I am fairly anti-patent, feeling that patent life needs to be strictly limited, and vague concepts should not be patentable, but this one has some merit. In fact, I am sitting here pondering how to implement a 1 call ring mute in an old mechanical analog phone, and it isn't obvious to me how to accomplish that.
Kinda depends on how far you want to go back in phone-time.
If you are talking about recent times (but let's say before microcontrollers), you could do it with a retriggerable monostable multivibrator (either as an IC, or with discrete components), with Edge-sensitive trigger. The 70 VAC ring voltage would be rectified, but not filtered (but probably voltage-divided) and would be presented to one side of a momentary, normally-open push button switch. This would be applied to the edge-sensitive "trigger" input of the monostable (we will pretend that the "rise time" of the "edge" doesn't matter, or we can use something like a backwards-connected zener diode to produce a crisper "edge"). The timeout of the monostable would be set so that it was about twice as long as a single ring "burst". The output of the monostable would be hooked up to the coil of a small DC relay, and the normally CLOSED contacts of the relay would be connected to the 70VAC ring signal and the bell, so the bell has to get its ring-voltage through those N.C. Contacts. The Normally OPEN Relay contacts are wired across the "mute" button.
When the call comes in that you wish to silence, you simply press the button. This triggers the monostable. The relay is then energized, which simultaneously disconnects the bell from the ring-signal, while simultaneously letting the rectified ring signal "pulses" continue to get to the Trigger input of the monostable, keeping the relay energized, and thus the bell remains quiet for as long as the ring "bursts" keep coming.
When the caller gives up, the monostable times-out, and the relay de-energizes. The bell then gets reconnected to the ring-signal, readying the phone for the next call.
For an even older phone, the role of the monostable could be replaced with a mechanical time-delay relay, and the rest of the circuit stays relatively the same.
There are actually a bunch of ways it could be done. Those are just two of them...
"...As the Allo team tested those replies, they decided the performance boost from permanently stored messages was worth giving up privacy benefits of transient storage."
Oh... I get it now. I was trying to understand why suddenly bash and some of the Ubuntu pieces were suddenly supported on Windows. So, since you can easily get access to all your real Linux tools and suchlike (or will eventually) there's actually no reason at all to complain that you can't install the OS - just run it on Windows.
All that "Developers want access to their tools" blather explaining why MS decided to create the layer that allows Linux code to run just didn't seem convincing. This must have been the goal all along. I think this time it just might stick. Oh well. I'm not a gamer or video editor, so I suspect that when it's time for me to replace my current laptop, there'll be a reasonably speced ARM solution so I won't really notice. I already said "Goodby" to Microsoft, I guess it will soon be time to say the same to Intel.
Which may be why Apple is reportedly toying with the idea of switching to AMD for at least the next iMac iteration.
And yet none of those are worthy of the attention of Slashdot. Why?
Because this is being done by the biggest tech company in the world, that's why.
Bullshit.
Bullshit for sure. Apple isn't the biggest tech company in the world, Google is.
MS used to be the biggest tech company in the world, but the malware known as Win10 is changing that.
All depends on what your metric for "Biggest" is. Most amount of real-estate held? Most number of employees? Most cash in the bank? Most assets of all kinds? Highest market-cap? Highest stock price?
When corporations get the size of Msft, Google or Apple, the term "biggest" gets to be kind of meaningless without further clarification.
If you ever visit Apple, go to their cafeteria. Order a pizza. Look at the box: it comes in a custom Apple-designed cardboard box (actually, a very nice design that is smaller than a normal pizza box and stacks better). Look carefully, and you'll see the Apple patent number listed on it. I wanted to take a photograph, but apparently Apple is very strict about people not taking photos anywhere on their campus.
Now go to McDonald's. You'll find the same thing on their coffee cup lids, their Big Mac boxes, French fry containers, et CETERA. SO. THE. FUCK. WHAT?
While your comment is for sure an interesting anecdote, showing that Apple's well-deserved reputation for attention to detail extends even to the MOST mundane aspects of their business, it, like the ENTIRE STORY, STILL ISN'T "News for Nerds. STUFF THWT MATTERS."
But I guess that any publicity is good publicity; so...
* Beginner don't even know about it in the first place -- having the option does nothing for them.
* Power users can change it. I mean the code was _already_ there in 10.11.
How the fuck is _removing_ it practical when it alienates some of the users???
Because Apple runs the ecosystem. They are trying to gradually shift towards a situation where software distributed in the ecosystem to non-power users is regulated by Apple. That way Apple doesn't get slammed with viruses. If you as a developer are going to be distributing applications to end users not capable of making good choices about their software then you need to register with Apple.
