Might be worthwhile hanging on for as long as possible. When the BBC wanted to finally turn off black & white VHF TV broadcasts, they gave free UHF colour sets to the few thousand people who were still using black & white VHF sets:-)
The patent tries to cover giving an indication when the user is typing.
No. The patent tries to cover giving an indication of when the user is typing specifically without transmitting the user's keystrokes (either singly or block by block) as the means of providing that indication.
One last time: yes, seeing typing is an indication that typing is occurring. Seeing an indication that typing is occurring is not seeing typing. See here and here for prior art - sorry, prior discussion of this point.
To summarise: you and others are saying:
The patent refers to an indication that typing is occurring.
Seeing the typing is an indication that typing is occurring.
Therefore, the patent refers to seeing the typing.
As far as I understand it, a watchdog timer at the typer's end keeps an eye on the typing. When they type, it sends a message saying "They're typing" (message 1). If they're still typing a while later, it sends another message saying "They're still typing" (message 2). If they stop typing for some period of time, it assumes they've died or gone to the bog, and sends a message saying "They've stopped typing" (message 3).
Meanwhile at the other end, when it gets message 1, it turns a little light on, or pops up an animated paperclip, or something. As long as it gets message 2s arriving within some specified period, it keeps the paperclip cavorting. If it either gets message 3, or doesn't get message 2 for a while, it assumes the other end is dead and shuts the paperclip down, probably with a dialog box saying "It looks like nobody wants to talk to you!" and a single OK button.
Presumably, this kind of exchange happening every couple of seconds is more bandwidth-effficient than shooting off a packet for every keystroke.
I would put together a more thorough analysis, but reading patents sends me off to sleep.
I'm sure there's plenty of prior art (including your link and the link in the article), I just don't think talk is a good example, given that it is specifically cited in the patent as not being what they claim their doobrie to be.
But having an indication that they are typing is not necessarily seeing what they are typing. The patent specifically states that its purpose is to provide such an indication without allowing you to see the actual typing occurring.
...cannot drive automatic, it doesn't mean that we all have to stick to the old-days stick
Ah, here in the UK the majority of cars are manual transmission, even new ones. If you pass your driving test in an automatic, you're not allowed to drive a manual.
I learnt to drive in a manual, so I could (in principle) drive an automatic. But my parents (who have an automatic) take one look at my car, and won't let me drive theirs:-)
RTFP. From this week's "great innovation for customers":
Unlike telephonic communication, when participants know that a person is speaking, participants in an instant messaging session do not know that somebody is preparing a message for transmission. Without a cue that the other person is transmitting information, it is difficult to have a smooth conversational flow. One mechanism that addresses this problem is employed by a UNIX "talk" program, which performs a character-by-character transmission of an instant message. That is, each time individual types of a single character on the computer keyboard, that character is transmitted to all other participants in the instant messaging session. Because other participants are essentially watching the person type, there are clear cues that a user is "talking."
However, this approach has several limitations. First, character-by-character transmission greatly increases the flow of network traffic because each character requires one or more data packets to be sent to each participant in the instant messaging session. In addition, many users do not like to be "watched" as they type, as their typing errors and incomplete thoughts are transmitted before they can be corrected. Finally, message recipients are often distracted by watching the flickering screen in which characters appear one time as a complete message is formed. Therefore, it can be appreciated that there is a significant need for a system and method that will provide the desired notification of user activity in a computer network. The present invention provides this, and other advantages, as will be apparent from the following detailed description and accompanying figures.
As far as I can see from a quick reading, the idea is not that you see what people are typing, but that you have an indicator which lets you know that they are typing.
Don't assume that the first page Google throws up is the answer. It has the version you cite, but that is different to the version I've seen everywhere else:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me --
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I've just done a quick test: I created a page with a textarea element (multi-line text box), served it up from one of my machines, typed and selected some text and hit backspace, then Ctrl-Z (Windows) / Command-Z (Mac). I got the following results:
Internet Explorer 6/Windows: undid the change
Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1/MacOS X: undid the change
Internet Explorer 5/MacOS X: didn't undo
Safari 1.0(v85.5)/MacOS X: didn't undo
Opera 6.02/MacOS X: didn't undo
So if your punters are using IE6 on Windows, they can undo that mistake with Ctrl-Z. I would assume that this also applies to Mozilla cross-platform. Don't know if it works in IE 4, 5 or 5.5, but it may well do so.
