Slashdot Mirror

see http://abstractionphysics.net/
and you are right the tech industry does not like it because it requires the third primary user interface to be given to the users, not withheld.
How to become wealthy, make people need you and done in the tech industry by strapping the enduser, in analogy, with only two of the primary colors needed to paint a rainbow..

...for estimate time with a complex equation.

Point being software is not being developed the right way, but more like trying to do algebra with the roman numeral system.
its all about abstractions - http://abstractionphysics.net/

Isn't it obvious what another prequel will be about?
but we can do better with our use of abstractions, just need to stop the cheating misuse of them. http://abstractionphysics.net/...

All to often I find software does not function the logical way it should. That to use the software efficiently I have to think like the programmer(s) or figure out what they were thinking when they wrote teh program..

The old saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes.... people do this all the time in using software.
Computer are made of earth and run thought processes of the programmer(s) thus making them a stone image of the beast otherwise known as man.

But this is not the only place the thought processes of a few are imposed upon many more, for religion, government etc,,, all use abstraction as most certainly so does programmers. And its in understanding this that we also have the metaphorical key to the bottomless pit. For that key is the understanding of the gears and bearing of how we process abstractions and why we came to create them.

The main ethical issue regarding software is the false constraints those in the field of programming subject the users to. Who doesn't know how barbarically constrained the Windows Command line is? But it is done that way under the philosophy established by Bill Gates "the way to become wealthy is to make people need you"

Ethics went out the windows when Bill Gates yelled "Piracy" over a matter of people being very tired of waiting for what they had paid for and Bills BASIC itself, was a port of those who created it.

The only way to bring Ethics back into the field of programming si to not only make it all open source and to disallow software patents (which itself is complete fraud) but to properly approach software development the way it should had been done to begin with. In the way that is natural in teh creation and use fo abstraction, without false constraints.

To understanding this is indeed possible see http://abstractionphysics.net/

See: All That Is.... http://abstractionphysics.net/...

So punch yourself in the face god.

http://abstractionphysics.net/

And http://threeseas.net/mind/pate...

.... of me and bla bla bla.... Lik'en what de hel I know...?
See thread to know.... https://www.facebook.com/char....
Yep, eben dis dumb hick can see threw dat wall of ex pert tease! T.Rue

Did you know dat too experts who is'a pos'in each utter goes show what da's exprt at?

Go ahead, mod me down..... ain't gonna change de inedible!!!

Abstractionize dat will ya.... http://abstractionphysics.net/ to go

Clips from the Patent office regarding patents http://threeseas.net/mind/pate...
And of course http://abstractionphysics.net/

....source code? i.e. http://abstractionphysics.net/...

This is moving in the direction of transition we are currently going through but here science trying to understand it. Where in the process science will mostly just produce supporting research of the merging of our consciousness with our subconscious. Accessing the last link in the article a mention of the iliad caught my attention as I know Julian Jaynes uses the Iliad and the Odyssey to show difference between functioning in a subconscious state and of functioning in a conscious state. As such I updated a wiki page first paragraph to add this in. http://abstractionphysics.net/...

Maybe if they look at computer memory with an MRI....

But lets get to reality here and consider what the topic really is... abstraction. http://abstractionphysics.net/...

.... the baseline is wrong... it needs to be corrected and then you can have better interfaces for coding, or auto coding http://abstractionphysics.net/...

http://abstractionphysics.net/...

.... but it will then fail at what marketing hype claims it to be in their effort to rent it. It will be the demise of IBM.
The web is not a good source of genuine core knowledge, but rather an example of the bottomless pit of abstract distortion of knowledge.

How to know this is to know core knowledge. Even the watson project cannot avoid making use of core knowledge, but hide it with the illusion that it can be greater than its creators who as are the rest of us, all contain and make use of core knowledge.

IBM is a patent whore, but software patents are invalid due to core knowledge. Their own product will create problems it cannot solve but instead to solve the problems it creates, what it attempts to hide, will be required to be exposed, so people will understand and know how to solve watson created problems. This will result in the fall of IBM.

Core knowledge, the tools of knowledge navigational mapping - http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

... of any less value than the others.

