Traffic lights and pacemakers don't need anything except clocks and sensors. You wouldn't want to make a larger-scale system, because that would be too hard to program-- it would be very difficult to avoid messing up the system even without attackers.
Actually, I can easily imagine the desire to design a larger-scale system for a city's traffic lights. I agree that such an algorithm is not simple to design, but that doesn't mean that it's beyond our collective capabilities.
And my guess is that it would be in most cases several orders of magnitude less expensive for a city to optimize their traffic lights to yeild the optimal flow than simply build more streets or widen existing ones.
As a simple example: consider one smart light that can sense when a greater flow of traffic is crossing east/west than north/south. To compensate, it extends the east/west green time. But now, the traffic lights in the surrounding intersections are not going to be green at the "right" time. For traffic flow purposes, it is advantageous to keep cars from stopping. Thus, the surrounding lights should know about a light's timing to help keep the flow of traffic moving as much as possible.
An interesting question might be, how well can you do if only the surrounding lights know about eachother's timing? This is starting to sound like the standard network flow algorithms.
Unless you really love shopping like my girlfriend, wouldn't you rather spend your time and energy doing something else?
When I think about things like this, I think about how nice it would be to have a servant that knew exactly what I like, shopped around for the best price, stocked my frig, and even prepaired my food for me.
I cannot afford a servant, but you have to wonder how well technology will some day be able to provide these kind of services at a reasonible price.
You could imagine a service which analyzes you and your needs, analyzes the contents of your frig, and analyzes the current or forcasted prices of the items it predicts you will need. Such a service could potentially make purchasing decisions better than you can, and all automatically without you ever thinking about it. And you could imagine that these items are then delivered right to your frig all at a low price: much lower than the cost of a servant, and perhaps even lower than if you had shopped for them yourself.
You could imagine that the service is highly customizable and learns more about you the more you use it. For example, maybe you don't care about different kinds of pasta so much, so it gets a cheaper kind. But it learns that you really care about beer, so it only gets certain kinds. You could even imagine that it uses the information that it knows about you and networks with other services and discovers products that you have a high probability of really liking.
You could imagine this service using your schedule data to help make decisions. "Hello, I see you are watching the football game this weekend. Will the guys be coming over as well? I have permissions to read their personal food preferences. Would you like me to prepair for a party?"
I recognize that many people may react to this scenario with dislike, and that such a service would never do as good a job as they could do themselves.
But don't forget that assembly coders had this same exact attitude about Fortran compilers. Today, I really doubt that many developers could write assembly as well as a good compiler. And even if they could, for most projects, it's a major waste of time and energy.
A person cannot write a program to prove the MU problem, yet a person can show (by other means: counting the expansions/reductions of theorems) that there's no way one can arrive to MU. Hence, a person that cannot write a program to solve MU can solve it herself.
I'm not sure we are communicating. I've been a little sloppy, so let me try again. Imagine the following program, MUD: The input to MUD is a set of axioms, a set of inference rules, and a statement, all in a similar format as the MU puzzle. MUD then tries to determine if the statement is true or false, and outputs this result.
You are claiming that no one could write MUD. But why? Don't forget that we're talking about any program here, not just a program that applies different inference rules in an effort to prove the statement. We know that a program that just applies different inference rules will fail. But we know that by using a little number theory and examining the structure of the inference rules. So why can't we craft our program to check for that as well?
The answer is that we can. You could write a version of MUD that could solve a large class of these problems, including the MU puzzle in particular.
In the case of your example, if you did not supply the algorithm to interpret as an argument to itself then there is nothing to act on, as the program itself is the sequence of symbols to interpret, hence the recursion.
I believe it's the "on all inputs" part of the halting problem that you're not engaging with. For example, to a compiler, the compiler is just one of the possible inputs.
Let's define DoesHalt as a program that reads in another program and tries to determine if that program halts on all inputs. If we feed DoesHalt into DoesHalt, we are asking the question: Does DoesHalt halt for any program (well formed or not). We don't need or want to specify what program the DoesHalt program that we are feeding into our executing DoesHalt is analyzing, because it's up to the executing DoesHalt to worry about every program.