Indeed. And, when you need some meat, a pressure cooker will tenderise the tough, scraggy but cheap cuts into an excellent stew, while saving a surprisingly large sum in fuel.
I really noticed that when I was living in a grotty bedsit with a coin operated electricity meter, a Baby Belling stovelet and GBP28/week from HM Government. What the Eighties Did For Us, my arse!
My view would be that we should find some kind of work which brings us personal fulfillment, yet for which somebody is willing to pay. Developing software is that work for me; I do it because I like doing it, and (sometimes) I also get paid for it. Others get the same reward from carving wood, or repairing thatched roofs. It's not just a computer thing.
This means that I learn new skills simply because it makes me happy, and that's about the most important thing in life.
Working as a freelance consultant this last few years, I've come across a lot of coders in a lot of different organisations. There always seem to be some who are there because some careers advisor or parent suggested that it was a good line of work to get into. They didn't really enjoy being there, they regarded extending their skills as a necessary chore, and the end result was that they weren't really very good at what they did. Adequate maybe; no more.
It always seems that the companies in which these types worked had a vaguely depressing, we're-here-to-work-not-to-enjoy-ourselves atmosphere. In the places where they had only hired people who had a genuine enthusiasm for the work per se - that is, enthusiasm not just for the company's current projects, but for the whole activity of developing software - there was a genuine buzz, a sense that when one arrived in the morning, one would be mixing with a group of interesting, creative individuals, enthused with the possibilities for personal and group satisfaction offered by the work. It made me want to get up in the morning, and it takes a lot to do that.
I've sometimes speculated on what possibilities there would have been for me to employ my natural talents if I'd lived a thousand years ago. Then I realise that I would have been a peasant, doomed to a miserable existence in a shit-filled hut. As we live in societies advanced enough to make options available to us, it's our own responsibility to find an activity we love, and then strive to be the best we can at it.
I'm starting to sound like some poxy lifestyle guru, so I'll stop now:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Might be worthwhile hanging on for as long as possible. When the BBC wanted to finally turn off black & white VHF TV broadcasts, they gave free UHF colour sets to the few thousand people who were still using black & white VHF sets :-)
Which version? If it was 9, then your problems are pretty much irrelevant to anybody considering networking an OS X box.
(Although if you want security, you're better off using the Mac running OS X as the server :-)
No. The patent tries to cover giving an indication of when the user is typing specifically without transmitting the user's keystrokes (either singly or block by block) as the means of providing that indication.
One last time: yes, seeing typing is an indication that typing is occurring. Seeing an indication that typing is occurring is not seeing typing. See here and here for prior art - sorry, prior discussion of this point.
To summarise: you and others are saying:
-
The patent refers to an indication that typing is occurring.
-
Seeing the typing is an indication that typing is occurring.
-
Therefore, the patent refers to seeing the typing.
This is logically identical to saying:More info on logic here
A clock, perhaps?
Now that's a good idea. Have you thought of patenting it? ;-)
Well personally, I wouldn't, but we are talking about Microsoft - the company where the blindingly obvious is considered "innovation".
Going back to first year Logic course:
is logically valid.
is not logically valid.
(Note: if Socrates is running in the Cheltenham Gold Cup, the above example may fail. I'll take GBP20 at 15 to 1 ;-)
As far as I understand it, a watchdog timer at the typer's end keeps an eye on the typing. When they type, it sends a message saying "They're typing" (message 1). If they're still typing a while later, it sends another message saying "They're still typing" (message 2). If they stop typing for some period of time, it assumes they've died or gone to the bog, and sends a message saying "They've stopped typing" (message 3).
Meanwhile at the other end, when it gets message 1, it turns a little light on, or pops up an animated paperclip, or something. As long as it gets message 2s arriving within some specified period, it keeps the paperclip cavorting. If it either gets message 3, or doesn't get message 2 for a while, it assumes the other end is dead and shuts the paperclip down, probably with a dialog box saying "It looks like nobody wants to talk to you!" and a single OK button.
Presumably, this kind of exchange happening every couple of seconds is more bandwidth-effficient than shooting off a packet for every keystroke.
I would put together a more thorough analysis, but reading patents sends me off to sleep.