And it doesn't even COST anything to become a Registered Dev anymore. You don't have to sell your stuff through the Apple Sore or ANYTHING, other than provide a way to be contacted!. So, there simply isn't a LEGITIMATE reason for a Dev. To NOT do it.
And this differs from every other major new OS release, how, exactly?
Apple has a very limited hardware and software set, so there's no excuse for their QA to fail to catch bugs like that. It's that simple.
While macOS doesn't approach the breadth of possible hardware that W or L is typically installed-on, If you look at all the available models and their BTO options across all the supported years, it's still WAY too many to test. So, although your argument had a LITTLE validity back in the 1980s and early '90s, it has long since devolved into an unsupportable (no pun) meme.
Oh, and there are a metric buttload of both W and L systems that have issues every single time those OSes are updated; but you tend not to hear about them, because W or L breaking things, or orphaning things, is so commonplace simply isn't "news".
And do you want to know a secret? If you take a look at the REAL Windows Approved (supported) Hardware List (which Linux probably doesn't even have), it is actually pretty small compared with all the hardware those OSes get installed on. And if your hw isn't on that list, it is simply CHANCE if it HAPPENS to work. There is absolutely NO "testing" of those combinations, either. So, your entire premise is fallacious.
If we can solve the problem of cancer within 10 years by treating it as a computer virus, why not treat gravity as a computer virus and come up with practical, cheap antigravity? Or that pesky light-speed limit, we need to beat that, and 10 years sounds about right
While the thought of a patent on a paper bag seems silly, if you actually read the patent there is a lot more to it than just patenting what you think of as a paper bag, it's a complete redesign of how a bag is made. While this does not mean the patent should be approved, it's certainly wouldn't impact normal paper bags.
And not only that; just take a look the next time you go to a chain-restaurant. Cups? Patented. Cup Lid? Patented. Sandwich container? Definitely Patented. Condiment Packets? Patented. And, oh yes: Bag? You guessed it; Patented.
And yet none of those are worthy of the attention of Slashdot. Why?
I agree pretty shocking: Apple made sure there was a way for knowledgable users to do what they like while reducing the chance that less experienced users could get unwittingly pownd by accidentally downloaded apps. The nerve!
And they get EXCORIATED for it by the FREETARDS. Gotta laugh.
> You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing.
Treating power users like they are imbeciles is never a good thing.
i.e.How many casual users would even know to what to change it to let alone find it? So what exactly have you accomplished by hiding it ??? Apple pulls this shenanigans by hiding the "Advanced" gamma settings -- you have to hold the option key to reveal it. They could have done the same thing here -- at least it wouldn't be that bad compared to this clusterfuck.
Forcing people to jump through extra unnecessary hoops is shitty UI design.
No; it's PRACTICAL UI Design. But you obviously only consider what us right for YOU.
I agree that there aren't many... I have very few that I use regularly.. three I think.
Ever since gatekeeper became a thing I've had it on "App Store and Identified developers". Works really well.
In general for the average user? god only knows. Hopefully even fewer but you never know what garbage people will download. Which is why it's great that Apple has done things the way it has in Sierra.
Ya know, it would be one thing if you had to grant special access every-single-launch of an Application; but FFS, if you can't be bothered to do a simple right-click ONCE for an App, then you DESERVE to be pwned!!!
The difference being in the previous versions you could turn off gatekeeper entirely from the System Preferences.
In sierra you can't do that. You have to either disable it on the command line (a bad idea IMHO) or just whitelist each unsigned app the first time you use it by using the process I outlined above.
Even as far back as Yosemite (IIRC), the "Run Anything" setting in Gatekeeper would only "stick" for 30 days. Then it reverted back to the next-higher- setting. So, IMHO, this just closes a relatively ill-thought-out Security/Convenience tradeoff.
Slashdot Mirror
I am fairly anti-patent, feeling that patent life needs to be strictly limited, and vague concepts should not be patentable, but this one has some merit. In fact, I am sitting here pondering how to implement a 1 call ring mute in an old mechanical analog phone, and it isn't obvious to me how to accomplish that.
Kinda depends on how far you want to go back in phone-time.
If you are talking about recent times (but let's say before microcontrollers), you could do it with a retriggerable monostable multivibrator (either as an IC, or with discrete components), with Edge-sensitive trigger. The 70 VAC ring voltage would be rectified, but not filtered (but probably voltage-divided) and would be presented to one side of a momentary, normally-open push button switch. This would be applied to the edge-sensitive "trigger" input of the monostable (we will pretend that the "rise time" of the "edge" doesn't matter, or we can use something like a backwards-connected zener diode to produce a crisper "edge"). The timeout of the monostable would be set so that it was about twice as long as a single ring "burst". The output of the monostable would be hooked up to the coil of a small DC relay, and the normally CLOSED contacts of the relay would be connected to the 70VAC ring signal and the bell, so the bell has to get its ring-voltage through those N.C. Contacts. The Normally OPEN Relay contacts are wired across the "mute" button.
