Slashdot Mirror

Imagine my supprise when I found I found I wrote a novel

Catch mod. If you'll scroll down a bit, you may notice:

2. modify or modification.

This abbreviation is very common - in fact the full terms are
considered formal. "Mods" is used especially with reference
to bug fixes or minor design changes in hardware or software,
most especially with respect to patch sets or a diff.

I assumed that they were referring to the reawakened dogs as the zombies, implying that they were sort of dead during their little sleep.

However, there's still a problem because according to a dictionary, a zombie is:

1. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
2. A corpse revived in this way.

Escaped on a technicality!

We have to draw a line between usability and ergonomics. Note the definition of ergonomics: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ergonomic .

While poor ergonomics will ultimately detract from the item's use, it only focuses on the fatigue or discomfort.

The iPod may be very easy to use, but if some ergonomics expert (which I am certainly not!) says it lacks ergonomic design, it may be lacking in the comfort / endurance department. I'd certainly agree that ergonomics has become associated with "curveyness", but being ergonomic doesn't necessarily mean it's usable.

Exactly.

Here's a usage note from Dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being great in size or extent, but many would prefer that enormousness (or a synonym such as immensity) be used for this general sense and that enormity be limited to situations that demand a negative moral judgment, as in Not until the war ended and journalists were able to enter Cambodia did the world really become aware of the enormity of Pol Pot's oppression. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity as a synonym for immensity in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task. This distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically, but nowadays many observe it. Writers who ignore the distinction, as in the enormity of the President's election victory or the enormity of her inheritance, may find that their words have cast unintended aspersions or evoked unexpected laughter.

It's rather depressing that someone from the Wall Street Journal doesn't make the distinction.

GRRR. Pet bug.

'Enormity' means huge *evil*, not just huge. (definition) 'Enormousness' may sound like a mistake but it's actually correct.

On the other hand, possibly it *is* a horribly evil offer. When you buy it, it... eats up all of your free time! In a truly evil manner!

...or something.

That's because today's leftists are not what a leftist is supposed to be. This Page Says that liberal means "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." That's what liberalism and leftism should really be. It means to look ahead to new ideas and attempt to reform the old problems.

Yes, Democrats in congress piss me off too. Just like Republicans. It's been a long time since we've had any real liberalism/progressiveism in congress, and most people who label themselves as leftists are apologists for the corporate lapdog leaders.

I too think the religious smearing is wrong. I feel far too many people have failed to recognise that just because people who follow a teching don't live up it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the teaching. I'm no Christian but there's plenty of Wisdom in the Bible - and other religious books as well.

Of course, these are my opinions. They may not necessiarially be right for anyone else but me.

Usage Note: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being great in size or extent, but many would prefer that enormousness (or a synonym such as immensity) be used for this general sense and that enormity be limited to situations that demand a negative moral judgment, as in Not until the war ended and journalists were able to enter Cambodia did the world really become aware of the enormity of Pol Pot's oppression. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity as a synonym for immensity in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task. This distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically, but nowadays many observe it. Writers who ignore the distinction, as in the enormity of the President's election victory or the enormity of her inheritance, may find that their words have cast unintended aspersions or evoked unexpected laughter.

Old enough to at least be able to double-check with dictionary.com. :P

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupider

I know, I know - teachers have been drilling the hell out of kids to avoid things like that.

More stupid instead of stupider. Jim and I instead of me and Jim. Problem is, the latter uses are just fine.

"Don't get me wrong, there are tons of liberal wacko's too"

Can anyone tell me how liberal became a derogatory term in the U.S. ?

I find this very strange every time I see it here.

try your local theatre ;-)

Oh, well, since it is *widely held,* it must be true!

No, but it's more likely to be true if those closest to the situation held that belief.

I am unshocked that you didn't get it.

Unshocked? Apparently you need no help from me when it comes to impugning your intelligence.

He should have had the ethics and courage to resign

He did. But Richardson talked him out of it, convinced him to put the Justice Department ahead of himself.

Nice partial quote. Why am I not surprised? The complete sentence was:

"He should have had the ethics and courage to resign rather than carry out an order to interfere with a legal investigation."

Bork had no qualms about firing Cox. In a 1998 District of Columbia Bar interview, Bork said:

"As I thought about it, it became clear to me that Cox had to be fired because the president could not have a junior officer facing him down in public."

The only thing that Ruckelhaus did was tell him that there was no sense in firing Cox and resigning. He didn't urge Bork to fire Cox, as you implied. He just urged him to not resign after he fired Cox.

dictionary.com ->

I guess that would depend on your defintion of misuse.

I'll remember that the next time I try to kiss my date goodnight and she accuses me of rape. It's silly to argue semantics, after all.

