As a KDE fan, I have to say just how jealous I am that other software development communities actually have common sense.
Apache: "Our newest is Apache 2, but you can use our rock-solid Apache 1 if you want." Python: "Our newest is Python 3, but you can use our rock-solid Python 2 if you want." KDE: "What!? You're still using KDE 3? But we told all our developers to drop all KDE 3 and move on to our newest KDE 4, which just came out with the second release candidate version of the beta for our alpha version! Get with the times, man!"... sigh....
Can I ask how that is different than finding add-ons for firefox? To me it seems to be the exact same thing, without firefox.
One difference is that the Firefox pages often features screenshots, while the application installer in Ubuntu is plain text.
Good point! Not necessarily easy to implement, but you do point out something that would give a more user-friendly feel, since lay users find graphics less intimidating.
Maybe, to cut down on CPU load, there can be a blank picture next to each program with "Click to see screenshot." Also another (easily visible/accessible) option saying, "Click to load all screenshots (might take a long time!)". And that option must be cancellable if the user has decided that the wait is too long.
Sir, you seem to be familiar with GNOME, so I'll throw out some more questions about KDE equivalents in GNOME, and maybe you can convince me to switch.
Customizing keyboard shortcuts in GNOME. E.g. I want the "reload" key to be "Alt-Shift-B" rather than "Ctrl-R" in Firefox (for example), or Win-Shift-D to bring up the clipboard list of items for cut&paste. How do I do this?
Controlling GUI programs via command-line/script. The equivalent of DCOP in KDE3. If I want Konqueror (web browser) to go to the web page in Klipper (the clipboard) memory, I say: dcop konqueror-6500 konqueror-mainwindow#1 openURL `dcop klipper klipper getClipboardContents` I think GNOME uses either DBUS or something called "Bonobo". Same sort of scripting ease/flexibility?
File requester dialogues, specific to each program. When I want to open a file in Kolourpaint (for example), the file search dialogue box has bookmarks which I can preset to jump to commonly used directories (see here: http://api.kde.org/4.0-api/kdelibs-apidocs/kio/html/kfiledialog.png for image). GNOME has the same, but I don't know how to get them to be program-specific. That is, the bookmarks for Kolourpaint, which point to my image directories, should be different from KWrite's bookmarks, which point to where my text files are stored.
When I Drag & Drop in KDE, a menu pops up: "Copy? Move? Link?" If I press Ctrl before "dropping" the file (releasing the mouse), KDE will know I want to copy. If it's Shift, then KDE will move the file. If it's Alt, then it will link. Equivalent in GNOME?
Equivalent of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander for GNOME? (In KDE, it's Krusader.)
These are the main things that keep me with KDE. In particular, there are a whole bunch of scripts I've written with DCOP calls. There are a few things inducing me to consider GNOME.
KDE is switching to KDE4. It uses DBUS, not DCOP. If I have to re-write my scripts, I'll take a close look at whether KDE4 really is better than GNOME.
Ubuntu uses GNOME. Yes, there's Kubuntu, but it's treated like a second-class citizen. They don't address the weaknesses in KDE: "New! We're going to use Beagle search! Oh, it's not compatible with KDE? Ah, well, you guys go mess around with Strigi or something." They don't address the strengths of KDE: "Breakthrough: after pouring tons of man-hours into Ubuntu, we have improved utilities! What's that? KDE already had that three years ago? Who cares --don't you have to run along and go compile some code?" And the last straw: "Oh, we can't support KDE3 long term. But we're not supporting KDE4 long term either. In fact, we're decided to forget to mention anything about Long Term Support in Kubuntu."
My mom and dad switched to Linux and are using Ubuntu with GNOME. They keep asking me how to set things, and I have no idea since I use KDE.
So, if I can get comfortable with GNOME, it might be worth serious consideration.
It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!
Exactly! Why compare to Vista, which ranks slightly above Windows ME and slightly below Windows 3.1 for DOS? "Extra, extra! The new system we're making is better than the previous one --we think! But we're still running tests to make sure."
Good job, Microsoft! Or were you referring to Ubuntu 15.04, a.k.a. Vociferous Vista?
For example, 2001:0DB8:0000:0000:0000:0000:1428:57AB can be written as 2001:DB8::1428:57AB.
That would make zero a desirable digit to have just from convenience, probably more so than it deserves since any random digit should be equally valid. Maybe we can have it so that 2001:DB8:/1/:1428:57AB is short for 2001:DB8:1111:1111:1111:1111:1428:57AB, and 2001:DB8:/3e/:1428:57AB would mean 2001:DB8:3e3e:3e3e:3e3e:3e3e:1428:57AB.
We don't even need to make it a divisor of 16; for example, 2001:DB8:/faded/:1428:57AB would be short for 2001:DB8:fade:dfad:edfa:dedf:1428:57AB, an address easy to remember (for geeks, anyway). If everyone else wanted a mostly-zeroes IP address, I wouldn't mind getting the 2001:DB8:/faded/:xxxx or 2001:DB8:/c0de/:xxxx subnet or something. (I guess we can grab 65536 addresses at the same time since there are so many IPv6 addresses.)
Bonus fun: if you have a Mac, you can use Apple's "say" command. echo "Get off the phone, Susie, I need to talk to mom" | say
Don't go rushing off to buy a Mac just for that reason alone, now. You can easily use "espeak" on Linux to do the same thing. I've got a script that runs DCOP calls to KDE (yeah, yeah, I haven't upgraded to the DBUS-using KDE4 yet) that reads out the subject headings email messages when they arrive so I know what email has/has not arrived.
echo "Get off the phone, Susie, I need to talk to mom" | espeak
Of course, you might have to "sudo apt-get install espeak" (or equivalent) before that.
