Slashdot Mirror

..... Software is NOT a patentable subject matter

Imagine some simple algebraic calculation being patentable because the base math numerical system being used is the roman numeral system, which is not simply and directly capable of doing such a calculation.

Now Imagine when software patents will be look back on in hindsight of a corrected navigational mapping software development system.
How are those supporting software patents today, going to be viewed tomorrow? As barbaric?

... and use higher and higher levels of abstraction so to communicate and develope more and more refined technology that will someday allow us to advance beyond where we can see ourselves going today. To the point of enabling us to create a black hole for the purpose of its rebound effect of creating a galaxy so as to continue on the expansion of the universe for the insurance of the continuation of conscious life.... to repeat the process.

One of the things I have noticed about our evolution is that it seems to be related to population growth. As our population grows we face new problems that we must adapt to and this generally leads to advancements in social development. One recorded event is the story of the tower of Babylon and how the population growth and specialization grew to the point of a bicameral mind break down that lead to expansion and now so long after, we have come back together in population growth with further advancements.

Another interesting analogy or extension of this process is that of open source software where branching projects off to eventually bring the best of the branches back together.... and its all based on, in essence, Abstraction Physics of code development. Where the difference between human to human language and human to machine to human, is automation of human created abstractions...

... and use higher and higher levels of abstraction so to communicate and develope more and more refined technology that will someday allow us to advance beyond where we can see ourselves going today. To the point of enabling us to create a black hole for the purpose of its rebound effect of creating a galaxy so as to continue on the expansion of the universe for the insurance of the continuation of conscious life.... to repeat the process.

One of the things I have noticed about our evolution is that it seems to be related to population growth. As our population grows we face new problems that we must adapt to and this generally leads to advancements in social development. One recorded event is the story of the tower of Babylon and how the population growth and specialization grew to the point of a bicameral mind break down that lead to expansion and now so long after, we have come back together in population growth with further advancements.

Another interesting analogy or extension of this process is that of open source software where branching projects off to eventually bring the best of the branches back together.... and its all based on, in essence, Abstraction Physics of code development. Where the difference between human to human language and human to machine to human, is automation of human created abstractions...

Maybe someday they will figure it out Abstradtion Physics But I suspect that it won't be untill they stop making money from doing it wrong.... intentionally....

You can learn the roman numeral system inside out and be the worlds leading expert on it but you can never do with it what can be done far more easily with the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system. A common introductory algebra student can by far exceed the limitations of doing math with the abstract Roman Numeral set.

The Decimal system allowed us to use "nothing" to hold value. The Zero place holder....something so simple, yet so enabling...
Who'd thought "nothing" could be so power enabling?

The same holds true of Computer Science and Software Engineering.

And again we are at a point of needing to recognize a real value of something that seems so unreal or foolish sounding.

Abstraction Physics, but how can the abstract be physical?

Not only can abstractions have a physics to them, but without the physical, abstractions cannot exist at all. And it is the physical that enables the creation of abstractions, a physical reality that does move in the process of making and using abstractions.

This is where abstractions and physical reality meet, where abstract ideas are converted to physical effect and hard reality.

What you are reading right now is an example of abstract conversion to the physical. From my mind to my fingers on the keyboard to the computer and over the internet..... to your screen where its being input into you and your mind. And if it were instructions to do something and you did, like make a paper airplane ...... thats all physical...

Just as there are definable atomic structures in the physical realm getting more and more refined, so it is with abstraction and genuine software engineering in dealing with abstractions and their unavoidable physical creation and use action constants.

These constants are identified and defined and by nature are so inherent in our human functioning that we don't even think of them..... However, computers are not human and they don't, unless we program them to. And we haven't yet done so from a POV of Abstraction Physics such the understanding would be as common and applied as the Decimal system is today, instead of roman numeral based mathematics.

