We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
s13g3 writes "The iGoogle homepage has changed for users linking to it through Google.com, starting sometime Oct 16th. The change doesn't show up when searching (Google, of course) for articles, though there are many complaints within Google's internal help forums. The change in question is relatively minor, (a side-bar on the left) and has introduced at least one bug. The real question is, why would Google force such a (potentially disruptive) change on such a large scale with no notice or option, when they could have suggested the user try their new theme in a public beta as other sites have done in the past when rolling out new themes? As a market leading (if not controlling) service provider, do they have any obligation to their user community, or is it unlikely any single change will see any noticeable decrease in their user base, so they don't care? As obnoxious (and occasionally disruptive) as it is, once the bugs are fixed, will this actually cause anyone to stop using Google? I made the same complaint when my television provider removed one of the channel listings at the bottom of my guide screen in favor of an advertisement — the company calmly assured me they were sure this was what their customers wanted (an outright lie), and never removed it — and I still use the same company. Do we really have any input on what companies do anymore, or are even companies such as Google now beholden only to stockholders and marketing survey groups?
Also, for those affected users, you can work around this by replacing the.com portion of your iGoogle page link (http://www.google.com/ig) with.ca,.ie,.uk, and the like — how long this will last is unknown." top
s13g3 (110658) writes "A man in Oregon says he has lost nearly everything he owns as a result of a Craigslist ad someone posted in his name that offered all of the belongings in his home for free, whereupon people showed up at his home during the day while he was (presumably) at work and starting loading up his items. He was on his way home when someone even called his cellphone to inquire about his horse, then paslost nearly everything he owns as a result of a Craigslist ad sing people with carloads of his belongings and another 30-some people ravaging through his home.
This begs the question of what sort of person would read such an ad and believe it was legitimate? Was this a clever cover for the original thief, presumably whoever broke into the home in the first place and allowed the others in and left them to muddle the evidence of the original break-in? Are there effective ways to protect ourselves from such things besides ultra-high-end security systems?" Link to Original Source top
Another post I made, late in the life of the thread that the mods missed. This relates to a piece of FUD that kdawson posted regarding a new patent filed by IBM to automate rewards for customers who have been waiting too long in line. Nearly every respondent to the thread was way off base, lead astray by the trollish wording of the article: IBM wants to patent restaurant waits.
Most respondents went off the deep end, seeing another case of seeming patent abuse, and claiming that IBM is going to start suing anyone who gives a reward to customers who have waited in line a long time - utter non-sense, which just goes to show that even geeks (or slashdot trolls) don't understand why it is that we have and need a patent system, and their supposition about how IBM could abuse this patent is not just ludicrous, but about as valid as saying that just because a hacker in China somewhere has abused a computer that all computers will be abused.
-------- Good point. Personally, I don't see why any restaurant would want to use this. Why make an automated way to give away free lunches to people because they wait? If a customer complains about waiting too long, then you give them the coupon.
I suppose the flipside to that is that the customers who don't complain, but decide that they don't want to come back to the restaurant because they had to wait...
The reason being that IBM makes business machines - including point of sale and business automation systems. What they have described here is a novel method by which the human factor normally necessary to monitor customers' time spent waiting and then selection of an appropriate compensation is automated through their system, almost certainly to be tied in to an existing product like a point of sale terminal that will quite possibly be tied into one of those little pager systems that lets you know when your table is ready. Rather than requiring employees or wait-staff to monitor times spent waiting on a screen and then offer the customer something gratis, the system is designed to do all this for them, thusly eliminating time and resources necessary in what is probably an environment where time is a premium (since people are waiting for service) as well as potential stress or conflict with a customer who may unhappy - now they don't have to approach an already harried manager or wait-staff and present a complaint or argument - the system notes that a pre-programmed threshold (which the establishment has determined to be the minimum time before they would be willing to offer such freebies regardless of system automation) has passed and automatically offers the free item, in theory placating the customer(s) without creating extra resource strain on the staff.
Why patent this? Because IBM wants to offer this ability to restaurants and other businesses who do not want to have to do these things themselves, implemented via a piece of IBM equipment. The patent as described does not prevent a business from offering you a free lunch if you wait too long - IBM obviously spent money time and research effort creating a combined software and hardware method that can automate this process (and thereby expand the services and functions performed/offered to customers already owning or seeking to purchase IBM equipment) - also known as a "value add"; what the patent prevents you from doing is copying or mirroring IBM's research to produce a similar system while not actually doing any innovation of your own. If they didn't file for a patent, then you could just go buy a bunch of chips, assemble your own equipment, and then gank (yes, that's a technical term) the software that they paid someone to develop all without any real investment of your own - exactly what the spirit of the patent system is meant to prevent you from doing - stealing other peoples innovations, not to prevent you from innovating on your own. If you want to use an off-the-shelf or custom built computer and implement your own methodology for accomplishing the same task, there doesn't appear to be anything anywhere in the patent application that would prevent you from doing so; you just can't steal IBM's precise method for doing so. I don't claim to understand how they mean this can be implemented without automation or computerization, I'll admit. I've read as much as the patent application as I can bear to (or have time for, for that matter), but claim 1 indicates automation is necessary. To wit:
1. A system for reducing customer dissatisfaction for waiting, said system comprising:a queue monitoring subsystem that detects an entry of a customer into a waiting queue;a reward computing subsystem that calculates a reward for the customer for being in the waiting queue; anda communication subsystem to communicate the reward to the customer,wherein at least one of said queue monitoring subsystem, said reward computing subsystem, and said communication subsystem is automated.