You should choose the people you date better.

an act of robbery esp. on the high seas; specifically : an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state see also AIRCRAFT PIRACY Article I of the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
2 a : the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
b : the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
3 : the crime of committing piracy

To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.

Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: stole; stolen; stealing
Etymology: Old English stelan
: to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of; see also ROBBERY, THEFT

Our Living Language
Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

an act of robbery esp. on the high seas; specifically : an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state see also AIRCRAFT PIRACY Article I of the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
2 a : the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
b : the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
3 : the crime of committing piracy

To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.

Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: stole; stolen; stealing
Etymology: Old English stelan
: to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of; see also ROBBERY, THEFT

Our Living Language
Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

an act of robbery esp. on the high seas; specifically : an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state see also AIRCRAFT PIRACY Article I of the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
2 a : the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
b : the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
3 : the crime of committing piracy

To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.

Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: stole; stolen; stealing
Etymology: Old English stelan
: to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of; see also ROBBERY, THEFT

Our Living Language
Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

an act of robbery esp. on the high seas; specifically : an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state see also AIRCRAFT PIRACY Article I of the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
2 a : the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
b : the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
3 : the crime of committing piracy

To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.

Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: stole; stolen; stealing
Etymology: Old English stelan
: to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of; see also ROBBERY, THEFT

Our Living Language
Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

Piracy isn't theft. Theft is the action in wich one denies others acces to the stolen goods. Piracy doesn't deny anoyne acces to the pirated goods. So piracy is per definition not theft.

You're making up definitions of words to suit your argument.

Piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission

Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

Piracy isn't theft. Theft is the action in wich one denies others acces to the stolen goods. Piracy doesn't deny anoyne acces to the pirated goods. So piracy is per definition not theft.

You're making up definitions of words to suit your argument.

Piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission

Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

Piracy isn't theft. Theft is the action in wich one denies others acces to the stolen goods. Piracy doesn't deny anoyne acces to the pirated goods. So piracy is per definition not theft.

You're making up definitions of words to suit your argument.

Piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission

Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

Piracy isn't theft. Theft is the action in wich one denies others acces to the stolen goods. Piracy doesn't deny anoyne acces to the pirated goods. So piracy is per definition not theft.

You're making up definitions of words to suit your argument.

Piracy - The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission

Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

Why is this a problem? Why are we whinging about this difference? Even if women are being unfairly passed over (which I do not believe to be the case and if it were the case, would be a problem in need of addressing), what is being suggested here violates the very tenets of feminism (which, I can only imagine, is the motive of at least some). The fact that a comparison between the ratio of male to female developers and teh ratio of male to female consumers is being made indicates that people believe men and women have different things to offer and even more, that men cannot offer the same things as women. Feminism at its core is something I agree with and participate in. Feminism is defined by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism as 'Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.' Equality of the sexes cannot exist when society so firmly believes that men cannot offer what women can (or conversely, that women cannot offer what men can). I object to the viewpoint (whether consciously or subconsciously adopted) which has permeated our society that women are better than men, or at least that women are worth more and have more to our society than men (of course, a conscientious reader would ask me to justify this position, and I can, but it would take too long and not be worth it). Realistically, a twenty per-cent difference from developers to consumers is not something worth a fuss.

Yeah, thanks to propaganda, "liberal" went from someone that tends to try new methods in a crisis (As opposed to someone that tends to try traditional methods in a crisis), to culture of death/evil/satan/taxation god/military/america hating tree-hugging/bleeding-heart/wacko socialist/commie/fascist terrorist/anarchist/welfare-queen (did I miss any?) sympathizers.

It doesn't help that "conservative" has been smeared as well, albiet not as elaborately, by Democrats and Republicans. (Well, rather twisted than smeared by the Republican leadership. Internally in the party one is considered conservative if they march in lockstep with the leadership. Any deviation earns one a big scarlet "L", figuratively. Although the rank and file and outsiders can generally see through this, the ranking officials seem stuck in this farce.)

You life long liberals out there have very little appreciation for exactly how well that word association technique actually works. Even many conservatives and Republican followers don't consciously pick up on it. Like when the topic of abortion comes up and the Pudits start screaming that "liberals are anti-family," you guys don't even realize that they are actually calling you godless communists, or at least that is the association.

---

Anonymous for the politi-trolls with zero-tolerance and many mod points.

Yeah, thanks to propaganda, "liberal" went from someone that tends to try new methods in a crisis (As opposed to someone that tends to try traditional methods in a crisis), to culture of death/evil/satan/taxation god/military/america hating tree-hugging/bleeding-heart/wacko socialist/commie/fascist terrorist/anarchist/welfare-queen (did I miss any?) sympathizers.

It doesn't help that "conservative" has been smeared as well, albiet not as elaborately, by Democrats and Republicans. (Well, rather twisted than smeared by the Republican leadership. Internally in the party one is considered conservative if they march in lockstep with the leadership. Any deviation earns one a big scarlet "L", figuratively. Although the rank and file and outsiders can generally see through this, the ranking officials seem stuck in this farce.)