Bottom line is that in this age of amorphous ownership of data - especailly when organizations change hands - you have to protect your customers data anyways possible. The best possible way to do that is by making sure you never collect it in the first place.
I have to say that I really like that attitude. But I still wonder if the convenience and efficiency provided by storing your customer's info would be better.
Their is no conveinence that is gained by storing information the server end (anything like that - preferences, recently viewed stuff, etc can be stored either anonymously or on the client machine).
But cookies are not persistant. Is this what you meant?
As you requested, an example of problem a human can resolve and a Turing machine cannot is the MU game cited on Hofstadter's book
Ahh, so you are limiting the selection to a particular Turing Machine. What you're saying is that just because this particular program cannot solve the problem, none can.
I certainly agree that a Tuning Machine that only uses the inference rules decribed by Hofstadter would get stuck trying to prove MU. But that doesn't mean that a Turing Maching that can solve this problem doesn't exist.
Do you think you could write a general program that, given a set of axioms and inference rules similar in format to the ones specified in the MU game, the program could analize them and determine if a statement was true or false? For the MU puzzle, it's not so hard: you could solve a large class of these using digital roots from number theory.
What's interesting is that there very well may exist axioms and inference rules which your program could not determine a solution. But could you augment your program to solve these as well? If you cannot, then you've found an undecidable problem, and it's likely that you yourself cannot solve the problem as well.
By the way, note the similarity of the MU game to the recursive function that I posted. x can grow larger and smaller, but does it always reach 1?
The best approach is to store a unique id, a username, an e-mail address, a password hash, and that's it for personal data. Recurring billing? Send out an e-mail with a login link.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work well for online shopping for many reasons. One being that a customer's credit card is often not charged at the time a customer hits the "buy" button. It's often only later when the item or items are actually being shipped that a charge is made, and then it's only for the actuall items that are being shipped, which is potentially a subset of the whole order. If an online reseller waited for a response from their customers each time something was about to ship, it would be a major bottleneck in their fulfillment center.
The bottom line is that whenever you talk about security, you need to consider how much a particular security policy will save you and how much it will cost you. Not storing any personal information is a security policy that will likely put you out of business since other online retailers will be able to make their services much more convenient and efficient, while providing a sufficient amount of security to this information at relatively little cost.
The thing is, mathematically you can solve a halting problem. In other words, you can prove mathematically whether any specific program will end or not. If a person (a brain) can solve this, why can't any sufficiently advanced computer do the same?
I'm afraid I don't have a good example handy, but there are examples of very simple programs that no one has yet been able to prove if they halt or not. The ones I have seen have the form something like:
int f(int x) { if( x == 1 ) return 1; else if( x has some property ) return f( g(x) ); else return f( h(x) ); }
where g and h might be something like:
int g(int x) { return x / 2; }
int h(int x) { return 3*x + 1; }
Of course you rearrange this so that it's not recursive. The point is that even smart people can't solve these problems with or without the use of computers.
Don't underestimate the power of a Turning Machine. Is there a problem that a Human can solve that a Turning Machine cannot? My guess is no.
Small logic error, though: Seems reasonable that a player could potentially both be running with scissors and have received the Red Rider BB Gun as a Christmas gift.
So I definitely think you have an excellent point concering the fact that many people don't want a complex cell phone.
But I want both a Cell Phone and a PDA. I want to play chess while I'm on the Bus. I want to have my shopping list with me when I go to the store. I want to be reminded that I have an upcoming meeting, etc. And even more complex features that integrate the power of both a Cell Phone and a general computing device like a "Don't ring if I'm in the middle of a meeting" setting.
So it's completely reasonable that simple models will cater to people like you that don't want all that extra baggage (price and size), and that other models will cater to people like me that want more features.
I can envision these products being sold like swiss army knives:
My guess is that the Cell Phone/PDA will become just as important as a personal computer is today, if not more so.