I looked for but did not immediately see any claim within the patent that the system can be used without computers or automation. In point of fact, the entire filing seems to indicate that an automated or computerized system is entirely required.
Just because I have a patent on a child's swing-set doesn't imply or grant a patent or ownership on the idea or process of swinging, just my unique design that allows you to accomplish the task of swinging. Similarly, the company (companies?) who make the little restaurant pager systems don't hold any ownership of waiting in a restaurant, nor any ownership of radio technology, pagers, or even using a like device to alert customers that their table is ready, they simply own the rights to *their* particular implementation of it - i.e. you can't simply use their software and make an identical copy of their equipment and implement it for free or resell it to others, requiring you to do your own innovation, not profit off of someone else's.
I realize slashdotters can be hard-headed - look at my user number, I've been here a while and made some hardheaded posts myself, both for and against patent law. There is no doubt that the USPTO is a broken system in dire need of reformation (or disbanding), but people are taking this one wayyyyyyyyyyyy too far without really stopping to consider that occasionally companies do apply for patents for valid reasons, and that there is a need for a patent system, even if the one we have is often abused.
And shame on kdawson for posting such a sensationalist FUD piece - the patent application could have easily been noted, mentioned or referred to without such a huge quantity of sensationalism, hyperbole and supposition from the contributing user.
I was looking through my old posts, and thought it was a shame that few people probably read this. I also thought it was a fine bit of writing on my part, and it's somewhat relevant to the issues of the day, so I'm reposting it in my journal, not that anyone is likely to read it here either, but I think its worthwhile.
How many times do you people have to be told??? The US is a Republic not a Socialist Democracy, so please, get your facts straight people! Mob-rule does not work! Besides, "Democracies" never wind up being democratic for more than the 10 minutes it takes for a Mao-Tse-Tsung or Stalin to step in. History is FULL of examples of failed attempts at democratic goverments, whether they fell to exterior forces b/c of a lack of decent, cohesive foreign policies or whether they fell from the inside due to lack of consistent domestic policies, they always fail, they fail pretty quickly, and they fall HARD. No government or nation has ever stood as it was forever, but some last longer than others, and republics (the way our nation was designed to be as set forth in the constitution) tend to fare better than most.
Rome was a republic too. Rome also fell. But yanno, during the time of the Roman Republic, the citizens of Rome were by far and large much better off than the citizens of any other land, as are the citizens of the U.S. right now... Beware those who would make our great nation a Socialist one and then subject (or subvert) it's will and the will and wants of it's people to another entity like the U.N. who just wants to steal money and resources from those who work so hard to make this country the great place it is. Billary would rather everybody get equal shares for unequal work, rather than reward those who deserve it and let those who do nothing (e.q. 60%+ of welfare recipients, IMO) and deserve support the least to rot, as it should be. Take a closer look at the LEFT and the FAR LEFT as well as it's figureheads and leaders, and you'll get a much clearer picture of Socialism and Facism than you will from the right. My biggest problem with the right-wingers is their religious agenda and anti-abortion stances, but the last thing you can do is call them facist. Pull your head out of your ass and try a dispassionate and honest observation of your own views before you start dissembling on the views of others.
Wow, this whole thread is WAY off topic... Classic example of what/. has degenerated to, I suppose. Shame on me for contributing to it, but these people need straightening out, damnit.
I find myself motivated to write a short something in my journal. I will quite possibly never do so again. I will, by the same token, quite possibly do so again on a different Sunday at 1:30 in the morning and I'm bored with sleeping roomates and on my third glass of scotch. That said, one should always keep in mind that the Tao that can be named is not the thing named, and I have great ph33r of that dire warning this entry box has next to it informing me that this entry will go down on my permanent record, for woe be unto he who fails to make a particularly insightful entry into his/. journal, forever ruining his chances at getting into the geek hall of fame... Oh no!
"On the other hand, you have different fingers." -Unknown
"Brilliant spirits often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds." -A. Einstein
"The keyboard is mightier than the machinegun." s13g3