Genuine Software Engineering should be making the task of programming easier for all of us. But it seems stuck, to use the analogy, thinking in terms of roman numeral mathematics. Physicist identify, define and refine our understanding of the physical, but abstractions, though we are the absolute creators of these, there is still the unavoidable and unchanging physical reality action constants of abstraction creation and use. And it is this that is the solid foundation upon which to build genuine software engineering.

The proof of the action constants is simple: Try not using them.

You can learn the roman numeral system inside out and be the worlds leading expert on it but you can never do with it what can be done far more easily with the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system. A common introductory algebra student can by far exceed the limitations of doing math with the abstract Roman Numeral set.

The Decimal system allowed us to use "nothing" to hold value. The Zero place holder....something so simple, yet so enabling...
Who'd thought "nothing" could be so power enabling?

The same holds true of Computer Science and Software Engineering.

And again we are at a point of needing to recognize a real value of something that seems so unreal or foolish sounding.

Abstraction Physics, but how can the abstract be physical?

Not only can abstractions have a physics to them, but without the physical, abstractions cannot exist at all. And it is the physical that enables the creation of abstractions, a physical reality that does move in the process of making and using abstractions.

This is where abstractions and physical reality meet, where abstract ideas are converted to physical effect and hard reality.

What you are reading right now is an example of abstract conversion to the physical. From my mind to my fingers on the keyboard to the computer and over the internet..... to your screen where its being input into you and your mind. And if it were instructions to do something and you did, like make a paper airplane ...... thats all physical...

Just as there are definable atomic structures in the physical realm getting more and more refined, so it is with abstraction and genuine software engineering in dealing with abstractions and their unavoidable physical creation and use action constants.

These constants are identified and defined and by nature are so inherent in our human functioning that we don't even think of them..... However, computers are not human and they don't, unless we program them to. And we haven't yet done so from a POV of Abstraction Physics such the understanding would be as common and applied as the Decimal system is today, instead of roman numeral based mathematics.

Genuine Software Engineering should be making the task of programming easier for all of us. But it seems stuck, to use the analogy, thinking in terms of roman numeral mathematics. Physicist identify, define and refine our understanding of the physical, but abstractions, though we are the absolute creators of these, there is still the unavoidable and unchanging physical reality action constants of abstraction creation and use. And it is this that is the solid foundation upon which to build genuine software engineering.

The proof of the action constants is simple: Try not using them.

Abstraction Physics

Abstraction Physics

If you understand the human rights and expectation of using Abstraction Physics you'll know patents on software are acts of fraud against the human race. And its not like copyrights are not strong enough and even provide longer protection.....

Do you want your children learning mathematics via limited roman numerals or do you want them to be taught mathematics that includes the insane but powerful concept that nothing can have value (zero place holder of the hindu-arabic decimal system)?

The abstract tools we create are extensions ourselves, of our own design and choice such as mathematics (roman numeral or decimal system), programming and computer concepts and even language (human to human and human to computer). Being of our own design we must be careful not to limit ourselves for the sake of a given abstraction set and rules of its use.

As such the place to really start teaching about computers is that of learning first about ourselves and our ability to create and use Abstractions. From here the proper sequence of learning basic to complex computer programming concepts is just as important as the sequence of properly learning mathematics. Where you start with learning the abstract symbols of the numbers and what they represent or mean, extensions of counting on our fingers. Then the symbols for calculation of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.. You don't just jump right into algebra or calculus.

But with computer concepts and programming, which are most certainly extension of our ourselves, we do need to first learn of our power to create and use abstractions that extend beyond just numbers and mathematics. We need to first learn about the physics of abstraction. And there most certainly is a physics to recognize about our creation and use of abstractions. Just as nothing can have proven use and great power in mathematics (zero place holder) so does the seemingly insane "there is a physics to abstraction creation and use" has great power and sets the proper foundation upon which computer programming concepts be built.

Try to teach algebra with roman numerals and you will find it difficult if not impossible. Only in the roman numeral days, there wasn't algebra to identify the limits of the roman numerals in mathematics. Same today, we don't see the limitations and difficulty of current computer science teaching, but we see plenty of the symptoms in buggy software, failed software project, development overruns, etc.. We have not yet seen the importance of first teaching abstraction physics.