From http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

Primary computer user interfaces:
Nature likes three (3) in primaries, as color in light (additive - red, blue, green) and paint (subtractive - blue, yellow, red) from which we can create all other colors in the rainbow. This applies to abstraction physics as well, as applied through the tool of computer, for there are three primary user interfaces. The command line, the Graphical User interface (GUI) and the side door port to application and functionality access (known by many different names and application levels such as API, IPC, DCOM, dcop, D-BUS, Plumber, computer sockets, etc., but each having its limitation and typically not so end user friendly as the concept should be.) And like the primary colors, if you take one away or limit its use, you constrain the ability of the user in putting new automatons together or modifying existing ones. Causing false limitations in user ability also applies to the abstraction actions mentioned above, constrain access and you constrain users ability to create or modify.

Why The Matrix was inside it green until the end of the third where the sky was full color. Why there were "THREE" power lines to the robot city...

To fully understand the concept of religion its important to understand why and how this concept came about.

All systems of belief have flaws, for all any belief system is, is a constrained interpretation of the all that is. Why this is, is because abstract language used to communicate shared perspectives cannot express the all..... that is. - T.Rue

There is the why and how we came to create and use abstraction and out of this also came effort to create philosophies inline with the subconscious state of living (as many animals still do today) as the conscious mind cannot handle the massive amount of information the subconscious has access to. We use belief filters (and philosophies) to reduce what all we allow into our consciousness (me for me, you for you)

Interesting reads! Can you put the pieces together?

http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html
Perspective of Mind: Julian Jaynes

http://leftinthedark.org.uk/sites/default/files/Left%20in%20the%20Dark%20free%20edition.pdf
LEFT IN THE DARK

http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm
Science & Sanity (extreme left brain?)

http://umclidet.com/pdf/Frank.R..Wallace.-.Neocheating.pdf
Wallace - Neocheating. (the how to abuse mans left hemisphere?)

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
Abstraction Physics (The Mechanics)

http://iamb.net/IJMB/journal/IJMB_Vol_3_1.pdf
NEUROSCIENCE REVEALS THE WHOLE-BRAIN STATE.....(ARTICLE PAGE 73)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp%3Bv=9l6VPpDublg
No More Secrets

There is a reason why the number and size of protest around the world are happening. The common factor is people in the general population are getting fed up with the distortions of the few ruling over them.

I think it would be wise to allow so called Satanist to have their monument and specifically next to the ten commandments as simply a matter of contrast of the biased constraints. Might also go for something from each of the religions that people might get a good look at "in part".

If it were easy and fun, everyone would be doing it for themselves.
But the Software Industry knows this and avoids anything that will gravitate towards the self recursive act of programming to automate complexity for and by the end users.

Programming can and should be a lot easier but like the Social and earning position of the Roman Numeral Accountants, those in the software industry (both sides - FOSS and Proprietary) do not want this because it will remove their earning and social position (while making genuine software engineering a real industry), Roman Numeral Accounts diminished upon teh introduction and acceptance of the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system (making make easy enough that everyday people can do math beyond what the Roman Numeral Accounts were able to.
Current Software Development Industry methodologies cannot achieve programming at the Holodeck level. To do so requires redoing the understanding of the honest foundation upon which all abstraction are created and used. See: http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

Honesty is a bitch, because those against it make it so.

Computers don't "understand" anything, they are machines that simply do what they are programmed to do.
The first step is for humans to understand what computers really are. They are nothing more than abstraction processing machines which have not the ability to "understand" the abstractions they process but only to process abstraction as they are programmed to do.

Artificial Intelligence is artificial by definition. And the appearance of intelligence in computers is nothing more than an active image of human thought processes captured and put into the stone of computer hardware to process. So to increase the "appearance" of intelligence we only need to capture more human thought processes and map them in a manner that is accessible..

Of course the way to do this is to recognize the functions we humans cannot avoid the use of and program the computer to have this functionality, that we may be better able to capture and map images of human mental processing in a manner of machine processing ability.

When the software industry finally lets go of their hold on the users and let the users do more for themselves, we will reach this "Appearance of intelligence" in machine much faster. See: http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php .

"Is it any surprise that computers can't "understand" what we mean, given the minefield of language?"

Uh, computers don't "understand" anything, they are machines that simply do what they are programmed to do.
The first step is for humans to understand what computers really are. They are nothing more than abstraction processing machines which have not the ability to "understand" the abstractions they process but only to process abstraction as they are programmed to do.

Artificial Intelligence is artificial by definition. And the appearance of intelligence in computers is nothing more than an active image of human thought processes captured and put into the stone of computer hardware. So to increase the "appearance" of intelligence we only need to capture more human thought processes and map them in a manner that is searchable.

Of course the way to do this is to recognize the functions we humans cannot avoid the use of and program the computer to have this functionality, that we may be better able to capture and map images of human mental processing in a manner of machine processing ability.

