigating and it is public knowledge in the US, then it would have
> >> been blaring from the headlines over here.
> >
> > Do a search on Google of +pedophilia +Amsterdam and you'll get thousands
> > of results, many titled something like "The best kiddie picks straight
> > from Amsterdam!".
> >
> > http://www.ageofconsent.com/netherlands.htm
> >
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaNetherlands.
> > asp
> >
> >
> Conveniently forgetting here that the porn merchants are playing on
> Amsterdam's 'dirty' reputation. It's advertising, disgusting advertising,
> but nothing more.
>
> > Look up Article 244 of the Penal Code " A person who, with a person who
> > is under the age of twelve (12)
> > performs acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the body
> > is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than twelve years or a
> > fine of the fifth category. "
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I consider a 12 year old a child.
>
> Yes, and now look up article 245, which considers children between 12 and
> 16. Same terms, but a lower sentence, 8 years instead of 12. So the age of
> consent is 16, anything lower, and the police will be upon you like a ton
> of brick, *if* someone files charges. That much is true, the offence by
> itself is not prosecutable *without* a charge being filed. Generally
> though, parents and child protection authorities take a dim view of an
> adult having sex with an under-16, but it does protect the 17 year old
> with a 15 1/2 year old girlfriend who would be committing statutory rape
> in the US (Didn't I hear something about a teenager being convicted of
> exactly that?).
> Nice bit of selective quoting you did Chad, but here's a tip: *don't*
> selectively quote Dutch law to a former Dutch law student, you'll get your
> ass handed to you faster than you can say SSH.
Nice machismo. But why does it say one thing in 244, then something
completely different in 245?
-c
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:50:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:25:39 -0700, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >> Shut Down... path is for? Thanks to Microsoft for extending
> > Windows slimey tenticles to my power supply. I can't wait to find out
> > what "PCHealth" is going to do to my other hard disk partitions.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I find it quite amazing that we live in an age where
> people actually complain about convenience. Go fig.
If I use Start -> Shutdown -> Shutdown my machine shuts down and powers off
so fast that at the next switch on Scandisk goes through its thing and gives
me a row. (Win98).
On windows 2000 it shagged it good and proper. "winnt\system32\config\system
is missing or corrupted".
Reiserfs seems to have survived so far...
I now select restart and switch the UPS off when the reboot starts.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:50:35 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:56:40 GMT, macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just curious, if they were to start requiring users to sacrifice
> cats in order to use MS Office 2003,
Thought it was a goat... oops... sorry, wrong secret society...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:50:36 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:53:10 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/OFFICE/xp/smarttags.asp
>
> There, no need to install anything.
> The advantage of the SDK that you get a .chm file, which is preferable (at
> least to me) to searching MSDN on the web.
OK got it now, thanks.
But I don't see your average users wading their way through all that just to
create SmartTags.
Why would anyone want to create them anyway?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:52:04 GMT
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > >> The US had radar, so a large, slow long range bomber would have been
> > >> spotted and shot down very quickly.
> > >>
> > >> -Ed
> > >
> > > True... the Japanese did have submarine lauchable planes however, but
> > > I'm not sure if they could've carried something as big and heavy as an
> > > A-bomb.
> >
> > Good lord! i didn't know such things existed.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Yes, but I think it was a recon-only plane. It had foldable wings and
> landed on the the water. A search on Yahoo didn't really yield any good
> links.
>
The Japanese also bombed the USA with ballons, they even kill one family.
Nice strong wind, and a ballon with a timer would get you very close, if
you launched it from 20 miles or so.
------------------------------
From: ppeoe@m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 17 Jun 2001 14:03:12 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Glitch" says...
>
>>
>
>unfortunately most Windows users are too scared to do any trial and error with
>*anything*. That's why they are stupid. They don't ever try anything on
>their own. They always want someone else to do it and only do enough so
>the problem gets fixed. Trial and error learning goes along the ines of
>exploring your environment or asking the questions why or how something
>works. Most users of Windows don't have that type of personality and
>therefore won't ever venture into the realm of trial and
>errror/exploring.