We need to change the foundation at its core, clarifying it. We need to be able to zero in on it.

Here for more information on Abstraction Physics

... research.

That field is the one that unifies "human mental abilities to comprehend such aspects of physical reality" with actual physical reality.

Our theories are abstract representations of what we believe of physical reality and they only work as well as how well our theories are inline with physical reality.

However, it seems that what should be most obvious in unification, is not so obvious due to the inherent subjectivity of the human ability to create and manipulate abstractions which are in turn used to think and perform action by.

What should be obvious is the constraints we place on our own minds by the abstractions we use and that by understanding the physics of our abstraction creation and use process, we'd be better able to remove the constraints of our own abstractions, so to better perceive and think about physical reality.

"Einstein searched until the moment he died for the equation of the 'Unified Field Theory'. He never realized the missing element was the same element that caused so much of his life to be what it was" and that is "Human Consciousness" as defined by Julian Jaynes in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."

The missing field of research is that of Abstraction Physics , which is the unifying field of all things between human comprehension and physical reality, even in just parts of the "All". So seemingly obvious, yet so second nature its simply to subjective for most to consciously comprehend the importance of realizing its not second nature to computers, but certainly programmable into computers that we humans can be a bit more objective about it, enough to see and recognize the unifier values to be had.

.... wanting to fully understand it I followed the links where I typically found a new link after the first paragraph, recursively. So after 15 minutes of reading I determined that I hadn't gotten anywhere in understanding much of anything except for one thing:

How many programs must we run, layer upon layer, in order to run an application?
Doesn't adding more and more layers of complexity contribute to the failure side of the failure vs. success equation?

I do really understand the ideals behind .net, such as the CLI and CLR but I also note the downside as being one of addressing the general objective of doing such, to be that of failing to address the general objective much sooner in the software development cycle. Addressing the general objective at the later stage of runtime only overly complicates the fix.

To use an analogy, A social science teacher once described to the class how quality control was once done in the USSR. A fine china plate manufacture would produce the plates, put them on a truck and ship them to the store. To buy a plate you would stand in a line for a number and once you have number you'd stand in another line to pay for the plate where you'd then get a receipt. Then you'd stand in a third line to pick up your plate. Once you got to the front the line the store employee would look at your receipt and go over to the plates pick one up and with a wand, they woudl strike the dish as a quality control step. If it broke they would do the same with the next dish until they completed your order.

Likewise the ideal of write once run anywhere via a run time engine is the same sort of just in time for being to late in cost effective over complexity failure.

Where the general objective needs to be addresses is at the very beginning of the development process, perhaps even before code is written.

Programming language, anything above machine language, is an abstraction and this is recursive. But in application running the machine must see it in terms od machine language and as such, what ever the level of abstraction, it gets boiled down to machine language (granted quality of machine language results is defendant on TRANSLATION method used). This is common knowledge with anyone who knows anything about programming.

The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is the ideal of taking all the more popular programming concepts and data-types and combining them in a manner that is non-conflicting that is then used in the translation process to convert to an Common Intermediate Language that then runs on the Common Language Runtime.

The key point here is of "TRANSLATION" and by addressing translation early on in coding it become possible to translate whatever to whatever else to then compile and run anyway you want, be it directly on the hardware or native on any OS that is capable, or even on a VM.

The point is Computer programming languages are abstractions and it is in dealing with and translating such abstractions from one form to another, is where the magic of the future is to be found.
It is in understanding the Natural Laws and Physics of Abstraction creation and use, understanding translation mechanics, where software development solutions will be genuinely found. Deal with Abstraction Translation prior to compile (though compile is itself a translation to machine binary)... But even in doing this focus on abstraction translation, there will evolve simpler yet powerful programming languages. Its the whole point of programming! to take some complexity and make it easier to use and reuse via defining it and a simplified interface to its use. Done of course, the only place it can be done, at the abstraction creation and use level.