And people will be upgrading theirs forever. Not only will there be newer and better technologies and applications, but with a Cell Phone/PDA, style will be a big factor as well.
I can type very very fast on a regular keyboard. I knew that RSI occurs in my family, but I wasn't concerned because I'm a Dumb Monkey.
About three years ago I started to feel a tingling sensation on the backs of my hands - as if they were "falling asleep." First this would happen after the odd 12-16 minute sessions of straight coding, but gradually unusual aches, pains and numbness became more and more common, until it was happening every day. This is what happens when you ignore the early symptoms of RSI like a Dumb Monkey.
Once I realized that this was a real problem, I read every single piece of literature on the internet about RSI (all 2,073,418 of them), and then I moved on to the library and the medical books. Everything said the same thing: "see a specialist now - don't wait!" But guess what? I could't afford a specialist. I did't have health insurance because I'm a Dumb Monkey, and I didn't have the spare cash because I'm a Dumb Monkey.
Instead, I decided to spend $1000 on a new keyboard. Really, I couldn't afford to see a doctor, but the keyboard was only a $1000. Even though all of the reading that I did indicated that ergonomic keyboards alone will not typically cure serious RSI, I'm a Dumb Monkey, so I thought it would work.
I bought the DataHand because the sales guy was really nice and he told me it would work.
But because I ignored the early symptoms for so long, it was too late, and my condition just got worse to the point that I had to stop working.
Fortunately, because I don't really do much, my partners never actually noticed.
Finally, my company was able to get health insurance for me. So, I headed right out and defrauded my new insurance company to pay for my preexisting condition. I went to a nice doctor, and she gave me some cortisone injections. Somehow this cost more than $1000. I complained to her about the horrible keyboard experience I had had, and she told me what I had already read: that a good ergonomic keyboard was just one aspect of preventing RSI.
But I was still pissed off at the fact that I had RSI for so long since I didn't have health insurance since I'm a Dumb Monkey. So when the chance came up on slash dot to let out my frustration at ergonomic keyboard manufacturers, I thought I would tell everyone that my super specialist told me that they are worthless. Worthless I tell you!
1. Pretend you didn't just read (or say) something.
insinuates that you believe you have already answered the question. But you have failed again to repond to this question with a straight and direct answer.
So I will ask it again:
Which is it? Do your doctors feel that ergonomic keyboards are "worthless"? Or do they feel that they are a "part of the puzzle"?
Your next response should either be a straight and direct answer, or, if I am mistaken, a quote from a past post that you made which is a straight and direct answer to this question.
I'm sorry you feel my comments have hit a bit too close to home for
comfort
You're apologizing for something that I never said or expressed.
- in my experience it's a sign you're not very bright if a
logical, reasoned response to your points strikes you as nasty. The truth
often is.
This is nasty, don't you think?
Once again you misinterpret me so as to have something you can mount a
sensible argument against.
If you feel that I am misinterpreting your statements, then by all means,
please point out how. I am not interested in having an argument just for
the sake of arguing.
Speaking of backing off, my experience was that the keyboard
manufacturer was not nearly as circumspect about the chance of improvement
with their product as you now appear to be. Hence my warning - don't deal with
the keyboard manufacturers. Deal with a doctor.
I don't fully trust keyboard manufacturers either. Clearly, they have
an interest in making their product sound better than it really is. And
though your statement makes it sound as though I'm somehow changing my mind,
this is not the case. I never did say that I fully trust them.
Of course, when I say keyboard manufacturers, I'm talking about
companies like Datahand (as I mentioned in my original post), and you are
talking about the Microsoft Natural keyboard - perhaps the difference is too
subtle for you. But pressing on...
Actually, I'm familiar with the Datahand. I considered picking one up,
but went with a Kinesis keyboard instead. I've actually never mentioned
the Microsoft Natural.