Mozilla needs your permission to install plugins from unverified sources.
But since windows standard practice is to click on everything that has an OK on it, I think it doesn't matter.
Agree. Can we get people to take signature verification more seriously now? There have been a number of Firefox extensions, including some well-known, well-used ones, that are unsigned. (I can't remember if Flashblock, Adblock and NoScript are among them.) Is it a big hassle to sign the extensions? (This is not a rhetorical question; I really would like to know.)
You know how Kaminsky found this glaring bug in the DNS system that people have been using for ages, and people said, "What!? How could such a huge flaw go for so long with no one saying anything?" Well, right here we have a glaring flaw in the Firefox extension system. Firefox is a vector for extension malware. I'm saying it now.
The slashdot community never takes anything out of context.
What do you mean, "The slashdot community never takes anything"? The slashdot community takes lots of things! They take money from the bank, they take lunch breaks, they take a long time to find software bugs...
You think that was unusual? Most every Olympic event makes tensions WORSE not better. When Athens held the games, you heard people insulting the Greeks as "poor and backwards farmers". When Atlanta held the games it was about how the "Americans sold out to corporations" which most of us found incredibly insulting; even the president of the IOC did a back-handed insult by refusing to say our games were good.
The Seoul games were marred by the constant threat of Communist North Korea, Barcelona was overshadowed by the tension with Spain, The Los Angeles and Moscow games were boycotted by one-third of the world, the Toronto games were afraid of a repeat of the Munich games where Jewish athletes were killed by Muslim radicals..... and on and on and on.
The games bring MORE tension, not less.
I think political tension will be unavoidably evident in any large public international high-profile event, but I still think we are better off with the games. Countries do get together and compete in a mostly neutral way, and the overwhelming but silent majority of the spectators do bemoan the political taint where it does appear. Yes, there have been political issues, but these have involved a minority of countries. I'd rather have the Olympics than not.
Can you imagine if we didn't even have the Olympics? International relations would be even worse than they are now, and half the people wouldn't even recognize the names of coutries or their accomplishments. You might even get some high-ranking government official who doesn't realize that Africa is a continent, not a country... (oh, wait...)
they quite like that a patient researches the symptoms and mentions this to the Dr. They don't like a patient coming in and saying, "Doctor, I have this illness and require this medication."
Agree. I had mentioned in a previous post that information on the Internet can be rather useful. I do enjoy patients who do reserach beforehand, so they come prepared. Typically they will say, "Well, I know we're not supposed to believe everything on the Internet, but I looked on WebMD, and it said [such and such]." They list a few possibilities. They will also tell me what they're worrying about, such as "my uncle had my symptoms too, and he eventually died, so I looked up Cancer of the Oogali-Boogali gland" or whatever, and then I can address their concerns. One nice thing about such patients is that you can say, "I think it's [whatever]" and they're happy to go look up the details themselves, so you're not stuck spending an extra 5 minutes explaining what rhinovirus is and why it's not going to kill them.
What I hate, as you've alluded to, is patients who have checked the Internet and have already made up their minds about what to do. Of these patients, the ones that drive me nuts are the ones that don't even tell you what the problem is, just the test they want to do, like, "Morning, doctor. I need an ultrasound of the thyroid." Eventually further questioning reveals that they feel a lump in their throat and they're worried about hyperthyroidism (which does not cause a lump in the throat, and even if it did, is not diagnosed with an ultrasound). By taking a step back and identifying their concerns ("let's look at what other possible causes are of a lump in the throat") I get them to take a more rational and scientifically/medically correct approach (meaning that the sequence of tests is much more likely to yield a useful diagnosis), but it takes an extra 5-10 minutes, and I feel like strangling them as I wrap up the visit with a smile and say, "See you next time! Get well soon! (Now just let me deal with the next patient who has been kept waiting!)"
I was pleasantly surprised by the large proportion of my patients who are of the former type, reasonable people who gather info on the Internet but don't commit to believing it, just bringing it to me to sort through with them. I think the general population, or at least my own patient population, is becoming more mature with respect to how to deal with the large amount of info on the Internet.
Hardest to deal with of all is a subtle attitude on some of the patients who read info on the Internet and have their way of thinking swayed in a pervasive but subtle way. For example, people who refuse vaccinations because they've read about negative consequences of vaccination adverse effects are victims of the perceptive error that the probability of an event is proportional to how clearly it sticks in one's mind. Anecdotal evidence of one case where a vaccine caused someone to sprout horns and an extra pair of eyes doesn't mean that it's not preventing serious illness --and even death!-- not just for the patient but for those who would otherwise have been infected by the patient. But these people don't come in saying, "Gee, I read this thing on the Interet 3 years ago. Do you think I should get vaccinated?" They just say, "No, I'd rather not get the shot," and you're lefting wondering where they got the info on which they based their decision. Chances are it's from the Internet, from something that could have been debunked by snopes.com or something similar.
So, the Internet is a tool. It can be used wisely, or poorly, and for the latter group of patients, we doctors just have to suck it up and spend the extra hand-holding time trying to educate them on proper use of the Internet. Maybe this research on "cyberchondria" can be a tool in this effort.