I'm sure there's plenty of prior art (including your link and the link in the article), I just don't think talk is a good example, given that it is specifically cited in the patent as not being what they claim their doobrie to be.
But having an indication that they are typing is not necessarily seeing what they are typing. The patent specifically states that its purpose is to provide such an indication without allowing you to see the actual typing occurring.
Ah, here in the UK the majority of cars are manual transmission, even new ones. If you pass your driving test in an automatic, you're not allowed to drive a manual.
I learnt to drive in a manual, so I could (in principle) drive an automatic. But my parents (who have an automatic) take one look at my car, and won't let me drive theirs :-)
RTFP. From this week's "great innovation for customers":
As far as I can see from a quick reading, the idea is not that you see what people are typing, but that you have an indicator which lets you know that they are typing.
I've never used the right-hand Ctrl key on any keyboard. I kept meaning to learn, but I guess you can't teach an old dog new keys.
I remember on the PDP-8e at school, I got really excited when I found that Ctrl-G made the Teletype bell ring :-)
If you ever get the time, you might find this paper useful.
I suppose I'll get modded OT for this, but I'm just feeling helpful today :-)
And, of course,
Don't assume that the first page Google throws up is the answer. It has the version you cite, but that is different to the version I've seen everywhere else:
See also Niemoller's address to the US Congress, which has some similarities to the version you cite, and may have led to the confusion.
Hmm... I think you're right about getting OT :-)
Actually, the dialog shown only allows you to click "OK". Who needs options when you've got Windows :-)
Wonderful. They can't even traverse an empty data stucture successfully, and then they wonder why they get slagged off.
Good work with the apostrophe there.
I would have liked to have seen a comma after "Damn", and three dots to the ellipsis... but other than that, excellent.
(Now somebody can tell me I'm wrong to have a space after my ellipsis... sigh :-)
I've just done a quick test: I created a page with a textarea element (multi-line text box), served it up from one of my machines, typed and selected some text and hit backspace, then Ctrl-Z (Windows) / Command-Z (Mac). I got the following results:
So if your punters are using IE6 on Windows, they can undo that mistake with Ctrl-Z. I would assume that this also applies to Mozilla cross-platform. Don't know if it works in IE 4, 5 or 5.5, but it may well do so.
As in Woody Allen's film Sleeper , when they tell him he must smoke his cigarettes as they're good for him :-)
Indeed. And, when you need some meat, a pressure cooker will tenderise the tough, scraggy but cheap cuts into an excellent stew, while saving a surprisingly large sum in fuel.
I really noticed that when I was living in a grotty bedsit with a coin operated electricity meter, a Baby Belling stovelet and GBP28/week from HM Government. What the Eighties Did For Us, my arse!
My view would be that we should find some kind of work which brings us personal fulfillment, yet for which somebody is willing to pay. Developing software is that work for me; I do it because I like doing it, and (sometimes) I also get paid for it. Others get the same reward from carving wood, or repairing thatched roofs. It's not just a computer thing.
This means that I learn new skills simply because it makes me happy, and that's about the most important thing in life.
Working as a freelance consultant this last few years, I've come across a lot of coders in a lot of different organisations. There always seem to be some who are there because some careers advisor or parent suggested that it was a good line of work to get into. They didn't really enjoy being there, they regarded extending their skills as a necessary chore, and the end result was that they weren't really very good at what they did. Adequate maybe; no more.
It always seems that the companies in which these types worked had a vaguely depressing, we're-here-to-work-not-to-enjoy-ourselves atmosphere. In the places where they had only hired people who had a genuine enthusiasm for the work per se - that is, enthusiasm not just for the company's current projects, but for the whole activity of developing software - there was a genuine buzz, a sense that when one arrived in the morning, one would be mixing with a group of interesting, creative individuals, enthused with the possibilities for personal and group satisfaction offered by the work. It made me want to get up in the morning, and it takes a lot to do that.
I've sometimes speculated on what possibilities there would have been for me to employ my natural talents if I'd lived a thousand years ago. Then I realise that I would have been a peasant, doomed to a miserable existence in a shit-filled hut. As we live in societies advanced enough to make options available to us, it's our own responsibility to find an activity we love, and then strive to be the best we can at it.
I'm starting to sound like some poxy lifestyle guru, so I'll stop now :-)