When the call comes in that you wish to silence, you simply press the button. This triggers the monostable. The relay is then energized, which simultaneously disconnects the bell from the ring-signal, while simultaneously letting the rectified ring signal "pulses" continue to get to the Trigger input of the monostable, keeping the relay energized, and thus the bell remains quiet for as long as the ring "bursts" keep coming.
When the caller gives up, the monostable times-out, and the relay de-energizes. The bell then gets reconnected to the ring-signal, readying the phone for the next call.
For an even older phone, the role of the monostable could be replaced with a mechanical time-delay relay, and the rest of the circuit stays relatively the same.
There are actually a bunch of ways it could be done. Those are just two of them...
Who cares?
I think Apple is working on exactly that, seriously.
Because the rest of their Library is an absolute JOKE.
"...As the Allo team tested those replies, they decided the performance boost from permanently stored messages was worth giving up privacy benefits of transient storage."
Chuckle. Chort. Snigger. Guffaw...
Why do they even bother to TRY an LIE anymore?
Oh... I get it now. I was trying to understand why suddenly bash and some of the Ubuntu pieces were suddenly supported on Windows. So, since you can easily get access to all your real Linux tools and suchlike (or will eventually) there's actually no reason at all to complain that you can't install the OS - just run it on Windows.
All that "Developers want access to their tools" blather explaining why MS decided to create the layer that allows Linux code to run just didn't seem convincing. This must have been the goal all along. I think this time it just might stick. Oh well. I'm not a gamer or video editor, so I suspect that when it's time for me to replace my current laptop, there'll be a reasonably speced ARM solution so I won't really notice. I already said "Goodby" to Microsoft, I guess it will soon be time to say the same to Intel.
Which may be why Apple is reportedly toying with the idea of switching to AMD for at least the next iMac iteration.
Now comes the "Extinguish" part.
And you FOSSies all thought Uncle Satya was your friend. How cute!
But it's time for bed, and here comes Uncle Satya with a little present for you...
I think this is just Apple mocking the entire patent system.
You'd be wrong about that. Just as McDonald's isn't mocking when it Patents a coffee-cup lid.
And yet none of those are worthy of the attention of Slashdot. Why?
Because this is being done by the biggest tech company in the world, that's why.
Bullshit.
Bullshit for sure. Apple isn't the biggest tech company in the world, Google is. MS used to be the biggest tech company in the world, but the malware known as Win10 is changing that.
All depends on what your metric for "Biggest" is. Most amount of real-estate held? Most number of employees? Most cash in the bank? Most assets of all kinds? Highest market-cap? Highest stock price?
When corporations get the size of Msft, Google or Apple, the term "biggest" gets to be kind of meaningless without further clarification.
If you ever visit Apple, go to their cafeteria. Order a pizza. Look at the box: it comes in a custom Apple-designed cardboard box (actually, a very nice design that is smaller than a normal pizza box and stacks better). Look carefully, and you'll see the Apple patent number listed on it. I wanted to take a photograph, but apparently Apple is very strict about people not taking photos anywhere on their campus.
Now go to McDonald's. You'll find the same thing on their coffee cup lids, their Big Mac boxes, French fry containers, et CETERA. SO. THE. FUCK. WHAT?
While your comment is for sure an interesting anecdote, showing that Apple's well-deserved reputation for attention to detail extends even to the MOST mundane aspects of their business, it, like the ENTIRE STORY, STILL ISN'T "News for Nerds. STUFF THWT MATTERS."
But I guess that any publicity is good publicity; so...
Fuck off fanboy.
Ooo! Strong words from an ANONYMOUS. COWARD.
The _use_ case is EVERYONE.
* Beginner don't even know about it in the first place -- having the option does nothing for them. * Power users can change it. I mean the code was _already_ there in 10.11.
How the fuck is _removing_ it practical when it alienates some of the users???
Your non-argument is laughable.
Because Apple runs the ecosystem. They are trying to gradually shift towards a situation where software distributed in the ecosystem to non-power users is regulated by Apple. That way Apple doesn't get slammed with viruses. If you as a developer are going to be distributing applications to end users not capable of making good choices about their software then you need to register with Apple.