In your concerns you cite above, it seems to me that what you consider to be "valid" patents are obvious by my criteria.
However, in some cases, the major inventive step is contained in finding the problem, while the solution is rather trivial. In some cases, everyone skilled in the art failed to acknowledge that there even is a problem to be solved.
If people don't realize there is a problem to be solved, the PTO can publish "The Problem To Be Solved" (P2BS) in a more general manner. In fact, we could make it so that the submitter of the patent application submits the wording for the P2BS. For example, if people have taken for granted that they must (let's say) line up to buy tickets, and the submitter wants to say, "My idea is that we don't have to line up at all, but I don't want to give it away," then s/he can submit the P2BS as "the problem of frustration when buying tickets" etc. Then other people submitting Counterexamples Of Obviousness (COO) might come up with ways to make the queue move faster, but not hit on a way to dispense with the queue altogether. But this makes the P2BS rather vague, and I'm not sure that the patent is particularly valid.
Another problem is that if the public would submit a solution within the set time frame - it still might very well be inventive.
Perhaps this cuts closer to where you and I differ. If the public submits a COO within the time frame, the patent "still might very well be inventive", but it's obvious and should not be granted. This happens all the time in software. There is a special situation that needs special algorithms, which are quite inventive, but if someone else can easily come up with the same inventive algorithm, I don't think you can justify granting a patent that will lock other people out of using your obvious inventive invention for the next X years. I mean, you see inventive solutions generated all the time --just go to any library and take a glance at books on "How To Stimulate Your Creativity" etc. In fact, someone on Slashdot provided a link to a web site that provides such inventive ideas: http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi?ref=Prior_art_by_Mindcontrolled
IMO, the solution is more simple. Increase staff at the USPTO.
Here is an example of the antithesis of an inventive suggestion. In this economic climate, you think that the answer to the upswell of patent trolls is to throw more money at the PTO? Tell the PTO to work even harder? I guess throwing more money at a problem can be a solution to any problem. I was looking more for ways to harness the energy of the motivated public, and make it easier for any given size of PTO.
In the case of MP3 versus Vorbis both offer valid solutions to the stated problem of "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss". So, a valid solution is being submitted inside your time limit but you are making a value judgement that it is "sufficiently different" from MP3 and allowing that patent.
If, on the other hand, you rejected the MP3 patent because Vorbis submission was not "sufficiently different" you have another problem. The PTO now has to record the submitted alternate solutions and ensure that they are never granted a patent at the expense of the first applicant.
Either way we're in the same grey areas and the land of litigation.
Thank you for your comments (as well as those of your sibling posters). I do think I can address both of your concerns with almost no modification to my proposed system of Allowing the Public To Test for Obviousness.
For the patent on "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss": In the first case, suppose someone submits something quite different from the MP3 method; the MP3 patent is granted. That itself is not a problem; I'm all for rewarding inventors who come up with non-obvious ways to solve problems. What happens next is that the software engineer says, "Gee, I want to compress my music, but I can't afford to pay patent license fees. Why was there a patent on MP3? It seems *obvious* to brilliant old me! Didn't anyone submit any 'That Is So Obvious' submissions?" Then, on checking, the engineer finds that someone submitted the Vorbis counterexample. "Oh, joy! I will use the Vorbis solution instead of MP3." So, although the MP3 patent was not obvious enough to be invalidated, it was obvious enough for someone else to submit something similar, and thus the world is not forced to pay MP3 fees.
Someone else might feel that Vorbis is not so good, and MP3 is the way to go, and this person might perhaps feel that it's worthwhile to pay the licensing fees. But it wouldn't be all or nothing. And, in particular, not every method of solving the problem is considered to be covered by the patent, but only that particular way,, since using Vorbis to compress sound has been shown to be "obvious".
In the second case, where the MP3 method is considered to be obvious you fear that now the PTO has to keep track of what is obvious and what is not. But that's not true either. Let's say someone else submits a patent for Windows Media Audio format; suppose the patent examiner happens to be a Slashdot editor who can't recognize dupes (<insert smilie here>). The examiner just follows the usual procedure and says, "Here's a 'Way to Compress Sound Files'. Anyone know an obvious way to do this?" And then 200 people would submit the Vorbis solution, saying, "You asked that already, silly!" And that would be the end of that.
I thought of an idea some time ago to get rid of obvious patents, like the (not-so) Amazing One-Click. It would mean less work for the PTO (Patent/Trademark Office), too. The case of prior art might be considered a special case of "obvious" (or known) patents. See what you think:
When someone submits a patent, claiming to have found (let's say) A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once, the PTO would publish the claim. Not the contents of the patent, simply the claim itself, the problem that the patent claims to solve. They would give the general public some set time, say 30 days, to come up with some way to solve this problem. "We have a patent application claiming to offer A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once. Can anyone come up with how this might be done? If someone gets a valid submission in within 30 days, then this patent will be considered obvious."
People who would be motivated to work hard to look for a solution within the allotted time would include, besides the Slashdot crowd, firms who have a vested interest NOT to pay licensing fees every time they want to use the invention. They would have some idea what sort of patent apps might be coming down the pipeline. PTO doesn't have to figure out whether a patent is obvious (which is good seeing as how they're doing a pretty lousy job of it). As for prior art, if the public can come up with a way to solve the desired problem using prior art, then that's another sign that the patent is obvious! Of course, these submissions tbhemselves of "that patent is so obvious even I could come up with something in 30 days" would be published and be available to the public.