Not in some down the line VM additional complexity that is designed mainly to generate licensing fees.

See: Abstraction Physics

... actually this is not a bad idea so long as it is used to support open source rather than to stifle it.

However, the idea of Open Source As Prior Art being used to help just such a patent or use of such a process as this article is about. It shouldn't supprise anyone that IBM is a contributor to this OSAPA.... And IBM being a huge software patent holder.... uh errr FLOSS supporter...

Apparently if you try to help improve the patent system and you support software not being patentable, you then risk screwing yourself.

Stallman was right. The best thing to do is to ignore the patent system as it applies to software. OR Support "End Software Patents", Or better yet help prove Software is not of Patentable nature!

This way mapping open source software for reuse becomes a clear benefit rather than a risk.

I too was on the OSAPA list and contributed in support of open source.... as non-patentable Abstraction Physics.

.... it is abstact matter with a definable physics supporting its use.

To bad there is not stock to invest in on this overall debate as the outcome is certain. Software patents will become a thing of the past. An embarrassing thing at that.

...software patents then what is common factor? Abstraction Physics!

... is not so obvious and second nature to a machine/computer.

Abstraction Physics where A.I. can be shown to be a byproduct of simply automating enough to create the illusion of intelligence.

Consider people you might know but think they are "artificial" in their knowledge presentation... that they don't fully understand what they claim to know.

...abstractions.

Abstraction Physics proof is found in trying to not use any of its small set of action constants.

Eventually Abstraction Physics will come to be fully recognized and applied, just as today we recognize the decimal system with its zero (nothing can have value) place holder and that the earth revolves around the sun.

...patent ideology

What is universally accepted as not being patentable:

abstract ideas,
natural law
physical phenomenon

Mathematical algorithms as often added to this but in essence are included in the three primary.

The reason these are so universally accepted as not being patentable is that its near impossible to enforce patents against such things.
i.e. patent on gravity... you cannot use gravity without paying me royalties. But if you try and avoid gravity and walk off a cliff, paying royalties to some fool is teh least of your concerns.

How these applies to software:

Abstract ideas is rather obvious as software is the art of abstraction creation and use if anything is to be considered an art of abstraction.

Natural law is that abstraction is naturally a characteristic of human ability. Without it we could do nothing more than preform like any other animal incapable of developing technology, medicine, clothing, etc..

Physical phenomenon - thru the application of non-physical based abstraction we cause physical movement. If I tell you to go to the store and get a gallon of Mayfield milk, I have used abstract ideas communicated and received by you to act upon. If I/we did not have such ability, Mayfield milk would not exist to begin with.

Now many claim that software is in essence mathematical algorithms, but the basis of computer technology, the way it works, defines this constraint as a computer is based on "calculating" defined in terms of numbers (binary based). However, a radio station (fm or am) uses a carrier signal that cares not of what is carried over the signal, be it music, news, talk, noise, etc... And in the same way this basis of computing can as well be used as a carrier of abstraction far beyond math. Yet the carried its still inherently made up of the three primary things universally consider not being patentable.

This software patent fraud that has been going on has, as any attempt to contradict physics and nature, very bad effects, only due to the inherent nature of abstraction the skill of abstraction manipulation (human use and ability to deceive via abstraction manipulation) there are those who have remained fooled by such deception and unfortunately are in positions to indirectly tell people they have to walk off a cliff rather than recognize they are human with inherent abstraction skill and as a natural human characteristic it is to be expected and even encouraged to be what we are and make the best of it.

There is a way to not only prove all of this but in so doing build up a foundation of common knowledge solution direction of anyone "skilled in the field", non novel, and other aspects supporting non-patent-ability.

Humans can be deceptive for a long time and in an environment that even proves otherwise. This might be called the "human denial factor". Examples of this are well known, ie. Galileo and teh exoneration in the early 1990 of his views. But a lot of good such exoneration does Galileo now. Likewise the Hindu-Arabic decimal system took three hundred years to over come the far more mathematical limiting roman numeral system. Lets face it, only a fool would think nothing cannot have value (re: zero place holder), yet accountants using roman numerals were elite.. (sound familiar?)