So you've read a bit on the issue outside the product brochures, eh? You
didn't cite any sources, but let's speak hypothetically for a moment; so,
keyboards don't help people who've developed a problem... they're a
preventative measure, according to "your reading." Funny; that's not
what one might take away from your original post.
I don't believe you are speaking about any post that I have made. Can
you point out where you feel I said something along the lines of: An ergonomic
keyboard will cure serious RSI.
But do you want to tell the crowd how people know if it's too late for a
keyboard to help them? Or perhaps you'd rather leave that too... a qualified
physician?
Well, because I personally believe that using ergonomic keyboards simply
makes sense for anyone that does a considerable amount of typing, I would
recommend them to anyone at any time just like I would recommend an ergonomic
chair, etc.
I also appreciate your feigned ignorance about my point - very amusing.
Here, let me spell it out for you, since it's no fair if you're too baffled to
follow along, right?
More unnecessary nastiness.
I see you made up an anecdote meant to illustrate that the doctor is
only treating the symptoms...
You didn't make it clear if you were referring to the previous trials with my
doctors or yours. Ok, you mean yours. You state:
... and I was given two cortisone injections, an exercise regimen, and a
piece of advice:
"Those keyboards aren't worth the plastic they're molded out of."
I went back on the regular keyboard, and within weeks, I was 100% back to
normal.
No where did you state that you changed anything about the way you
type. Since that was the subject matter, it was reasonable to assume that
you in fact did not change anything about the way you type. Later you
state that you did in fact make many changes. This is good to hear.
You should share with us more about what changes you (or your doctor) thought
were useful.
Where was I? Ah yes. You're accusing me of "backing off from my
original statement." Right. This may save you some trouble. No matter how
much you hammer away at this, it won't change the fact that all I've done is
relay the advice of my (very good) physician.
You're not being consistent. You state:
So, in summary:
THE "ERGONOMIC," "RSI" KEYBOARDS ARE WORTHLESS
You then later state:
The standard QWERTY keyboards in use today are still a mess, and could
still be improved. And improving them might even help prevent RSI. But my
understanding of it, gleaned from the Doctors I've worked with is that the
keyboard itself is a relatively small part of the puzzle...
Which is it? Do your doctors feel that ergonomic keyboards are
"worthless"? Or do they feel that they are a "part of the
puzzle"?
What was your complaint about that again? Oh yes. That doctors are
greedy liars who want you to stay sick so they can keep treating you. Or,
perhaps it was that doctors don't know what they're doing and can't help you.
I think doctors are people. Some people are caring and some are
not. Some people are smart and knowledgeable, and some are not. The
bottom line is that you are naive if you believe that all doctors know
everything and only want to help you. Just like one would be naive to
believe that all keyboard manufacturers know how to make the perfect keyboard
that cures serious RSI.
Here's some reading you might find interesting. There are probably
better articles out there, but I found this one on google in under 3 seconds:
The advice that you espouse in your original post was to seek professional
help and basically do whatever they say. In fact you state:
GET A DOCTOR. DON'T DO ANYTHING TO DIAGNOSE, OR TREAT, YOUR CONDITION
THAT SHE DOESN'T TELL YOU TO DO.
My advice is simply to not blindly believe everything that a doctor tells
you. Sure, go to one. Listen carefully to what they tell you.
But also do your own research, because doctors are just people, and people are
not perfect.
I believe that perhaps one of the things that concerns you is the
time-critical nature of serious RSI. I should make it clear to you that if
I did had serious RSI, I think I would tend to default to the judgment of a
doctor too in an effort to achieve the best immediate solution. This is
the cost of having a problem that requires an immediate solution. But the
best immediate solution is not always the best long-term solution. And I
don't believe that ergonomic keyboards are a worthless piece to the long-term
solution puzzle.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Dave,
I just want you to recognize that you own what you say. I'll be bothering you for quite a while, just to remind you.
It's all about Karma, after all.
Perhaps you'll even grow up a little bit. I honestly hope that it doesn't have the opposite affect: making you even more belligerent.