Some patents, including algorithmic software patents, are worth patenting. The MP3 algorithm, for example, was the result of hard work and research. If the PTO had given the public a chance to come up with "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss", people might not have been able to produce a solution in 30 days, showing that the MP3 patent is not so obvious. Someone might have come up with a different solution (Vorbis, FLAC, etc.), and that would be okay but the MP3 patent would be granted. (Of course, then large firms might have used Vorbis instead of paying the MP3 fees.)
What do you think?
(I posted this comment before, but too late to generate any discussion. I'm reposting it to see whether you think this would be a valid test of whether a patent is "obvious".)
For those who were as clueless as I about the possible Mr. Gadd's in question, I suspect parent is not referring to American drummer Steve Gadd, or British baritone opera singer Stephen Gadd (there's enough confusion there already), or Canadian singer Floyd Gadd, but to some guy named Paul Francis Gadd, who was apparently also a singer, and had sales of his music decline after being found to possess child pornography. He used a stage name, "Gary Glitter", but apparently that didn't really protect him.
When I was robbed, we nailed the thief not only from the video cameras that he looked right at to give us a awesome face shot, but he stole my daughters cellphone. He left it on all the time reporting his position. The cops had his ass in less than 24 hours.
Interesting. From time to time we hear about how the police won't try too hard to catch thieves because they have bigger fish to fry. Seems that in your case the cops were fairly efficient. Any ideas about why? Maybe it was because yours was more than just a theft, but direct robbery (which I would guess constitutes violent crime)?
I've seen encrypted laptops at work where people write the password on an index card, and tape the card to the top of the laptop; or store it in their laptop case.
Encryption can't protect against stupid.
Your post gave me an idea. What if I pretend to be stupid and write down a fake password? Then I configure the computer so that, when the fake password is entered, the data is scrambled. (The real password is the fake password backwards, or every other letter, or something else.)
I wonder if there are any programs with this feature? If the disk is encrypted, writing a small bit of random data to the header should render the rest of the disk undecryptable. If we want it separate from any disk encryption (or are not using disk encryption) then we'd have to find some other setup.
I thought of an idea some time ago to get rid of obvious patents, like the (not-so) Amazing One-Click. It would mean less work for the PTO (Patent/Trademark Office), too. The case of prior art might be considered a special case of "obvious" (or known) patents. See what you think:
When someone submits a patent, claiming to have found (let's say) A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once, the PTO would publish the claim. Not the contents of the patent, simply the claim itself, the problem that the patent claims to solve. They would give the general public some set time, say 30 days, to come up with some way to solve this problem. "We have a patent application claiming to offer A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once. Can anyone come up with how this might be done? If someone gets a valid submission in within 30 days, then this patent will be considered obvious."
People who would be motivated to work hard to look for a solution within the allotted time would include, besides the Slashdot crowd, firms who have a vested interest NOT to pay licensing fees every time they want to use the invention. They would have some idea what sort of patent apps might be coming down the pipeline. PTO doesn't have to figure out whether a patent is obvious (which is good seeing as how they're doing a pretty lousy job of it). As for prior art, if the public can come up with a way to solve the desired problem using prior art, then that's another sign that the patent is obvious! Of course, these submissions tbhemselves of "that patent is so obvious even I could come up with something in 30 days" would be published and be available to the public.
Some patents, including algorithmic software patents, are worth patenting. The MP3 algorithm, for example, was the result of hard work and research. If the PTO had given the public a chance to come up with "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss", people might not have been able to produce a solution in 30 days, showing that the MP3 patent is not so obvious. Someone might have come up with a different solution (Vorbis, FLAC, etc.), and that would be okay but the MP3 patent would be granted. (Of course, then large firms might have used Vorbis instead of paying the MP3 fees.)
"This month, we're going to predict whether evil hackers will exploit bugs in our code. What do you predict?"
Steve Ballmer: "No." James Allchin: "Yes." Mike Reavey: "Yes." Jim Gries: "No, I fixed all the bugs." Sarah Ford: "I dunno. I'd say no; I'm confident in Microsoft." Val Mazur: "No." Rui Chen: "Well, the possibility is there, but they'll never prove that they did, so it's the same as no." Kathleen Dollard: "Of course I will! er --I mean, THEY will. Yes." Michel Fournier: "How am I supposed to know? How many people said Yes so far? Oh, okay, then I'll say yes." Bill Gates: "No. Of course I count as part of Microsoft! Write my vote down. No."
Mike Reavey: "Okay, so, what was the right answer? Oh, umm... we were 40% correct. That's not too bad --there's been improvement."
Reading the article, I find a lot of enthusiasm from Greg Kroah-Hartman about how well the program has worked, saying that most hardware manufacturers come to his project to make sure that their hardware works with Linux: "Everything is supported by Linux. If you have a device that isn't supported by Linux that's being shipped today, let me know."
I'd like the touchscreen device (Touchsmart PC by HP) to be supported by Linux. That would be cool. The idea of Compiz Fusion on a touchscreen makes me drool.
Are you reading this, Greg? And if not, how do we get in touch with you, anyway? I can't find an email address in my (admittedly cursory) search of your web pages.
1/2 cycle per second was the approximate speed of the Intellivision console. As far as I know it was the slowest consumer CPU-based device ever released, however since it uses 16-bit CPU it could (in theory) perform the same amount of work as the standard 8-bit CPU (6502 or 6510) at 1 megahertz.