When the software industry finally lets go of their hold on teh users and let the users do more for themselves, we will reach this "Appearance of intelligence" in machine much faster. See: http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php .

.... realize what IS! http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

when software can be understood in terms of what is not patentable then software will no longer be patented.
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

... of which is what programing and language is all about?

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

This is gtoing to happen, it only a question of when and that includes the if an when you get to do so in your lifetime.

It tooj 300 years for the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system to overcome the Roman Numeral system of mathematics...why? Politics o0f thoise who didn't want to lose their position inj society. But Abstraction Physics isn't about some subset of abstract, such as mathematics, but all abstraction, the tools of abstraction.

Of the things universally accepted as not being patentable are:
Physical Phenomenon
Natural Law
Abstract Ideas
and of these three comes Mathematical Algorithms

So what is software? Its all of these!
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

exactly.... we all know software is commonly underestimaed in the time it takes to produce and that is before bhug killing. Why? The intelligence of those programming is overestimated....

Oh helll now I'm gonna be modded troll.... but before this happens ... I really do see the code.... http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

...what you may have to deal with.... This forum board has been closed for quite some time and still I get tons of registrations....
http://abstractionphysics.net/phpBB2/

Maybe consider contributing to a honeypot should you chose to pursue a forum. https://www.projecthoneypot.org/

The things you cannot patent, universally accepted:
Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law, Abstract Ideas and out of these we also have Mathematical Algorithms. Certainly Software can be proven to not qualify for patent-ability, http://abstractionphysics.net/ or add dot net to it for the reality of which the fictional trilogy "the matrix" characters were representations of. In other words, we all use the fundamental actions of which software must make use of in playing back what amounts to nothing more than the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of our creation and use of abstract ideas, which include the well defined abstractions of mathematics. All done on a machine that processes abstraction.

Why has this not come to light? Nature likes 3, as in three primary colors of paint or light, etc. from which you can create all other colors of that media. Software has three user interfaces. The CLI, GUI and the side door port to automating software use, including its creation. However this third user interface is kept from the general user, limiting what the general user can do. For the user to have such access is in analogy like giving users a decimal calculator when the accountants are using roman numerals. A great deal of what software patents cover today would become non-novel and invalid.

Bill Gates said the way to become wealthy is to make people need you. He was also the one to coin the term "software piracy"

And there you have the reason for the fraud of software patents.

There was a time when we functioned in a bicameral mind state ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes ) or subconscious state, as many animals today do. In such a state there are limits as to how much you can advance but you are far better in touch with nature, explaining how many animals respond to changing environment (i.e. crabs move inland and how far depending on major storm strength and where the storm make landfall and many other examples).

Man developed small societies while living in such an non-abstract mind state, as even apes and other animals today do, all for increased survival. But with man our subconscious or bicameral mind state could not keep up with the growing population and the story of the tower of babel .... Man created consciousness and abstract thinking and communication, eventually evolving in such developments as written language and the development and improvements of mathematics (abstraction) to the point of today we have abstraction machines we call computers. http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

Are we getting better with abstraction use as a tool? Well considering one of the downsides of abstraction is that it open the door to deception and this along with the growing world protests of the people against nothing more than the fewer in positions of command at they cost of the people.... Via deception...

All in all its only natural in our evolution that we get better at understanding the limits and usefulness of abstraction as the tool it is. Such that we get beyond the false usefulness of deception. Especially when such deception is being used by the few to take from the many.

As science and technology advance in the direction of intelligent machines in the image of man.... http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

You solve growing complexity issues with higher level abstraction, even before there were stone images we call computers (stone being what computers are made of - minerals. And images being the thought processes of the beast of man - programs)

The physics of creating and using higher level abstractions may be second nature to many of us, but computers..... they have to be told/programmed and this helps to expose the physics of abstraction.

A response stable for slashdot reader target.

Or if you are a programmer..... just look in a mirror..... like Neo did.

Software is not of patent-able subject matter.

Of the things that universally agreed cannot be patented:
Abstract ideas,
Physical Phenomenon.
Natural Law.
Because they cannot be enforced
and out of these comes mathematical algorithms as a forth.

All these together describe software and there is more
see http://abstractionphysics.net/

.... closer!!!