Anyways, this idea of asking for funds/donations for to support software patents, regardless of the claimed intent of obtaining such patents, is supporting dishonesty and does not help to resolved the real issue of genuinely recognizing the honest nature of software.

for more see: Abstraction Physics

Software patents are evil as they are dishonest in regards to the genuine nature of software.

See: Abstraction physics for an expose of the genuine nature of software.

.... software.

A similar slashdot story was just the day before see: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/29/0344258

Honestly, this call for papers and award is along the lines of asking for more on top of what we already have, proof that going against nature will bring you harm.
i.e. step off the empire state building...you will fall and die. Drive a car into a solid wall @ 500 mph, you will die.

Make software patentable and you will suffer the consequence of contradicting nature just the same.

People are born everyday with a blank slate of knowledge, but do all these new people do things that kill themselves, so to find out it will kill them? NO!

So how much do we need to harm ourselves with software patents before those making it possible to patent software and contradict nature, learn?

see:Abstraction Physics as the subject matter is fundamentally NOT about politics or economics, as organized crime has both a good economy and politics, but it doesn't make it honest and genuinely in touch with physical reality such that you can drive a car into a wall @ 500mph and live.

This software patent matter is really getting to be stupid on stupid. Software classification is not a human choice, but a human mental characteristic, and even stupid proves it.

Has anyone shown proof that driving a car into a wall @ 500mph will kill you, to those allowing software patents?
If not, then why are they not finding out for themselves?
If so then someone should point out that they should try 499mph to find out if it makes a difference. (re: all the abstract possibilities of proof for or against software patents) ....use this as an analogy to those wanting proof of software patent damage (uh, err maybe it won't be damaging this way.....)

Its really amazing how much money is being spent on such distorted efforts rather than producing the proof that software is not of patentable qualities.

Software simply doesn't fall into the realm of being of qualities supporting patent-ability, nor do business methods.

Abstraction Physics No Kidding.

As someone once wrote "Artificial Intelligence - nothing is naturally that stupid."

But on another note, what is Artificial Intelligence anyway, but the by-product illusion of Automating Information (static, active and dynamic) enough to create the illusion?
What all is involved in Automating Information but simply applying what we already do in creating and dealing with abstractions, but through a hard mineral based computer instead of living biological tissue known as the brain.

Then there is another perspective, with the amount of artificially intelligent people we have running around, do we really need or want machines to emulate them?

... I supposed the story is somewhat interesting.

The real kicker is that Artificial Intelligence is really just a by-product illusion of Automating Information enough that the illusion presents itself.
Even these two, as well as the cyc team, were trying to do just that, by first collecting up information to then automate its use. The gears and bearings of which are pretty simple.

Some interested in the A.I. by product might find this of some interest.

So much is said about this or that technology and when it gets down to using it, its not what it was promoted to be.

Computer power has greatly increased over the years but the user experience does not parallel that, but instead pretty much stays the same,
More data is being transfered over the internet today and its increasing with the drive towards digital tv access. I recall when I was told that the phone line couldn't handle anything more than 96k baud rate. But today we have far faster dsl and can still make a phone call over teh same two wires.

And a lot of traffic is spam, phishing, advertising, etc.

For Example, Its difficult to find some things through google as you can be flooded with ads for things you are not interested in. I once tried to find specifications for an old laptop only to be presented with battery and power supply links of everybody and their brother selling these things for this laptop. And nothing regarding anything even close to information on this old laptop. The contradiction being....who the hell are they all selling these batteries and power supplies for this old laptop, too? Yet I still waded through that junk to find not what I was looking for.

When you are handed enough contradictions, and you begin to see through all the bull shit you are handed, and you and anyone else dealing with this awareness will begin to lose patience.