Dude, I think you're off by a factor of 1 million. I'm pretty sure the Intellivision console was closer to half a megahertz than half a hertz. I mean, Charles Babbage's calculating machine probably ran faster than half a hertz.
The spectacular Coronado Bridge that connects San Diego to Coronado Island used to charge a toll. Now there are big signs before and on the bridge itself, saying, "We don't collect a toll any more! Please, do not stop, and do not pay us!"
The Burlington Skyway also stopped collecting tolls once the (re)construction was paid for. (I'm referring to the twinning of the bridge.)
Here's another question: does Kubuntu have a LTS (Long-Term Support) version yet? Ubuntu 8.04 (GNOME version) was LTS, but because the KDE developers decided to drop everything KDE3-related and go running after the KDE4 Holy Grail, Kubuntu 8.04 was not LTS. So now it's October, the next version of Ubuntu is out, and KDE4 has been upgraded to KDE4.1 , do we have LTS yet? Or will we have to wait 4 more version still Ubuntu 10.4 (Muckraking Manatee) before we get a LTS?
Personally, I don't want to upgrade to KDE4 because I just want my computer DE to help me get things done and stay out of the way. I don't want to learn a new way of doing things. I hope Kubuntu8.10 comes with a KDE3 version.
It seems to me that, if you wanted to keep certain viewing habits private, you could just do all your private stuff with a separate account, and just flip back and forth between the private and public accounts. Say you're doing ordinary surfing on your public account, and you want to do something private: Ctrl-Alt-F9 (or whichever screen you're using) to go to the private account, run Firefox on that account (which would keep its stuff completely separate from the public account) and do whatever. Then Ctrl-Alt-F7 to go back to the usual account.
We do that all the time since we have houseguests from time to time, and we don't want them getting into our finances and stuff. The houseguests are often family, so we don't want to just create a sterile guest account since there is a lot that we do want to share with them (photos, etc.), Skype. So we use our "usual" account for that, and all finances and web banking goes into another account. If someone walks by while we're in the middle of something private and says, "Hey, can I check out those baby photos?", the Ctrl-Alt-F7 thing flips us back into public mode without having to log off, log back on, etc.
Make it so that MyPrivateUsername has permission to see MyPublicUsername's stuff, but the public account can't see the private stuff. I do that by making MyPrivateUsername a member of the MyPublicUsername group.
Or am I missing something? Are there special needs of porn viewers that aren't accommodated by two separate accounts?
Slashdot Mirror
As a KDE fan, I have to say just how jealous I am that other software development communities actually have common sense.
Apache: "Our newest is Apache 2, but you can use our rock-solid Apache 1 if you want." ... sigh ....
Python: "Our newest is Python 3, but you can use our rock-solid Python 2 if you want."
KDE: "What!? You're still using KDE 3? But we told all our developers to drop all KDE 3 and move on to our newest KDE 4, which just came out with the second release candidate version of the beta for our alpha version! Get with the times, man!"
Good point! Not necessarily easy to implement, but you do point out something that would give a more user-friendly feel, since lay users find graphics less intimidating.
Maybe, to cut down on CPU load, there can be a blank picture next to each program with "Click to see screenshot." Also another (easily visible/accessible) option saying, "Click to load all screenshots (might take a long time!)". And that option must be cancellable if the user has decided that the wait is too long.
Actually, how he came up with the password was: "Hmm, what shall I put as my password? Physics? Astro? No, my *lover*!"
Sir, you seem to be familiar with GNOME, so I'll throw out some more questions about KDE equivalents in GNOME, and maybe you can convince me to switch.
These are the main things that keep me with KDE. In particular, there are a whole bunch of scripts I've written with DCOP calls.
There are a few things inducing me to consider GNOME.
So, if I can get comfortable with GNOME, it might be worth serious consideration.
Thanks for any help you can give.
Exactly! Why compare to Vista, which ranks slightly above Windows ME and slightly below Windows 3.1 for DOS? "Extra, extra! The new system we're making is better than the previous one --we think! But we're still running tests to make sure."
Good job, Microsoft! Or were you referring to Ubuntu 15.04, a.k.a. Vociferous Vista?
That would make zero a desirable digit to have just from convenience, probably more so than it deserves since any random digit should be equally valid. Maybe we can have it so that
2001:DB8:/1/:1428:57AB
is short for
2001:DB8:1111:1111:1111:1111:1428:57AB,
and
2001:DB8:/3e/:1428:57AB
would mean
2001:DB8:3e3e:3e3e:3e3e:3e3e:1428:57AB.
We don't even need to make it a divisor of 16; for example,
2001:DB8:/faded/:1428:57AB
would be short for
2001:DB8:fade:dfad:edfa:dedf:1428:57AB,
an address easy to remember (for geeks, anyway). If everyone else wanted a mostly-zeroes IP address, I wouldn't mind getting the 2001:DB8:/faded/:xxxx or 2001:DB8:/c0de/:xxxx subnet or something. (I guess we can grab 65536 addresses at the same time since there are so many IPv6 addresses.)
Don't go rushing off to buy a Mac just for that reason alone, now. You can easily use "espeak" on Linux to do the same thing. I've got a script that runs DCOP calls to KDE (yeah, yeah, I haven't upgraded to the DBUS-using KDE4 yet) that reads out the subject headings email messages when they arrive so I know what email has/has not arrived.
echo "Get off the phone, Susie, I need to talk to mom" | espeak
Of course, you might have to "sudo apt-get install espeak" (or equivalent) before that.