There are some things you cannot patent: Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law, Abstract ideas. And of these also mathematical algorithms.
All these are what software is of and then there is the identified physics of abstraction: http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
It even inspired a known movie trilogy "The Matrix" http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html only you can't kill off the crew or ship in real life and of course Smith loses because he has no choice but to realize he being the second of three agents of Input, Processing and Output, ..... is himself made up of the ship and crew. Interesting how the Oracle and Morpheus were the only survivors from the original considering what the represent in the world of abstraction. Simply put, it is we who create our world of abstractions that constrain what the users of that world can do..... out of all that is possible. see concept #3 http://threeseas.net/vicprint/vic-concepts.html

The point is: Software Patents are acts of fraud. And maybe that is a hard thing for the courts to accept, considering it was one of their's who started this mess of software patents in the U.S. In some back alley courtroom decision.

There are some thing universally accepted as not being patent-able: Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas and from these we also get Mathematical Algorithms. These are the components of Software. There are natural laws and physical phenomena that apply to the creation and use of abstractions, and in this case the abstraction is often perceived in terms of mathematical algorithms. http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

... Does QT still break Autoit? http://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit/ Or is it maintaining programmer arrogance by preventing the users from using computers to automate complexity ... in essence maintaining the dumb downing of the user base by hiding what computers are for????. I'd imagine the Roman Numeral accountants argued only a fool would think nothing has value, so to maintain their high position in society (re: zero place holder of the Hindu-Arabic decimal system.)

Why is there always something in the way of user ease and simplicity in automation?

http://abstractionphysics.net/

The things which are universally accepted as not patent-able: Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law, Abstract Ideas and from these comes mathematical algorithms. There is also the matter of obviousness. The reason these things are not patentable is because they simply cannot be enforced. The primary three and the forth are what software is all about and sooner or later there will be no choice but to embrace the fact that the goal of software is to make complexity easier to use and re-use through a simplified interface and this from full program definition of a program name to a simple single function definition, as it is all recursive.

With all this in mind, software should and will be so easy to create that the tool to do so will be considered an extended common calculator different than what we today see as a desktop or handheld calculator only in that it makes use of a larger set of abstract symbols. See http://abstractionphysics.net/
       

BTW, in old not-for-profit community theater, using a hammer to insert screws into the gussets/frames when making flats was an accepted practice as once the glue dried you could unscrew the screws for reuse. Today you probably won't see that. But it goes to show Exceptions to prove the rule..

To be clear HarryatRock, you have my respect, for your programming background and wisdom.
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

....abstraction. Better yet what they are made of ... http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

The protests happening around the world are a sign of a transition happening.

Population growth drives need for change. We have been through such transition before and there are stories indicating such. Like the tower of babel, where we moved from bicameral mind mode of social interaction to a conscious mode capable of the creation and use of higher level abstraction. When we made that transition the misuse of higher level abstraction was the discovery of deception and the value of its intentional use, or misuse of the tool of higher level abstraction, to cash in on teh values of others at the expense of others but benefit of the individual deceiving.

Today the population has grown to over 7 billion and its has become obvious to the majority that the deceptions are no longer working to fool the majority. So the focus has turned to the whole and what is good for the whole as well as the individuals, but the few who have been cashing in on the many do not like this as it means they lose their position of power and control.

Anonymous helps to not provided a target to kill... that is all and it so happens V for Vendetta only brought the idea of anonymous up.

The Wachowskis brought the comic to the masses with the movie, as they brought something else to the masses with the Matrix trilogy. Which was the mechanics of how we must create and process Abstraction. Only the Matrix trilogy attempted to kill what cannot be killed as does V for Vendetta bring violence which is also in error of solution direction. All that is needed is exposure of the truth of what those in positions of power are doing to cheat the rest of us, and how, so they cannot continue to do so.

http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

if the computer industry would let go of the hold they have over the users base. i.e. "Windows, a world without walls" where you can see where you want to go but you cannot get there from here...

There is a whole lot of false constraints the software industry applies to the user base. Where many things are made harder and prevent the users from automating the many day to day tasks they could and would without the false constraints.

Programming itself is like using the roman numeral system in accounting where we all know the decimal system is much more powerful and easier to use,
There is a constant set of action everyone does and uses and these can as well be applied to programming.

Re: http://abstractionphysics.net/
   

Dictionaries, Thesaurus, product catalogs, etc... And we can learn in grade school how to become trivia pursuit experts at guessing what programmers, we will never meet, were thinking when they created the interface vocabulary.....

Some people don't want to have to remember or guess but rather to look at a list to see what is available.