>
a computer is a tool for many people. They care less how and why it does
what it does. replace 'windows' above with the word 'car' or 'telephone'
and you'll see the hole you and other Unix/Linux people have themselves
stuck in for the last 30 years while windows keep gaining more market share
and more users.
Untill you get the simple idea is that a computer is only a tool for the
masses, Linux and Unix will remain ignored by the millions of users.
The masses use windows becuase it does not require knowing much to use
a computer. point and click. the masses do not care why and how it works.
And that is the way it ought to work. I do not care how the car engine works,
i am simply not interested. as long as it takes me from point A to B, that is
all I care about.
simple concept, MS figured it out long time ago, the *nix crowds still trying
to figure what it means after 30 years.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:59:30 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:17:25 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:23:50 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > So when I hover over a link to Joe's Autos a SmartTag could pop up
> > and say "Joe's Autos are crap, you want to buy from Acme Motors". Am
> > I correct?
>
> Probably not.
Why?
Erik said " It could just be a graphic image for instance." And a message
rubbishing Joe's Autos could "just be a graphic image".
The more I hear about these SmartTags the worse it gets.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:04:33 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > drsquare wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:22:30 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > (Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >
> > > >> >Really? Methods used to study the transmission of other STDs don't work
> > > >> >with AIDS? Why is that?
> > > >>
> > > >> For a start, AIDS is not an STD.
> > > >>
> > > >Aids can be and is transmitted sexually. sky
> > >
> > > No it can't.
> >
> > AIDS is merely the name for the SYMPTOMS which were later found to
> > be cause EXCLUSIVELY by the HIV virus.
> >
>
> You show you incredible ignorance. There are NO symtoms of HIV infection
> initially,
Of course. NO infection shows any symptoms during the incubation
period.
That's the DEFINITION of the incubation period.
Is any of this getting through your shit-filled, maggot-infested skull?
> other than HIV antibodies are formed. Later, certain white
Just like EVERY OTHER viral infection.
> blood cells are destroyed by the virus, os htat paricular cell count
> goes down. That is the ONLY thing the virus does and the only symptoms
> of HIV infection.
Just like EVERY OTHER viral infection.
>
> > Therefore AIDS and HIV are two sides of the same coin.
> >
>
> They are not. Many people haved lived for decades being HIV+ and yet not
> have devleoped AIDS or AIDS Related Complex. AIDS is a syndrome, a
> collection of diseases, each with its own symptoms that are possible
> because of HIV infection. As a matter of fact, it isnt until things
> opportunistic infection (Kaposi's Sarcoma, Toxoplasmosis, Pneumocystis
> Carinii Peunomia) occurs that patients are discribed as being in end
> stage AIDS>
Rick...odds are 9999999:1 that you are already infected with shingles.
>
> > Do you know of _any_ other disease where the pathogen and the symptoms
> > of infection by said pathogne are considered SEPERATE issues?
> >
> > For example, when we talk about TB, does that mean
> >
> > a) the bacteria
> No
>
> > b) the symptoms
> NO
>
> > C) a and b, interchangeably, within the context of the sentance.
>
> NO.
>
This is why you fail.
> When you talk about tuberculosis, you are talking about the disease
> itself.
Is the pathogen a component of the disease?
a) no
B) YES
Are the symptoms a component of the disease?
a) no
B) YES
> If you are talking about the organism that causes TB you would
> refer to the mycobacterium tuberculosism, or the TB bateria. The
> terminolgy for the causative agent, the symptoms and the disease or
> syndrome are usually not the same.
>
> You really should take an AIDS awareness class.
>
I've had one every other year for the last 12 years.
Hope that helps.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:08:43 +0200
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <8j9X6.39804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <UlzW6.39650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad
>> Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <3b2a2e20$0$94312$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad
>> >> Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> > Look up Article 244 of the Penal Code " A person who, with a person
>> > who is under the age of twelve (12)
>> > performs acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the
>> > body is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than twelve
>> > years or a fine of the fifth category. "
>> >
>> > I don't know about you, but I consider a 12 year old a child.