Agree. Can we get people to take signature verification more seriously now? There have been a number of Firefox extensions, including some well-known, well-used ones, that are unsigned. (I can't remember if Flashblock, Adblock and NoScript are among them.) Is it a big hassle to sign the extensions? (This is not a rhetorical question; I really would like to know.)
You know how Kaminsky found this glaring bug in the DNS system that people have been using for ages, and people said, "What!? How could such a huge flaw go for so long with no one saying anything?" Well, right here we have a glaring flaw in the Firefox extension system. Firefox is a vector for extension malware. I'm saying it now.
What do you mean, "The slashdot community never takes anything"? The slashdot community takes lots of things! They take money from the bank, they take lunch breaks, they take a long time to find software bugs ...
Oh, yeah, and what do you mean, "out of context"?
I think political tension will be unavoidably evident in any large public international high-profile event, but I still think we are better off with the games. Countries do get together and compete in a mostly neutral way, and the overwhelming but silent majority of the spectators do bemoan the political taint where it does appear. Yes, there have been political issues, but these have involved a minority of countries. I'd rather have the Olympics than not.
Can you imagine if we didn't even have the Olympics? International relations would be even worse than they are now, and half the people wouldn't even recognize the names of coutries or their accomplishments. You might even get some high-ranking government official who doesn't realize that Africa is a continent, not a country ... (oh, wait ...)
Agree. I had mentioned in a previous post that information on the Internet can be rather useful. I do enjoy patients who do reserach beforehand, so they come prepared. Typically they will say, "Well, I know we're not supposed to believe everything on the Internet, but I looked on WebMD, and it said [such and such]." They list a few possibilities. They will also tell me what they're worrying about, such as "my uncle had my symptoms too, and he eventually died, so I looked up Cancer of the Oogali-Boogali gland" or whatever, and then I can address their concerns. One nice thing about such patients is that you can say, "I think it's [whatever]" and they're happy to go look up the details themselves, so you're not stuck spending an extra 5 minutes explaining what rhinovirus is and why it's not going to kill them.
What I hate, as you've alluded to, is patients who have checked the Internet and have already made up their minds about what to do. Of these patients, the ones that drive me nuts are the ones that don't even tell you what the problem is, just the test they want to do, like, "Morning, doctor. I need an ultrasound of the thyroid." Eventually further questioning reveals that they feel a lump in their throat and they're worried about hyperthyroidism (which does not cause a lump in the throat, and even if it did, is not diagnosed with an ultrasound). By taking a step back and identifying their concerns ("let's look at what other possible causes are of a lump in the throat") I get them to take a more rational and scientifically/medically correct approach (meaning that the sequence of tests is much more likely to yield a useful diagnosis), but it takes an extra 5-10 minutes, and I feel like strangling them as I wrap up the visit with a smile and say, "See you next time! Get well soon! (Now just let me deal with the next patient who has been kept waiting!)"
I was pleasantly surprised by the large proportion of my patients who are of the former type, reasonable people who gather info on the Internet but don't commit to believing it, just bringing it to me to sort through with them. I think the general population, or at least my own patient population, is becoming more mature with respect to how to deal with the large amount of info on the Internet.
Hardest to deal with of all is a subtle attitude on some of the patients who read info on the Internet and have their way of thinking swayed in a pervasive but subtle way. For example, people who refuse vaccinations because they've read about negative consequences of vaccination adverse effects are victims of the perceptive error that the probability of an event is proportional to how clearly it sticks in one's mind. Anecdotal evidence of one case where a vaccine caused someone to sprout horns and an extra pair of eyes doesn't mean that it's not preventing serious illness --and even death!-- not just for the patient but for those who would otherwise have been infected by the patient. But these people don't come in saying, "Gee, I read this thing on the Interet 3 years ago. Do you think I should get vaccinated?" They just say, "No, I'd rather not get the shot," and you're lefting wondering where they got the info on which they based their decision. Chances are it's from the Internet, from something that could have been debunked by snopes.com or something similar.
So, the Internet is a tool. It can be used wisely, or poorly, and for the latter group of patients, we doctors just have to suck it up and spend the extra hand-holding time trying to educate them on proper use of the Internet. Maybe this research on "cyberchondria" can be a tool in this effort.
In your concerns you cite above, it seems to me that what you consider to be "valid" patents are obvious by my criteria.
If people don't realize there is a problem to be solved, the PTO can publish "The Problem To Be Solved" (P2BS) in a more general manner. In fact, we could make it so that the submitter of the patent application submits the wording for the P2BS. For example, if people have taken for granted that they must (let's say) line up to buy tickets, and the submitter wants to say, "My idea is that we don't have to line up at all, but I don't want to give it away," then s/he can submit the P2BS as "the problem of frustration when buying tickets" etc. Then other people submitting Counterexamples Of Obviousness (COO) might come up with ways to make the queue move faster, but not hit on a way to dispense with the queue altogether. But this makes the P2BS rather vague, and I'm not sure that the patent is particularly valid.