There are three primary user interfaces, the Command Line Interface, the GUI and the side door port, where with all three, like the primary colors of paint or light, you can make the rainbow..... So what is it that the computer industry doesn't want the users to have all three at the same time?

re: http://abstractionphysics.net/

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php#Primary_computer_user_interfaces:

Software is just not a patent-able matter http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

What sucks is not the GUI, but the failure of the computer industry to provide the three natural user interfaces to the full user base population as a standard in all applications and OS's. And we know the constraints are done strictly for profit, but it is also the lie of imposed false constraints.

From Abstraction Physics

"Primary computer user interfaces:
Nature likes three (3) in primaries, as color in light (additive - red, blue, green) and paint (subtractive - blue, yellow, red) from which we can create all other colors in the rainbow. This applies to abstraction physics as well, as applied through the tool of computer, for there are three primary user interfaces. The command line, the Graphical User interface (GUI) and the side door port to application and functionality access (known by many different names and application levels such as API, IPC, DCOM, dcop, D-BUS, Plumber, computer sockets, etc., but each having its limitation and typically not so end user friendly as the concept should be.) And like the primary colors, if you take one away or limit its use, you constrain the ability of the user in putting new automatons together or modifying existing ones. Causing false limitations in user ability........."

Abstraction Physics wiki provides a brief summary of the why of abstraction use in programming. The recursive nature of programming and automation of complexity into a simplified user interface. The IQ command itself includes pythons urllib to enable students to share their work with each other in a manner consistent with "building upon the works of others before you" via network access. And if the students need something interesting to associate with, the topic and specifics of abstraction physics can easily use the metaphors found of the movie "The Matrix" as the main characters each represent either basic concepts (three agents of input, processing and output) or of specific action constants.

Explore the short wiki and links within it.

And if there is interest, perhaps even some programming to do as a class project (grade 10 perhaps), to complete the Virtual Interaction Configuration of Abstraction Physics implementation in python. (integrating two stand alone commands into the integrated whole and writing the last commands of the set)

...software patent. So there can't be a thing called a fair patent troll regarding software.
Maybe on non software patents.

All software patents are acts of fraud and public deception.

Software is not of patentable matter

The pursuit of software patents is teh pursuit of fraud and public deception.
abstraction physics application (including software)is a human right and duty.

Beware of software patent pursuers bearing gifts.

.. so this effort is nothing more than to sabotage the honesty stand against software patents due to software not being of patent-able matter.

I'm absolutely certain Richard Stallman would agree.

Software is provably not patentable.

Abstraction Physics clearly shows that programming is a recursive process of creating and using abstractions.

There is no issue with reuse but only a need to better generate code that is more appropriate for the application under development rather than from some other intended works.

on off switches. Everything else is just some higher lever Abstraction!

No matter what excuse you use for doing something right, or wrong, the hard reality of the matter will always be what it is tested against.
Doing things wrong will result in problems.
Doing things right will remove problems.

The excuse used, either way, can often be nothing more than political babel.

Software is simply and provably not of patentable subject matter and it never was patentable when tested against hard reality.
And regardless that some seem to have a hard time accepting hard reality.

The hard and provable reality of the nature of software is that of Abstraction Physics

By Patent Law the three primary things that cannot be patented are, natural law, physical phenomenon and abstract ideas (where included in the abstract ideas is the abstraction of mathematical algorithms). But the reason why these are not patentable is not because of some law man made but because any law to the contrary is simply not enforceable in a manner of patents, that of denying others the right to use.

Or perhaps a patent can be issued on the human use of air or the ability to think or gravity..... and enforced.

Interestingly enough Software actually falls into using all three of these general and universally accepted non-patentable subjects.
There are natural laws governing the creation and use of abstractions and the application of abstractions (we create and use them for communication) has a physical phenomenon effect as we act upon what is communicated. And abstractions obviously represent ideas and as such are abstract ideas.

Many have argued the mathematical algorithm defense against software patents, but when it gets down to it, though the abstraction machine of computers boils it all down to transistor switches switching, there is a level where a program can be seen in terms of pure mathematical algorithms, there are also other levels of abstraction not so directly communicated in mathematical algorithm terms, most notably that of any of the many abstract programming languages we have created and even the fundamental first level abstraction of binary representation of on and off. But what is common is that all these levels are abstract.

There really is nothing patentable about software, but to the contrary, what all makes software possible is all universally considered non-patentable.

Its nothing but non-scientific politics that have wrongly rationalized software patentability.

... a patentable media but a human right and duty to make use of to advance.

See: Abstraction Physics