>>
>> Yes, and now look up article 245, which considers children between 12
>> and 16. Same terms, but a lower sentence, 8 years instead of 12. So the
>> age of consent is 16, anything lower, and the police will be upon you
>> like a ton of brick, *if* someone files charges. That much is true, the
>> offence by itself is not prosecutable *without* a charge being filed.
>> Generally though, parents and child protection authorities take a dim
>> view of an adult having sex with an under-16, but it does protect the
>> 17 year old with a 15 1/2 year old girlfriend who would be committing
>> statutory rape in the US (Didn't I hear something about a teenager
>> being convicted of exactly that?).
>> Nice bit of selective quoting you did Chad, but here's a tip: *don't*
>> selectively quote Dutch law to a former Dutch law student, you'll get
>> your ass handed to you faster than you can say SSH.
>
> Nice machismo. But why does it say one thing in 244, then something
> completely different in 245?
>
> -c
>
>
Because having sex with a child between 12 and 16 is considered a lesser
crime? And therefore should carry a lesser penalty? Instead of lumping
everything under the age of consent under statutory rape (see my example
above)?
It is not completely different, dolt. It is a matter of gradation, not
principle. You're reading comprehension skills are still lacking aren't
they? Note my words above: '...Same terms, but a lower sentence...' Did
you miss that accidentally, or are you trying to build a straw man?
Mart
--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:15:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > >It's actually very useful.
> > > Perhaps you should withold your opinion until you've actually used it.
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > Who controls the content of these added links?
>
> Who cares? Who "controls the content" of *any* link on *any* page?
Until Microsoft developed Smart Tags, it was always the author of the
page in question.
Who do YOU think controls the links on web pages?
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:19:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Really? Then prove these links dont deface pages, and prove that m$ CANT
> > add links to their pages from competitor's pages. prove that m$ wont
> > remove the ability to turn smart tags. And, if you dont know that m$
> > plays by all the dirty tricks they can muster ,you havent been around
> > too long, or you havent been paying attention.
>
> Hmm, prove the negative. Of course.
>
> How could Smart Tags "deface pages"? If a competitor has the word
By adding things that the author never intendes, of course.
> "Microsoft" on their page then it will activate the Smart Tag. Why is
> the competitor talking about Microsoft in the first place?
All sorts of reasons.
But it's not just "Microsoft" that's the issue. What happens when MS
Smart Tags get their hands on a Mac advocacy site, for example? Or a
Linux advocacy site?
Or what happens when Microsoft manages to steer all the commercial
business on the Internet to MSN?
>
> Again, feel free to not use them.
>
When they're Microsoft puts them into XP, then millions of people will
be using them.
Granted, it _may_ be possible to block them by rewriting my web pages
(at least in this version. That doesn't mean you'll be able to block
them in Windows 2003). But why should I have to go to great lengths to
stop Microsoft from defacing my page?
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:22:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > Relax, Joe. Have you even seen it? You sound *extremely* paranoid
> > > here.
> >
> > I have seen it.
> >
> > Now. Instead of ad hominem attacks, what part of my objection is
> > factually incorrect? NOTHING.
>
> None of it, since none of your objections are "facts". They're all
> just paranoia.
Is that supposed to be an answer?
The facts are very, very simple. A web page author creates a page the
way they want it. Smart tags add things the author never intended.
I personally believe in intellectual property. This is a massive
violation.
Look at it this way. What if I released a virus onto the Net that had
only one effect -- changing any Microsoft URL to a Mac advocacy site's
URL.
How long do you think it would take MS to have an army of lawyers after
me? And they'd be right to do so.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:24:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > You clearly don't understand how these work.
>
> Since I use them - and I doubt that you have even seen them - I do
> understand.
>
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. You're free to
> not use them, and I'm free to continue using them.
>
> Everybody wins!
Except web page authors. Or people who believe in intellectual property
rights.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