Perhaps this cuts closer to where you and I differ. If the public submits a COO within the time frame, the patent "still might very well be inventive", but it's obvious and should not be granted. This happens all the time in software. There is a special situation that needs special algorithms, which are quite inventive, but if someone else can easily come up with the same inventive algorithm, I don't think you can justify granting a patent that will lock other people out of using your obvious inventive invention for the next X years. I mean, you see inventive solutions generated all the time --just go to any library and take a glance at books on "How To Stimulate Your Creativity" etc. In fact, someone on Slashdot provided a link to a web site that provides such inventive ideas:
http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi?ref=Prior_art_by_Mindcontrolled
Here is an example of the antithesis of an inventive suggestion. In this economic climate, you think that the answer to the upswell of patent trolls is to throw more money at the PTO? Tell the PTO to work even harder? I guess throwing more money at a problem can be a solution to any problem. I was looking more for ways to harness the energy of the motivated public, and make it easier for any given size of PTO.
Thank you for your comments (as well as those of your sibling posters). I do think I can address both of your concerns with almost no modification to my proposed system of Allowing the Public To Test for Obviousness.
For the patent on "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss": In the first case, suppose someone submits something quite different from the MP3 method; the MP3 patent is granted. That itself is not a problem; I'm all for rewarding inventors who come up with non-obvious ways to solve problems. What happens next is that the software engineer says, "Gee, I want to compress my music, but I can't afford to pay patent license fees. Why was there a patent on MP3? It seems *obvious* to brilliant old me! Didn't anyone submit any 'That Is So Obvious' submissions?" Then, on checking, the engineer finds that someone submitted the Vorbis counterexample. "Oh, joy! I will use the Vorbis solution instead of MP3." So, although the MP3 patent was not obvious enough to be invalidated, it was obvious enough for someone else to submit something similar, and thus the world is not forced to pay MP3 fees.
Someone else might feel that Vorbis is not so good, and MP3 is the way to go, and this person might perhaps feel that it's worthwhile to pay the licensing fees. But it wouldn't be all or nothing. And, in particular, not every method of solving the problem is considered to be covered by the patent, but only that particular way,, since using Vorbis to compress sound has been shown to be "obvious".
In the second case, where the MP3 method is considered to be obvious you fear that now the PTO has to keep track of what is obvious and what is not. But that's not true either. Let's say someone else submits a patent for Windows Media Audio format; suppose the patent examiner happens to be a Slashdot editor who can't recognize dupes (<insert smilie here>). The examiner just follows the usual procedure and says, "Here's a 'Way to Compress Sound Files'. Anyone know an obvious way to do this?" And then 200 people would submit the Vorbis solution, saying, "You asked that already, silly!" And that would be the end of that.
I thought of an idea some time ago to get rid of obvious patents, like the (not-so) Amazing One-Click. It would mean less work for the PTO (Patent/Trademark Office), too. The case of prior art might be considered a special case of "obvious" (or known) patents. See what you think:
When someone submits a patent, claiming to have found (let's say) A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once, the PTO would publish the claim. Not the contents of the patent, simply the claim itself, the problem that the patent claims to solve. They would give the general public some set time, say 30 days, to come up with some way to solve this problem. "We have a patent application claiming to offer A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once. Can anyone come up with how this might be done? If someone gets a valid submission in within 30 days, then this patent will be considered obvious."
People who would be motivated to work hard to look for a solution within the allotted time would include, besides the Slashdot crowd, firms who have a vested interest NOT to pay licensing fees every time they want to use the invention. They would have some idea what sort of patent apps might be coming down the pipeline. PTO doesn't have to figure out whether a patent is obvious (which is good seeing as how they're doing a pretty lousy job of it). As for prior art, if the public can come up with a way to solve the desired problem using prior art, then that's another sign that the patent is obvious! Of course, these submissions tbhemselves of "that patent is so obvious even I could come up with something in 30 days" would be published and be available to the public.
Some patents, including algorithmic software patents, are worth patenting. The MP3 algorithm, for example, was the result of hard work and research. If the PTO had given the public a chance to come up with "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss", people might not have been able to produce a solution in 30 days, showing that the MP3 patent is not so obvious. Someone might have come up with a different solution (Vorbis, FLAC, etc.), and that would be okay but the MP3 patent would be granted. (Of course, then large firms might have used Vorbis instead of paying the MP3 fees.)
What do you think?
(I posted this comment before, but too late to generate any discussion. I'm reposting it to see whether you think this would be a valid test of whether a patent is "obvious".)
For those who were as clueless as I about the possible Mr. Gadd's in question, I suspect parent is not referring to American drummer Steve Gadd, or British baritone opera singer Stephen Gadd (there's enough confusion there already), or Canadian singer Floyd Gadd, but to some guy named Paul Francis Gadd, who was apparently also a singer, and had sales of his music decline after being found to possess child pornography. He used a stage name, "Gary Glitter", but apparently that didn't really protect him.
Interesting. From time to time we hear about how the police won't try too hard to catch thieves because they have bigger fish to fry. Seems that in your case the cops were fairly efficient. Any ideas about why? Maybe it was because yours was more than just a theft, but direct robbery (which I would guess constitutes violent crime)?
Your post gave me an idea. What if I pretend to be stupid and write down a fake password? Then I configure the computer so that, when the fake password is entered, the data is scrambled. (The real password is the fake password backwards, or every other letter, or something else.)
I wonder if there are any programs with this feature? If the disk is encrypted, writing a small bit of random data to the header should render the rest of the disk undecryptable. If we want it separate from any disk encryption (or are not using disk encryption) then we'd have to find some other setup.