And it doesn't even COST anything to become a Registered Dev anymore. You don't have to sell your stuff through the Apple Sore or ANYTHING, other than provide a way to be contacted!. So, there simply isn't a LEGITIMATE reason for a Dev. To NOT do it.
You're not doing yourself any favors
So see the ANONYMOUS COWARD.
because with sue happy apple you have to expect the worst
Bullshit. Clickbait, and you are actually defending it!
And this differs from every other major new OS release, how, exactly?
Apple has a very limited hardware and software set, so there's no excuse for their QA to fail to catch bugs like that. It's that simple.
While macOS doesn't approach the breadth of possible hardware that W or L is typically installed-on, If you look at all the available models and their BTO options across all the supported years, it's still WAY too many to test. So, although your argument had a LITTLE validity back in the 1980s and early '90s, it has long since devolved into an unsupportable (no pun) meme.
Oh, and there are a metric buttload of both W and L systems that have issues every single time those OSes are updated; but you tend not to hear about them, because W or L breaking things, or orphaning things, is so commonplace simply isn't "news".
And do you want to know a secret? If you take a look at the REAL Windows Approved (supported) Hardware List (which Linux probably doesn't even have), it is actually pretty small compared with all the hardware those OSes get installed on. And if your hw isn't on that list, it is simply CHANCE if it HAPPENS to work. There is absolutely NO "testing" of those combinations, either. So, your entire premise is fallacious.
And yet none of those are worthy of the attention of Slashdot. Why?
Because this is being done by the biggest tech company in the world, that's why.
Bullshit.
Just specially tailor some cytoplasmic parasites to need cancer cells as hosts. Do to cancer what wolbachia does to insect cells.
Riiiiight. What could possibly go wrong?
If we can solve the problem of cancer within 10 years by treating it as a computer virus, why not treat gravity as a computer virus and come up with practical, cheap antigravity? Or that pesky light-speed limit, we need to beat that, and 10 years sounds about right
Choice!
While the thought of a patent on a paper bag seems silly, if you actually read the patent there is a lot more to it than just patenting what you think of as a paper bag, it's a complete redesign of how a bag is made. While this does not mean the patent should be approved, it's certainly wouldn't impact normal paper bags.
And not only that; just take a look the next time you go to a chain-restaurant. Cups? Patented. Cup Lid? Patented. Sandwich container? Definitely Patented. Condiment Packets? Patented. And, oh yes: Bag? You guessed it; Patented.
And yet none of those are worthy of the attention of Slashdot. Why?
Because Clickbait.
And like most Apple releases, there are reports of it bricking people's Macs, where it will restart to install, and then not do anything.
If it does install, there are also reports of it slowing your computer, and of it breaking wifi drivers on some Macs.
Sadly none of this has really hit the tech press yet, but as more people upgrade and have it kill their Mac, expect to hear more about it.
And this differs from every other major new OS release, how, exactly?
I agree pretty shocking: Apple made sure there was a way for knowledgable users to do what they like while reducing the chance that less experienced users could get unwittingly pownd by accidentally downloaded apps. The nerve!
And they get EXCORIATED for it by the FREETARDS. Gotta laugh.
> You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing.
Treating power users like they are imbeciles is never a good thing.
i.e.How many casual users would even know to what to change it to let alone find it? So what exactly have you accomplished by hiding it ??? Apple pulls this shenanigans by hiding the "Advanced" gamma settings -- you have to hold the option key to reveal it. They could have done the same thing here -- at least it wouldn't be that bad compared to this clusterfuck.
Forcing people to jump through extra unnecessary hoops is shitty UI design.
No; it's PRACTICAL UI Design. But you obviously only consider what us right for YOU.
I agree that there aren't many... I have very few that I use regularly.. three I think.
Ever since gatekeeper became a thing I've had it on "App Store and Identified developers". Works really well.
In general for the average user? god only knows. Hopefully even fewer but you never know what garbage people will download. Which is why it's great that Apple has done things the way it has in Sierra.
Ya know, it would be one thing if you had to grant special access every-single-launch of an Application; but FFS, if you can't be bothered to do a simple right-click ONCE for an App, then you DESERVE to be pwned!!!
The difference being in the previous versions you could turn off gatekeeper entirely from the System Preferences.
In sierra you can't do that. You have to either disable it on the command line (a bad idea IMHO) or just whitelist each unsigned app the first time you use it by using the process I outlined above.
Even as far back as Yosemite (IIRC), the "Run Anything" setting in Gatekeeper would only "stick" for 30 days. Then it reverted back to the next-higher- setting. So, IMHO, this just closes a relatively ill-thought-out Security/Convenience tradeoff.