Programming is another contradiction, as programming is the act of automating some functionality in a manner that provides easier use and reuse, but programming really doesn't get easier as it
should be. Programming is being held in a state of elitism or at a level of complexity that is just beyond the typical user ability to deal with the idiosyncrasy of any programing language on this particular hardware in this particular use, etc... But it doesn't really need to be that way and people are beginning to see through this babel when they are told something they want can't be done, yet they see it being done elsewhere or a short time later. This tends to expose the source of contradictions, the computer industry itself. And there is a reason for it.

IS it really any wonder people are losing their patiences? When was the last time you told someone how easy it is to do something and failed to realize what base knowledge you must first have for such a thing to be so easy to do?

Lets not forget about the legal battles we all see in the news regarding something to do with computers.

All in all there is a level of frustration the general user, and even more advanced users experience on a regular basis and unlike most any other thing, outside of computing that they may want to do.

Even today there is yet to be an open, user friendly and fully user accessible system. All system today have such built in unnecessary user constraints in one way or another that contributes to unnecessary frustration. The usefulness of these constraints are only useful to those who want to make user need them so to sell more and more. If you give them all they need, teach them to fish, they won't need you to fish for them.

Lack of patience comes from recognizing contradiction, the distraction of junk information, and the failure to reach ones goals (can't get there from here regardless of how many times you are lead to believe you can) and this invariable leads to frustration. Its not the speed of computing but the human injection of trash between point A and target point B.

Their are efforts to improve education regarding computers but as long as its being taught, to use an analogy, in the mode of teaching roman numeral based math instead of the simpler and more powerful hindu-arabic decimal system mathematics, there will be frustration and resulting impatience.

This doesn't have to be this way, as there are plenty new markets to be discovered by removal of the unnecessary and false user constraints.

... see the lower part on mindset changes in education

I studied C in school while working full time and made deans list twice while doing so. Pointer were a little tough to get but once gotten, no problem.
However, it you read the whole wiki page linked above, what they seem to be complaining about in light of reality is that their way of doing things is becoming obsolete.

Using pointers and other text based programming methods or concepts or procedures or whatever you want to call them is important to know as a software engineer understanding the full scope of software programming history and being able to deal with its old code, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to be a software engineer but just wants to write a program.

Personally I know the whole software engineering shebang is working off the wrong assumptions and premises and that there has been this ongoing lack of needed talent because of it.
Just as using the roman numeral system for mathematics today would be found impossible in its ability to even do what is today considered common accounting, so is becoming the ways of software development.

I'm not defending Java or any other programming language because ultimately its not what language you write in, which includes what GUI use use in the process of programming but a matter of translation of what code you write or click.... its translation down to machine level. And that is where genuine "Software Engineering" should be focusing.

There are just to damn many people needing to program everything from a full out large scale programs, to making a simple macro to automate some repetitive set of actions they perform.
To many people for the illusion of elitism of programming to continue as it has. Programming can and has so been becoming more and more automated.

Software engineering main focus today should be of "Abstraction Physics" and the development of "knowledge navigational mapping" as a standardize mapping for software programming support.
The navigational mapping of programming concepts, data type, common functionality, etc..

In simpler words, software engineering should be the field that focuses on building the support base for programmers. Just as structural engineers do the plans for building a bridge but its the skilled and often unskilled laborers that actually build the bridge, not the engineer.

See the references

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

.... getting a focus and keeping it on core knowledge.

Core knowledge is that when is honest and open and can be considered the foundation or core of all other knowledge that can be extracted and/or extrapolated from it.

Such example are the primary colors of light and paint. With them you can create all the colors of the rainbow, but as soon as you lose touch with these and put some colors that are not primary as the starting point of creation, you will discover increasing limitations in what you can color.

The computer industry has long lost touch with the core knowledge of computing and as such has lost the ability to innovate as well as it could,
Such sore knowledge may not seem very exciting or important anymore than how exciting we find the primary colors to be as themselves, but it is what they enable the building of that is of importance.