You life long liberals out there have very little appreciation for exactly how well that word association technique actually works. Even many conservatives and Republican followers don't consciously pick up on it. Like when the topic of abortion comes up and the Pudits start screaming that "liberals are anti-family," you guys don't even realize that they are actually calling you godless communists, or at least that is the association.

---

Anonymous for the politi-trolls with zero-tolerance and many mod points.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=redundant

You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".

Style - definition number 2
Design - definition number 6

See the connection now?

How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?

Unkempt wiring == messy. Big unfilled space == empty. As for people looking in their case - c'mon! It's got a frigging clear window on the side!

The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.

I was using the quotation marks to highlight the word not to indicate it was something less than actual. Perhaps that was a poor choice on my part so I will explain. Balance is not always a hard and fast thing and in this case I was referring to the balance between the four factors I mentioned before - functionality, efficiency, ease of use/maintenance, and balance of internal and external structure. I'm going to assume you're complaining about the last one in that list. What I meant by that was not having too much or too little inside or outside of the system. The G5's have just the right amount. The internals of the system are complete but not overfilled. The developer system is by contrast strikingly empty. Remember that perception is everything to a user - "Awfully little in that case for $1800."

It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are.

As you see above I have adequately named those things I'm referring to as well as defined the connection between style and design. You seem intent on attacking my verbage rather than my arguments.

Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!

Of this I am guilty. But often the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree in my opinion and I will be happily surpised with a revised design from Apple that fixes these problems.

You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".

Style - definition number 2
Design - definition number 6

See the connection now?

How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?

Unkempt wiring == messy. Big unfilled space == empty. As for people looking in their case - c'mon! It's got a frigging clear window on the side!

The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.

I was using the quotation marks to highlight the word not to indicate it was something less than actual. Perhaps that was a poor choice on my part so I will explain. Balance is not always a hard and fast thing and in this case I was referring to the balance between the four factors I mentioned before - functionality, efficiency, ease of use/maintenance, and balance of internal and external structure. I'm going to assume you're complaining about the last one in that list. What I meant by that was not having too much or too little inside or outside of the system. The G5's have just the right amount. The internals of the system are complete but not overfilled. The developer system is by contrast strikingly empty. Remember that perception is everything to a user - "Awfully little in that case for $1800."

It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are.

As you see above I have adequately named those things I'm referring to as well as defined the connection between style and design. You seem intent on attacking my verbage rather than my arguments.

Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!

Of this I am guilty. But often the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree in my opinion and I will be happily surpised with a revised design from Apple that fixes these problems.

Me thinks you need to lookup the definition of complacent . I don't think it means what you think it means.

The attribution of human emotions or characteristics to inanimate objects or to nature; for example, angry clouds; a cruel wind.

Provide a scientific scale of opinion

Are you kidding? Do you not know what an opinion is? It's not something that you need a scale for - an opinion is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof". If I say "this document says that we should invade Iraq", that is a fact (assuming the document actually says that). If I say "We should invade Iraq", that is an opinion. Where's the gray zone? Are you expecting people to say "This document kind of says that we should invade Iraq"?

As mentioned earlier you only need to watch both CNN and Fox, whether you're liberal or conservative, to see that CNN doesn't do opinions; Fox does. Seriously - go home, and turn on fox news. Count the opinions - do it *yourself*. Then change to CNN, and do the same. Watch at least a couple hours of each, so you get different programs and statistical significance. Write down the opinions and jot how many stories were covered. Have you *ever* watched O'Reilly (Fox's highest rated)? Have you *ever* watched Larry King?

You can accuse CNN of *bias*, you can accuse them of *omission* or *imbalance*, but you can't justly accuse them of interjecting *opinions*. These words have meaning - don't misuse them.

When you dig a little and find that liberal organizations are backing it

I'm a strident liberal. Yet, if you did a little, you'll find that I'm getting free paid trips by a conservative president of a major oil company and once lived in the house of a conservative Republican congressman. Who's backing me? Once again, this "twice removed from my personal opinion of a groups political leanings" stuff is, to use your words, "Horseshit". Either cite a contrary study, conduct one for yourself, or "shut up". I hate debating with someone who says "there's something wrong with your detailed reference, but I'm not going to say what, and am just going to make assumptions".

By the way - here's another thing that this "liberal" study has to say about Fox:

At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences.

How horrifyingly liberal!

Once again: Put up, or shut up.

"The guy is a seditious asshole."

I think you need to refresh your definition of seditious/sedition...

I didn't hear anything in either of his statments that was inciting a rebellion or insurrection.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sedition

It may have been an inappropriate analogy, but it wasn't anywhere close to sedition.

1. "Opera is configured by default to identify itself as Internet Explorer' "
Isn't that fraud?