Truism number 4
Truism number 3
Actually, I can easily imagine the desire to design a larger-scale system for a city's traffic lights. I agree that such an algorithm is not simple to design, but that doesn't mean that it's beyond our collective capabilities.
And my guess is that it would be in most cases several orders of magnitude less expensive for a city to optimize their traffic lights to yeild the optimal flow than simply build more streets or widen existing ones.
As a simple example: consider one smart light that can sense when a greater flow of traffic is crossing east/west than north/south. To compensate, it extends the east/west green time. But now, the traffic lights in the surrounding intersections are not going to be green at the "right" time. For traffic flow purposes, it is advantageous to keep cars from stopping. Thus, the surrounding lights should know about a light's timing to help keep the flow of traffic moving as much as possible.
An interesting question might be, how well can you do if only the surrounding lights know about eachother's timing? This is starting to sound like the standard network flow algorithms.
Unless you really love shopping like my girlfriend, wouldn't you rather spend your time and energy doing something else?
When I think about things like this, I think about how nice it would be to have a servant that knew exactly what I like, shopped around for the best price, stocked my frig, and even prepaired my food for me.
I cannot afford a servant, but you have to wonder how well technology will some day be able to provide these kind of services at a reasonible price.
You could imagine a service which analyzes you and your needs, analyzes the contents of your frig, and analyzes the current or forcasted prices of the items it predicts you will need. Such a service could potentially make purchasing decisions better than you can, and all automatically without you ever thinking about it. And you could imagine that these items are then delivered right to your frig all at a low price: much lower than the cost of a servant, and perhaps even lower than if you had shopped for them yourself.
You could imagine that the service is highly customizable and learns more about you the more you use it. For example, maybe you don't care about different kinds of pasta so much, so it gets a cheaper kind. But it learns that you really care about beer, so it only gets certain kinds. You could even imagine that it uses the information that it knows about you and networks with other services and discovers products that you have a high probability of really liking.
You could imagine this service using your schedule data to help make decisions. "Hello, I see you are watching the football game this weekend. Will the guys be coming over as well? I have permissions to read their personal food preferences. Would you like me to prepair for a party?"
I recognize that many people may react to this scenario with dislike, and that such a service would never do as good a job as they could do themselves.
But don't forget that assembly coders had this same exact attitude about Fortran compilers. Today, I really doubt that many developers could write assembly as well as a good compiler. And even if they could, for most projects, it's a major waste of time and energy.
Just a thought.
Hey, I'm glad my explanation made sense. This is tricky stuff.
I'm not sure we are communicating. I've been a little sloppy, so let me try again. Imagine the following program, MUD: The input to MUD is a set of axioms, a set of inference rules, and a statement, all in a similar format as the MU puzzle. MUD then tries to determine if the statement is true or false, and outputs this result.
You are claiming that no one could write MUD. But why? Don't forget that we're talking about any program here, not just a program that applies different inference rules in an effort to prove the statement. We know that a program that just applies different inference rules will fail. But we know that by using a little number theory and examining the structure of the inference rules. So why can't we craft our program to check for that as well?
The answer is that we can. You could write a version of MUD that could solve a large class of these problems, including the MU puzzle in particular.
Understandable since I don't think the problem was ever well-defined in this thread.
I believe it's the "on all inputs" part of the halting problem that you're not engaging with. For example, to a compiler, the compiler is just one of the possible inputs.
Let's define DoesHalt as a program that reads in another program and tries to determine if that program halts on all inputs. If we feed DoesHalt into DoesHalt, we are asking the question: Does DoesHalt halt for any program (well formed or not). We don't need or want to specify what program the DoesHalt program that we are feeding into our executing DoesHalt is analyzing, because it's up to the executing DoesHalt to worry about every program.
Hope that was clear.
I don't believe this implies an infinite recursion. For example, you can compile a compiler.
Bingo. Thanks.
I have to say that I really like that attitude. But I still wonder if the convenience and efficiency provided by storing your customer's info would be better.