Computers, from their fundamental transistor switching to the high level of abstraction we use to program them today, does contain core knowledge, inherently, but its human focus and recognition and intentional use of the core knowledge that enables innovation.

Abstraction Physics presents such core knowledge and system user interface needs.

get information from consumers, claim rights to it and sell it back to them....seems to be what this article is promoting while using MS as a media to say it.

What happens when programming is done right and consumers can use an easier to use interface to create programs with, for themselves?

General automation is not difficult but wide scope capable

...Abstractions.

And that Sage is not enough capable of handling above the subset it is intended for, to prove software is mathematical algorithms, as so many argue.

However, that doesn't mean algorithmic proof is not possible. Only that abstraction must be considered in the calculation proofs.

...the fraudulent support for software patents, as software is in no way material of patentable character.

Once that is done, the patent office will have more time to spend on patent applications that do have patentable material.

Software is of abstract ideas, natural law and physical phenomenon, and of this a sub set is mathematical algorithms of which all four of these areas are universally considered NON-PATENTABLE!

see Abstraction Physics for the fundamentals.

...those who present the illusion that they support an anti-patent stand, perhaps we are closer to recognizing the honesty of software patents.

And that is that software patents are acts of fraud against the public.

Software is not of the nature of patent quality, it is of the matter of physical phenomenon, natural law and abstract ideas, as well as sub-subject matter such as mathematical algorithms and the likes.... all of which are universally recognized as non-patentable subject matter. Simply because such things are not possible to enforce man made laws on, what is of natural and parent to being human.

For more fundamental information see Abstraction Physics

...ion.

Evolution of a system like Wikipedia..... some would argue that wikipedia is of intelligent design and not evolution.

So just where does one place the divide between the concepts of evolution and creation?

Perhaps it just the game of abstraction physics, the changing of meaning of abstract words or the application of abstract words in different and sometime seemingly conflicting ways.

Wikipedia is all about putting together strings or sequences of abstract words.

The physics about it is the hardware it operates from and the actions applied in using it. But the abstractions are only representations of concepts, ideals, etc, ultimately stored in binary form compatable to the hardware and in such form not very meaningful to us humans but accessed by us at the higher level abstraction of "words" that define meaning of words and terms.

So.... there is the God Ape (unlike the ape god) who has evolved to be a God Man... ????

Can us humans separate the abstract from the concrete (physical world) without de-evolving back to ape? Of course not!

There is no divide between god the abstract and evolutions the concrete recording of the results, they are symbotic.

But physically there is also some evidence that our current life form genetics program was manipulated to be what it is today, with intent by a different genetically programmed and intelligent life form. Should such manipulation be so hard to imagine with our now known ability to do so ourselves, or is it the other life form that is hard to accept?

Such Genetic manipulation ability would not be possible to comprehend and communicate, without development of abstractions.

What do other animals think or perceive of man in comparison to themselves (more advanced?) such as dolphins, apes, lions, tiger and bears, etc...

... that which is not of patentable nature.
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

Removing the foolishness of software patents would go a long way at reducing the patent system over running workload.

Mobbing at its finest...

Or do I just wait for others to change

and for more supportive information to come along such as Non-Patentable findings that in essence supports Abstraction Physics and the Virtual Interaction Configuration

So should I sue or just wait for the slanderers and libeler to realize they steped in their own B.S...?

Copyright enforcement on a cease and desist order to prevent the receiver from ...... doing what? Defending themselves? Standing up for consumer rights? ..... ... or just applying copyright Fair Use?

I think what needs to happen so to not allow the receive from publishing the cease and desist order is to have it signed by a judge as a court order.

I shall patent me. and then Charge to much for licensing.
That will solves all the worlds problem.

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

On a more serious note, this /. news article may be pointing at the foundation of why software is not of patentable nature.

.... Patentable.

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

Math is a subset.....

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

I need people who are not afraid of challenging the software industry whole. Where there is no division between proprietary and open source development, but only the support for following through with the fundamental goal of the act of programming to the point of making it easy and common for the everyday user to program as commonly as they use a calculator.