2. "when configured to send an Opera user agent, some sites send malformed pages"
erm, ditto?
Plus, the whole point of the www is that it is browser independent. So this is unstandard behavior, and should be shunned(2).

Once again, this is a consequence of the majority of web users being ignorant and aptathetic about the issues underlying the very philosophical foundations that the web (& Internet) was built on.

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

Reactionary does not mean what you think it means. This is a good English example of a "false friend"-- words that seem like they should mean one thing based on the apparent root, when in reality they mean something else entirely.

"I did no such thing. "Ad hominem" is when you are replying to someone else's argument. I am not replying to their argument. I am making my own argument, which is that they are stupid."

And "ad hominem" means...

Dictionary definition of Gotham.

Vast ignorance indeed.

1. A stringed instrument of the violin family, slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower, and having a deeper, more sonorous tone.
2. An organ stop usually of eight-foot or four-foot pitch yielding stringlike tones.

1. Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished.

1. A stringed instrument of the violin family, slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower, and having a deeper, more sonorous tone.
2. An organ stop usually of eight-foot or four-foot pitch yielding stringlike tones.

1. Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished.

"I'm not a patent lawyer, but this seems to be a rediculous patent. "

Apparently, you are not an English teacher either...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rediculou s

You misspelled "mispelled [sic]".

Try this link: irony.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony moron

So what you're saying is like "I enjoy chocolate, I'm just not entitled to it". Being a bit literal, aren't we?

From dictionary.com:

Enjoy:
v. tr.

1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.

I believe that the intent of the Chinese Constitution is under definition #2.

Dictionary.com does not have neither the work nor the certifiable material. Just their own thoughts mixed in with the submissions of users. That doesn't make it fact, lol.

Dictionary.com indexes several legitimate reference works, and after entry will list the source of each definition. The only flakey source they list is the jargon file, but fortunately that will only come up with a small minority of searches. Not sure where you got the idea that it's based on either their own ideas or user submissions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vaporware

Something that is "simple" is both "obvious" and not "novel".

If you choose to define simple as being obvious and not novel then that would be true. However, if you check the dictionary, simple is more traditionally defined as being easy or uncomplicated.

Of course you may disagree, but then the issue is what "is" an "obvious" invention ? At the moment professionals around the world think that what is "not obvious" for the patent office is instead quite "obvious" to them.

This would also be a common misunderstanding of patent law. The test is not whether something this is "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" as is so often talked about here(assuming we are discussing US patent law, EU law is similar). The question is whether something is "obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art". While you can read most of the issued patents and say that they are obvious after reading them, the question is whether they were obvious at the time they were invented/filed. While it is easy to say that they would be, actually proving that they were obvious is an entirely different ball game. Thus far I have yet to get any slashdotter to take up that challenge and even come close to succeeding on any of the patent stories posted here.

The problem is: Give user graphic feedback on background tasks.

Solution: Something that grows over time and is visually representable. Can be anything, from a growing baloon to a growing bar. Is any of the peculiar implementation a "novelty" ?

I do get the point, however you are ignoring many other possible solutions which would solve the same problem. For example, a colored block could be presented which would transistion from black to white (or red to violet) as the taks completes, or a text box which displays a percentage of task completion, or a audible tone which increases in frequency as the task nears completion. How exactly is a progress bar which grows as the task nears completion the one and only solution that any person skilled in the art would think of when presented with the problem?

On the other hand, the courts have ruled that if something has provided a solution to a long-felt need in the art, that it actually lends credibility to the solution being non-obvious. See MPEP 716.04. Take this as you will, but to some extent it does make sense.

Why should you stop providing your "own" solution ? You didn't COPY it ! You didnt even know it existed !

Granted this is a problem, but it is also the reason why penalties are smaller in this situation than when someone knowningly infringes.

People in Australia don't pronounce 'get reed of it'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculou s
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rid
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reed

Both ridiculous and rid have the same pronunciation for their rid part. According to the Pronunciation Key this is how you'd use the 'i' in 'pit'. Reed has a different pronunciation entirely which is given as being like 'bee' in the Key.

It looks to me like its an accent thing.

People in Australia don't pronounce 'get reed of it'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculou s
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rid
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reed

Both ridiculous and rid have the same pronunciation for their rid part. According to the Pronunciation Key this is how you'd use the 'i' in 'pit'. Reed has a different pronunciation entirely which is given as being like 'bee' in the Key.

It looks to me like its an accent thing.

People in Australia don't pronounce 'get reed of it'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculou s
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rid
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reed

Both ridiculous and rid have the same pronunciation for their rid part. According to the Pronunciation Key this is how you'd use the 'i' in 'pit'. Reed has a different pronunciation entirely which is given as being like 'bee' in the Key.

It looks to me like its an accent thing.