But cookies are not persistant. Is this what you meant?
I certainly agree that a Tuning Machine that only uses the inference rules decribed by Hofstadter would get stuck trying to prove MU. But that doesn't mean that a Turing Maching that can solve this problem doesn't exist.
Do you think you could write a general program that, given a set of axioms and inference rules similar in format to the ones specified in the MU game, the program could analize them and determine if a statement was true or false? For the MU puzzle, it's not so hard: you could solve a large class of these using digital roots from number theory.
What's interesting is that there very well may exist axioms and inference rules which your program could not determine a solution. But could you augment your program to solve these as well? If you cannot, then you've found an undecidable problem, and it's likely that you yourself cannot solve the problem as well.
By the way, note the similarity of the MU game to the recursive function that I posted. x can grow larger and smaller, but does it always reach 1?
Unfortunately, this doesn't work well for online shopping for many reasons. One being that a customer's credit card is often not charged at the time a customer hits the "buy" button. It's often only later when the item or items are actually being shipped that a charge is made, and then it's only for the actuall items that are being shipped, which is potentially a subset of the whole order. If an online reseller waited for a response from their customers each time something was about to ship, it would be a major bottleneck in their fulfillment center.
The bottom line is that whenever you talk about security, you need to consider how much a particular security policy will save you and how much it will cost you. Not storing any personal information is a security policy that will likely put you out of business since other online retailers will be able to make their services much more convenient and efficient, while providing a sufficient amount of security to this information at relatively little cost.
I believe you missed the recursion.
I'm familiar with Goedel's theorem. I'm wondering what your point is. Please be specific.
Of course you rearrange this so that it's not recursive. The point is that even smart people can't solve these problems with or without the use of computers.
Don't underestimate the power of a Turning Machine. Is there a problem that a Human can solve that a Turning Machine cannot? My guess is no.
This is damn funny.
Small logic error, though: Seems reasonable that a player could potentially both be running with scissors and have received the Red Rider BB Gun as a Christmas gift.
I think I'd rather read an article in which athletes present their predictions on the future of AI.
So I definitely think you have an excellent point concering the fact that many people don't want a complex cell phone.
But I want both a Cell Phone and a PDA. I want to play chess while I'm on the Bus. I want to have my shopping list with me when I go to the store. I want to be reminded that I have an upcoming meeting, etc. And even more complex features that integrate the power of both a Cell Phone and a general computing device like a "Don't ring if I'm in the middle of a meeting" setting.
So it's completely reasonable that simple models will cater to people like you that don't want all that extra baggage (price and size), and that other models will cater to people like me that want more features.
I can envision these products being sold like swiss army knives:
Is 64K enough memory for a PC?
My guess is that the Cell Phone/PDA will become just as important as a personal computer is today, if not more so.
And people will be upgrading theirs forever. Not only will there be newer and better technologies and applications, but with a Cell Phone/PDA, style will be a big factor as well.
Hi, My name is David Wood. I'm a Dumb Monkey.
Let me tell you about my experience with RSI.
I can type very very fast on a regular keyboard. I knew that RSI occurs in my family, but I wasn't concerned because I'm a Dumb Monkey.
About three years ago I started to feel a tingling sensation on the backs of my hands - as if they were "falling asleep." First this would happen after the odd 12-16 minute sessions of straight coding, but gradually unusual aches, pains and numbness became more and more common, until it was happening every day. This is what happens when you ignore the early symptoms of RSI like a Dumb Monkey.
Once I realized that this was a real problem, I read every single piece of literature on the internet about RSI (all 2,073,418 of them), and then I moved on to the library and the medical books. Everything said the same thing: "see a specialist now - don't wait!" But guess what? I could't afford a specialist. I did't have health insurance because I'm a Dumb Monkey, and I didn't have the spare cash because I'm a Dumb Monkey.
Instead, I decided to spend $1000 on a new keyboard. Really, I couldn't afford to see a doctor, but the keyboard was only a $1000. Even though all of the reading that I did indicated that ergonomic keyboards alone will not typically cure serious RSI, I'm a Dumb Monkey, so I thought it would work.