I thought of an idea some time ago to get rid of obvious patents, like the (not-so) Amazing One-Click. It would mean less work for the PTO (Patent/Trademark Office), too. The case of prior art might be considered a special case of "obvious" (or known) patents. See what you think:
When someone submits a patent, claiming to have found (let's say) A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once, the PTO would publish the claim. Not the contents of the patent, simply the claim itself, the problem that the patent claims to solve. They would give the general public some set time, say 30 days, to come up with some way to solve this problem. "We have a patent application claiming to offer A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once. Can anyone come up with how this might be done? If someone gets a valid submission in within 30 days, then this patent will be considered obvious."
People who would be motivated to work hard to look for a solution within the allotted time would include, besides the Slashdot crowd, firms who have a vested interest NOT to pay licensing fees every time they want to use the invention. They would have some idea what sort of patent apps might be coming down the pipeline. PTO doesn't have to figure out whether a patent is obvious (which is good seeing as how they're doing a pretty lousy job of it). As for prior art, if the public can come up with a way to solve the desired problem using prior art, then that's another sign that the patent is obvious! Of course, these submissions tbhemselves of "that patent is so obvious even I could come up with something in 30 days" would be published and be available to the public.
Some patents, including algorithmic software patents, are worth patenting. The MP3 algorithm, for example, was the result of hard work and research. If the PTO had given the public a chance to come up with "A Way to Compress Sound Files With Unnoticeable Loss", people might not have been able to produce a solution in 30 days, showing that the MP3 patent is not so obvious. Someone might have come up with a different solution (Vorbis, FLAC, etc.), and that would be okay but the MP3 patent would be granted. (Of course, then large firms might have used Vorbis instead of paying the MP3 fees.)
What do you think?
"This month, we're going to predict whether evil hackers will exploit bugs in our code. What do you predict?"
Steve Ballmer: "No."
James Allchin: "Yes."
Mike Reavey: "Yes."
Jim Gries: "No, I fixed all the bugs."
Sarah Ford: "I dunno. I'd say no; I'm confident in Microsoft."
Val Mazur: "No."
Rui Chen: "Well, the possibility is there, but they'll never prove that they did, so it's the same as no."
Kathleen Dollard: "Of course I will! er --I mean, THEY will. Yes."
Michel Fournier: "How am I supposed to know? How many people said Yes so far? Oh, okay, then I'll say yes."
Bill Gates: "No. Of course I count as part of Microsoft! Write my vote down. No."
Mike Reavey: "Okay, so, what was the right answer? Oh, umm... we were 40% correct. That's not too bad --there's been improvement."
Reading the article, I find a lot of enthusiasm from Greg Kroah-Hartman about how well the program has worked, saying that most hardware manufacturers come to his project to make sure that their hardware works with Linux: "Everything is supported by Linux. If you have a device that isn't supported by Linux that's being shipped today, let me know."
I'd like the touchscreen device (Touchsmart PC by HP) to be supported by Linux. That would be cool. The idea of Compiz Fusion on a touchscreen makes me drool.
Are you reading this, Greg? And if not, how do we get in touch with you, anyway? I can't find an email address in my (admittedly cursory) search of your web pages.
Dude, I think you're off by a factor of 1 million. I'm pretty sure the Intellivision console was closer to half a megahertz than half a hertz. I mean, Charles Babbage's calculating machine probably ran faster than half a hertz.
The spectacular Coronado Bridge that connects San Diego to Coronado Island used to charge a toll. Now there are big signs before and on the bridge itself, saying, "We don't collect a toll any more! Please, do not stop, and do not pay us!"
The Burlington Skyway also stopped collecting tolls once the (re)construction was paid for. (I'm referring to the twinning of the bridge.)
Here's another question: does Kubuntu have a LTS (Long-Term Support) version yet? Ubuntu 8.04 (GNOME version) was LTS, but because the KDE developers decided to drop everything KDE3-related and go running after the KDE4 Holy Grail, Kubuntu 8.04 was not LTS. So now it's October, the next version of Ubuntu is out, and KDE4 has been upgraded to KDE4.1 , do we have LTS yet? Or will we have to wait 4 more version still Ubuntu 10.4 (Muckraking Manatee) before we get a LTS?
Personally, I don't want to upgrade to KDE4 because I just want my computer DE to help me get things done and stay out of the way. I don't want to learn a new way of doing things. I hope Kubuntu8.10 comes with a KDE3 version.
Oblig link when mentioning a bunch of competitors who are desperately trying to out-extend each other (with spectators in the background cheering: "GOO! GLE!").
It seems to me that, if you wanted to keep certain viewing habits private, you could just do all your private stuff with a separate account, and just flip back and forth between the private and public accounts. Say you're doing ordinary surfing on your public account, and you want to do something private: Ctrl-Alt-F9 (or whichever screen you're using) to go to the private account, run Firefox on that account (which would keep its stuff completely separate from the public account) and do whatever. Then Ctrl-Alt-F7 to go back to the usual account.
We do that all the time since we have houseguests from time to time, and we don't want them getting into our finances and stuff. The houseguests are often family, so we don't want to just create a sterile guest account since there is a lot that we do want to share with them (photos, etc.), Skype. So we use our "usual" account for that, and all finances and web banking goes into another account. If someone walks by while we're in the middle of something private and says, "Hey, can I check out those baby photos?", the Ctrl-Alt-F7 thing flips us back into public mode without having to log off, log back on, etc.
Make it so that MyPrivateUsername has permission to see MyPublicUsername's stuff, but the public account can't see the private stuff. I do that by making MyPrivateUsername a member of the MyPublicUsername group.
Or am I missing something? Are there special needs of porn viewers that aren't accommodated by two separate accounts?