I bought the DataHand because the sales guy was really nice and he told me it would work.
But because I ignored the early symptoms for so long, it was too late, and my condition just got worse to the point that I had to stop working. Fortunately, because I don't really do much, my partners never actually noticed.
Finally, my company was able to get health insurance for me. So, I headed right out and defrauded my new insurance company to pay for my preexisting condition. I went to a nice doctor, and she gave me some cortisone injections. Somehow this cost more than $1000. I complained to her about the horrible keyboard experience I had had, and she told me what I had already read: that a good ergonomic keyboard was just one aspect of preventing RSI.
But I was still pissed off at the fact that I had RSI for so long since I didn't have health insurance since I'm a Dumb Monkey. So when the chance came up on slash dot to let out my frustration at ergonomic keyboard manufacturers, I thought I would tell everyone that my super specialist told me that they are worthless. Worthless I tell you!
So, in summary:
No Dave, that is not what I mean. Your "1": insinuates that you believe you have already answered the question. But you have failed again to repond to this question with a straight and direct answer.
So I will ask it again:
Your next response should either be a straight and direct answer, or, if I am mistaken, a quote from a past post that you made which is a straight and direct answer to this question.
Dave, why don't you answer this simple question:
No B.S. No immaturity. Just answer the question.
You're apologizing for something that I never said or expressed.
This is nasty, don't you think?
If you feel that I am misinterpreting your statements, then by all means, please point out how. I am not interested in having an argument just for the sake of arguing.
I don't fully trust keyboard manufacturers either. Clearly, they have an interest in making their product sound better than it really is. And though your statement makes it sound as though I'm somehow changing my mind, this is not the case. I never did say that I fully trust them.
Actually, I'm familiar with the Datahand. I considered picking one up, but went with a Kinesis keyboard instead. I've actually never mentioned the Microsoft Natural.
I don't believe you are speaking about any post that I have made. Can you point out where you feel I said something along the lines of: An ergonomic keyboard will cure serious RSI.
Well, because I personally believe that using ergonomic keyboards simply makes sense for anyone that does a considerable amount of typing, I would recommend them to anyone at any time just like I would recommend an ergonomic chair, etc.
More unnecessary nastiness.
You didn't make it clear if you were referring to the previous trials with my doctors or yours. Ok, you mean yours. You state:
No where did you state that you changed anything about the way you type. Since that was the subject matter, it was reasonable to assume that you in fact did not change anything about the way you type. Later you state that you did in fact make many changes. This is good to hear. You should share with us more about what changes you (or your doctor) thought were useful.
You're not being consistent. You state:
You then later state:Which is it? Do your doctors feel that ergonomic keyboards are "worthless"? Or do they feel that they are a "part of the puzzle"?
I think doctors are people. Some people are caring and some are not. Some people are smart and knowledgeable, and some are not. The bottom line is that you are naive if you believe that all doctors know everything and only want to help you. Just like one would be naive to believe that all keyboard manufacturers know how to make the perfect keyboard that cures serious RSI.
Here's some reading you might find interesting. There are probably better articles out there, but I found this one on google in under 3 seconds:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/surgery/lhsur0 20.htm
The advice that you espouse in your original post was to seek professional help and basically do whatever they say. In fact you state:
My advice is simply to not blindly believe everything that a doctor tells you. Sure, go to one. Listen carefully to what they tell you. But also do your own research, because doctors are just people, and people are not perfect.
I believe that perhaps one of the things that concerns you is the time-critical nature of serious RSI. I should make it clear to you that if I did had serious RSI, I think I would tend to default to the judgment of a doctor too in an effort to achieve the best immediate solution. This is the cost of having a problem that requires an immediate solution. But the best immediate solution is not always the best long-term solution. And I don't believe that ergonomic keyboards are a worthless piece to the long-term solution puzzle.
Unnecessary Dave.